Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Laurie Allen RECEIVED MAR - ~ 2005 CITY OF MERIDIAN City of Meridian CITY CtFRX O;:FICE Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho March 2, 2005 ./ài;CJi]~ lfAHo2 7J þ~ . 2005 G'~ Re: Kingsbridge Subdivision Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing this letter on behalf of my husband and myself. We live at the end of Terri Drive on approximately 4 acres. We have 537 feet abutting the north line of the proposed subdivision. We have been to all the past Kiogsbridge hearings to voice our opposition to their proposed plat. We are not satisfied that this version is the best that we can bope for. We ask that you restrict this subdivision to R2 density with a minimum 18,000 sq.ft. lot size east of Dartrnoor Subdivision and require a minimum of 1/2 acre lots on the perimeters abutting acreage properties. We find that this version has addressed some of the concerns of surrounding property owners. Vision First is in the hope that they have made enough' concessions' to make the opposition go away. But the more we research and review requirements and findings of the Commission aod P & Z, the more certain we are that the developer has made no real concession and no attempt to truly negotiate. What they have done is to minimally follow your guide lines and requirements. Our research also indicates that the fíoaI plat must match the approved preliminary plat. This concerns us greally because the preliminary does not reflect what was agreed to by the developer. We see no written plan to fence and landscape the subdivision in the manor requested by the perimeter properties or proper detail regarding single level home restrictions on certain perimeter lots. We would like to see the fencing on the North perimeter six foot tall, of a solid nature, sod 00 the property line. Any buffer zone or walling path should be on the Kiogsbridge side of the Iioe to help keep our acreages from becoming 'public' land. We also find no sufficient plan to address subdivision storm-water retention sod runoff or the continued delivery of irrigation water beyond the subdivision. We feel that a development agreement should be included in this approval process to prevent future changes from the original agreed to amenities, details, restrictions and density. Meeting these requirements would help ease the traosition from the large rural acreage to the urban density of the new subdivision. ~espectfuI». IY. - ex::- ~ Laurie Allen ~ 3550 S. Terri Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 Bois. Idaho Falls Pocat.llo Moffqtt Thomas MOFFATI' THOMAS BARRETT ROCK 1& FIELDS, CHTD. Bug". C. Thomu John W. Bau." R. B.R",k RkhudCFi.w. Rob", B. Bok~ John S. Simko JobnC. Wud D.J.m~Monni"8 Ga", T. Don" L"'yCHun", Rond.1I A. P"",m" M",k S. Pro'yn,ki "'pb.n R. Tbom" GI.nn. M. Cbli.""«n G.mld T. Hw,b soo" L. Cunpb.1l Rob", B. Bum, Jom.. C. DaJ. Mi<h,dB.Thnnu Pa"k;. M. Owon Jam.. C. d.Gloc BmdloyJWimamo toe RadIO.. MkhadO. Roe D",idS.J.n«n Jamoo L. Mo"in C. aoymn Gill D",id P. Ga<dn" JuHan B. Gabiolo Angola S<he, KauFmann Kimbody D. E.... Ross Deniomi. H. S.,¡,..,.... Jon A. S..nquu, Eri, M. Baaoe Bmdloy J. Dixon )uon G. Mumy M"k C. Pete".. And....). Wold... Show. C. Nunloy Tyl"J. And",.. Ru,..J¡ G. Mmalf Moq¡an W. Ri<h,td" oF_nw Wi/li, C MoÆia, 19<)7.1980 Kirk R. H.Ivi., 1956.200¡ US Sank Plaza Building 10lSCapitoiBlvdl0thFI PO Box 829 Bo... Idaho 83701 OS29 October 11,2004 via Hand Delivery 2083452000 800422 2889 208385 5384 Fax www.moffatt.com REcE~l) MAR 0 2~2005 pB~!?!. MERIDIAN """'UUL'fG & ZON1NG City Clerk, City of Mericlian Meridian City Hall 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Vision First, LLC; Proposed KiDgsbridge Subdivision; City of Meridian File Nos. AZ-O4-023, PP-O40-030, and CUP-O4-026 MTBR&FFile No. 19-898.0 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We represent the residents of the Dartmoor Subdivision ("Dartmoor"), which adjoins the proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision ("Kingsbridge") and which would include the most directly impacted properties from the development of Kings bridge. In connection with our representation ofDartmoor, we have reviewed, among other documents, a letter from Edward Miller with the law firm Givens Pursley, dated September 16, 2004, that is included in the record presented to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Connnission ("P&Z"). This letter is intended to address and COrrect some of the statements included in Mr. Miller's letter. At the hearing before the City Council on October 19,2004, you will hear testimony from the Dartmoor residents regarding the representations that they received at the time they bought their lots from the developer of Dartmoor with respectto the future development of Lot II, Block 2 ("Lot 11'1, which lies adjacent to Dartmoor and comprises a significant portion ofK.ingsbridge. Some ofthese residents will undoubtedly share with you the fact that they were assured that Lot II would be developed with one to two acre lots in a manner consistent with the large lots in Dartmoor. Most all of these residents will undoubtedly share with you the fact that they were assured that Lot 11 would remain open space and not be developed at all until at least 15 years after the recording of the plat for Dartmoor. As discussed below, the recorded record establishes the indisputable truth with respect to the 15-year moratorium on development and, as a matter of equity, fairness, good government, and prudence, Dartmoor therefore requests BOI_MT2:659522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October II, 2004 Page 2 that the Meridian City Council refrain from approving any development of Kings bridge at least until the IS-year moratorimn has run on March 3, 2009, Site Specific Condition No, 2 of the September 13, 2004, Staff Report to P&Z proposed the following condition of approval to the Kingsbridge applications: Approval of the plat is conditioned on the applicant demonstrating written approval by a majority of the lot owners in Damnoor Subdivision of the subdivision and development, or as an alternative, a favorable final decision by the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State ofIdaho declaring that the applicant has the right to subdivide and develop the property notwithstanding the nonbuild restriction placed on the property by Ada County. Such approval shall be required prior to submittal of any final plat applications or issuance of anybuilding pennits. Mr. Miller, on behalf of his client, argues thst "Vision First already meets Condition No.2 because each and every lot owner in DarJmoor Subdivision has already consented to the resubdivision and development of Lot 11." Miller letter at p. 1. Mr. Miller points to the following language contained in the third paragraph of Article n to the Damnoor CC&Rs (copy attached to Miller letter) to support his argument: AiJ provided in Section 5.28 of this Declaration, Lots 1 and II, of Block 2, are excluded by the Grantor from coverage of this Declaration. By accepting a Deed to a Lot within Dartmoor Subdivision, each Owners shaY be conclusively deemed to have waived any objection to the exclusion of said Lot 1 and 11, Block 2 and consents to the re-subdivision and development thereof in accordance with the zoning ordinances then in force and effect and applicable to Lot 1 & 11, Block 2, including such re-subdividing and/or development as shall require that access to Lot 1 and II, Block 2 will be provided by the public right(s)-of- way within Darbnoor Subdivisions, and that the utility facilities located within Darbnoor Subdivision may be extended to serve said Lot 1 and 11, Block 2, including a re-subdivision thereof (Emphasis added.) There are at least three fundamental problems with Mr. Miller's argument. First, as discussed further below, the argument ignores the other applicable (and controlling) provision in the Dartmoor CC&Rs that proscribes any development of Lot 11 for a minimum of 15 years. BOLMT2:S59522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October 11, 2004 Page 3 Second, and as also discussed further below, the argument ignores the limitation in the Dartmoor plat that proscribes any development of Lot 11 for a minimum of 15 years. Third, the argument ignores the fact that Lot 11 was expressly excluded from the Darbnoor CC&Rs and \hat therefore the implied consent thereby granted by the Dartmoor residents to the development of Lot 11 was personal to Skyline Development Company ("Skyline"), the developer of Dartmoor, which had promised the Dartmoor lot purchasers that no development of Lot II would occur for at least 1 S years and that when development did occur it would be done in a manner consistent with the development ofDartmoor. In other words, because Lot II is excluded from the Darbnoor CC&Rs, the consent (which is neither a covenant nor a restriction) for the development of Lot 11 contained in the CC&Rs runs only to Skyline, which, of course, would be limited by its prior representations to how it might develop Lot 11 once the IS-year moratorium on development expired. In swn, because there is a complete lack of privity (or contractual relations) between Vision First and \he Dartmoor residents, Vision First cannot sever the commitments made by Skyline (i.e., development limited in time and density) from the very benefits Skyline obtained for making these commitments (Le., consentto limited development). Above and beyond the foregoing "privity" argument, however, are the matters contained in the Dartmoor CC&Rs and plat concerning the development of Lot II that are not subject to dispute. Thus, Article V, Section S.OI(b) of the CC&Rs specifically provides as follows: Ouen Suace Lots: The following Lots shall be used for agricultural purposes, subject to the limitations as provided in this Declaration (hereafter "Open Space Lots"): Lot 11, of Block 2, Darlmoor SubdMsion, according to the Plat. thereof. (Emphasis added.) Or as otherwise indisputedly promised, Lot 11 is to be used for open space "according to the Plat thereof." And, in this regard, Note 9 to the Darbnoor plat (copy of plat attached to Miller letter; blowup of Note 9 attached hereto) expressly provides: LOT II BLOCK 2 IS A DEED RESTRICTED LOT AND MA Y ONLY BE USED FOR OPEN SPACE AS DEFINED IN THE NON-FARM DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE ADA COUNTY CODE, SECTION 8-4B- 7 AND IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS OF THE ADA COUNTY CODE FOUND IN TITLE 8, CHAPTER 9, THE DEED RESTRICTED LOT MUST ALSO ONLY BE USED IN THE MANNER SPECJFIED IN THE CONDmONS OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY ADA COUNTY'S DEPARTMENT OF BOLMT2:559522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October II, 2004 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THIS LOT MUST BE USED IN AFORESTATED MANNER FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN FIFTEEN (15) YEARS FROM THE RECORDING DATE OF (3/3/941 (Emphasis added.) Thus, the plat states without restriction of any kind that Lot 11 must be used for open space through at least March 3, 2009. It is this express recorded restriction that the Darbnoor residents are asldng the Meridian City Council to respect. Mr. Miller argues that this deed and/or plat restriction should be ignored because to respect the recorded promise relied upon by the Darbnoor residents would effectively give these residents "veto rights," which, of course, is exactly what the Darbnoor CC&Rs and plat were intended to accomplish. Mr. Miller next argues that this restriction should be ignored because Ada County changed its zoning ordinances after the plat was recorded; however, the final sentence of Note 9 to the plat specifically provides that Lot 11 shall be used for open space for not less than IS years, and does not provide for a ShO~. of this moratorium on development in the event of a change in Ada County's ordinances. . Miller finally argues that this restriction should be ignored because it "l1ms contrary to the .ty of Meridian's exclusive power to control the zoning and development of the lands wi . its corporate limits" -- which argument, the Darbnoor residents respectfully submit, is "ally the point here at issue. I The Darbnoor residents understand that the¡Meridian City Council holds broad and expansive legislative power in connection with land ~e matters, including deciding the Kingsbridge applications. Having great power, however, also instills a great obligation on the Meridian City Council to ensure that private property rights are respected, And, in this regard, there can be no question that the Dartmoor residents were ¡¡:romised by both Skyline and Ada County that they could build their homes in Dartmoor with ~e assurance that Lot 11 would remain open space for at least I S years. : I If the Meridian City Council approves the $ngsbridge applications it will subject the Darbnoor residents (and possibly the City ofMeridiaq) to needless and costly litigation to stop the project in court - which the Dartmoor CC&Rs andiplat give the Darbnoor residents the absolute right to do; Thus, the central question presented by the Kingsbridge applications is whether concems with equity, fairness, good government, and prudence should prevail over the given fact that the Meridian City Council may have the power to approve the applications pending before it. The Dartmoor residents respectfully submit that the foregoing governmental concerns over the exercise of power should clearly prevail under the present circumstances, and they therefore plead they be spared by the Meridian City Council from litigating to enforce their indisputable private-property rights, BOI_MT2:559522.1 City Clerk, City of Meridian October II, 2004 Page 5 In sum, the Dartmoor residents would respectfully ask: What possible end can be achieved by approving a project proscribed by its recorded plat ftom being cons1ructed oilier than subjecting all concerned parties to costly and time consuming litigation? Dartmoor can think ofnone oilier. And for this reason alone the Kingsbridge applications should be denied. Very truly yours, ZL(3- / &,bertBums RBBlkdp Attachment cc: Tim Wallace (via E-mail) Rick Stott (via E-mail) BOI_MT2:559522.1 '" I ~~<' I :,d ~I LOT NUMBER \ NOTES 11 1 A TEN (10) FOOT IIIOE EASEIIENT IS HERESY RESERVED AOJACENT TO AU. LOT UNO COMI/OOI TO A PUSUC RIGIIT-OF-WAY AND ADJACENT TO IHE SUSOl\1SlON BOUNOAR'r FOR PUSUC UtilitIES, DRAINAGE,. AND IRRlQAl1OO1 F'ACItIl1ES. IHIS rASalENT SHALl. NOT PRECU/D£ '!HE COOISTRUCl1OO1 OF HARD SURFACE DRI\ÐVA'IS AND WAt.KWA'IS TO EACII LOT. "'1õ1 2 BUILDING S£ISACKS AND Dlt.lEN$ONAL STANDARDS IN IHIS SUSOlIIISION SHALl. COMPlY \IIIH I ~¡:'" . '!HE APPUCABlf ZONING REClULA'llCNS OF ADA COUNTY IDAHo. I I ¡!;I 3 goO I to... 4 ANY RESUBDtIllSION OF IHIS PLAT SIIALL COI/PLY WlIH 11£ APPUCABLE ZONING REG\lLAl1OHS IN EfF£CT AT '!HE l1t.1E OF IHE RESUBDIIIISJON. DEWLOPER SIIALL COt.lPLY \IIIH IDAHO COOE S£C'IION 31-3805 REl.AIING TO IRRlGAl1OH RlGIITS. TRAHSFER AND DISCLOSURE. . S A STRIP OF LAND SllAI.L 8E RESER'ÆD ALONG EACH CONI/ON INIER/OR PROPERTI' BOUNDARY UNE IIITHIN 1HIS SU8D \tS¡ON FOR THE PWOS£ OF 1RANSPORTAlIOIf OF PROPERTY DRAlHAŒ. AND/OR THE INSTALLA'IION OF A PRESSURE'IRRlGAlION $'IS1EII. SAID SJRIPOF LAND SHALl. BE. A TOTAL OF Tl\£NTY (20J'FE£T IN 'MOTH, BEING 1Ðf (10) FEET ON BOllI SIOO OF PROPERTY LINES. 8 LOT, BLOCK '. LOT 2 BLOCK 2, AND LOT It BLOCK 2 ARE HEREBY DESlGHA1ED AS NON-8UII.DING LOIS. NO PERMANENT STRUCtURES REClUlRlNG.. PERIIIT SHALl. BE CONSJRUCIQ) UPON SAID LOTS. . 11" ~: 10' EASÐIENT fOR 1ItI: IEH ~11.E 1.Amw. -f - 7 LOT I BLOCK I, LOT.Z BLOCK Z. AND LOT" BLOCK 2 ARE CØMllOOI.AREAS TO BE O~ED AND MAINTAINED BY IHE HDMEO'oINERS" ASSOCIAlION AND ARE NOT DEDICA1ED 10 IHE PU8UC BUT . ARE RESEIO- FOR US£S AS STAlED \IIIHIN !HE RESIRIC11VE CO_NITS F'OR IHE S\J8DMS1ON. 8 Fl.00D IRRlGAlION SllAU. NOT BE AU.o\\£D IIIIHtN TEN (10) FEET OF A DRAlNFIÐ.D DR SUSSIJRFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SlIE. . 8 LOT 11 BLOCK 2 IS A DŒO RES1RIC1ED. LOT AND MAY ONLY 8E USED FOR OP£N SPACE AS DEFINED IN 1ItE NOH-FARM DE\'ELOPIIENT S£CIION DF THE ADA COUNTY CODE, SEClION 8-48-7 . AND IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENt PRO\WOHS OF IHE ADA COUNTY CODE FOUNO IN 1111..£ 8, CHAPTER 8. THE DŒO RESTRICTED LOT I/UST AI.SO ONLY BE. USED IN THE MANNER. SPEcIFIED IN THE CONOJ1IO/fS OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY ADA COUNT'I'S DEPAR1I.IENT OF Dt'ÆI.OPIIENT SERIIICES. THIS LOT MUST BE. USED IN AF'ORESTA1ED IIANNER FOR A PERIOD or NOT lESS THAN f1F1EEN (15) '(EARS fROM IHE RECtlRDIRCI DA1¡: OF . 10 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LOTS I ANB 10 OF BLoeK 2, DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO EITHER EAGLE ROAD OR DARTMOOR DRIVE FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL LOT IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE PROHISIT~. 11 A eo' \110£ EASEMENT FOR THE 1Ðf MILE LA1ERJd. IS HEREBY RESER'ÆD AS SHO'flfl. 12 IHIS DEllELDPMENr RECOGNIZES SECl1ON 22-450.) DF THE IDAHO CODE, RlGI1T TO F'ARM ACT, \\II CH srA:ru: .""'0 ACRIClJL11JRAI. 0PEIIA1ION OR Nf APPURTENANCE. TO IT SHAlL BE OR II£COI/E A NUISANCE, PRIVATE OR PUBUC, BY ANY CHANGED CONDllIOfIS IN OR ABOUT '!HE SUIlROUNOING NONACRICuI.11JRAI. ACTI",lI¡¡S.AI'1ER THE SAME lIAS BEEN IN OPaIAlION FOR'MORE IHAII ONE /1) YtAR, MIEN 1ItE OPERAlION. WAS NOT A NIIISANCE AT THE lIME :!HE OPERAlION BECAN: PRõ\1D£D. THAT IHE .PROIIISIOfIS OF IHIS SECTION SHALl. Nor APPLY YoIIENE\ÐI A . NUI5.<HCE REWLTS FROM THE IMPROPER OR NEGUGENT OPERAIION OF AllY AGRlCUl.1URAL OPERAlION OR APPURTENANCE TO IT." . ~ Numerical Subdivision Plats - Bk64 Pg6S39 ÕÅRTMOOR SUB AriT734š6. S~le: 1 inch = 1.181nctÐSI SE CORNER. roo"", y ........."'... ......... ...--..,.............- ....... NW 1/4 SECTION 2B . En;ln..... - Sv/'WI)'OrO - LGndplGIUIlrs =iICTIVE COVENANTS' CPIIF NO. 8117799 4619 Emerald Stmt Suite 0-2 "'L " ~ HOAGLAND, DOMINICK & HICKS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC' Samuel A. Hoagland. Thomas B. DoIQiniek . George G. Hicks . Francis H. Hicks, of COUnBe1 December 8, 2004 REOE~D MAR 02 2005 pf~I,;:!Q!. MERIDIAN ~"'mG & ZONING Meridian City Hall City Clerk, City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 FACSIMILE NO.: 888-4218 Re: Vision Firsl, LLC; Purposed Kingsbridge Subdivision; City of Meridian File Nos. AZ-04-023, BP-o40-030, and CUP-04-026 Dear Mayor and Members of the Meridian City Council; I have been retained by the members )f Bridlewood Subdivision and Bremerton Subwvision to review the ahove referenced applications in light of the laws in effect in Ada County at the time their subdivisions were approved by Ada County. I have had an opportunity to review a copy of. the letter prepared for the planning and Zoning Conunission by representatives of Vision First and particularly incolpOrating a strained legal opinion rendered by Mr. Miller of !be finn, Givens Pursley LLP, suggesting that the homeowneIS and their successors in the Dartmoor Subdivision had agreed to the development of Lot 11, Block 2 at this time, in spite of provisions prohibiting the development of Lot 11 for a minimum of fifteen (IS) years, Neither thaI analysis nor the rebuttal prepared in behalf of the lromeowners in Dartrnoor Subdivision takes into consideration the ftmdamentaI and basic fact that the Jaw in Ada County at the time regarding rural area dis1ricts and rural preservation zones specifically prohibits the deveJopment of Lot 11, Block 2 for a period of fifteen (15) years ftom the time Dartmoor Subdivision was approved. In reseBIChing this matter I IlliIde a public records request to the Ada County Development Services Division. This gave me an opportunity to reBearch Title 8, Chapter 4, Section B7 of the Ada County Code in effeçt at the time the of the approval of the subdivisions appurtenant to and in the vicinity of the land that is currently subjecl of the above referenced applications. I believe that the language on the plat restricting development for IS years was required by Ada County Code 8-4B- 7(E)(f)(4). It was one of four options that could be selected by developers at the time to maintain open space as a condition of development. Shoreline Center, Suite 100 . 1471 Shoreline Drive' Boise, Idaho 83702 Phone (208) 343.91 II . justicemaximus.com . Fa" (208) 386-9944 ;;!'d toto56-99& (90;;!) H pue '~o~u~wou 'pue¡2eOH WdDS:to toOO;;! 90 oaa ". ,--. -fi;d. The perimeter property owners as well as the Dartmore property owners who invesled their money and lives into their homes Ç()UDted on this provision and the fact that Lolli, Block 2 would not be developed unûl at least 2009. The provision cannot be ignored nor can it legaJly be swepl under the rug. I attach a copy of the Ordinance for your review and consideration. Thank you for your time and effort in dealing with this issue. I urge you to deny the applications based upon the fact that they are premature in that they violate applicable regulations in force and effect when lhe original deed restrictions were filed of record and are mIl in force by virtue of the those same regulations. ENCLOSURE GGH:rar ÞÞ66-98£ (80~) &d/~ George G. Hicks H pue '~o~u~wocr 'puel~eoH WdOS'Þ ÞOO~ 80 oacr ~ -', .' :-:,. .. .<.e'~B-7 '.,'.' . '.'>;:<'~'::-.'-'~::_;":':-:,:":.:,--(",;.,:,,,;-:::.~-. E1) , ",) }.;9pen; JilPJlceoareas 8FiaW~ _maiii;aJned ,~lh:aUlie,lr:ùsaJåS- sùç~.- .. ,:Js.nò1,dlrn,lrllsh~ ordeilfr.oyed;"O~a"SP~&::'årãas,'mal'.Dl!épre~erVEid'atlcC . . :1i1al,ntajl1:6<l,~ reql.l!red !;1y.this.Sectlonby-a[ Y,.ot:the. ,ollowlnid.mechar¡lsms','.: ,~r:cPrrib n¡1Ii!)!ls,t~~féor,:--:,,::,.>'.::":" '..-..'.'.:::' ':';'.::,..' -.. ('I)'Dedl~átlån::òï :,~p-~:' sPac;~:'tö)~~~cou~:~i::a~' :'a~~ropii~te:';':: " '::::PUblf9 'aQe!1cY.:"It..,there .,I1t-:S 'piJbl!C,".age"èy:wUling-",to:'accept..t~~"':. :-:'_dedlcatlon~".::,,',,""":"':""'-,'_:"."'\i"-._',,' ;,',,',' .:, .'.. ...,' '.', '.', -' :':-' ,- . .' . (2) Common. 'ownershlp- or:ttie..'openspace'by-a.'horneowner'ÌI " ~s~oclatiòncii 'p~va\e;'".onpro ll, toií"datlcn.~Wtílch-,;åssumss ;;f!J1I ,- nisponsll:!lIIty ,. o~- .It,s: r'nâlntenanca., A."coPY ;of..the ,assoêlatlonl : '- oundalioiJ' covenanls- or ,bylaws-shall be'subrrinied-jp '-lheDirectoi' " Indlcatlngthe, j:larty,re.sponslbJe..tor payment!!!- any laxes'.or charge~~,.,:- :.,;.:...":,," .."':-..,,- - '(3r.ÔedléalionotcitiV~I';i:irrielii rights ~lopenspacÌi'maÝbé made". . to an appropriate public agency with ownership remaining 'with Ihe developer. orhorneowner's association. Maintenance responsibility. including .thepayrnent of. all taxes and charges,shall'remaln w~h '.theproperty oWner{s). ' .... " .', ... ..,'. . (4) DEeci,reslrk:iedprl~ate ,ow~rShlp .fora period 0' not less. than, . fifteen {15).,ye¡¡rs,.~which. shall prevent development andior'-subse-'.. , quent s~bdlvlsionott~e open ~pace' area. .and provide lha malnten-:-: :' ¡¡~ce res~~slþj ítYI~clUdlng;ihe ~aYf11en~Q 'a!ll:a~~~:and Oh,arg,~s. :-,: " . g;lnthe 'ilvehLtl)àt.,imy>privaÚ;,~owner-ciLòpiln>space-'falls.to', :, nialrita.in~ameac;c;órdlngto.tl)e,.,!;tandard$.'.oltliis:tIlle, Ada-,countY' .maý, tn' " "'¡¡ccorda!1Ce :YÌRhtha."oþ'en'spa<:splan"snd:lonöwi"g reasonaQle notice;." :. ..> .".demand' that ,tjeI10Ienct:'ol.maintent;ncs".be .eor,ri!CÍec! j¡nä.ente(,tl)e oPe/J.' ..~ ,- , ,. . space 'to malntahsame.'The.cost: of,.sUcti,n\alnlElns.nceiihelfbe charged 1.0' ~.",: : , those parsolls,having,- ¡he, primary resl'O..nS~I!i!Y'r'?(lÌ1a "}e~a~ce'o the.:. .'" ..o iln..space,.":,-..'-:'t.!~-".:::,:.:,, .Of,-:',-... ,'" ::2:.T~.~.. .rn~xl~'~ :~loi~~~fé!,~~"~fl~!~ b~.t<fêôt(per;~nÏ.'¡~~~}; .3,yhe, rollow ngiíol1lagel!T1~:a'cc,essrBquìreme¡;_t~'s~a ap'p.iY: . ,.,- , -mal:t al; ~ ~Tþ~ ~Ij~r~; ~ ~~; .~~~ ~+7 èh't ~..:s ¡~j./;~ h- ~~ '-'.F ~e:' ;i ~é ; ;s' :0'0;:. å:::: : '. ..oj b... ¡:¡cti 'ì~t'wíl'¡¡ïR'::iÍ1e'~~Po'iI'ed:d~~~iopmê~~:s'h'¡lI.hàve'~rie , ,- .h'cindred'feet(1'oO'Jol 'frÓn!ag~'òna,_dèsli1lîated publlcsjreel;a 'piJ;,.atip. , ;street :ïnacccirdance,"""Rh'_Secllone;"13T~,orEi priv,atè_s!retit'thatooIT1Plle~': " .wlth the public: street co~strucllon 5ta.ndards~ . as ~pecified in- the ,Ada' . 'CounlY,Highway. DistriC.i'Devslopmeni.F'oIiCy~'Manu¡¡i{as':ir:ma~ lie.. . _arne_~adfrom tini.elo)i\T1eJ,:and- asvepfi~cl.b~. the Highw.ay, Dlstrl.ct:., "c..¡n',.p~lv~t~:str~ëISS~á11':C~~m.P,IY:Wiih'~:ëÚ~r' ~+~', ,:'- ~ .'- - . . 58CI '" '-'.'.' EI 'd t>t>66-9BE [BOZ) H pue '~~'u'woo 'puet2eOH ., WdSS't> t>OOZ BO ?rG . ~"