HomeMy WebLinkAboutElk Run Subdivision VAR Application
DATE: April 20. 1993
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3
AGENCY
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
1895 MERIDIAN RD
MERIDIAN. I D. 83642
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT
VARIANCE TO ALLOW FENCING
INSTEAD OF DITCH TILING
APPLICANT: DAVENPORT GROUP
COMMENTS:
MERIDIAN POLICE - NO NEW COMMENTS OR CORRESPONDANCE
PERTAINING TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPT. - NOTED IN FILE SINCE THE LAST PUBLIC
HEARING HELD AT THE APRIL 6, 1993 CITY
MERIDIAN CITY ENGINEER - COUNCIL MEETING.
MERIDIAN ATTORNEY -
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE -
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT -
MERIDIAN BUILDING DEPT. -
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT -
ADA STREET NAME COMMITTEE -
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH -
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION -
SETTLERS IRRIGATION -
IDAHO POWER -
US WEST -
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS -
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION -
OTHER COMMENTS: SEE ATTACHED FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW PREPARED BY CITY ATTORNEY. NOTE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
ARE BEING PREPARED TO INCLUDE THE KENNEDY LATERAL IN A GREEN BELT
AND HIKE PATHWAY PLANNING ELEMENT.
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the C'
of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that
Council of the Cit ity
Meridian Cit y °f Meridian will hold a public hearing atCthe
y Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho
hour of 7:30 0' clock p.m. , on April 6
reviewing and considering the A ~ 1993 ~ at the
for a variance from Meridian Ordinance Se ~ fOr the purpose of
pplication of THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP,
requires tiling of irrigation ditches ~ ction 9-607 5_
requested variance would by laterals or canals. which
to allow fencing of the Renned The
in lieu of installing tiling, on the propert
feet South of Overland Road and West of South Meridian y Lateral
y described as the 753
Run Subdivision, Meridian, Ada Count
address 1895 South Meridian Road, Meridian~~Idaho. is known by the
A more particular legal description of the above
on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian Cit
Idaho Street property is
business hours. and is available for inspection Burin ~ 33 East
9' regular
A copy of the Application is available upon request_
P b
u lic comment//~``will be taken and is welcome.
DATED this~~~'/ day of March
1993.
~ Z
~~ 1
-- » e ...
m
~~ .
~~
I" = 1300'
I
VICINITY MAP
~~
- ~ ~.
i3, ;.-"'
~ s•o - s~f
C _ ~ ~~ .
4
r
~•s~
~3-;2~'Z~- ~
Proposed Davenport-
Amexotion Site
~~F
tit
F~
•~S r
I~
1 - --
U.,,` ~ L
~.
~~
~~~
~;
~,~
-'~ `- ~`
CERTIFICATE:
I hereby certify that the following resolution is a true and exact
copy from the Minutes of a meeting of the District's .Board of
Directors, held 2 October 1990, recorded at Book 56 Pages 187 and
196 through 202 (finalized 16 June 1992).
Daren R. Coon
Secretary of the Board
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the various agencies which are authorized to issue land
use change/site development permits have made it known that it is
in the best interest of the public that this District amend rules
and regulations for development within the boundaries of the
District; and
WHEREAS, it has been decided that such a cooperative and
coordinating arrangement can best be realized through an amended,
permit system; and
WHEREAS, such requirements and requests have created a considerable
expense burden to this District for which there is not available
revenues; and
WHEREAS, a Development or Land Use Change policy was previously set
up at a meeting of the District's Board of Directors held 17 March
1980, recorded at Book 36, Pages 65 through 69, of the Minutes of
the Board and recorded at Ada County as Instrument X8015309 and
recorded at Canyon County as Instrument X890100; and
WHEREAS, a Site Development policy was previously set up at a
meeting of the District's Board of Directors held 17 March 1981,
recorded at Book 37, Pages 89 through 92, of the Minutes of the
Board and recorded at Ada County as Instrument X8115542 and
recorded at Canyon County as Instrument X919045; and
WHEREAS, it has become necessary to combine and amend these
policies.
NOW THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLOED, that the following amended policies
are hereby established by this Board as District policy to take the
place of the previous policies.
rn
c~
cp
c~ w
°
,r-+
~ b-.
N ~
C.~
GTE W
a ,
~ ~
o ~ o ;~
E :~
CJ7
--~
~~
:~
C.7 e
~,._ ~
~`
d >-
~~
,2y0022 _
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISCI~IdI
AQA C~~`JN~Y. I Q. FflR .~._....
J. pAViD NA'y'ARR
REG4RQER
'92 JUN li P~ ~ `~~
-- _ •
NAMPA i MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DIBTRICT
Board of Directors' Policy for Chances of Land IIse or Bits
Development
Developments or land use changes or site developments which affect
irrigation and/or drainage, within the boundaries of Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District must be approved by the District Board
of Directors. An application form may be obtained at the District
office which will provide necessary preliminary information for
District review.
Qeneral Information
A. DRAINAGE:
1. There will be no acceptance of any increased flow in
storm run-off, drainage, or any contaminated waters for
which the District might be made liable by the Federal
and/or State Clean Water Laws.
2. Existing or replacement of on-site drainage or run-off
facilities or modification thereto must be perpetually
maintained by the site owner or owners.
3. Drainage plans prepared by a registered engineer may be
required where deemed necessary by the District even
though on-site modifications to the District drainage
system are not required in the development plans.
4. If a drainage lateral owned and maintained by the
District courses the site, no alterations of the lateral
nor encroachment or its right of way shall be permitted
without a license agreement. No access to such drain
shall be denied to the District.
B. IRRIGATION
1. The water rights of this District are not the same
throughout the District. Neither are these always the
same on one tract of land. Often these can be simplified
without changing the Court confirmed status of the
rights, if arrangements are made with the Secretary of
the District in the advance planning stages.
2. Any irrigation supply lateral or canal which is owned and
operated by the District and which may course the site,
must not be obstructed nor encroachment made on its
rights of way.
-1-
~_
C.
3. Any alteration from the original delivery point must be
approved by the Water Superintendent and transfers to
accomplish this alteration must be arranged with the
Secretary of the District as part of the system plan
acceptance by the Board of Directors.
4. No alteration or enclosure of an irrigation canal or
lateral shall be permitted without a license agreement.
No access to such canals or laterals shall be denied to
the District.
5. If irrigation service is not to be provided to the
individual properties, all property owners must be
notified that the District tax is an obligation of all
lands in the Irrigation District. This notification is
in compliance with Idaho Law.
6. No destruction, interference, nor limitation upon water
flows which are appurtenant to the .property rights of
others shall be permitted.
7. If development plans include providing irrigation,
operation and maintenance of the system may be undertaken
by a Lateral Ditch Water User's Association, in which
case the District assumes no responsibility beyond .the
original point of delivery for the tract.
8. The District cannot provide permission for alteration of
waterways belonging to and being a part of the property
rights of individual land owners and to which waters flow
from the system of the District. Permission must be
granted from each of the property owners having ditch and
water rights in the waterway.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
1. Applicant shall complete and submit the attached
application form to the Secretary of the District. Two
(2) copies of the proposed plans shall be submitted with
the application.
2. Upon approval of the original application, plans and
specifications for construction, prepared by a registered
engineer, shall be submitted for review to the District.
Plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the
District Water Superintendent and/or the District's
engineers. If acceptable, the developer will be
notified. Prior to actual construction an estimate of
the cost of construction shall be provided to the
District.
-2-
` • v ~ ~ ~ •
3. If a license agreement is required to conform to
specifications of the District and/or recommendations of
its engineers, the Secretary of the District will then
make arrangements for. an appropriate license agreement
for which the licensee shall be liable for payment of
attorney fees.
4. The District shall be notified prior to commencement of
construction. Inspection by representatives of the
District or its engineers will not constitute approval of
all or any part of the system and shall in no way relieve
the developer or his contractor of the responsibility for
providing a sound, workable system.
5. Within ten (10) days after completion of construction the
developer's engineer must certify to the District that
the system was installed in accordance with plans and
specifications, and furnish as-built drawings to the
District.
6. The developer and/or his contractor shall be responsible
for the repair of all defects, leaks or failures
occurring in the installation for a period of three (3)
years after completion of construction. A maintenance
and warranty bond in the amount of l0$ of the estimated
or actual construction cost, whichever is greater, shall
be furnished to the District within thirty (30) days
after completion of construction. If the owner or his
contractor fails to make required repairs or replacements
promptly, the District shall make them, and the cost
thereof shall be paid by the owner, his contractor or the
surety.
The fees required will be: 5650.00
7. Attorney fees will be required only where a license
agreement is .required and these will be payable directly
to the law firm of the District's attorney.
and,
B8 IT FIIRTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of the District is
hereby ordered to send copies of this resolution to all planning
and approval agencies in Ada and Canyon Counties and in the Cities
of Boise, Meridian, and Nampa, to the County Commissioners of Ada
and Canyon Counties and to the Mayors of Boise, Meridian and Nampa
to provide sufficient copies of the policy and application form for
the continual administration and use thereof by all interested
parties.
-3-
.,
i ~ t . •
STATE OF IDAHO )
ss.
County of Canyon )
On this 16th day of Juno 1992, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public, in and for said State, personally appeared Damn
A. Cooa, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to
the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the
same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above
written.
4~0 '~P •N..s~~• DO i~+.
-~: -•+ : #
Notary Public - State of Idaho
~: pUB ~tG •.' *~ Residing at Caldwell, Idaho
:~~.Tti•.,•~~~~~,.•' ~~,'~" My Commission Expires: 11/04/94
.~-? p,E O F .~~,~~~,
-4-
.,,
s~__ :~
•
P
• ~
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
(Reproduction of this form is not acceptable)
Development or Land Use Change/Site Development Application
GENERAL INFORMATION
1.
(Proposed Name of Subdivision or Development)
2.
(General Location)
3.
(Legal Description - Attach if necessary)
4.
(Owner of Record)
(Address)
5.
(Subdivider or Developer)
(Address)
LAND USE CHANGE/SITE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - Page 1 of 2
~ •
6.
(Engineer)
(Address)
(Person to Contact) (Phone)
7. Acres ; No. of Lots •
Number of Lots/Gross Acre.
8. Proposed drainage discharge
(Name of Drainage Lateral)
9. Is irrigation water to be provided to property?
If yes, answer the following:
aj Proposed delivery point
(Canal or Lateral)
b) Present delivery point for this land
c) Type of system
1) Gravity
(Piped or open ditches)
2) Pump pressure
(Signature)
(Date)
(Application must be filed with the Secretary of the District. The
appropriate fees and two (2) copies of all plats and drawings must
be included with the application.)
LAND USE CHANGE/SITE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - Page 2 of 2
~` 208 888 6502 LeBeau Roberts
`` LeBEAU
ROBERTS
Company
Cettiified Public nccountants
12i15i94 10:25 Yb!
• Daniel K. LeBeau CPA
- Oauglas S. Rol~cns. CPA
~~,,,,,, ~' ~' ~~ ~~ 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ .Ira,; n ~n.~
To: _~L~
Cvmpar
Fax #:
From:
Company: LeBeau Roberts & Company CPA's
Fax #: (20~8,)r888)-6502
Number of pages including Cover:
. Speciallnstructlons:
~. e~.
r7 t. ldiihc~. Suitt 2CX) ^ Mc:ridku). 117 R:3t,42 ^ f2UR1 ~{i5t)I ^ 1=:\\ (21)R) RRti{i;>t)2
..\tt•nNWrv uJ :~rnrrrr'rrrr 6LtiJUttllt rrf CPIlifdv! f'tdrl&' nt't•rwrrmuus rrrn!
hlrrlYr tirw:•irur <rJ CerrrJit•tf !'ulrfk' .M'c'rwrrprrruc .
DEC 15 'O4 1@~25 2@8 888 6502 PAGE.@1
^v 6 2 a eau o er s .
.°
c
s :~
'~~,~
DEC 14 i9~4
T~~~vn~r-;o, cr:~;r~
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTIi JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ADA
JACK v. BOONS, an individual, )
JIMMIE M. BOONS, ~an individual, )
and THE DEDELOPMENT COMPANY, )
a Partnership, )
Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
LISA CHECCHI, d/b/a HAADT )
CONBTAOCTION AND DE4ELOPMENT, ~
a sole proprietorship, and )
d/b/a CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT )
SERVICEB, )
Defendant. )
CASE NO. 98399
ORDER
The above-entitled matter having come before the Court upon
the Stipulation of the partios and good cause appearing therefore
and the Court being fullp advised in the premises,
NOW, THEREFORE, iT iS HERESY ORDERED, AND THIS DOES ORDER, ae
follows:
1. Daniel R. LeBeau, C.P.A., of the firm LeHeau, Roberts ~
Co., C.P.A.s, 77 E. Idaho, Suite Z00, Meridian, Idaho (888-6501),
ORDER - Page i
DEt; 15 '94 10 26 208 888 6502 PAGE.02
~ 20$ SS$ 6502 LeBeau Koberts 1!/lbiy4 10:'Lb P
.' ~ • •
. is hereby appointed, pursuant to Section a-601, Idaho Code, as the
Receiver of the property and affairs of The Development Company
Partnership effective upon entry of this order. No undertaking
shall be required of the Receiver.
2. IIpon entering upon his duties and being sworn to perform
them faithfully, the Receiver shall have, under the control of the
Court, power to bring and defend actions in his own same as
Receiver; to take and keep possession of the property of The
Development Company, to receive rents, collect monies due and to
compound for and compromise the same, to make transfers, to pay
debts and obligations, and generally to do such acts respecting the
Partnership and its property as the Court may authorise including
the following:
a. The Receiver shall have the right to select and hire
a person of suitable qualifications~to act as Supervisor of
Construction with respect to all remaining construction
activities of the Partnership and to hire and fire employees
of the Partnership subject to the direction and control of the
Receiver (provided, however, that Norm Lacombe shall not be
employed by the Partnership);
b. The Receiver shall have the right to receipt for and
take delivery of all mail addressed to the Partnership sad to
have custody and control o! the Partnership's post office bou;
c. The Receiver shall have the right to enter into
appropriate financial arrangements in the name of the
Partnership with west One Bank, Meridian Branch;
d. The Receiver shall prepare an accounting of the
books and records of the Partnership which shall be submitted
ORDER - Page 2
DEC 15 '94 10 27 208 838 6502 PAGE.O~
6 eeau oers
to the Court, with copies to the parties, on or before the
15th day of each and every month reflecting activity through
the last day of the previous month;
e. The Receiver shall have the power to negotiate and
otherwise deal with all public entities with respect to
Partnership activities in the name of the Partnership;
f. The Receiver shall have the power to sign all deeds,
conveyances, transfers, and other documents necessary to
accommodate a sale of Partnership assets in the ordinary
course of business in the name of the Partnership;
_ q. The Receiver shall have the power to negotiate and
otherwise deal with all sub-contractors, customers, clients,
vendors, attorneys, including attorneys for the parties, yr
any other person with respect to the business of the
Partnership or its property;
h. The Receiver shall have the-power to receive and
receipt for funds of the Partnership and to disburse any funds
of the Partnership for payment of any expense incurred in the
normal course of business in operating the affairs of the
Partnership. All funds are to be deposited to the account of
The Development Company at West One Bank, Meridian Branch.
All monthly account statements shall be reconciled Dy the
Receiver is a timely fashion. The Receiver shall provide
copies of such reconciled account statements, together with
copies of the cancelled checks, to the parties within ten (lo)
daps of the date the Receiver receives the account statement
from West One Bank;
ORDER - Page 3
DEC 15 '94 10 28 208 888 6502 PAGE.04
e
~ .
and shall refrain from holding themselves out as representatives of
The Development Company.
5. Neither party shall be construed by execution of this
Stipulation to have waived any right they may have under Idaho law
or the Partnership Agreement with respect to any conduct pertaiainq
to the Partnership. Either party may exercise the right to
petition the Court in the future for further relief upon notice and
hearing. /
e. The hearing presently set for January li, 1995 is hereby
vacated and the Temporary Restraining Order entered by the Court on
Decemmber 12, 2994 is hereby dissolved.
7. The Writ of Attachment is° hereby dissolved and all
attached monies shall be returned to~Lisa Checchi.
IT IS 80 ORDERED This ~_ day of December, 1994.
DEBORAH A. BAIL
Deborah A. Bail
District Judge
ORDER - Page 5
DEC 15 '94 10 29 208 888 6502 PAGE.06
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP
FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-9-605 M PIPING OF DITCHES
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on September 20, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock
p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant appearing through Bill Hardt and its
attorney, Howard Foley, and the City Council having heard and taken
oral-and written testimony, the City Council of the City of
Meridian makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
for September 20, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen
(15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly
considered at the September 20, 1994, hearing; that copies of all
notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11-
9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -1
3. That Ordinance 11-9-b05 M PIPING OF DITCHES, requires all
irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural
waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous,
or which canals, ditches or laterals touch either or both sides of
the area being subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with
tiling or other covering equivalent'in ability to detour access to
said ditch, lateral or canal.
4. That the Applicant has requested a variance from the
above ditch piping requirements and be allowed not to pipe the
Kennedy Lateral but to fence the ditch.
5. The entire property in question is described in the
variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
6. That the property in the area where the variance is
requested is zoned R-4 Residential and .is proposed to be used in
that fashion; that the Applicant owns the property.
7. That Bill Hardt, representative of the Applicant,
testified at the hearing that the piping of the ditch would require
a sixty (60) inch tile; that some of the area had already been
fenced; that the piping would be expensive; once the tiling of a
ditch starts the inlet structures would be a safety problem; that
the fencing would go to Meridian Road; that they would fence to
seal off the east side of the canal; that the City needs to draw a
line on the size of ditches that must be tiled; that the size of
the would start at 52 inches and go to 60 inches; that he was
concerned about children.
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -2
•
He also testified after everybody else had testified that if
the ditch is tiled there will be a problem with grates; that there
was a tremendous amount of water; that the tiling would inhibit the
fencing; and that the cost of tiling would be. $280,000.00.
8. That Howard Foley, representative of the Applicant,
testified that the City Council has granted variances when the
piping is larger than 48 inches; that Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District said they had a 35 foot easement; that Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District had agreed on a 15 foot easement; that there~is
no recorded easement but N & M rely on a prescriptive easement;
that a fence has been constructed and homes have been built;
initially thought pipe was 36 inches; that the City Council ought
not get involved in owner and N & M issues; that it was an easement
of necessity; and that N & M has called the home owners and told
them that they have the right to tear down the fences. Mr. Foley
also submitted photographs of the ditch.
9. Bob Stowe testified that he lived along the lateral; that
he was the spokesman for the home owners group; that he was apposed
to moving the fences whether the variance is granted or not; that
once the ditch was tiled N & M would cease maintenance of the
ditch; that they own to the center of the ditch; that it was not an
unreasonable easement as it exists now; that cement trucks use the
easement; that 35 feet would be 18 feed on their side of the ditch;
that he desired that it be left the same; and that he was not told
the ditch would be tiled.
10 Bryan Twait testified that he was a home owner in the
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -3
~•
area; that he was told the ditch would be tiled; that his
understanding was that his property was enclosed in the fence; that
the easement was a greenbelt; that safety was a problem; his fence
is within 15 feet of the ditch; that he would take back 10 or 15
feet and maintain it; that it would not be an eyesore; that he does
not want his fence moved further towards his house.
11. Norm LaComb testified that he was a home owner on the
canal and a realtor there; that he perceived that the ditch was 38
inches and was to be tiled; that he wants the fence to stay the
same so it does not encroach more.
12. Shari Stiles, Meridian Zoning Administrator, testified
that there was Development Agreement on Elk Run No. 1 that says the
ditches will be tiled; that the developer had disregarded what he
had agreed to do; she also submitted written comment to the same
effect, which is incorporated herein as•if set forth in full; and
in the written comment she stated that N & M only allowed the
fencing to encroach into their easement because the Developer
assured them the Kennedy Lateral would be piped; that N & M is
protesting this variance; she concluded by stating, as follows:
"I believe the only workable solution to this problem is to
require the tiling of the ditch in accordance with City
Ordinance, in accordance with representations made by the
Developer, and in accordance with the signed development
agreement stating that all ditches will be tiled."
13. Gary Smith, Meridian City Engineer testified that he had
received a call from John Anderson, an N & M official, who stated
that Sharp & Smith, N & M engineer, had indicated that a 48 inch
pipe could be used to pipe the ditch; that Gary Lee, an engineer
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -4
for the developer had used 3,300 miner's inches and N ~ M had used
2,700 miner's inches; that the entire length along Elk Run must be
piped; that N & M would care•for the ditch; that the plat for Elk
Run No. 1 shows a 35 foot easement; that the No. 1 plat would be an
easement of record; he also submitted written comment to the same
effect, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
14. That the Applicant previously applied for a variance of
11-9-605 M so that it would not have to the the Kennedy Lateral
for Elk Run No. 1, which application was denied; that the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law on that variance Application are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
15. That the Ordinance annexing and zoning the Applicant's,
land which is now under consideration for a variance of the piping
requirement again, states, as follows:
" ; that all ditches, canals and waterways shall be
tiled including those that are property boundaries or only
partially on the property."
16. That the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law adopted
by the Meridian City Council on the Annexation and Zoning
Application of the Applicant for the land under consideration
stated as follows:
"That all ditches, canals, and waterways would have to be
tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the
property shall be subject to de-annexation."
17. That after the variance request to not have to the the
Kennedy Lateral, the Applicant signed a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for
Elk Run No. 1 with the City of Meridian which agreement stated as
follows:
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -5
w
~ •
"3. That Developer shall meet al;l of the Zoning and
Subdivision and Development Ordinance requirements of the City
of Meridian for the zone in which the property is located.
7. That DEVELOPER agrees to abide by all ordinances of the
City of Meridian and the property shall be subject to de-
annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs or successors
shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian."
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been 'met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section
11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances and under 11-9-605 M the
City may waive the requirement of piping ditches if the City
Council finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be
served in the individual case.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance and upon the record submitted
to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -5
`' •
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
5. That the following provisions of Section 11-9-605 M,
PIPING OF DITCHES, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance are
noted which is pertinent to the Application:
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of
natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent
and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or laterals touch
either or both sides of the area being subdivided, shall be
.covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent
in ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or canal.
The City may waive this requirement for covering such ditch,
lateral or canal, if it finds that the public purpose
requiring such will not be served in the individual case. Any
covering program involving the distribution system of any
irrigation district shall have the prior approval of that
affected district. .
6. That the City Council is considering changing the
Ordinance regarding the piping of large ditches; that the Ordinance
may be changed to only require tiling where the size of the pipe
require to the the ditch is forty-eight (48) inches or less; the
Council has granted variances where the size pipe to the the ditch
has been greater than forty-eight (48) inches.
7. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-9-612 A. 2., FINDINGS
No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council
unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing,
that all of the following exist:
a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be
impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -7
•
subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as to
the specific provision or requirement involved;
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this
Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the
subdivider because of unusual topography, the nature or
condition of adjacent development, other physical
conditions or other conditions that make strict
compliance with this Ordinance unreasonable under the
circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements of
this Ordinance will result in inhibiting the achievement
or objectives of this Ordinance.
c. That the granting of the specified variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the
Idaho Code; and
e . That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying
the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
8.
That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic
gain or convenience to the Applicant in that the ditch was in
existence at the time that the Applicant purchased the property;
that the City has required other developers to the ditches; that
the granting of this variance would be of specific economic gain to
the Applicant because the ditch would not have to be tiled and such
would save the Applicant money, $280,000.00; that the variance
would be of benefit to the Applicant because other developers have
had to pay for tiling of ditches; that it is likely that additional
residential development would occur on the west side of the ditch.
8. That it is concluded that the size of the ditch is a
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -8
... •
substantial reason for having the ditch tiled rather than a reason
for granting a variance from the requirement of tiling it; the
Applicant stated at the hearing that~the size of the diameter of
the the to pipe the ditch would be 52 to. 60 inches; that no
specific data was put forth that the ditch would require more than
a 48 inch diameter the to pipe the ditch; that the testimony of
Gary Smith, Meridian City Engineer indicates that N & M, the
operator of the ditch, is of the opinion that a 48 inch pipe could
be used to pipe the ditch.
9. That the City has granted variances where the size of
the would be 48 inches or greater; that the Applicant did not
submit any evidence that the the size would be greater than 48
inches.
10. That it is concluded that the size of the ditch is a
substantial reason for having the ditch tiled rather than a reason
for granting a variance from the requirement of tiling it.
11. That the requirement of tiling ditches is a health and
safety requirement; that there are children who drown in ditches in
Ada County and the Treasure Valley almost every irrigation season,
particularly in ditches the size of the Kennedy Lateral; that the
City has experienced a public outcry from residents adjacent to a
ditch in Glennfield Manor to have a ditch tiled when the developer
failed to the a ditch many years ago which was shown on the plat
of the subdivision that it would be tiled but was not.
12. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2., regarding the cul-
de-sac length, it is specifically concluded as follows:
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -9
a. That there are no special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of the
provisions of the ditch tiling Ordinance would clearly be
unreasonable.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the ditch
tiling Ordinance would not result in extraordinary
hardship to the applicant as a result of factors not
self-inflicted since the ditch and the tiling requirement
were in existence when the Applicant purchased the
property; that there were no factors, physical or
economical, unknown to the Applicant that support a
granting of a variance.
c. That the granting of a variance would be detrimental to
the public's welfare and possibly injurious to the
public.
d. That the variance would have the effect of altering the
interests and purposes of the ditch tiling Ordinance
which is included in the Subdivision and Development
.Ordinance for safety purposes.
13. That it would not be in the best interest of the City to
grant the variance; that the public purpose requiring tiling would
not be served by the granting of this variance; that it is
concluded the Application for a variance from the 11-9-605 M PIPING
OF DITCHES should be denied.
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -10
~ , ~~.~
• •
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby approves
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions..
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR RINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED ~~ ~L
VOTED ' ~
VOTED i" ~ t
~,~
VOTED
VOTED
DECISION
That it is decided the Application for a variance from 11-9-
605 M is denied.
~y ~~
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
DEVELOPMENT GROUP VARIANCE - FF & CL Page -11
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 19
Kingsford: Does Council have questions of staff on that?
Morrow: My questions would be to Gary Smith, with respect to the letter dated September
15th, have all of those conditions or issues been agreed to by the applicant?
Smith: Just a moment let me check. I think the only thing, Councilman Morrow, that we
need to get some feed back on is that sewer line easement that we were talking about
getting sewer over to that lot on the east side of the subdivision, the undeveloped lot that
fronts onto NW 8th. There is a sewer line that exits the church property which is near the
NE comer of the subdivision that flows to the east between some lots and into a trunk tine
that is on the west side of Applegate Subdivision. Now whether or not that sewer line has
enough to serve this property, this undeveloped property to the south of the church l don't
know. But if that doesn't have the necessary depth then the only access that this
undeveloped piece of property to the east side of Canna Lity subdivision would have would
be back into Canna Lily subdivision so that needs to be solved.
Morrow: How about item #4 with respect to the minimum frontage on the culdesac lots?
Smith: That needs to be changed so that it is (inaudible). But it is not as, I looked at the
plat that we reviewed for the applicant, it doesn't appear that would be any kind of a
problem. It just means moving of a lot line, that would take care of it.
Kingsford: Any other further questions for Gary? Any questions for anyone else, Shari or
the developer?
Morrow: There is no development agreement involved with this?
Kingsford: No
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I -would move we approve the final plat for Canna Lily Estates
Subdivision subject to staff conditions.
Cowie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the final plat of Canna Lily Estates
Subdivision subject to approval of staff requirements, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR ELK RUN
SUBDIVISION NO. 1 AND 2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP:
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 20
Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the developer and his
parties to speak first.
Bill Hart, 1903 Gull Cove Place, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hart: We are in front of the council on a variance to try to in lieu of the current ordinance
of tiling our ditch behind Elk Run No. 1 and No. 2 because of the sizing of the pipe which
is at the 60 inch mark to come in with our current fencing that we have and simply let it
continue right on into to phase 2 for a couple of reasons. The aesthetics of the homes
themselves and the way we have constructed them we fence ail of our homes. We have
started doing this and we would really like to keep doing it. The 60 inch pipe is going to
have to go in this ditch is considerable in size and quite costly. Once we put this pipe in,
this area between the fences becomes basically a no man's land. It is an area that not
very many people are going to want to maintain, Nampa Meridian Irrigation I don't' know
what their policy is on ditch riders and going over the top of a pipe that is covered in the
ground. I don't know what type of travel it will have, right now it gets travelled every day.
It gets maintained everyday, it gets cleaned up every day. It gets checked for any
problems with maybe children playing in the area, breaking things down. I think our
biggest concern is once we start doing this and once it starts happening in phase one and
2 and so on and so forth these structures are going•to become some what of a safety
problem, a maintenance problem. It is my understanding the inlets on these the grates are
of a big question, how big are the grates before trash can pass through and how small
shall it be so a child can't crawl through and get studs in the pipe and drown. At least with
the canal a child can stand up and say help, waist deep in the water, and I need help, I am
stuck in the pipe that is basically it especially on a pipe of that size. My fencing would
proceed all the way down to Meridian Road, which by all rights would basically contain the
westerly side of it. We would entertain the idea of fencing the most westerly end of
Calderwood extension so it would completely seal it off. Although we can't do anything
about the most westerly side of the ditch because obviously we don't own it.
Kingsford: Mr. Hart, if I could interrupt you, we just received today and certainly we have
been laboring under that illusion too. Mr. Smith's memorandum to us might be worthy of
you taking a look at Nampa Meridian saying that could be 48 inches.
Hart: I have been instructed and paid considerable money to JUB engineers to say that
it is going to be a minimum of 52 inches and for quite a length it is going to be 60. And I
do believe Gary Smith does have the calculations to support that.
Kingsford: Well, it is a public, so go ahead with your comments. I just thought you would
like to have that because we just received it today.
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 21
Hart: That is based on information from Nampa Meridian Imgation.
Kingsford: Right, and the gentleman quoted here is their director John Anderson.
Hart: I know John's capacity at the Irrigation and I also know Gary Lee's capacity at JUB
as a licensed engineer. And I tend to agree with the licensed engineer as far as hydraulics
and stuff. I spent considerable time on the sizing of this thing. I'm concerned that once
we start doing this it is going to be the snowball effect, it is going to keep right on going.
I think we need to draw the line of where the sizing is going to be. I think that has been
done on a few projects here recently.. I am at a disadvantage by not knowing the exact
ones but I do believe they were in the 52 inch range. We start at 52 and go to 6 so it is
a matter of interpretation and who's book of rules we are going to use as far as what in fact
that has to have. I am concerned as much as the homeowners are about the children and
as about the area. There is a junkyard to the immediate south that is an eye sore, it is
within 10 feet of the waters edge. Its gof beat up cars and power poles and all kinds of
things. All I am trying to do is keep a nice fenced area that is aesthetically pleasing and
keep it safe. And also keep it reasonable. That is all I have, I do have Mr. Folley who is
our legal counsel that would like to say a few things on this issue that I can't convey
because that is not what I do. So if he could step up I would appreciate it.
Howard Folley, 2875 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Folley: For the record I represent the Development Company. We have some
photographs we thought might be helpful in teens of Council making a decision. If I could
submit those for the record. The photographs are numbered on the back, for the record,
photograph #1 shows the ditch bads looking south, #2 is the ditch bank on the north turn,
#3 is the turn to the southeast, #4 (inaudible), #5 shows a vehicle in the ditch bank looking
south to north, #6 the vehicle is kind of in the middle of (inaudible) to the immediate right
and #7 (inaudible). My understanding of the proceeding here this evening is that it is a
request for a variance and that the request itself is consistent with the acts of the Council
in the past when the tiling of the ditch, the size of the ditch pipe exceeds 48 inches. It is
also my understanding that at the time of the initial platting of this property 2 things
occurred,. #1 it was the expectation of the developer as well as his engineer that the size
of that pipe would be 36 inches therefore they assumed they would the it. And #2 they
called and asked Nampa Meridian irrigation District or their representative how much of
an easement they had. They were told that they had 35 foot easement along that ditch
bank. As this matter developed we were all asked to meet with Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District and a member of the Council to try and resolve the differences. We attempted to
do so, at one time Nampa Meridian committed in letter form their willingness to look at a
15 foot easement. I represent to the Council that in these pictures there is a 15 foot
easement. At times it shrinks itself down to 14 foot 6 inches as measured from the high
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 22
water mark of the canal to the fence itself. I would also represent to the Council that I
have spoken to the Attorney for Nampa Meridian In-igation District who advises
inconsistent with what was stated at the meeting with Council members is there is no
recorded easement, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District does not have a recorded
easement up and down this ditch bank. They rely on a prescriptive easement, an
easement of necessity t go up and down the ditch bank to repair their ditch bank and to
make repairs as necessary. They have by practice over any number of years used a
formula whereby they ask for an easement equal to 35 feet as you look downstream. And
20 feet as you look upstream as I understand. In this particular situation I guess the point
we are really at this juncture is a fence has been constructed and the property has treen
sold. It involves 5 homeowners: The request here this evening is to ask you to allow us
to vary from the requirements as has been your practice I understand it, when we need to
the a ditch in excess of 48 inches. As Mr. Hart stated sizing of that pipe exceeded the
expectations of the engineer, at the time the plat was made. I don't think this was one let's
run this past the City Council. I think they really expected the pipe would be 36 inches and
that they would the it. That was not the case and they constructed a fence, they felt that
they were constructing a fence and giving sufficient leeway for Nampa Meridian to go up
and down the ditch way to repair it. I think the concern here is that I don't think the Council
ought to get involved in with ail do respect with a disagreement now that may exist
between Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and the developer as to where their easement
lies. I think the issue before the Council is, is this a proper case because of the sizing of
the pipe, to grant the easement. If it is I think we can work out our differences with Nampa
Meridian on those 5 lots, it strikes me that it is very simple to do that by simply if they need
the extra 4 or 5 feet or whatever the case is to do that on the off side of the canal. I guess
mainly I would again reiterate that there just simply is no recorded easement, there is
nothing that a developer could look at and say here is an easement and when we do our
plats this is recorded this is it this is exactly how big or long or short or small it should be
there just isn't anything there. It is in the final analysis an easement of necessity, it is
necessary for Nampa Meridian to get up and down that bank to make the repairs that are
necessary. They are running concrete trucks up and down the ditch banks, I would
suggest to you or submit to you that if they can do that surely they can get their equipment
up and down the ditch bank to take care of those problems. The other concern the
developer has at this point that representatives of Nampa Meridian Inrigation District have
now called homeowners, told them as if they have an absolute right to it that they have an
easement there they are going to tear down their fences that you folks need to step in and
intercept those plans. They don't have a right to tear down the fences, it is an easement,
and if they need it and are able to establish that by necessity then that is a different issue
and a different time. At least that seems to be our perspective.
Kingsford: Well, Counselor, in difference to your comments I would just say that we do
have a development agreement, that development agreement calls for tiling it. And our
~J
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 23
ordinance calls for it to be tiled. That issue is a variance indeed we have taken a policy
that those pipes that are larger than 48 inches we have granted variances on. Now we
have a dilemma in terms of how big is the damn pipe. I think that Nampa Meridian knows
how much water goes through it, I would suggest that probably Mr. Lee can calibrate how
much goes through it and obviously they are iri difference. But that aside I think that is
something to be resolved but we need to proceed with the public hearing. I thank you for
your comments.
Folley: If I might just respond, it is also my understanding that again because of the rapid
development and those sort of things there isn't a development agreement yet in place on
this that we have typed one and submitted one that puts in it an issue of a variance. I think
the only thing before the Council is that plat, I don't think there is a development
agreement not on phase 1 at this point.
Bob Stow, 1875 South Riptide, was sword by the City Attorney.
Stow: I live along this lateral and am here as kind of a spokesman for the group of
homeowners that do live there as my neighbors. And, I wanted to voice some of our
concerns and our main concern is the movement of the fences, or backyard. If these
fences are going to be moved we are very opposed to a variance. However, if the fences
can remain as they are I don't see, 1 don't' know of anyone that would be opposed to this
variance. Some of our concerns are if the fences are to be moved who is going to pay for
tearing down our fences and who is going to pay for the landscaping that we paid for.
Who is going to be responsible for that area behind our fences as far as maintenance and
repairs go. It is my understanding, I don't know if it is true or not but it is my understanding
that once it becomes tiled over the Nampa Irrigation District basically washes their hands
of it and it is up to the owners of the property to provide the maintenance on it. As it is now
we own the property to the center of the ditch and there is a roadway that runs behind like
Mr. Folley said there is no recorded easement, it is just something that has been there kind
of a prescriptive easement. And we don't feel that as a group that is an unreasonable
easement as it is now. I have seen the pictures that Mr. Folley showed you and I think
they are clearly indicative almost any average size vehicle and even the larger like he said
cement trucks go up and down that thing constantly. So I don't see any reason to move
our fences. If they are not going to be moved there is not reason why a variance can't be
granted. I don't know why the Nampa Irrigation District needs to have 35 feet which would
put it close to 18 feet on our side of the ditch, that is something that I would like for you to
consider because like the pictures show there are about 15 feet there, there is a lot of
space and at this point we like things the way they are and we don't want anything
changed. That is the homeowners view.
Yerrington: Can I ask you a question, when you bought your property, were you told that
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 24
ditch was going to be tiled?
Stow: No I was not.
Yerrington: I have heard that some of the people have been told that.
Stow: I personally was not, I was told that I own to the middle of the ditch and I was told
about the prescriptive easement that went through it. I was shown where my fence line
would go and everything was satisfactory to me.
Yerrington: What was the date-that you bought your property?
Stow: I think the contract date was May 24th.
Yerrington: Of this year?
Stow: Of this year.
Brian Twait, 1893 South Riptide, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Twait: I am a homeowner in the vicinity there, I have property that goes up tc the canal
line, (inaudible). I can agree somewhat with what the last representative of the
neighborhood has said but I have some discrepancies with that. I was told upon signing
on my house that the canal was going to be tiled over., This is one of the deciding factors
in buying the lot, actually at the time of signing on the house I wasn't informed of having
any easement right at all of any irrigation district. It was my understanding that my
property was indeed enclosed inside of my fence. that was put up. It was our
understanding in buying the lot that it would be tiled over and that there would be some
type of green belt put in there was the idea that was presented to me. They didn't' get a
definite time on their but they did definitely give a time on that but they did definitely give
a time on when it would be tiled over and that would be before the second phase went 'rn.
My wife and myself are looking forward to having children someday soon there and we are
concerned about the safety and that is another real concern of ours is the safety of the
neighborhood there. The irrigation canal lateral actually is pretty sizable, it is pretty wide
and at times it is pretty deep, 4 feet maybe 5 or 4 1/2. And it poses what 1 consider a
threat to young children. My lot, like I say my back fence is 15 feet off of there. One of the
ideals put forth on that being tiled over is the safety factor would be taken care of. It was
a huge concern on my part and my wife's part in buying our lot there. Also, to Mr. Hart's
concerns about the maintenance back there, I am not sure about the other homeowners
but I can speak for myself in saying that I would be more than happy to take back my 15
or 20 feet or 10 feet or whatever it is and maintain it. When you purchase the land you
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 25
own that land, I would be more than happy to maintain it in a nice fashion. I can't really
see many homeowners that wouldn't want to have another 20D0 square feet of their yard
back or lawn back for whatever reasons. As far as being an eye sore I don't see that being
a real problem particularly that no one can basically see it unless you are walking dawn
the easement or down by the canal. Other than that, (inaudible) of the possibility of having
my fence line move back into my further than it is existing. As we have spent a lot of
money, a lot of time working and landscaping and such. And fully expected that to stay
with the property. Those are some of the concerns that I have and take them into
consideration please.
Kingsford: Any questions?
Norm LaComb, 230 W. Davenport Drive, was swom by the City Attorney.
LaComb: I am a homeowner also on the back lateral and I am also one of the real estate
agents that at times worked out there. We had 2 at one point. So some of the information
did not come from me, but at the original just like Mr. Folley stated, it was perceived as a
36 inch pipe and it was to be tiled. That was agreed upon, I am not sure how it got to the
higher ratios and the variances and all of that. We did start the first homeowners with the
38 inch pipe that was to be tiled. As far as how we~use it, I am seeing several of the
homeowners through out the subdivision they take their dogs they go for jogs. Igo out and
walk my own dog on it. My main concern and really the only concern to me is that the
fence stays in the area that it is in now. Whether they the it and I can move my fence, but
I don't want it to encroach it more on my backyard than it already is. Did you have any
questions?
Kingsford: Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Shari 1 would like to ask you a
couple of questions with regard to your memorandum.
Shari Stiles, 33 East Idaho, was swom by the City Attorney.
Kingsford: Shari, with regard to your memorandum dated September 18th, you have in
paragraph 3 a comment that there is a development agreement on #1. What does that
development agreement say?
Stiles: It says they will the all ditches.
Kingsford: You say in paragraph 1 the developer originally requested a variance for Elk
Run Subdivision No. 1, the first public hearing was held April 6, 1993. Findings of fact and
conclusions of law approved on April 20th, the variance was denied. The developer asked
for reconsideration of the variance June 15th, 1993 which was also denied. Is that your
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 26
research ftom the file?
Stiles: Yes
Kingsford: Is there any indication as to why the developer then didn't proceed with that,
why he went ahead and fenced?
Stiles: Disregard for what he had agreed to.
Kingsford: Any questions for Ms. Stiles? Thank you Shari. Anyone else from the public?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to have Gary Smith comment for the record with respect
to the memorandum he gave us as of 4:00 this afternoon and the potential sizing dilemma.
He has~been involved with this project.
Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Morrow, this afternoon at about 4:00
P.M. I received a telephone call from John Anderson who is the Water superintendent for
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The memorandum that I placed at your positions
tonight tells you what he related to me. The Superintendent or the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation district retains Sharp and Smith consulting engineering out of Boise: Idaho as
their consulting engineer. And he indicated to me that firm had done some field survey
and had analyzed the hydraulic data necessary to determine the size of pipe required to
cant' the amount of water that they felt was being conveyed in the open ditch. Part of the
discrepancy I think between what Gary Lee has arrived the size of pipe that Gary Lee
arrived at versus the size of pipe determined by the lrrigation district is the number of
minor inches which is in a quantity of flow of water that was used by each one of the
engineers. The engineer for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District used 2700 minor inches
as the flow in the ditch, according to John Anderson this flow allows one minor inch per
acre of land. to be served plus a 15% loss due to evaporation in the ditches. The amount
of water that was used by Gary Lee was 3300 minor inches so there is a 600 minor inch
variance there between the 2. Mr. Hart indicated that I did have calculations and I do from
Gary Lee, that shows the amount of head loss and the size of pipe required to cant' the
3300 inches of water. The other thing that John Anderson told me was that the ditch, in
order to utilize 48 inch round pipe the ditch would have to completely piped ftom the north
boundary of Elk Run Subdivision No. 1 to the chuck obstructer which is near the south
boundary of Elk Run Subdivision No. 2. And this would be taking full advantage of the
dead differential from the upstream side of the chuck obstructer to the water elevation on
the north boundary of Eik Run Subdivision No. 1. If only a portion of the ditch is piped, a
48 inch pipe would not be large enough simply because the head differential wouldn't be
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 27
•
large enough. So in order to push that much water through a 48 inch pipe they would
have to take advantage of that total head difference. He alto indicated that the district
would take care of the chuck obstructer to Meridian Road or Kuna Meridian Highway.
So basically that is a little more background on the memorandum that I handed to you this
evening.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Smith?
Smith: I might also mention that the plats that were received, both final plats for No. 1 and
No. 2 do show a 35 foot easement on the plats along the west boundary of -both
subdivisions. Which is what the irrigation district had requested. I don't know anything
about easements of record but that easement was shown on the plat.
Kingsford: That makes it an easement of record doesn't it?
Smith: The No. 1 subdivision is recorded and so it would be an easement of record there.
Kingsford: So the people in question, the irrigation district could come in and take those
fences down? Is that right?
Smith: I don't think I am qualified to answer that question Mr. Mayor.
Kingsford: Anyone else? Go ahead Mr. Hart.
Hart: I am concerned that everybody realizes that if this goes to a tiling scenario of past
problems with grates, inlet structures and things that are problems especially to children.
If the grate is too large a child can pass through, if the grate is too small the garbage plugs
it up and it overflows and wipes out all the peoples houses. I think it is fair that the people
realize this and that some of these things are addressed. There has been numerous
problems with these and a pipe of this size whether it becomes 48 or 60 there is a
tremendous amount of water and ciphering at either end creates a large suction. It would
take nothing more than a child putting his ann down there and it will suck him right into the
inlet. That becomes a big problem, and also if it does get that way it wont' allow us to
fence our subdivisions anymore. We will have a no man's land back there that we cant'
afford to fence. It is just going to be an open area, one of our main billings to Elk Run No.
1 and Elk Run No. 2 is that we fence all of our subdivisions and we landscape all of our
subdivisions. Are the homeowners willing and everybody else willing to leave their back
yards open to these inlet structures? I think not, I think they would rather have their
backyard fenced and enclosed for their children to play in rather than to just walk out their
back door and jump into an inlet structure or have somebody drive off the bank into their
back yard. We spent a lot of time and a lot of money in our communities from bus stops
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 28
that we put together to stay off the highway to front yards and fences. We would no longer
be able to afford to fence our subdivisions if we had to go ahead and put in 2205 feet of
this at a cost of about $280,000. So I just wanted to convey that.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing,
Council members.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have several comments with respect to this particular project. I was
the City Councilman that satin on the meeting between the irrigation folk, Gary Smith and
listened to these discussions. And then at Gary Smith's request I personally an August
29th went and looked at this project and quite candidly where I was viewing it from was
at this end looking what amounts to north. I think one of the things that this picture
probably serves best to demonstrate is we in society create irrigation districts to deliver
water. -And the responsibility of those irrigation districts is to make sure the water is
delivered in a safe and efficient manor. 1 think there are 2 outstanding issues here, in the
practice of my own business I don't make it a practice to ask my people to do anything that
I wouldn't personally do myself. When I was here and observing this ditch full of water it
struck me as only a fool would tell his people to drive any kind of a heavy duty vehicle
down this ditch and that probably nobody that was not totally qualified would reach a great
degree of success with large pieces of equipment. The capability of dropping the front
wheel and rolling a vehicle in there is great. The second issue is that part of those ditch
riders responsibilities this is an elevated ditch as the pitcher clearly shows. Part of their
responsibilities is to make sure those ditches aren't going to blow out. If this fence is here,
(inaudible) can any ditch rider or anybody else see if there are gopher holes in the
landscaping, see if the ditch bank has begun to be compromised. At some point in time Mr.
Hart made the comment in our meeting before that nothing has happened in two years.
But the issue is that this is a permanent fixture, nothing may happen for 10 or 15 years, but
if we don't put it together right, how many of you folks that live below here are going to run
to your favorite legal beagle when this thing breaks and tum around and try to sue the
heck out of everybody. (End of Tape) in my perspective from a common sense standpoint
none of this makes any sense. If in fact the ditches are going to stay and we are going to
deprive those that we charge with the responsibility of maintaining these ditch banks so
that they don't rupture then it is not fair of us to ask them to assume responsibility for
something They can't see and something they can't correctly take care of without going to
extraordinary steps. If they stay then the ditch in my opinion should be tiled. If the ditch
is not going to be tiled then as per the information I have been given which was before my
time on the Council then these fences ought to be moved clearly back to the tow of the
slope so that as those folks are doing their jobs in inspecting the ditch, making sure it is
unplugged and the bank is safe that they have an opportunity to be able to easily see that
and to do their work. I think that for my perspective for the record here is that I am not
willing to allow a variance from tiling of the ditch and leaving the fences in place. I think
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 29
•
that my position based on observation of the ditch with water in it, having walked a portion
of it and looked at it is that it is clearly not a long term safe issue and it is not in the
homeowners best interest nor the ditch companies best interest or the tax payers best
interest to leave the situation as it is. The only people that will profit by this long term are
the legal folk as I see it. That is my position with respect to this issue.
Kingsford: Well, I think the issue that needs to be done, the public hearing is closed, the
issue needs to be done is you need to have findings of fact and conclusions on the
variance. Entertain a motion to that effect.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attomey to draw f ndings of fact
and conclusions on the variance.
Come: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attomey prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law on the variance request for Eik Run Subdivision No. 1 and 2,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Yerrington: I would like to ask a question, since this was turned down on June 15, 1993
did we have the findings of fact at that time?
Kingsford: Yes
ITEM #14: DON FISHER: ISSUES CONCERNING MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
CITY OF MERIDIAN:
Fisher: Members of the City Council, I appear before you tonight to address an issue
confronting cities and towns all over the country. Gang activities are turning communities
and schools into prisons. Prisons housing innocent inmates. The time is now to turn the
tide on the growing attraction that gains our childrens interest. I visited with several
people in the past 2 weeks, a school principle, a resource officer, a police officer along
with fellow community members. They all agree that something must be done. Our
community has grown leaps and bounds over the years, with growth comes outside
influence, some good, some bad. Teenagers and young adults 1 visited with all seem to
have the same thoughts they tend to feel the adults don't know how widespread gangs are
becoming. Are they right? We have several good programs working to deal with the
issues to gain our childrens attention toward gangs, but can we not deny that the attraction
is still there. I would like to see a stronger emphasis placed on removing the elements that
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 20, 1993
PAGE 3
Eng. Smith: On that particular one the way the lots lay out -
the sewer line will terminate at the end of the pavement, the
water line if it's not extended on to .the next valve then the
developer effectively looses the lots there because when the
water line is extended we have to shut them off. Until the
extended water line is disinfected and so we're talking about
several days.
Kingsford: Are you comfortable with it not being paved over?
Eng. Smith: We are requiring a concrete donut around the valve.
Kingsford: Any other questions of Mr. Tealy? No response.
Giesler: Have you seen the Engineer's comments?
Tealy: I just received them tonight but I believe they are
standard and there would be no problem.
The Motion was made by Yerrington and seconded by Giesler to
approve of the Final Plat of Candlelight Subdivision #2.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT-AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION, FENCING INSTEAD OF DITCH TILING,
BY DAVENPORT GROUP:
The Motion was made by Corrie and seconded by Giesler to approve
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Elk Run
Subdivision:
Roll Call Vote: Yerrington - Yea; Giesler - Yea; Corrie - Yea;
Tolsma - Yea:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #4: FINAL PLAT: ELK RUN SUBDIVISION, 53 LOTS, ZONED R-4
AND R-8 BY DAVENPORT GROUP:
Corrie: There's one comment from the Fire Department reference a
turn around. Will that be taken care of?
~~
~~~~=/~.~i flit ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ .
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-888-6201
9 August 1994
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Elk Run Subdivision No. 1
Elk Run Subdivision No. 2
Dear Commissioners:
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
Boise 343-1884
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
~~~~g F~~ Boise 345-2431
AUG 1 5 199~r
Gary Smith, Meridian City Engineer, informed me that the developers
of Elk Run Subdivision No. 2 are asking for a variance on the
piping of the Kennedy Lateral because of the size and the cost of
the pipe. We were told by the developers of the Elk Run Sub-
division that the Kennedy Lateral would be piped, and believing
this information, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District allowed
fencing to encroach on the Rennedy Lateral's easement. The right-
of-way on the Rennedy Lateral is 55 feet: 20 feet to the left and
35 feet to the right of center facing downstream.
The fencing that was installed in Elk Run Subdivision No. 1 is too
close for a backhoe or a large truck to course along the Kennedy
Lateral for routine operation and maintenance. Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District will protest any and all waivers on the piping
of the Kennedy Lateral until the problem of the fencing is
resolved.
We are asking that the City of Meridian hold all permits in the Elk
Run Subdivision until the encroachment on the Kennedy Lateral is
worked out to our satisfaction.
Sincerely,
~~
Bill enson
Assistant Water
Superintendent
pc: Each Director
Secretary of the Board
District Water Superintendent
File
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
t• :T-~-~r:r
1R~CEI~IIE~
JUN 0 8 1993
C1Tll ®F i~E'~TD~~1~N
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-888-6201
Phones: Area Code 208
John T-. Eddy.
Pacific Land Surveyors
29D North Maple Crove F.oad
Boise, Idaho 83704
Res Elk Run Subdivision
Dear John:
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
Boise 343-1884
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Boise 345-2431
When we met out on the site of the Elk Run Subdivision the other
day, you asked if Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District had a
preference to the fencing or to the burying of the Kennedy Lateral
when the subdivision was put in place. on a facility as big as the
Kennedy Lateral, piping would probably be impractical although this
would be the preferred method. The fencing of the District's
easement would be perfectly acceptable in our eyes. I will send a
copy of this letter to the City of Meridian.
Please contact me if further information is needed.
Sincerely,
John P. Anderson
District Water Superintendent
pc: Each Director
Secr~etary of the Board
,qty of Meridian
Ada County Development Services
Rider 5
File
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS -40,000
• /
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 5
Crookston: There is a requirement in the Findings of Fact that
rightful and lawful use of Dixie Lane be provided. That was just
provided to me tonight. The developer has also indicated the way
they've got that platted out they will no longer need Dixie Lane
for emergency access .purposes. I would like to again verify
that. I'd like to also withhold publication until that's
verified.
The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Yerrington that
the rules and provisions of 50-902 and all rules and provisions
requiring that Ordinances be read on three different days be
dispensed with and that Ordinance #598 be passed and approved.
Roll Call. Vote: Yerrington - Yea; Giesler - Yea; Tolsma - Yea;
Cowie - Absent:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Yerrington to
withhold publication until verification is made.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
-STEM ~°#5: '`~~'~P~UBLIC __ HEARING VARIANCES ~~"REDDEST --FOR ELK °~-RUN,.
SUBDIVISION: DITCH TILING:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the Public Hearing and
invite a representative to speak to that issue.
Gary Lee, 1750 N. Summertree, Meridian, was sworn by the
attorney.
Lee: I am with JUB Engineers and I represent the Development
Group on this request for variance on tiling the Kennedy Lateral.
The westerly boundary of the property consists of the Lateral
itself as being the boundary line. It extends eight hundred and
some feet along the westerly portion of this subdivision. The.
purpose of course for the variance request is to allow the
developer to install fencing along his side of the property in
lieu of the recently adopted tiling requirement by the City of
Meridian. This particular, ditch lays along a natural ridgeline
that divides some of the irrigated property in the area. When it
was constructed they actually built the ditch up with a fill
ditch so it sits above.natural ground two to three feet. If we
a
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 6
were to t he that ditch we'd end up with a mounted situation
creating a natural boundary. In "addition Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District has expressed a concern for the width of
easement to be maintained as it is today and currently, if I
recall correctly it's about 45'. What that would create is a
space between this property and the property to the west that
would be a maintenance problem for the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District if it were tiled and covered. The mounting of the pipe
would also create a barrier for the extension of Calderwood
Street which is a planned Collector Street for the circulation in
that area. We are constructing a portion of that street now and
will construct the balance of it on the phase to the south of
this project. one of the other considerations is the size of the
piping requirement. That- particular lateral carries a sizable
amount of water for. irrigation and to file it it would take
probably a minimum of 48", possibly larger. We've also discussed
the possibilities of installing a syphon. Nampa Meridian
typically does not like syphons, they are a maintenance problem
for them. I'd be glad to answer any questions the Council may
have.
Tolsma: Who is going to maintain this ground over here where the
ditch is open?
Lee: That's now being maintained by the Irrigation District.
They have a ditch rider road on one side and they maintain the
ditch and the road. Typically we can enter into a developers
agreement with the Irrigation District that will allow us to
fence closer into the ditch itself and the roadway and by doing
that your cutting down on some of the maintenance area. They
still need to have adequate room for their equipment to get into
that area.
Tolsma: How close would these back yard fences be up to this
ditch?
Lee: I can't give you an exact figure. It would probably be
between 10 to 15 feet.
Kingsford: As I recall, that is supposed to be wood fence in all
those backyards.
Lee: That's what has been planned, yes.
Tolsma: Are you on a 45' easement?
h
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 8
Eng. Smith: The size of the ditch is definitely a consideration
here and as Gary Lee mentioned it does create a syphon and
typically those things are problems because of the silt that the
irrigation water carries and depending on the velocity of the
water going through them as to how much that silt settles out.
The size of the pipe is obviously an expensive proposition for
the developer. The other thing that you have to think about is
when we get development on the other side of the ditch then we
have a ditch running between two developments and I don't have to
think to far back in time to remember a project that we're just
finishing up piping a ditch between two developments because of
public out cry from the people living along the ditch. That
prior example was under the jurisdiction of a different
irrigation agency than this one is and that irrigation district
doesn't have the resources that Nampa Meridian does so there are
some differences there too.
Giesler: Do you have any input on if we were to have it tiled
above ground?
Eng. Smith.: Nothing other than the .berm. I don't know what
impact that would have on extending the roadway, Calderwood to
the west. I'm sure it would have some impact because it is high
ground.
Kingsford: Gary the situation between Northgate and Phillips
Addition is similar?
Eng. Smith: Yes.
Kingsford: I think there's been some weed problem there but it
also has been kind of an interesting foot transit path along that
section. Have we had complaints along that that you are aware
of?
Eng. Smith: Not that I' m aware of, no.
Tolsma: How quick do you have to know on this?
Lee: The developer of course wants to start construction as soon
as we can get approval on •the final plat and it's been submitted
and I believe that's going to be next Council meeting.
Tolsma: I would like to meet with Nampa Meridian Irrigation and
hear their thoughts on this.
~~
-G
n
O
C
Z
n H
r
H
r
r
Kg
n
.D
~ N
~ O
~ K
W
v
O
H
H
N
Z
C''
H
FZ3 C H
C7
o UI
C
~', r
~ ~
H
H
~ ~
z .,
^ 8
J
H [~ b O
~ ~
2 3 H
4 b Rs 3 H
0 •
"~ ~ ~ !t~
7r ~
„~ N
3 ~
~ ro ~
i y
i
i
~
~ ~
ro O H
H ~
3
H
..
~
N
H
v
~l ~
4' 9 ~'
`~ P
@~@
l~
p
~.
~
~
P/~ ~ ~P
O
N ~ G7
~ ~
H
2 O Z
H
U1 •
H
~~
~ ~l
I I ~
N ~ ~
G1 ~ 8
H H
.~.
~ ~
%~
3
7r ~
..
C N
N ~
H
O O
n ~.
~,-
`,
C~
c
I
O
x K
z
n
H
n
N
bd
C
n
n
x
r
H
°z
b
..
H
O
..
r
N
CrJ
N
,~1CiJ
17
H
G]
O I
~
~
~
H l
~
,~
~
t~3 l
~
~
~ i
p
m
~
r~
L=J. l
O~
~
~ i
~
H
z
b(AO? l
3
'D
~ l
~
'/~ l
3
2
„~
3 ~
m~o
v~
a rn
~ _..
n ~
H -~
'< o-~
r
n
o ~
C v
Z
~"~ ~~
H ~
r ~
w
~~~
n
C'" ~
KJ
~~
H
O
~~
cn E H
o m
_ ~ 'd
o° O
b
m n
f" ~ N
Z ~ ~
v
~ H
z H
°n ..
of
V
~"~
z z-1
r c~
~~
~~
0 0~
-n -n~
--I -ird
r m~
~--~ ~
~ m~
Z.
z
m~
z
0
rd
a
.~
~~
~~
C
rs
~ rn_..
~ a
Z C ~
m ~
a3n
~mm
~ ~ ..
~, o
zo
.c
-v
H
'Z
H
r
w
w
m
DAVENPORT ANNEXATION
LEGP.L DESCRIPTION
=." ghat portion of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the
~:ortzeast quarter :.f Section 2-~, ~'ownship 3 Nort::, ~ange West,
noise-~^eridian, Ada County, Idaho, described as follows:
prom the corner common to Sections 13 and 24, Township 3 North,
Range 1 West, Boise-Meridian, and Sections 18 and 19, Township
3 North, Range 1 East Boise-Meridian; thence
South along the Meridian line 753.50 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence
South 89°12' West 918.80 feet; thence
South 4°28' West 747.30 feet; thence
:north 89°06' East 828.02 feet; thence
North 200.00 feet; thence
East 150 feet to the Meridian line; thence
~lorth 545.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City
of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City
Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the
Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the
hour of 7 : 30 0' clock p.m. , on April 6, 1993, for the purpose of
reviewing and considering the Application of THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP,
for a variance from Meridian Ordinance, Section 9-607 5., which
requires tiling of irrigation ditches, laterals or canals. The
requested variance would be; to allow fencing of the Kennedy Lateral
in lieu of installing tiling, on the property described as the 753
feet South of Overland Road and West of South Meridian Road, of Elk
Run Subdivision, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, which is known by the
address 1895 South Meridian Road, Meridian, Idaho.
A more particular legal description of the above property is
on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East
Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular
business hours.
A copy of the Application is available upon request.
Public comment will be taken and is welcome.
DATED this>~ day of Marah, 1993.
~, z I ~ I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~~~' C Z~ C C7 ~~ l~ O O ~j iOi ~ ~ ~ F-i ~ ~ O O O ~ ry-i ~C H
n C~J y ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ x ~ Sri ~ ~~" CC] ~ G! m 3 ~ 3
o ~ ~ O r d ~ O O Z n O t~ O ~~ r ~n
c C $ I H I-I ~ CAD O H H f'1 ~ C
~~O ~ ~~ ~ ~~~x~°~~~ ~~~~zro~
r~ ~ y ~sy~~~.~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~
Z .. N ~ H y ~ ~
~+ ', ~ ~ O 8 ~ ~ %~ Z C7
Z ~ 3 t~-~ O ~ ~ H iOi ~ 77DD
3 f~A H~ O H b~ bd
• ~'- D b R, y 2 O Z~ ~~ 'rl
~ 3 iii U~i :' ~ 3 CrJ
~ ~ ~ ~ y ..
O iii y ~ ~ ~ 7~C
N ~ ~ O H ~ H
N y ~ O O .
~r ~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~K
~ ~ ~ v ~
?~ ~ H ~~
~ ~~~
~ v
--+ 'ti v . ~
V ~ ~ ~'
~ m
H z -..
~ K ... ~ ~
w ~ --I ~
-~ ~-+
~ ~ r
0 0~
cv
z
(~ J
H ~
r ~o
w
O H H cn ~ ~, m yyF -s1
O CyrJ ~U~1~c-1-N-t~ rnf] ::0
.. C1 = K7 f-, ~ C
d ~ ~ °~~ c~~ ~j~m H-
y oc o0
-n -n ~ n
r ~Q r-3N rm~ tn~~
o~-+ om~ v3c~
~ • Cl n C~ • • m` -~-~ -z-~ m
CrJ z ~ ZC~ N
~ h7 0 ~ ~r °z o
y a .. rp . c
~ ~ H .mom
~ •• O
cn ~ii •.
w
w
~.i~u
March 2, 1993
Mr. Jack H. Niemann
City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, ID 83642
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
ENGINEERS•SURVEYORS•PLANNERS
250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201
Boise, ID 83709-0944
208/376-7330
FAX: 208/323-9336
Re: ELK RUN SUBDIVISION (Davenport Property)
The Development Group
Dear Mr. Niemann:
Enclosed for your review and processing are the necessary documents
as established by the City of Meridian Ordinances for a Variance
Application for the above subdivision. As stipulated by said
ordinance, please find enclosed the following:
1. 20 copies of a Variance Application from the Development
Group to allow fencing of the Kennedy Lateral in lieu of
piping of said lateral.
2. A copy of a Warranty Deed showing proof of ownership of
said parcel of land.
3. 20 copies of the written legal description of said parcel.
4. 20 copies of a vicinity map at a scale of 1"=300' showing
the location of the parcel.
5. A list of the current owners of surrounding property
within 300 feet of the parcel.
6. Check No. 532 in the amount of $259.03 for the application
fee from The Development Group.
Also, per City requirements, on behalf of the developer, The
Development Group, we wish to offer further information to support
this request for a variance as follows:
The Kennedy Lateral, as it is situated on the property now, does
not lend itself to tiling or covering. The lateral was originally
constructed along a natural ridge as was further built up for
delivery of irrigation water. To the this ditch now would require
that a siphon be installed to bury the pipe to a sufficient depth
to allow proper roadway covering and to set it below the
surrounding natural ground elevation. Other lands in the immediate
vicinity of this portion of the Kennedy Lateral will experience the
same difficulties. These lands should also be granted variances to
fence in lieu of tiling.
is
~~ «~
~ ~ •
r~-u-B~
Engineers Surveyors Planners
~~'~ Mr. Jack H. Niemann
March 2, 1993
Page 2
Please review the enclosed information and schedule for the next
available City Council meeting. If you require additional
information, please call.
Sincerely,
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Gar G~~ Lee P . E . L . S .
Y /
Project Manager
GAL:ls
Enclosure
cc: The Development Group
Project No. 18500-05
¢# - F.,
~~•`
~~ u .
~ ~ F'or Value Flooeived
Lawn H. Davenport and Ethel prtvPnp~nrt ttust~+rri ~ur1 wt tr•,
1 t:itlafteY tEfetZEd t0 a9 GYarrtot, doF:9 tY'rc'1'ry 9rvtt, G+rrl:iln, rill, .u.f ts.n+y ruttr•
. ~»~.
Devnlapoe~nt croup,
ttec~C.icaftt~t refrJCZt+d to as C,Yantea~e, wtrreae aur~ec>rtt 3~.1,iet+..~:5 is
• e~ 1895 S. t+kiidian ticfwd, tktridlan, ID, R3fr32
thQ folla+irtg dt~rrs(bcrt prr+nitx+s, tv-wit:
Sree Attadteri Iste~l t>wr:ripttrn tTStrt•tn .us{ m.L• .+ 1•.rt n•rrr•t.
',
J ~~ ~ ~
_~ :: •.
L•~
'°2 N7U 'ZO P(7 3 18
TO tV1VF. A•~ TO FOLD the said prtmise's, with ttrtr ~[;xaruvr.un••: ,ud,• ttr• e.u,t
Cr:vttc~•, his trial ani assit~ faae_was. Ant rt.: raid ceaerttx ,i<^•:: t••t.:r! crti+v.u,t
to maf wt th the said Granttr e, that Grantor is Ur .,wr rrr tr tr.• e: n•~•Ir• -~f ::uri
ptemaws: that said peemisrss art: fete fetm ali rsnuihr.tttrr:: oxet•{N raurr•~,t yteu+
taxc5, levaes, and 'nom. and ~tcrl'tt U. `;. {'stcvrt re~.•.rv.tttrr,•~, r••:•t r :r -tirrLS,
ry~srettrKrts oC esx7ord, ani ~t~acmrutts vistblr_ tti..• tir lntme:.~., .L~,l tt.t! c,,:.•.,: ut .l
rxtrr:u:t :red defc~ci the lam'. feuu all cl.ainr; wtrtt•a^••.t•r .
pitrd: `cr.•r+ntrr i /1<r 192.
Iran H. [iwrrr{t»-t t tt.•1 Il,l,•r.}. ~ .,
r.~ll•:IY UF' AtLt
On This ' /~(tlt}• ref t.~tvtndrr, in t1.• ~+,n 1't4:. Ir•tc •, '• •.. ~••.:
to ,u.l for said •tiGttr•, ;trrvrr~,l ly .+{t{a•.ut+1 l.n^a, H. R,•.ar {•.r t .d.: ! ter. ..{.
{!rYa.n ur idcv,ttlital to m• tc+ t.• ttr {an `gaff: wta°.• t.un•r .u.• •;ulr: r tt..' •••'I•~'.
Irr.tnona,r, .utt .trltrawlraipal rn u.r thrt tla•}• •'x..+itnt t!a• •:un•.
~,,,.....,.
~ ,kc, vi. • ~ :.: r • f: r. , .
rl
t
~0'-N~
~~ ~I~'s .,
.•
tltd'.rry 1lthln' hn [
pir:idir.l .tt f4,rr, Lia!..
a,~Oaf *'
Cm C. nmir::. i.n Pic{,i r.•:.: I r. m
,
7
•~
~~ ' .
;: `'
`., r ;.
`k1.TL
' 2~ Y ~
.5 _.
~y
t ~~ »7~x~
s I,~~
r ;~ ` •~^
r : 3 ~.:,,~~ -
~ ]^
S, e '~ ,: ~'}'
t .~
{ •:~~ r'-
r ' ,•,
i ~4
~>< .~ ~ j
:"7 ~-
~~~~ ` ~~
' t.
t~.-,c r u
~ `~ { ~
s' s ~ 4]k,;
c y ~• _
3' r , .r ` .=~T~
~ ~ h' ~
.d.
r
*:
f
f..
~, ,~
M1
~ ~t ~
~ z
,.~~ri ~~ h
-~zFF .~ i ;
k ,
k N
~;
~ ._
s r ~_.
~.
~
-.
`~ e 1
~ -
ii
5
1 t, 1 +.k
.Lj; ~'
,
:
r
i. Y..
J"
r'
h
,
.r
~ x
>`R ~'
~ ~~ '<
=F..
.
.
}
.
,
_iz~,~..
..
za'
.;, mss.
~~-1~'irtit ~1 ~~tc~ri~~~r~t 'l'ill~~ Cni~t~~u»>~ t~/' ltlnltf,
-- -
=j
-~
t;...~ ' w -_.
~~ _.
~s
,~
~~~`
~~
k
q.
,~ ,
y
~:~ti F. ,.,'
~.
~=
~~
;.~ .~;
.,
.,s
•~
,~
~ ~
~~
~:
~
~,
~ ~ -f.
~, -
= i ~:
;
'
~
~-
~ ~
•,
FA-85101
~i
3.',"
r Your No. DEVELOPMENT GROUP „ .~
~
~.
~; ,
All that portion of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the ;,.~.
~a
Northeast quarter of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, 'r`?.
Ada County, Idaho, described as follows:
Boise-Meridian ~t ;
,
:~
From the corner common to Sections 13 and 24, Township 3 North,
Range 1 West, Boise-Meridian, and Sections 18 and 19, Township ;"'f -
-
- 3 North, Range 1 East Boise-Meridian; thence '' ;`
F'?
South along the Meridian line 753.50 feet to the POINT OF ~
, ~~-
BEGINNING; thence ~ ~
r
South 89.12' West 918.80 feet; thence •
'
Soutn 4'ZB' West T47.30 feeC; thence ~
~
North 89.06' East 828.02 feet; thence F-
North 200.00 feel; thence '.yy.
~y East ISU feet to the Meridian line: thence
'# North 545.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
r.
~'~ EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPEP.TY:
rf
A parcel of land being on the Westerly side of the centerline of _ r.
- '+""~
State Highway 69, Project No. SR-RS-3782(2), Highway Survey as ,.k.
`'
shown on the plans thereof now on file in the office of the Idaho .4,
,-,
'~`
Transportation Department, Division of Highways, and being a -
'
,
portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter o.' ?
':~T
Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 rJest, Boise-Meridian, ,,:
described as follows: i~
;
c}
Ccmmencing at the Northeast corner of Section 24, Township 3 ''w
`
~.'
Ncrth, Range 1 West, Boise-Meridian; thence ~
~`
South 0.37'25" West (shown of record to be South) along the East =°
line of said Section 24 a distance of 753.50 foot to the ~~
~
Northeast corner of the tract of land as described in that ,~'<
certain warranty Decd, dated September 20, 1954, recorded -
Drcember 3, 1954, as instrument No. 268905, records of Ada
` County, Idaho, and being the REAL PLACE OF BEGINNING: thence
South B9°19'24" West (shown of record to be South 89'12' Westl
along the North line of said CrecC of land o5.0 feet to a
point in a Line parallel with and 650 feet westerly from the
centerline and opposite Station 426+56.48 of said State
Highway No. 69, Project No. SR-RS-3782(2) Highway Survey: thence
South 0'37'25" West along said parallel line 543.53 feet to a
point in the South line of said tract of land; thence _
South 89.22'35" East l5hown of record to be East) along said
Srn~th line 65.0 feet to a point in the East lane of said
Section 24: thence
North 0'37'25" Eont Ishown of rerurd to br Nor•h) along satr)
East line 545.0 feet to the REAL PLACli o~ RF.t;IN'It::G.
ALSO EXCF.PTI;:G ditch and road rights-of-way.
Pape 2
~rrer~r
~'
~~
-.~'f'
• i
i_~~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 E. IDAHO AVE.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
VAR,~TANCE APPLICATION
(RE: Meridian Zoning Ordinance)
NAME : Development Group (Elk Run Sub. ) PHONE 887-5622
(owner or holder of valid option)
ADDRESS : 1895 S, Meridan Road, Meridian, ID 83642
GENERAL LOCATION:753 ft. S, of Overland Road, West of S. Meridian Road
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY : See Attached
PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OR VALID OPTION: A copy of your property deed
or option agreement must be attached . (see attached)
PRESENT ZONE CLASSIFICATION R-8 Requested
VICINITY SKETCH: A vicinity map at a scale approved by the City
showing property lines, streets existing and proposed zoning and
such other items as the City may require.
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS: A list of all property owners and
addresses within contiguoug to, directly across the street from,
and within a 300' radius of the parcel(s) proposed for a Variance
must be attached. (This information is available from the County
Assessor)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED VARIANCE : To allow fenc
Date Received
City Council Hearing Date
Received By
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
r i
RE UIREMENTS: VARIANCE
Attach a site plan showing all details of the proposed
development. Complete the following questions and return with the
application . See preliminary plat of Elk Run Sub.
What is intended to be done on or with the property?
i
.
The property is to be developed into a single family residential project in
a proposed R-S zone if approved by the City of Meridian. The variance is a
'
s
request to install a fence along the Kennedy Lateral along the project
West boundary.
What special
2
conditions and circumstances exist which are
.
peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and
which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
However
ist
buildings in ,
.
the same district? No special circumstances ex
Lateral and the amount of water flowing through
ned
Ke
h
f
due to the size
it, it would be y
n
e
t
o
cost prohibitive to install a pipeline of sufficient size to
meet the needs of the irrigation dristrict.
3. Why will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this
ordinance deprive you of rights commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same district under the terms of this
ordinance? [ae believe that the ordinance in question was intended for smaller
irrigation delivery ditches and should not apply to the larger irrigation
laterals.
4. What special conditions or circumstances exist that were not
a result Of your actions? The City of Meridian just recently adopted
a revised ordinance that requires the piping of irrigation ditches. This
ordinance was~made effective after the current owner purchased the land.
5. Why will the granting of this Variance not confer on you any
special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other
lands, structures, or building in the same district?
fit is our belief that the Kennedy Lateral should be allowed to remain an
open ditch as it traverses through all affected parcels of land due to its
size and water capacity requirements.
. •,
APFLICATION AND STANDARDS FOR VARIANCES
A variance from the terms of this Grdir,ance shall not be granted
t,y the Council unless and until a written application iar a
variance is submitted to the Administrator and the Council
containing, where applicable. (Application available from
Administrator):
1. Address of subject property ;
2. Name, address and phone number of applicant;
3. Name, address and phone number of owners of subject
property;
~. Proof of ownership or valid option on the property or a
contract interest therein with consent of the titled owner;
5. Legal description of subject property;
6. Present use of subject property;
7. What is intended to be done on or with the property;
8. The district that pertains to the subject property;
5. Vicinity map at a scale approved by the Council showing
property lines, existing streets, proposed district and such
other items as may be required;
10. Schematic building plans which indicate typical elevation
and floor plan of any proposed construction;
il. A list of tree mailing addresses of all property owners (from
authentic tax records of Ada County) within three hundred
t3@O) feet of the external boundaries of the land being
considered and a listing of the mailing addresses of all
property owners within the area of the land being
considered;
12. Characteristics of subject property which prevent compliance
with the -requirements of this Ordinance;
13. Minimum -requirements of this Ordinance that need to be
-reduced to permit proposed use;
14. Difficulty or hardship which would result if -requirements of
this Ordinance were applied to subject property;
15. Unusual or peculiar circumstances which indicate that
regulations of this Ordinance should not be strictly
complied with;
I6. Statement that special conditions and circumstances exist.
which a•re peculiar to the land, structure or buildings
involved and which are not applicable to other lands,
str*actures a-: Buildings ire the same district;
. ~.
~~ ~ •
17. Statement that a literal interpretation of the provisions of
this Ordinance shall deprive the applicant of •rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district
under terms of this Ordinance;
18. Statement that special conditions or circumstances exist
that were not a result of the applicant's action;
19. Statement that granting the variance requested shall not
confer or, tree applicant any special privilege that is denied
by this Ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in
the same district;
20. Relationship of the proposed variance- to the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan;
21. A fee established by the Council;
550.00 + $1.29 far each certified mailing to be sent =
Total Fee.
22. The property will be posted 1 week before hearing stating
they have applied far a Conditional Use Permit or Zoning.
There must be a signed affidavit that this has been done as
part of the application.
DAVENPORT ANNEXATION/ZONING APPLICATION
Property Owners within 300 feet of Subiect Parcel
Name Address Phone No.
Davenport, Lavon & 1895 S. Meridian Rd. 888-2072
Ethel Meridian, ID 83642
Queenland Acres, Inc. 485 W. Overland
Meridian, ID 83642
Christensen, Robert L. 1483 Johnson
& Donna M. Boise, ID 83705
Howell, D. Jerry & 2306 N.W. 15th 888-5135
Florence B. Meridian, ID 83642
Kelly, John W. & 265 W. Overland
Ruth E. Meridian, ID 83642
Queenland Acres, Inc. 485 W. Overland
Meridian, ID 83642
Queenland Acres, Inc. 485 W. Overland
Meridian, ID 83642
Johnson, Sylvia S. 2020 S. Meridian
Meridian, ID 83642
Stucker, Lee R. & 2230 S. Locust Grove 888-2477
Fae M., Trustees; and Meridian, ID 83642
Cushing, George &
Lenora
Fawcett, Wilford H., 2090 S. Meridian Rd. 888-3415
III, & Barbara Ann Meridian,. ID 83642
f
,~
_..~
O •.r
~.
.~
i
I" = ~i00'
r
VICINITY MAP
~:
r.
13 ~ ~ -~ v
,,
:~o t4~
C-~
-- -
Proposed Dorenporf'
Annexation Site
.~~~
/1(
~"` L
~~
~~~
,~ ;
~~~~ ~.~
E
C7 H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~ CZII H C ~H F(~/~ f~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ H CCU ~ ~ O O H n H ~~~,., C.i
c's W ~ ~ ~J ~ q ~ H H ~ r~x K° H ~ v CrJ (1 ~ .y+ ~ ~ ~ a 3
°c C ~ O r~ 'b N O S CI] ~ v H H C~ ~ C G
H ~ y ~ v~ O ~ c~ H v C --~ r~ to„~ Z ~J 7d ~7 2
Z ..~ H ~ H H tC x1
~ g~~C(H~~ 08 ~~ ~ z ~
ro N H H ~~ v y H
3 t~-~ v ~ ~ H N ~
• _ H H H~ O H K1 CC~~~ qA
~+ b tt+ 3 H O Z~ H ~
K 3 N ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~
~ ro ~ ~
N H ~ Hn~+
L=J
iyi b ~ O H H
a H ~ O O
r ~~ ~~.
v
~ g u-
~ ~
'_' 3
_° ~ m ~ H
~ O ~
H v
r ~ v ~
b ~,
~ ~ z -0m yy~~
~ K H ~ ~ W
H -~
-e ~--~
~ • r
~ O 01
C ~. ~
z C"~
("~ J
H
r <o ~
w ~
w
y ~ omy zm~ O
~v ~ ~ ~ ~c-I -N-1 ~ r ~(H'] ~ C7
n --a ,-, C
v •• ~ ~O~ co~ ~m y- f~
y oZ~ oo~ cm~
H
H mn'~ -i-i~d z~ a
E O amp ~m~ coa ~
t'' HH7d z~~ z~~ oo~z
~ rr o~ ~m~ van
~ r v~ .. z~ czm H
~ z Z~ ~ -~ r
v ~,~
b o ~ °zo
y ~~~ a .. rd . c
!A v n v
`» H V ~ n w
.. Hpp r'~ t~
U1 Cjj ••
~ H
f~ ti
•
~!•U-~
March 2, 1993
Mr. Jack H. Niemann
City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: ELK RUN SUBDIVISION (Davenport Property)
The Development Group
Dear Mr. Niemann:
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
ENGINEERS•SURVEYORS•PLANNERS
250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201
Boise, ID 83709-0944
208/376-7330
FAX: 208/323-9336
Enclosed for your review and processing are the necessary documents
as established by the City of Meridian Ordinances for a Variance
Application for the above subdivision. As stipulated by said
ordinance, please find enclosed the following:
1. 20 copies of a Variance Application from the Development
Group to allow fencing of the Kennedy Lateral in lieu of
piping of said lateral.
2. A copy of a Warranty Deed showing proof of ownership of
said parcel of land.
3. 20 copies of the written legal description of said parcel.
4. 20 copies of a vicinity map at a scale of 1"=300' showing
the location of the parcel.
5. A list of the current owners of surrounding property
within 300 feet of the parcel.
6. Check No. 532 in the amount of $259.03 for the application
fee from The Development Group.
Also, per City requirements, on behalf of the developer, The
Development Group, we wish to offer further information to support
this request for a variance as follows:
The Kennedy Lateral, as it is situated on the property now, does
not lend itself to tiling or covering. The lateral was originally
constructed along a natural ridge as was further built up for
delivery of irrigation water. To the this ditch now would require
that a siphon be installed to bury the pipe to a sufficient depth
to allow proper roadway covering and to set it below the
surrounding natural ground elevation. Other lands in the. immediate
vicinity of this portion of the Kennedy Lateral will experience the
same difficulties. These lands should also be granted variances to
fence in lieu of tiling.
~f
=~.
~ • .
~J • V' B~,
Engineers Surveyors Planners
Mr. Jack H. Niemann
March 2, 1993
Page 2
Please review the enclosed information and schedule for the next
available City Council meeting. If you require additional
information, please call.
Sincerely,
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
(/l ,~~_
Gar G~~~ee, P.E./L.S.
Y
Project Manager
GAL:ls
Enclosure
cc: The Development Group
Project No. 18500-05