Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesr~ Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 46 Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, the final action we have (inaudible) decision the City of Boise is pretty well - Rountree: I didn't want to hear this Bill. Gigray: The final action would be on the final plat. Rountree: Okay. Gigray: And this is the preliminary. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING -NORTH OF PINE & WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite staff comments. Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this was an application that was previously submitted as townhouses. However there were some restrictions in the annexation of the property that did not allow attached dwellings. We have made some comments on this application. The plat has not been revised to reflect all the changes required, however, if they comply with the comments as written, I don't see any real issues with this proposal. Corrie: Mr. Smith. Smith: Mr. Mayor, City Council members, I guess the only question that the Public Works still had was what the status was of the pressurized irrigation requirement. That's all I have. Thank you. Corrie: Okay, since we are in a public hearing, I'll invite the representative from the Maws Subdivision. Pavelek: My name is Richard Pavelek. I have offices at 915 W. Jefferson, Tealey's Land Surveying. This development did have a previous life and it was contorted and we did have some surprises in terms of the issue of attached versus detached and the developer still has need of going ahead and he had basically reconfigured the proposal to fit all the ordinance requirements for sizes of the lots, and these will be conventional size lots. At this time we believe that we can meet all the conditions of the approval that Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 47 were recommended to you by Planning and Zoning Commission. In response to the City Engineer, I thought we had dealt with the irrigation issue previously. We had dug through the Treasurer's receipts and at the time that the property was brought in phases one and two were in fact applied for. The water rights were vacated for the property. Now we can go back through and verify that with the previous records, but my recollection is that in the documents that we had received from the city's treasury office, we had shown that those rights had been vacated. I believe in 1993 and we had provided staff with those reports. If there's something that we've missed, we'll be happy to go back through and deal with that, but my understanding is that monies are paid in to the city for well development rights for the property and the rights to irrigation were removed from the property. So that's my understanding of the situation and between now and the final plat I guess we'll go through this again to make sure that this in fact has been covered. Maybe I should explain. At the time the subdivision was developed the developer had the option by ordinance to either pay a well development fee to the city or to provide pressurized irrigation. At that time the developer chose to exert his right and vacate his irrigation rights. So I believe the current ordinance has been modified since that time. Bird: Gary, is that previous ordinance, do you know anything about this because there is a stipulation in here 1.20 regarding pressurized irrigation. Now whether we approve, disapprove, whatever this 1.20 has got to be taken care of. Smith: The option existed. I don't believe the ordinance has been changed in that regard. The option existed for the Council to require pressurized irrigation or allow the developer to pay the in lieu of pressurized irrigation well development fee. I can't tell you if that happened on this total parcel of ground or not. The property still has water rights. They can be recovered. They petitioned out of the easement, but the water rights still exist and they can be recovered by payment of a fee for the lot sizes. That isn't an impossibility at all. I don't remember when the Council started requiring the pressurized irrigation in lieu of the well development fee, but that has been a policy decision that the Council has made for the past several years to get us out of the domestic water sprinkling of irrigated areas. In terms of whether or not that fee was paid for this entire parcel of ground, we would have to check the records through the treasurer's office. Corrie: That was back in '91 or '92 when I was on the Council. Bird: Mr. Mayor was that a policy to come in even they were not developing the whole thing but to purchase the buy out at that time for the whole thing? I can't believe that the developer would put his money up front for property that he don't plan on developing. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 48 Smith: That's what I was going to add Councilman and Mayor that typically the developers paid the well development fee for that portion that they were final platting. Bird: I have to agree with that. Smith: That was a condition for signature by myself and City Clerk for the Mayor and City Council. Pavelek: Mr. Mayor I think this is an issue that can be determined. We simply came across a series of receipts, and it would have appeared that it had been paid, but if it hasn't I guess we'll have to deal with that. But at this point in time it's my understanding that they have been paid, but as I say it can remain a condition until the final plat, and we'll deal with it at that time. Bird: The only problem as I read this article and if I'm looking at it thinking right and I could be way off base, but we have to give you a variance from the requirement of not having pressurized irrigation at this time to pass this if I'm reading this right. Pavelek: I don't think so. Gigray: I would - Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Councilman Bird, as I understand this requirement, it would be a condition of approval of the preliminary plat so this would be a matter of conditions that the applicant would have to meet before final plat was submitted for your approval. And at that point you would probably if they can establish legally that they are not required by reason of some grandfathering to be exempted from this requirement, then I think that would probably come through with a staff report that that information has been supplied. If they can't establish that and they do have to request a variance then they'll make an application for the variance, and that would be processed probably before the final plat. Bird: Let me ask you a dumb question then. This is a preliminary plat, and this is conditions that was passed upon. It don't say anything about the final plat. So you're telling me that we don't have to worry about this in the preliminary plat, that it will be taken care of in the final plat? Why would that be in there then? Gigray: Well what I'm saying is that condition would have to be -there would have to be proof of compliance with that condition and that proof would have to be established by the applicant that they are not required to meet that condition by reason of a legal cause that they would have by the payment of this fee if that were established, or they would have to comply with this condition which is obtain a variance from the city before final plat is approved. i Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 49 Bird: Mr. Mayor as I understand now and you guys can tell me if I'm off base, but as I understand now we are requiring pressurized systems. Okay. For this preliminary plat all other preliminary plats are based on pressurized systems. Am I not right? And it don't have nothing to do with the final plat. It's the preliminary plat that states it. I just don't understand why this thing is in here stating that we have to make a variance to pass the preliminary plat. It's in the preliminary plat. There's nothing about the final plat. I'm just trying to clear it up for myself. I'm in a daze I guess on this thing. Rountree: Mr. Mayor if I could. I think what it's saying is that in order to approve the way it is requested, we would have to pass a variance. We don't have to approve it the way it was requested. We can approve it that it would meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian, and they will provide a pressurized irrigation system. Unless they can demonstrate a hardship, then they can submit a request for a variance to the city, which is probably a better way to handle it as opposed to having a condition saying you must approve a variance in order for the pressurized irrigation not to be proposed for this development. Bird: That's what I'm saying Charlie and you said that could pass this variance at final plat, but what you just got through saying makes sense to me. I'm just being dense. Rountree: It's 10:30. (Inaudible) Bird: I just can't figure out why we got it in there if we don't need it. Corrie: Any other questions? Bentley: I have none. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Is there anyone else here from the public who would like to issue testimony in this? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we close the public hearing. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to close the public hearing. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 1 Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 50 Corrie: Comments, decisions and motions. Are you ready for the motion, have at it. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the preliminary plat for Maws Subdivision No. 3 by Tealey's Land Survey subject to staff conditions and the resolve of the irrigation issue. Bird: Second. Bentley: And have the attorney prepare the Findings of Facts and Order -prepare the proper Order. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to approve the preliminary plat with conditions and have the attorney prepare the proper order. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 23. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY TODD MASON D/B/A MOXIE JAVA - 106 E. WILLIAMS: Corrie: Staff. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is a request for outdoor seating at the Moxie Java on Williams and East First Street. The initial site plan that was submitted showed the seating would be on the lawn area adjacent to East First Street. However that was-not what the applicant intended. Their intent was to have a couple of table on the north side of the building there adjacent to where the entrance is, and the staff would support that with the condition that a minimum five foot clear walkway be provided at all times. Corrie: Any other staff reports? Any questions from Council? Anderson: I have a question. I guess it's been a while since I looked at this drawing, but I'm somewhat familiar with that building and it almost seems to me like there could be a safety issue there putting seating out there. It seems like there's drive up windows on both sides of the building as well as there's parking out along the far north end of the property so you have cars backing up. You'll have cars turning from one of the drive up windows rounding this. What's going to be out there to protect somebody out there sitting from getting run over? PLANNING & ZON~ COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 65 Borup: Maybe you need to adjust that policy if you want to get it done in time. Manship: Yeah, well... Borup: But that is up to you. De Weerd: It is one of the main reasons that we are continuing the public hearing, so you have that opportunity. So they have that opportunity to clarify some of the easement details and how your proposal would effect their property. Manship: Not a problem, not a problem at all. MacCoy: Okay, we've got a proposal, any more discussion? Okay we are up for a vote. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: (Inaudible) continued public hearing is still continued until January 12tH I'm trying to write and talk at the same time. ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING -NORTH OF PINE & WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: MacCoy: Staff, what do .you have for comment? Any... Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, you have our comments dated December 3, 1998. The applicant has responded to our comments and would like to clarify that some of the response to item number, our comment that sewer and water main shall be extended to and through the proposed development. Their response was that sewer and water mains will be extended as shown. We stand by our comment, they wilt be extended to and through the proposed development, which means to the southern boundary of the property is where the sewer mains will need to be extended and along the entire frontage length for the water mains. Item number one under site specific comments similar response that the sewer service would be provided as shown it will be provided to and through the development. The response we got to number three was and it may have been a misunderstanding, it's not really responsive to what the comment was, but just understand that we stand by our request for the extension of the water service. MacCoy: That's number two isn't it? Stiles: Pardon? MacCoy: That's number two not number three. PLANNING & ZONI, COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 66 Stiles: Right. Item number 13, the revised plat that we got did not have the stamped signature and date of the land surveyor as required. Fourteen, unless there is an error on the plat, the lots would not meet the 6500 square foot minimum. Showing a 65 foot frontage with this 3.83 foot dimension in the rear. If that's an error, we need verification that that is indeed, that they all are a minimum of 6500 square foot. When we ask for lo# closures, typically what we get is a computer calculation showing down to the 1/100 of what that square footage is. Number 16, the note needs to (Inaudible) added-I mean they did put part of the note that we requested, but we do want that to indicate that that's exclusive of the garage. Other than that don't have any particular problems. Would ask that you recommend approval of this with all staff and agency conditions. MacCoy: Shari, is that it? Stiles: Yes. MacCoy: Bruce have anything? Opening the public hearing, is the applicant here. Boy you are in a hurry. --- = PAT TEALEY, 915 W. JEFFERSON, BOISE, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY. Tealey: That is a typo on lot 27, that should be 65 feet all the lots are 65X100,. we do show on the plat 6500 square feet on each lot, that is obviously a typo. The water is as shown this preliminary plat is extended all the way through the project. Matter of fact, it hooks up to a water main on Pine Street, can you see that? So the comment about the water not being shown as extended through there is not valid. We do show it extended through there. Do you see that Shari? You can see that now? Stiles: See the (Inaudible). Tealey: Just to give a little background, this was originally part of Maw's addition preliminary plat approved back in 1992. The developer choose not to develop this portion of it at this-at that time he developed the approximately 36 lots contained in Maw's No. 1 and No. 2 and is coming back to you now as part of- to get the last portion of his property developed. This will actually make the linkup between all of the Danbury Subdivisions, some 200-300 lots to the north and west of this. It will provide the access point to Pine Street that we will be improving North Adkins Ave. I don't understand the comment about the sewer going through the entire property. The sewer as we show it now goes down and services all the lots that are in the subdivision, but there is really no reason to connect it to the sewer-it flows back to the north true Danbury and there is sewer out on Pine Street to service any frontage that would be on Pine. So I PLANNING & ZON~ COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 67 don't understand why we have to take it that much further. Have you got more information or reason, Bruce? Freckleton: Do you want me to address that now, or? Policy of the City of Meridian is that you extend sewer and water mains across the frontage of your property. The service line to lot 27 would be questionable, it would have to come off of there at a pretty severe angle to service 27. I think I would rather see it extended down further to the south to service lot 27. The requirement for the two and through is a two fold deal. It also provides service to the adjacent properties as well. It's to get lines extended. There are two-there is property on the west side of Adkins Lane that we have absolutely no idea what it's future plans are, so I don't know if that helps you or not Pat. Tealey: That type of service in lot 27 is done all the time. That type of angle is done all the time on a cul-de-sac. Freckleton: Are you at maximum length between manholes now, is that why we are debating this? Tealey: Very close. Just for your (Inaudible) there is a maximum length between manholes of 400 feet. If we go too much further, that means we have to put another manhole in. There really isn't any reason for us to go any further with this sewer, as far as our project is concerned, like you say any of the frontage that comes off of Pine is serviced by that sewer off of Pine and-the only consideration for it going any further would be to service the property to the west. Borup: Isn't it enough consideration in itself? Tealey: Sure, if you want it to be. (Inaudible) Tealey: Maybe we could get some... Borup: You are coming in off a line out of Danbury, what would've happened if they would've stopped that line back a 100 feet? Tealey: Yeah, I understand that. We are just showing this as we would have to add another manhole in here. Borup: That was my next question, you say 400 what--90 feet? Tealey: We'd have to... Borup: So what are you at? PLANNING & ZON~ COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 68 Tealey: Four hundred. The sewer is at 400 foot now, the length between... Borup: What's the maximum? Tealey: Four hundred boarder. Borup: Oh, so you are there. Before you said pretty much, and real close. Tealey: Okay, we are at 400. Borup: That is real close. Freckleton: We have pushed them longer than 400. Borup: So you could go another 75 feet perhaps? Freckleton: I don't know, we'll have to look at that. Another thing, another option that we might have there is to extend it on out to the south and put a T type clean out on the end of it. So that it could be accessed in the future. We'd probably just need to kick those ideas around in my department and figure out the best = way to handle that. Tealey: I think that is a condition we can handle it Bruce. Borup: So they're looking at either extending the 400 feet or doing a T to the west? Was that your last comment on the staff? Tealey: Yes, is there any other questions? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I still got one on lot 27. I still see a discrepancy there. The two 100 foot boundary lines are not parallel. So there is some difference. I'm not, I can never figure out which direction-you know where, which directions (Inaudible) go, but I'm assuming that-I don't know that the 63 is the right one, but it's not 65, unless one of those other readings are incorrect. Tealey: What we have to do is adjust that lot 34, the common. Borup: That's what I was wondering, slide everything down? Tealey: Right, to compensate for that. That should have been 65. Freckleton: It does appear Commissioner Borup that those two lines are converging to the back so, it would be narrower than 65. Borup: It's just like 36 minutes difference. Somewhere close to that? 58 minus 21 or is that... PLANNING & ZON~ COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 69 (Inaudible) Tealey: They are in different quadrants so it would be more in that. You are correct. I have to make the adjustment in lot 34 the drainage lot. The reason we have the drainage lot in this situation is because-and we can't put it underneath the sidewalk is because of the location of the water line here, you have to be 25 feet away from a portable water line so it doesn't give us the opportunity to put it underneath the sidewalk, so we have to (Inaudible). Borup: I ask that. of clarification. I'd understood your statement saying that everything was already corrected or something to that effect. Tealey: We can correct it, there is obviously a typo on there. Borup: Was that the only at this point then the only staff comment that you had a question on was the sewer line? Item number one. Tealey: I think the comments that Shari had were the sewer and water lines and we've discussed those and the 6500 square feet. There is also a question on olir note. Borup: Well, yes those are easy things to take care of. Tealey: We say it's got to be 1301 square feet. She wants to say exclusive of the garage. Borup: That's all I had Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Anybody else? Tealey: I guess that's a good question, staff made a comment in there about the pressurized irrigation. This piece of ground doesn't have any water rights and it doesn't have any irrigation ditches to it and the only place that may be available for pressurized irrigation is Danbury Subdivision and we will have a discussion with them to see if we can get on their pressurized system. Maws No. 2 and No.3 didn't have a pressurized system because the developer chose to do the contribution to the I guess it was a well building program that was in force at that time. I don't think that is still available. Borup: That's what I was just going to ask. Freckleton: Members of the commission, my understanding is properties that were annexed in, just throw out an example, Meridian Greens. Meridian Greens No.3 was annexed in and platted the whole project., At that point in time, they opted to pay the well development fees in lieu of putting in a pressurized PLANNING & ZON~ COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 70 irrigation system. That was approved. So every phase of Meridian Greens has come on board since then, they paid their well development fees and brought it current. I do not believe that new projects coming in have that option. But, I guess the question I've got in my mind is when this property was originally annexed, if that was a condition of this annexation. Do you recall Pat? Tealey: This property, as I stated, this property was part of the Maws addition annexation and it was just left out of the development until this time. So we had to go back in and revive-bring a preliminary plat application before you, we didn't have to re-annex. It was already zoned the R-8 and it was annexed under the same conditions that Maws No.2 and No.3 were annexed. Freckleton: One thing that is kind of confusing about the original Maws addition application for annexation was that it indicated that pressurized irrigation was being provided and then once development got under way, things changed. Tealey: Yeah, we made the contribution to the well development program. We paid some $20,000 toward the well development program. Borup: Really what I was leading to in my question was-it's already stated, the variance needs to be request of City Council, but is part of that-if that was the. way they went and chose to do part of their variance, can they require contribution of well development fund? I guess they can do whatever they want? Well, if that's been done in the past, that looks like a better alternative than just to give a variance and say not required. Freckleton: Well certainly if a variance was granted by City Council to requirement of putting that pressurized .irrigation we certainly would be looking for well development fees. Definitely. Borup: Okay, that's what I was wondering. Tealey: I guess that I would offer if we can't get our connection to Danbury system, then our preference would be the well development fee, because there is no reason to make us go back through a variance to-I think the staff was under the impression. that the variance was the only way out. If it's not, I mean if Meridian Greens can go through-of course they have kept their phasing correct on the thing, but Meridian Greens... Borup: This wasn't a phase, you said, you stated earlier. Tealey: It was original phase of the maws application and it was annexed at the same time that Maws No.1 and No.2 were annexed. Borup: I thought phases were platted phases. Am I misunderstanding the definition? PLANNING & ZONI~ COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 71 Tealey: The whole-lets say 20 acres was annexed at the same time with the same conditions, we develop the first two phases, then the developer chose not to develop this third phase, and the time expired on it, three or four years ago. So that's why we are bring the preliminary plat back to you. Borup: No, I understood that part. But a various, we don't have any thing to say about the variance anyway, they just go to City Council. Nelson: Well as a, I live in Sportsman's Point, which is filing law suits to deal with their seven phase hodge podge irrigation system. I don't have forced irrigation, my neighbor does, but it is substandard. The whole issue for the remaining few lots, my recommendation-unless they can tie in to the neighboring subdivision and is that irrigation system ran by Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District? Tealey: I don't know, something that big would almost have to be. Nelson: Because if it was owned by somebody else's covenants, or neighborhood committee. I almost recommend that we-for eight lots or however many that we are talking about that we did the city water (Inaudible). Borup: Seven lots. Nelson: Seven lots and not do anything fancy because in our subdivision we are paying for that change in concept in the middle of a subdivision. Borup: That makes sense to me too. Tealey: Thank you. Smith: Comment, this came before us a few months ago as zero lot line town homes. I kind of expected to see that again, but I was pleased to see what you are proposed (Inaudible). Tealey: I wasn't here for that, but evidently that didn't make much of an impression. MacCoy: No, it didn't. Okay, is there anybody here that wants to get up and make a comment at this point, pro or con? Nobody is around. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we close the public hearing. De Weerd: Second. PLANNING & ZONi~ COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 72 MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: Discussion? Smith: Mr. Chairman. Borup: In my mind, you mean questions concerning staff comments that need to be complied with. The sewer line was probably the only one-well, the main one and then item number one was left open to discuss the design with the public works department, as far as whether to grant an extension of 400 foot distance or do a stub to the west to access that property. I think staff felt comfortable to work that out with the developer. Is that your understanding too? Smith: So that was the only one? Borup: Well, and correct some of the stuff like the 6500 foot on lot 27, there is still some discrepancy there. That's. stated in the staff comments that it needs to be complied with. On the pressurized irrigation, but I think that is stated in the staff comments too. Either hook into Danbury Fair or ask for a variance. So I guess really-does that mean everything in the staff comments except for item number one. Rossman: Keith on the pressurized irrigation, I think it's paragraph 17 all it says is that applicant should investigate feasibility-how do you want that to read? Nelson: I think it should read that they should on the pressurized irrigation if... Borup: Probably like you said, it's pretty much what Commissioner Nelson said, if it's something that is not feasible, then it's not worth trying to do. (Inaudible) Rossman: That's not really a condition, that's more of a... Borup: Well, the condition is if it's not-if pressurized irrigation isn't going in, a variance needs to be applied for and city-depending on what-I don't know what City Council's attitude is on... Nelson: What are the options if it's restrictive to tie into the neighboring subdivision and there is no variance. Borup: Put in the whole system for seven lots. PLANNING & ZO~ COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 199 PAGE 73 Nelson: Then what are we going to do, let them drill a well? That's about all they have access to. Borup: Yeah, that's not feasible. I think most people agree with that. That is not feasible. Smith: Let City Council deal with that. Would you feel good if should said shall? Borup: Shall investigate? Yeah, I .would. It's not going to change anything. It makes it a little more specific. Rossman: City Council can address the various options (Inaudible). Smith: So are we ready then? Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to City Council approval of the preliminary plat for Maws Subdivision No. 3, incorporating all staff and agency comments with staff site specific comments item number one to be amended to read applicant to work with staff on termination of sewer adjacent to lot 27 and item number 17 last sentence, strike the word should and replace with the word shall. MacCoy: Is that it? Smith: I think so. Borup: Second. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY TODD MASON D/B/A MOXIE JAVA -106 E. WILLIAMS: MacCoy: This is the third meeting we've had on this, is anybody here to represent them? Smith: Mr. Chairman, a point of order, I'd also like to make record that on our agenda that this be noted as a continued public hearing. MacCoy: Yes that is what it was, we kept keeping this continued. JENNIFER DONLON, 2407 SNYDER, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY. Donlon: First I would like to start by apologizing there has been a misunderstanding as to where the tables would be placed. I'm asking permission ~..._.. ~ ~' IIVD ~~D DECLARATION OP PROTECTIVE ~ ~/~Q ~ y UQ RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS MAWS ADDITION TO MERIDIAN SUBDIVISION N0.1 DATED: RECORDED: INSTRUMENTS NO. ARTICLE I .... . ~ ~--~ L~. ~c~C~c '93 JAN 7 PIS 12 20 ~.~~9~®1~~~ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS. That the declarent does hereby certify and declare that they are the owner of the property hereinafter described A parcel of land situated in the NW 1/4 of Section 7, T. 3N. R.lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho also beiag a portion of Lots 3 and 4 of Eastside Addition to Meridian, more particularly descripeed as follows: Commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 7, a point marked by a brass cap; thence along the East line of said Section 7 N 0 00' 00" W 25.00 feet to a point; thence leaving the East line of said Section 7 parallel with the South line of the said NE 1/4 S 89 07' 04" W 25.00 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence along the South line of said Lots 3 & 4 S 89 07' 04" W 529.32 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving the South line of said Lots 3 & 4 N 0 O1' S6" E 133.02 feet to apoint marked by a 5/8" iron pin: thence N 89 07' 04" E 4.99 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin: thence N 0 O1' S6" E 231.11 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence N 89 21' S1" E 135.07 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence N 75 21' S8" E 111.06 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence N 89 21' S1" E 84.03 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along a curve to the right whose radius is 140.00 feet. whose central angle is 4 47' 16", whose length is 11.70 feet. and whose long chord bears N 2 23' 38" W 11.70 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence N 90 00' 00" E. 50.00 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" iron pin: thence N 89 21' S1" E. 148.01 feet to a point on the East line of said Lot 4, marked by a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the East line of said Lot 4 S 0 00' 00" E. 399.88 to THE POINT OF BEGINNING Said parcel contains 4.64 acres Ada County, Idaho, according to the official plat hereof on file in the office of the County Recorder of Ada County, State of Idaho. NOW THEREFORE, the Declarent hereby declares that these protective restric-