The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/11 Letter from Philip & Judy DeAngeli RECEIVED l'Jl '; 1 0" '/ i'''' . '- .. 2006 ~TY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE Philip and Judy DeAngeli 3405 Zaldia Lane Meridian, ID 83642 July 11,2006 Honorable Tammy DeWeerd Keith Bird Joe W. Borton Charlie Rountree Shaun Wardle Re: Napoli Application. Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The proposed Napoli subdivision is adjacent to our 5 acre home site and several other larger county parcels. Our proximity to new growth has had us at your meetings numerous times in the last two years discussing our new neighbor to the North, Kingsbridge Subdivision. With the city councils guidance and neighborhood input, Kingsbridge cooperated and is now building a very attractive subdivision. Some of the things they have done on perimeter lots to blend- in and to provide a fair transition to their neighbors: A. Screening with landscaping, berms and trees. B. A 25 foot rear yard setback on perimeter lots, that are a minimum of 15,500 square feet. C. And most importantly, single story houses With input from Councilman Bird, plat notes 3 and 4provide these simple instructions. I have provided a copy. The changes to the Kingsbridge initial proposal have resulted in a plan that is welcomed by the neighborhood, while offering high quality home sites to the large number of us wishing to locate in Meridian, rather than Eagle. The Navoli developers have shown no interest in anv of the above listed transitional measures. In the findings of approval of April 12, 2005 the council showed consistent support for Kingsbridges [mal proposal, and at one point expressed that in the future the remaining county parcels may develop in a similar density, 1.69 per acre.( See zoning findings 4-12-05, exhibit G, sub D. Copy attached). Napoli, at 3.07, would be horribly out of place. We feel that consistency requires the city to allow a continuation of the Kingsbridge model and hope the council will extend the same consideration to the adjacent neighborhood, as it did in 2005. ThankYO~ <i26L , Hip De Ii 1/4 SECllON UNE 1/16 SECllON UNE J /: f) MATCH UNE tJ'IN ~Si:J ~".,J)GE f LifT .- f') N m N ~lnT~~. ---------- o~ m 1. DEVELOPMENT IN lHIS SUBDIVISION SHALL CONFORU TO 1HE APPUCABLE ZONING REGULAllONS OF THE - I MERIDIAN ,IN EFFECT AT 'THE 11ME OF ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 2. BUILDING SElBACKS AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS IN MS SUBDIVISION SHALl CONFORM 10 1HE APPU ZONING REGUl.AlIONS Of lHE CITY OF MERIDIAN OR /IS AU..OWEO BY CONDmONAL USE. I 3. ALL PERIMETER LOlS IN MS SUBDIVISION HAVE A ....UM 25 FOOT REAR YARD SET-BACK. EXCEPT 1 lOTS WHlOI BECCNE INlERIOR AnER FUlURE PHASE DEVELOPMENT. I 4. LOTS 3-5. BlOCK 1, lO1S s-.e. ana< 3. LOT 21, BlOCK 3. AND LOlS 2-5. BLOCK 7 SHAU. BE RESl TO AJINCI,.E..~jRESlDENCE WllH,"A MAXIMUM PEAK OF 25 FEET AND A1D:12 MAXIMUM PITaf, \WIH NO ROetB'""IN llIE'A1ffC SF AfL - . I 5. 1HE MINIMUM HOUSE SI2E FOR SINGLE STORY DWEWNGS IS 2.000 SQUARE FEET, lHE MINIMUM HOUSE : 1WO STORY OWELUNGS IS 2.400 SQUARE FEET. ) 6. DIRECT LOT~ TO EAGLE ROAD IS PROHI8I1EO. 7. _ L01S a. 9 ~ 16 BLOCK 1. LOT 1 BL.OQ( 2. LOTS 1. 11, 12. 15-17. AND 25 BLOa< 3. LOT 1 BlOCK BLOCK S. LOT 1. BLOCK 6, LOT 1 a..oa< 7. LOT 1 BlOCK a. LOT 1 BlOCK 9, LOT 1 BL.Oa< 10. AND LOT 1 ~1 /4 ~~ lO1S 10 BE OWIED AND MAINTAINED BY 1HE KINGSBRIDGE SUBDIVlSdl HOMEOWtERS 8.. LOT 9 BL..Oa< 1 AND lOT 16 BlOCK 3 WIlL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY lHE KINGSBRIDGE SUBDIVISK HOMEOWNERS ASSOaA11ON. 9. LOT 13. a.oaf1.-IS A LANDSCAPE AND PARK LOT TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY lHE KlNGSSRIDG SUBDMSfON HOMEOY*IERS ASSOCIATOIN 10. AHY RESUBDlVISION OF THIS PlAT OR PORlIONS 1HEREOF SHALL COMPLY.1H DiE APPUCABLE ZONIt REGULATIONS IN t.ttt.CT AT 1HE lIME OF 1HE RES_VISION. ~ d :'I) I) !: ~ .... P) 5 f) - ! I . 1/4 11. THIS DEVELOPMENT RECOGNIZES SEC110N 22.4503 IDAHO CODE (lHE RIGHT TO FARM AC1) WHICH STA' PART "NO AGRICUllURAL OPERAlION OR AN APPUR1ENANCE 10 IT SHALL BE OR BECOME A NUISANCE. PR PU8Uc. BY ANY CHANGED CCNlI1IONS IN OR ABOUT 1HE SURROUNDING NQNAGRICULlURAl. AC1IVl11ES AF1I SAMI?: HAS BEEN IN QPERA110H Fat MORE mAN ONE (n 'tEAR. WoIEN lHE 0PERA11ON WAS Mar A Nt.IISAN lHE lINE 1HE 0PERA11ON BEGAN: PRCNDED. lHAT 1HE l'RCMStONS OF lHlS SEClJON SHALL NOT APPlY , A NUISANCE RESULlS FROM THE ~ OR HEGUGENT 0PERA11ON OF ANY AGRICUL1URAL OPERAllON ( APPURlENANCE TO IT.. 12. All OF LOT 16 BlOCK 1. ALL OF LOT 1 BLOCK 11. 1HE WEST POR'11C>>t OF LOT 1 BLOCK 5 AND lIE · POR1lON em LOT 1 BLOCK 6 AS ~ ME stORM DRAINAGE EASEYEN1S FOR 1HE BENEFIT OF THE /IDA HIGHWAY DIS1RICT AND SHALl. REMAIN FREE OF ALL ENatOAOtMENlS AND 0SSTRUC110NS (INCWOING fENl 1REES) MIlCH UAY ADVERSELY AFFECT DRAINAGE OR 1HE 0PERA11ON AND MAlNTBlANCE OF lHE DRAINAG FAClUTY. 13. All. L01S II1HIN lHE SUBlVlSlON HAVE A U1IJTY. DRAINAGE AND IRRlGAllON EASEMENT AS FOI..L.OWSc 'MDE Al(H; 1HE SUBDIVISION. BOUNDARY AND SIItI:.I RIGHTS-Of-WAY; TEN FOOT WIDE. CENTERED ON 1 INlERIOR LOT UNES. lHOSE L01S ASUT1ING lHE SUBDMSlON PHASE LINE HAVE A 1EN FOOT WIDE U11U1Y, AND IRRIGAlION EASEMENT ALONG 1tE PHASE UNE UN1L SlOt lIME AS THE ADJOINING PHASE IS RECCH THE 1EN FOOT WOE E.ASEUPtT WIU. BE CENTERED UPON 11tE PHASE lINE. 14- mERE IS AN ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS L01S 13 AND 14 &LOa< 3 FOR lHE BENEFIT OF SAID uns' lHERE IS AN ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS L01S 19. 20 AND 21 a.oac 1 FOR 1HE BENEFtT OF SAID lOlS . AND 21. 1HE ACCESS EA.q:)IAI'i SHALL REMAIN FREE OF IMPROVEMENlS THAT INI'BT ACCESS AND SHAl MAIITAINED BY 1HE KINGSBRIOGE SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIAlION. - BASIS OF BEARINGS mE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR 11-IIS SURVEY IS BETWEEN THE FOUND BRASS CAP MONUMENT MARKING lHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECllON 28. TOWNSHIP 3 NORlH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE ~ERlDlAN. AND THE FOUND BRASS CAP MONUMENT MARKING lHE 14. CORNER COMMON TO SECllONS 21 AND 28 - WHI BEARS SOUTH 89~.03. EAST A DISTANCE OF 2,657.34 FEET. CERTlFICA TE NOTE CERllF1CAllON AND CERllFY AS USED HEREIN MEAN To STAlE OR DECLARE A PROFESSIONAL OPINION OF CONDITIONS REGARDING THOSE C'A,..1'1:: nD I:1NflINnc: \M.IIN-l Am;' lHF !=:lJAaIFCT OF' THE: CE:RllF1CAllON. h ID ;,.Ib'S 6 f-- Ar~8'TJ'- bf-I'k-oS" 1f:;/Vfi>5 p~;tJ6.c City CoUllCil finds that the proposed deve1opmeot would be allowed within the requested R..3 zone, (if tho accompanying Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development is also approved). D. Hal dun beeJla cIuIIIp in tile .... or adjaceat ..... wlaich may dictate daat die area IIIaould be nzoaed.. For p'.....1e, bft 1be Itreets bee. wideaed, Dew railroad acces. been. developed or pIaDued or tuIj....t .... being developed ill . labia sIndIar to the pnposed ftZODe area; 1'hcn have bean DO ncent street improvaneDt8 in the area. However, the L1tasection of Eagle Road aad Victoty Road is within ACHD's Five Year Work Program fur recoastruction in 2007. Eagle Road is ~lently in the ACHD CIP (2o-year plan) for road wideni11g to 3-1anes. If the Commission and Council approve the requested annexation application, this will be the first property in Section 28, Townsbip 3 North, Range 1 East to be AftI1M"ed into the corporate limits of the City of Meridian. The subject {)toperty is "'Iuedtly sutroUIlded by 0Il0 to five-acre piIlW18-rura1-type density. However, just across Eagle Road iiom the subject site Tuscany Lakes Subdivision was approved for development at 2.4 gross dwelling units per acre (sewer and water service lines were 1uougbt down Eagle Road, directly adjacent to the northwest oomer of the subject property). The proposed. 7.lmi", and subsequent residential density, 1.69 dweUing units per acre, is lower than Tuscany Lakes but considerably deuser than the surrounding county parcels. City Council finds that 1he requested zoning aud proposed density is within the anticipated raoge for a lower deusity mban project. 'Furthec, based on the Comprehensive Plan, City Council believes that some of the existing large county parcels in the area will :redevelop with Rimilar densities in the near future. E. WDl die proposed .... be ~ COIIICnded, opented and maiDtaiIled to be IIanaoDi01II and appI'Opriate in appeuuee with tile cdttha& or intaded eIlIIraeter of the general ftmIty ad tJaat ..ch ue will Dot eb-. the .....tIal cIw'aeter of the I8IIIe area; The applicant bas submitted rour (4) front elevations fur the proposed dwelling units. City Council believes that the .-up of the dwelling units wiD be compatl"ble with the adjoinins uses, if the blti1dft,p are constructed as shown on the submitted elevations. EVIlIl though the proposed and existing uses are the same, residential, City Council finds that the proposed density of the residential use will change the existing cbaracter of 1he &rei, which is largely rural. However, the proposed development is generally harmonious with the intended character envisioned by the Comptebensive Plan and previous Commission and Council action on this site. City Council does not find that the proposed zoning/uses will adversely change die e.pmtial character of area.