Packard Acres SubdivisionPARTIES:
2.
3.
4.
RECORDED- REOUEST OF
J. DAVID NAVARR0 Il 1
Po!sL IDAHO ~ E DEPUT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
2001tiY31 PH I:39 101052~80
City of Meridian '"
Robert E. Cobum and Michele L. Coburn, Owner ~L~IAN 01]'Y
Robert Cassell and Willa J. Cassell, Owner
Packard Estates Development, LLC, Owner/Developer
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and
entered into this [~4~ day oLJ-~r~a.~ , 2000, by and between CITY OF
MERiDIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereinafter called
"CITY", and ROBERT E. COBURN AND MICHELE L. COBURN, FKA Michele L.
Chesworth, husband and wife, hereinafter called "OWNER", and whose address is
2640 N. Wingate Lane, Meridian, ID 83642-5708; and ROBERT AND WILLA J.
CASSELL, husband and wife, hereinafter called "OWNER", and whose address is
2795 Wingate Lane, Meridian, ID 83642-5709; and PACKARD ESTATES
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, hereinafter called "OWNER/DEVELOPER", and whose
address is 6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120, Boise, ID 83713.
'1. RECITALS:
1.1
WHEREAS, "Owners/Developer" are the owners, in law and/or
equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of
Idaho, described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and by
this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein
after referred to as the "Property"; and
1.2
WHEREAS, I.C. §67-651 lA, Idaho Code, provides that cities
may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re-zoning
that the owner or "Owners/Developer" make a written
commitment concerning the use or development of the subject
"Property"; and
1.3
WHERF_dkS, "City" has exerdsed its statutory authority by the
enactment of Ordinance 1 1-15 - 12 and I I - 16-4 A, which
authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or
re-zoning of land; and
1.4
WHEREAS, "Owners/Developer" have submitted an application
for annexation and zoning of the "Property"s described in Exhibit
A, and have requested a designation of Low Density Residential
District (R-4), (Meridian City Code §§ 11-7-2 C); and
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - I
1.5
WHEREAS, "Owners/Developer" made representations at the -
public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning
Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the
subject "Property" will be developed and what improvements will
be made; and
1.6
WHEREAS, reco}d of the proceedings for the requested
annexation and zoning designation of the subject "Property" held
before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently
before the City Council, include responses of government
subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian
planning iurisdiction, and received further testimony and
comment; and
1.7
WHEREAS, City Council, the 20th day of May, 1997, has
approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached
hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in
full, hereinafter referred to as the "Findings"; and
1.8
WHEREAS, City Council, the 5th day of August, 1997,
approved a preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision No. 2 with
conditions; and
1.9
WHEREAS, the "Findings" require the "Owners/Developer" to
enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes
final action on annexation and zoning designation; and
1.10
"OWNERS/DEVELOPER" deem it to be in their best interest to
be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledge that this
Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at their urging and
requests; and
1.11
WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Owners/Developer" to enter
into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that
the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the
"Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
development agreement, herein being established as a result of
evidence received by the "City" in the proceedings for annexation
and zoning designation from government subdivisions providing
services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected
property owners and to ensure annexation and zoning designation
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 2
is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian adopted December 2 I, 1993, Ordinance #629, January
4, 1994, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances codified
in Meridian City Code Title 11 and Title 12.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions
set forth herein, the part/es agree as follows:
2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are
contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following
words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and
interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the
same requires otherwise:
3.1
"CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this
Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government
subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue
of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho
Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642.
3.2
3.3
"OWNERS/DEVELOPER": means and refers to Robert E. and
Michele L. Cobum, 2640 N. Wingate Lane, Meridian, ID 83642-
5708; Robert and Willa J. Cassell, 2795 N. Wingate Lane,
Meridian, ID 83642-5709; and Packard Estates Development,
LLC, 6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120, Boise, ID 83713, the
parties developing said "Property" and shall include any
subsequent owner(s)/developer(s) of the "Property".
"PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of
"Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as
described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT:
4.1
The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses
allowed under "City'"s Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian
City Code Sections 11-7-2 C which are herein specified as
follows:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION
-3
(R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only single-family"
dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be
permitted except for planned residential development and public
schools. The purpose of the R-4 District is to permit the
establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to
delineate those areas where predominantly residential
development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of
residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible
nonresidential uses. The R-4 District allows for a maximum of
four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the
Municipal water and sewer systems of the City.
For the construction and development of single-family
development.
4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be
allowed without modification of this Agreement.
CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY:
"Owners/Developer' shall enter into a Development Agreement,
that provides in the event the conditions therein are not met by
the Owners/Developer that the property shall be subject to de-
annexation from the City of Meridian which provides for the
following conditions of development, to-wit:
Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Department and Public
Works Department as follows:
5.1
Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to
be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance.
The ditches to be piped shall be shown on the site plans. Plans
shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district
and downstream water users, with written confirmation of said
approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
5.2
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this
project shall have to be removed from their domestic service per
City Ordinance. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes
such as landscape irrigation.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION
-4
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.09
5.10
5.11
5.12
Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation, and submi~ a
profile the subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soils
scientist with the street development plans.
Submit copy of proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed
restrictions.
Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City
Ordinance and allow no encroachment of walkways by mailbox
structtlres.
Water service to this development is contingent upon positive
results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model.
Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee,
approving the subdivision and street names.
Coordinate the fire hydrant placement with the City of
Meridian's Water Works Superintendent.
Indicate any FEMA floodplain boundaries as determined by
FEMA, and/or any plans to reduce said boundaries.
Submit a master street drainage plan, including the method of
disposal. Prior to development plan approval, written
confirmation of approval will be required from any affected
irrigation/drainage district.
Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and
through this proposed development. The subdivision designer is
to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Meridian Public
Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep
the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline.
Sewer easements will need to be dedicated with the development
of Phase 1 of Packard Subdivision No. 1 to access the lift station,
with gravel accesses built in accordance with City standards.
Water service to this site could be via mains installed in N.
Hickory Way as part of Packard Subdivision No. 1. Applicant
will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through
this proposed development. The subdivision designer to
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION
-5
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
coordinate the main sizing and routing ~vith the Meridian Publi'C
Works Department
One-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium street lights will be
required at locations designated by the Meridian Public Works
Department. All street lights shall be installed, at subdivider's
expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire
hydrants.
Lot 17, Block 2 of the preliminary plat doesn't meet the
minimum 80-foot frontage required in an R-4 zone. Lot 2, Block
6 doesn't meet the minimum 80 foot frontage, or the minimum ~
lot area of 8,000 square feet, unless the additional i0 feet of
frontage can be gained by the granting of an encroachment by
the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Lot 16, Block 10 shall
have a limitation on house orientation towards E. Challis Street
because the N. Lapis Avenue frontage is less than the minimum
required 80 foot frontage. Revise final plat to conform with City
Ordinance.
Provide statements of dedications to the public and/or easements,
together with a statement of location, dimension and purpose of
such.
Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the Cit,/s
water system to the required pressurized irrigation system will
need to be reviewed closely due to the size of the area to be
watered. Applicant shall provide a statement as to the ownership
of, and operation and maintenance, of the pressurized irrigation
system. The developer shall be responsible for payment of
assessment fees and meter costs associated with a single point
connection.
The width of the pavement around the islands in the 90° knuckle
comers needs to be reviewed and approved by the Meridian Fire
Dept. and Meridian School District. Applicant shall submit
written confirmation of approvals.
Provide open access to all deanout boxes of piped irrigation lines.
Access shall be provided which does not require water users to go
over fences or in the yards of other property owners.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION
-6
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
The minimum house size is to be 1,600 square feet, exclusive o[
garages, as represented in public meetings.
A six-foot-high, permanent, non-combustible fence shall be
installed on the northerly easement line of the Stokesberry
Lateral.
The Applicant is to develop a pathway along the South Slough in
accordance with the Ada County Pathway Plan and City
requirements. Any relocation of the South Slough will negate its
consideration as a "natural waterway" and will require tiling.
Submit detailed landscape plans for all common areas for review
and approval.
Permanent, six-foot-high, non-combustible perimeter fencing is to
be inst~lled prior to applying for building permits except where
the City has expressly agreed in writing that such fencing is not
required. Permanent, six-foot-high solid fencing is required
adjacent to Carol Subdivision prior to applying for building
permits. Permanent, six-foot-high fencing shall be installed to
prohibit access to Wingate Lane prior to applying for building
permits.
Further approvals will be required for future building permits for
Lot 7, Block 2 of the preliminary plat due to the non-conforming
use (two dwelling units on one lot).
Construction of Phase 1 of Packard Subdivision No. 2 may
commence only after Hickory Avenue adjacent to the southerly
boundary has been constructed for access.
Construction equipment shall not use Wingate Lane for access,
and shall not cross Wingate Lane except on a limited basis for
necessary utility construction.
Subdivision is subject to payment of lift station maintenance fees
imposed by the Public Works Department.
Provide a turnaround on the east side of Wingate Lane on E.
Challis Street. Also construct twenty-foot-wide gates for
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 7
emergency fire department access (ONLY) on each side of
Wingate Lane.
5.29 This development agreement requires City Council approval and
shall be recorded prior to signature on the final plat of any phase.
5.30
Pedestrian wallcatays shall be provided to minimize walking
distances. Applicant shall also install lighting system for the
walkway for safety purposes.
Adopt the Recommendations of the City of Meridian Fire Department as follows:
5.31 The open spaces on Lots I, 4, and 25 are required to be kept clear
of trash and weeds.
Adopt the Recommendations of the Ada County Highway District as follows:
5.32
Provide documentation to the District that the authorized users
of the private road have subordinated their rights to use the road
to the Highway District to the extent that public roads and
utilities may cross the easement for the private road, or an
opinion from a practicing attorney that such crossings can legally
Occur.
5.33 Construct all internal streets to a 37-foot back-to-back street
section with five-foot sidewalk within a 50-foot fight,of-way.
5.34
Two of the knuckles or half culdesacs shall be constructed with
median islands, maintaining a minimum travel width of 21 feet to
the back of curb. Coordinate with District Traffic Services
Division.
5.35 All landscaped medians shall be separate platted lots owned and
maintained by a homeowners association.
5.36 Maintain a minimum radius of I00 feet on all curves having
other than 90-degree angles of deflection.
5.37
E. Challis Street (as depicted on the drawing on file dated
September 15, 1995) shall be dedicated but not constructed
across Wingate Lane until the two properties south of the street
crossing are developed and construction has been approved by the
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - g
5.38
5.39
5.40
5.41
5.42
5.43
5.44
5.45
Ada County Highway District Commission. The developer shall
deposit the cost of constructing E. Challis Street acrpss Wingate
Lane and removing the gates required below to the PuNic Rights-
of-Way Trust Fund.
Provide and install two gates, one at each end of the
unconstructed portion of E. Challis Street across Wingate Lane,
that will allow the passage of pedestrians and bicycles along the
unconstructed section of the street but not automobiles.
Construct a 14-foot-wide all weather road along the route of the
sanitary sewer line in all unplatted areas of the proposed
subdivision, including the portion of E. Challis Street across
Wingate Lane.
Provide legal and physical means of access from the Reichert
parcel to the public street system.
Locate driveway curb cuts a minimum of five feet from the side
lot property lines when driveways are not being shared with the
adjacent property.
If street improvements are proposed, locate obstructions outside
of the proposed street improvements. Authorization for
relocations shall be obtained from the appropriate entity.
A right-of-way permit shall be obtained from ACHD for any
street or utility construction within the public right-of-way.
Utility cuts shall be combined, where practical, to limit pavement
damage.
Install stop signs on every unsignalized approach of a project
street to an intersection involving a collector or arterial as the
cross-street. The stop signs shall be installed when the project
street is first accessible to the motoring public.
The Owners/Developer shall be required to install street name
signs at the locations approved by the ACHD. Purchase street
name signs, sign poles, and mounting hardware from ACHD
Traffic Operations Department or approved outside supplier. The
District wilt not manufacture street signs until a copy of the
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 9
5.46
5.47
5.48
5.49
5.50
5.51
5.52
5.53
recorded plat showing the recording data has been provided to -
Development Services staff.
Submit site drainage plans and calculations for review and
appropriate action by ACHD prior to issuance of building permit
(or other required permits). The proposed drainage system shall
retain all storm water on-site and shall conform to the
requirements of the City of Meridian.
Public street drainage facilities shall be located in the public right-
of-way or in a common lot owned by a homeowners association
set aside specifically for that use. There shall be no trees, fences,
bushes, sheds, or other valuable amenities placed in said
easement. Drainage lots and their use restrictions shall be noted
on the plat (when applicable).
Construct pedestrian ramps on the coruer of all street
intersections in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 40-1335.
Dedicate a 20'x20' right-of-way triangle (or appropriate curve to
keep street improvements within the public right-of-way) at all
intersections abutting and/or within the development prior to
issuance of building permit (or other required permits).
Continue existing irrigation and drainage systems across parcel.
Continue borrow ditch drainage abutting parcel (culvert may be
required).
Provide written approval from the appropriate irrigation/drainage
district authorizing storm runoff into their system.
Locate proposed sign(s) out of the public right-of-way and out of
the dear-vision sight-triangle of all street and driveway
intersections.
Provide a dear vision sight triangle at all street intersections.
Within this triangle, no obstruction higher than 36 inches above
the top of pavement will be allowed, including landscaping,
berms, fences, walls or shrubs. The triangle shall be defined by
the long leg measured down the centerline of any collector 350
feet; and the short leg measured down the centerline from the
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION -
collector street curb line 20 feet. Provide notes on the plat and-'
street construction plans of these restrictions.
Adopt the Recommendations from the Central District Health Department as
follows:
5.54
Central water and sewage may be approved upon written approval
from appropriate entities and the Idaho Department of Health &
Welfare Division of Environmental Q-ality.
5.55 Street run off shall not create a mosquito breeding problem.
5.56 Monitoring of the high water table shall be prior to design and
installation.
5.57
The first one half inch of stormwater shall be pretreated through
a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent
impact to groundwater and surface water quality. Obtain current
best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a
stormwater management system that prevents groundwater and
surface water degradation. Manuals for guidance are as follows:
5.57.1
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE
PUGET SOUND, State of Washington Department of
Ecology, February 1989.
5.57.2
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT GUIDELINES
FOR STORMWATER AND SITE DRAINAGE
MANAGEMENT.
5.57.3
CALIFORNIA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
HANDBOOK- Prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee,
Larry Walker Assoc., Uribe and Assoc., Resources Planning
Assoc., for the Stormwater Quality Task Force.
5.57.4
URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL,
Volume 3, Best Management Practices, Stormwater
Quality, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District,
Denver, Colorado.
Adopt the Recommendations from Idaho Power Company as follows:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - I I
5.58
Permanent 1 O-foot wide public utilities easement along all lots '
adiacent to a road right-of-way dedicated to public or private use,
shall be required.
Adopt the Recommendations from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as
follows:
5.59
The District's Finch Lateral courses through the north portion of
the project. The right-of-way of the Finch Lateral is 80 feet, 40
feet from the center each way. The District's Stokesberry Lateral
courses through the south portion of the project. The right-of-
way for the Stokesberry Lateral is 40 feet, 20 feet from the center
each way. The developer must contact John P. Anderson or Bill
Henson at Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, 466-0663 or
345-2431, for approval before any encroachment or change of
right-of-way occurs. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
requires that a Land Use Change/Site Development application
be filed for review prior to final platting. All laterals and waste
ways shall be protected. Municipal surface drainage shall be
retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the
District shall review drainage plans. Irrigation water shall be
made available to all developments within the District.
6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/CONSENT TO REZONE:
This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated,
and the zoning designation reversed, upon a default of the "Owners/Developer"
or "Owners'/Developer's" heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5
entitled "Conditions Governing Development of subject "Property" of this
agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after
the "City" has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in
I.C. § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof.
CONSENT TO DE-ANNEXATION AND REVERSALOF ZONING
DESIGNATION
"Owners/Developer" consent upon default to the de-annexation and/or a
reversal of the zoning designation of the "Property" subject to and conditioned
upon the following conditions precedent to-wit:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 12
7.1
That the "City" provide written notice of any failure to comply with this
Agreement to "Owners/Developer" and if the "Owners/Developer" fail
to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice.
8. INSPECTION:
"Owners/Developer" shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the
entirety of said development of the "Property" as required by this agreement or
by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City
Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or
portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development
Agreement and all other ordinances of the "City" that apply to said Development.
9. DEFAULT:
9.1
In the event "Owners/Developer", "Owners'/Developer's" heirs,
successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the "Property" or any other
person acquiring an interest in the "Property", fail to faithfully comply
with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in
connection with the "Property", this Agreement may be modified or
terminated by the "City" upon compliance with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
9.2
A waiver by "City" of any default by "O~mers/Developer' of any one or
more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the
breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or
remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or
other covenants and conditions.
10. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a
memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at
"Owners'/Developer's' cost, and submit proof of such recording to
"Owners/Developer" in connection with the annexation and zoning of the "Property"
by the City Council.
1 I. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved
Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified
herein.
12. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent
jurisdiction by either "City" or "Developer'7"Owner', or by any successor or
successors in tide or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBD[VISION - 13
by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of tho
covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein.
12.1
In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree
that "City" and "Owners/Developer" shall have thirty (30) days after
delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non-
breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided,
however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with
diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the defaulting
party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (30) day
period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence
and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be
extended for such period as may be necessa~ to complete the curing of
the same with diligence and continuity.
12.2
In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed
hereunder by either "Owners/Developer" or "City" is delayed for causes
which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for
such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil
disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance
shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay.
13. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also require surety bonds,
irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as
allowed under Meridian City Code § 12-5-3, to insure that installation of the
improvements, which the "Owners/Developer" agree to provide, if required by the
"City".
14. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Owners/Developer" agree that no
Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are completed, unless
the "City" and "Owners/Developer" have entered into an addendum agreement
stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any
event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the
improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City".
15. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Owners/Developer" agree 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.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 14
16. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this
Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3)
days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage
prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:
OWNERS/DEVELOPER:
c/o City Engineer
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Robert E. and Michele L. Coburn
2640 N. Wingate Lane
Meridian, ID 83642-5708
Robert and Willa J. Cassell
2795 N. Wingate Lane
Meridian, ID 83642-5709
Packard Estates Development, LLC
6223 N. Discovery Way, Suite 120
Boise, ID 83713
with copy to:
City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
16.1
A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the
other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the
requirements of this section.
17. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties
hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition
to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as
determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to
be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination
or forfeiture of this Agreement.
18. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that
time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and
provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations
hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the
other party so failing to perform.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 15
19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and
personal representatives, including "City"'s corporate authorities and their successors
in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the owner of the "Property", each
subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the "Property".
Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the "Property", or
portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subiect to the provisions
hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefitted and bound by the
conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of
"Owners/Developer", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination
of this Agreement if "City", in its sOle and reasonable discretion, had determined that
"Owners/Developer" have fully performed its obligations under this Agreement.
20. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid
by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised
from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other
provisions contained herein.
2 I. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements,
agreements, condition and understandings between "Owners/Developer" and "City"
relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements,
conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between
"Owners/Developer" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except as herein
otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this
Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and
signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with
respect to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City".
21.1
No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing
development of the subject "Property" herein provided for can be
modified or amended without the approval of the City Council
after the ~"City" has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance
with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation
and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed
amendment.
22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement
shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment
to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of
the "Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 16
ACIGNOWLEDGMENTS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement
and Made it effective as hereinabove provided.
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
PACKARD ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, LLC
BY:
Wirt Edmonds, Partner
Craig Groves, Partner
BY RESOLUTION NO.
OW~NER;
Robert E. Coburn
Michele L. Coburn
OWNER;
~ Cassell
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 17
CITYOF MERIDIAN
~ay~r R~bert D. Corrie
AttesI. .< ~
City Clerk
STATE OF IDAHO )
:SS
CoI. rNTY OF AD~ )
. O~ this ~e~ day of' .. ~/~ ~r ,in the year 2004 before me,
~o~ut~,]~,a-1(4i~ L. Cheswortii, husband and wife, known or identified,to me to be
the persons who~executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that. they
executed the same.
~ ,-' ,~...* ,.-?, -~
%,,,:~rt' O~ '~',,,," .
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 1 S
STATE OF IDAHO. )
:$$
COUNTY OF ADA )
~r,~::9.~. this/d~ day of //~,./ , in the year 200~, before me,
~ a Notary Pt~. ~lic, personally appeared ~ Wma I. Cassell,
· .husband and wi~ .kno~. or identified to me to be the persons who executed the within
¥,,'m% .m~,.ent/; andacknowledged to me that they executed the same.
' T- t.~. ! l/x*i,,' ' .'--
_'rS~. .. Notary Public for Idaho - //
:$$
COUNTY OF ADA )
.4,,~.Or~this ~ ~ day of /~ ~/' , in the year 200t~, before me,
-~_/~ ~5~._..g~/~/..~f~ a Notary Public, personally appeared W'lrt Edmonds and Craig
Gro%~, known or ~.entified to me to be the partners of Packard Estates Development,
LLC, who executed the instrument on behalf of said limited liability company and
acknowledged to me having executed the same.
Commission expires: 7/0 ~
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - I9
'STATE OF IDAHO )
:SS
County of Ada )
On this G ! M' day of /t/~a)/ in the year .....before me,
~Notary Public, personally appeaxed Rol~ert D: Corrie and William G. Berg, know or
'iden0fied to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who
exec~tted the instrument or the person uhac executed thc instrument of behalf of said
-City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same.
N~m'v/Public for Idaho
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 20
(b) A letter dated June 21, 1995 and a letter dated November
12, 1995 from residents of Wingate Lane, Meridian, Idaho,
which letters are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full, and which set forth the concerns and objections to
the application substantially similar to their testimony
presented at the public hearings on this application; and
(c) An undated letter from Vern Alleman received by the City
of Meridian on June 22, 1995, which letter is
incorporated herein as if set forth and which sets forth
the concerns and objections to the application
substantially similar to his testimony presented at the
public hearings on this application.
7. The Applicant's representative, Pat T~aley, testified
substantially as follows at the March 11, 1997 public hearing on
this application. The Applicant requests annexation and zoning of
the property in conjunction with approval of a preliminary plat
with a development agreement for the development of the property as
a residential subdivision. The development agreement will bind the
Applicant to certain items, which include fencing of the
subdivision, pressurized irrigation, and sewer and water services.
Although these foregoing items are not all the items to be
addressed by the development agreement, the development agreement
will assure the neighbors in the area that the Applicant will
develop the property in a responsible manner.
8. The Applicant's representative, Pat Tealey, further
testified substantially as follows at the March 11, 1997 public
hearing on this application. Ail of the utilities are available to
the property, to-wit: water, electricity, gas, telephone, cable and
other utilities. The road system of Packard Subdivision No. 1
joins the road system of the proposed development of this property,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description Of Property
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 21
ORDINANCE NO. 764
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN
RE, PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF TEE NORTHWEST 1/4,
SECTION 5 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTEt RANGE 1 EASTt BOISE MERIDIANt ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AH EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of
said City to annex to the said City real property which is
described in Section 1 below:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho:
Section 1.
That the real property described as:
PARCEL I
A parcel of land situated in the Northeast Quarter of
Section 5, Township 3 North, Range I East, Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described
as follows:
COMMENCING at the North Quarter corner of said
Section 5; thence along the North-South cen~er
of section line of said Section 5
South 0 degrees 27'32" West 1,673.35 feet to a
point; thence along a line that is 935.00 feet
North of and parallel with the East-West
center of section line of said Section 5
South 89 degrees 40'20" East 182.20 feet to a
point; thence leaving said parallel line
South 0 degrees 26'23" West 80.77 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing
South 0 degrees 26'23" West 119.58 feet to a
point on the right-of-way line representing
the location of a future road; thence along
said future right-of-way line
North 89 degrees 33'37" West 159.29 feet to a
point of curvature; thence along a curve to
the right whose radius is 20.00 feet, whose
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - PACKARD R-4 PAGE i
central angle is 90 degrees 00'00~", whose
length is 1,831.42 feet, and whose long chord
bears
North 44 degrees 33'37" West 28.28 feet to a
point of tangency~ thence
North 0 degrees 26'23" East 99.58 feet to a
point; thence leaving said future right-of-way
line
South 89 degrees 33'37" East 179.29 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL II
An easement for ingress, egress, and parking
described as follows:
A parcel of land situated in the Northeast
Quarter of Section 5, Township 3 Mgrth, Range
i East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho,
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the North Quarter corner of said
Section 5; thence along the North-South center
of section line of said Section 5
South 0 degrees 27'32" West 1,673.39 feet to a
point~ thence along a line that is 935.00 feet
North of and parallel with the East-west
center of section line of said Section 5
South 89 degrees 40' 20" East 182.20 feet to a
point; thence leaving said parallel line
South 0 degrees 26'23" West 63.77 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING~ thence continuing
South 0 degrees 26'23" West 15.00 feet to a
point~ thence
North 89 degrees 33'37" West 182.25 feet to a
point on the North-South center of section
line of said Section 5; thence along the
North-South center of section line of said
Section 5
North 0 degrees 27'32" East 15.00 feet to a
point; thence leaving the North-South center
of section line of said Section 5
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - PACKARD R-4 PAGE 2
South 89 degrees 33'37" East 182.24 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING.
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and is zoned R-4
Residential; that the reason for the R-4 zoning is to allow
development for a single family residential subdivision to be known
as Packard Subdivision No. 2; that the annexation and zoning is
subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council; that all
ditches, canals and waterways shall be tiled including those that
are property boUndaries or only partially located on the property.
Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de-
annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements:
ae
That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and
sewer mains will serve the land, particularly as stated
in the Conclusions of Law, paragraph 22.
That the development of the property shall be subject to
and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted
January 4, 1994.
That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall
be required to enter into a development agreement as
authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the
development agreement shall address inclusion into the
project of the requirements of 11-9-605 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other
matters; that the property may be de-annexed if the terms
and conditions of the Development Agreement are not
satisfied.
de
That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in
particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to
development time schedules and requirements, 11~9-605 M.
which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways,
and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized
irrigation.
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - PACKARD R-4 PAGE 3
That these conditions shall run with the land and bin~
the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
That the Applicant shall meet the requirements and
conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of
the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly
designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada
County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission
within ten (10) days following the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency,
Which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall
be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval
as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and approveb_y~he__~_~ Mayor of the
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this -- day of June,
1996.
£- ~OBERT D.'"'~'~OR~k~ -
ATTEST:
C~TY CLERK -- WILLIAM6~. B~RG,
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - PACKARD R-4 PAGE 4
STATE OF IDAHO, )
County of Ada, )
SS.
I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing
is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AM
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
SECTION 5 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE I EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AH E~'~CTIVE DATE"; passed as
Ordinance No. 764~ the City Council and Mayor of the City of
Meridian, on the ~ day of June, 1997, as the same appears in my
office.
DATED t ~ ..dAy of June, 1997.
~-Clerk, C~ty of M~id~n
a County, Idaho
SS.
day of June,
STATE OF IDABO,)
County of Ada,
On this __ 1997, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G.
BERG, JR., known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to
the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he
executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year
writte~;.;~ ·
in this certificate first above
N~f:ar~/Publio~for Idaho
R~si~n.g a.t Merid.ian, Idaho/
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - PACKARD R-4 PAGE 5
· :' EXHIBIT B
Findings ~f Fact and Conclusions of Law/Conditions of Approval
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PACKARD ACRES SUBDIVISION - 22
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
PACIFIC NORTBWEST ELECTRIC (P.N.E.)/EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATIONAND ZONING
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 5
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST,
BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for public hearing on May 6, 1997, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m., the Applicant appearing through its representative,
Pat Tealey, the City Council of the City of Meridian having duly
considered the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law approved and
adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Meridian, the evidence and testimony presented at the public
hearing, and the matter makes the following Amended Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDIN~ OF FACT
1. The notice of public hearing on the application for
annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks
prior to said public hearing scheduled for May 6, 1997, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the May 6, 1997, hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
2. The property included in the application for annexation
and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The property is
approximately 35.23 acres in size.
3 The property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT,
Rural Transitional, and is vacant land. The Applicant requests the
property be zoned (R-4), Low Density Residential District. The
Applicant has requested the annexation and this zoning, and the
application is not at the request of the City of Meridian.
4. The property is of agricultural use with two single
family dwellings and outbuildings.
develop a single-family residential
Subdivision No. 2.
5. The property is north
Eagle Road, and borders
The Applicant intends to
subdivision known as Packard
of Fairview Avenue and west of
existing subdivision developments,
Chamberlain Estates, Chateau Meadows, Kearney Place and Carol's
Subdivision. There exist a few small agricultural parcels ranging
in size from three to five acres to the north and to the east of
the property.
6. This application has been the subject of previous public
hearings the first of which was on June 22, 1995. In addition,
written comment of the public was received and made a part of the
record of the previous public hearings on this application. The
written con~uent of the public submitted and made part of the record
of the previous public hearings previously held on this application
include the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
(a)
A letter dated June 20, 1995 from W. R. JOhnson and
Virginia L. Johnson, which letter is incorporated herein
as if set forth in full, and provides:
They are residents living immediately adjacent
to the property;
The compliment the Applicant for providing
larger size lots in that portion of their plan
for the property which abuts their property;
3. The submit the following concerns
suggestions for consideration:
and
The easterly portion of the plan for the
property be redesigned to prevent Wingate
Lane from being used by just anyone;
A fence be erected between the property
and Carol Subdivision to the east to
prevent construction debris from blowing
onto their property; and
Ce
The Applicant complete hydrology studies
now being consdered and recommended by
the City's Public Works Department.
Se
Wingate Lane is a private lane and should be
reserved for the use .of those residents
presently living there. The construction of a
limited use barrier or gate at the Applicant's
expense may be a solution to the access to
Wingate Lane;
There exist numerous shallow wells in their
area, and nearby residents to the west in
established subdivisions are on record as to
complaints of poor water pressure. The
application should be denied or at least
tabled until the City of Meridian is certain
as to no adverse effect will result on the
water quality and supply from the development
of the property;
The Applicant has made no effort to contact
adjacent residents to discuss its development
intentions; and
They request that the application be denied or
tabled based their concerns.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
which permits the connection of the sewer to the
extension which is planned by the City of Meridian.
9. The Applicant had a neighborhood meeting
1997 at which quite a few neighbors attended.
discussions concerning the problems which had
previously about the proposed development and some
misconceptions which have been portrayed in the past.
10.
concern.
Meadows
south slough
on March 10,
There were
been voiced
of the
The roadway system has been an issue and an expressed
Since the time the application was submitted, Dove
Subdivision has been completed, which permits the
connection of the proposed development to a public road system to
the south. This access will be further enhanced by the development
of Packard Subdivision No. 1, which will bring the public road
system to the property's south boundary. Chamberlain Estates has
also been improved, which provides a connection to the public road
system to the west.
11. The Applicant has
subdivisions with larger lots.
proposed buffering from adjacent
The R-4 zone imposes a minimum lot
size of 8,000 square feet. Over 50% of the lots of the proposed
development are approximately 10,000 square feet. Approximately
48% of the lots are between 10,000 and 8,000 square feet in size
with 8,000 square feet being the minimum size.
12. After Packard Subdivision No. 1 was approved, the
Applicant had an opportunity to purchase the. Borup property which
consists of 22 acres. The Applicant perceived the Borup property
as a natural progression of Packard Subdivision No. 1, and the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
natural progression of development in the area. Thereafter, the
Applicant had the opportunity to purchase the Brown property, which
provided a solution to providing sewer service to the property.
The Applicant will eliminate the lift station which is part of
Packard Subdivision No. 1 and design the sewer for gravity flow
along the south slough.
13. Another issue has been the use of Wingate Lane, which was
a prime point of discussion at the March 10, 1997 neighborhood
meeting. The Applicant has assured the neighbors that the road
system of the proposed development of the property will not provide
access to Wingate Lane. The road system of the proposed
development will have two gates across the public road system,
which will provide pedestrian and bicycle access. The two gates
will also provide emergency access through break away bollards,
which are specifically designed for such emergency access to either
side of the area.
14. There has also been questions about irrigation. The
Applicant will provide pressurized irrigation to each lot of the
proposed development. The Applicant has entered into an agreement
with the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District who will own the
system. The Applicant is presently constructing a pressurized
irrigation system in Packard Subdivision No. 1 which will
acco~odate the Dove Meadows Subdivision, wingate Subdivision,
Packard Subdivision No..1 and the proposed Packard Subdivision No.
2. At the cost of $85,000.00, the Applicant will provide the
piping system, the pumps and the pump house. The system will be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
turned over to the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District who will
own and operate it.
15. In response to questions from Commissioner Borup, th~
Applicant's representative, Pat Tealey, responded affirmatively
that the solutions to the issue concerning access to the Wingate
Lane and the sewer service to the property were respectively based
upon the recommendations of Ada County Highway District and of the
City of Meridian's City Engineer.
16. The residents of Wingate Lane submitted a letter dated
March 8, 1997 concerning this application, and the concerns and
issues of such residents, which concerns and issues are
substantially similar to their testimony presented at the public
hearings on this application. This letter is incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
17. There was testimony at the March 11, 1997 public hearing
objecting to the application which was principally as follows:
a. Dale Sharp testified substantially as follows. Mr.
Sharp referred to the letter dated March 8, 1997
submitted by the residents of Wingate Lane and expressed
the desire to have the Applicant address in writing the
issues stated in the letter. Mr. Sharp questioned the
sale of parts of the property, and whether the split of
such parts of the property were legal. Mr. Sharp further
testified that most of the lots which front his property
are smaller lots. He believes the minimum lot size for
the R-4 District is 8,000 square feet. The lots which
border Carol Subdivision are larger lots, and he believes
the lots which border his property should also be larger
lots. He stated that the Applicant has indicated that
increasing the lot size is difficult to do, but he does
not think it would be difficult. The residents along
Wingate Lane have been in the area for a long time; he
believes longer than Carol Subdivision was developed. He
objects to this proposed subdivision development on the
property. It will unduly impact the educational system,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
impact traffic, the crime rate will increase, and their
services will be impacted.
b. Vern Aliemantestified substantially as follows. At
the present time, irrigation water for his property comes
through the property. He understands the City requires
the tiling of the ditches through the property. He is
concerned about the time period in which the ditches
through the property will be tiled. He desires that the
ditches be tiled during the period of October 15th and
March 15th; the irrigation off-season so as not to
interfere with his crops. He is also concerned about the
location of the irrigation ditches across the property,
the size and grade of the pipe used to tile the ditches
through the property and the placement of manholes. He
requests that the location of or easement for the ditches
through the property be recorded to avoid future problems
and conflicts. He added as a matter of information that
there is no agreement to allow the sewer to cross his
property. In response to a question of Commissioner
Borup, Mr. Alleman stated that the ditch crossing the
property is the users' private ditch for delivery of
irrigation water from the canal of Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District. After the water passes the delivery
point from the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's
canal or the head gate, the delivery of the irrigation
water becomes the problem of the users. The head gate is
located east of the south part of wingate Lane. In
response to Commissioner Borup's clarification concerning
an agreement for the sewer to cross Mr. Alleman's
property, Mr. Alleman stated that it was fine that the
Applicant had developed plans for the sewer so it would
not have to cross his property.
c. Albert Dauven testified substantially as follows.
He shares the concerns expressed by Vern Alleman
concerning the delivery of irrigation water. The
irrigation water to his property comes further east than
Mr. Alleman's water. His irrigation water comes from
almost that portion of the property which was the Borup
property. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has said
that it can do nothing for the users to assure the
delivery of the water through the ditches. The issue for
the delivery of the water needs to be decided from the
start of the process, since no agency governs the issue.
One can ask the farmers along Ustick Road about the
impact caused by contractors, and they would state that
they have been inconvenienced by the contractors. So for
protection, the issue of the delivery of water needs to
be addressed. In response to questions of Commissioner
Borup, Mr Dauven stated that he wanted in writing that
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
the irrigation water will be delivered to the farmers in
the area, that the Applicant is not goin~ to destroy the
ditches across the property and replace slx months later.
Mr. Dauven is speaking to the interruption of the flow of
water during the irrigation season. With regard to
access to Wingate Lane, he does not want children from
the property entering the area where animals are
pastured. He lives on the south slough and the animals
create an attraction for kids. He has chased from his
pastures kids from the Carol Subdivision probably three
times a week. The animals are unpredictable. He does
not want foot or bicycle traffic. They already have
enough traffic, including persons riding motorcycles and
snowmobiles in this area. People dump their trash, grass
clippings and rocks over the bordering fence. He wants
to be protected from these things, through the
construction of a berm between the subdivision
development on the property and Wingate Lane with a fence
on top of the berm. Mr. Dauven further stated that if it
is decided to put a road through on Wingate Lane, then
maybe there should be an area or dead zone from the
center line for no development to anticipate this
roadway. He is not against the subdivision development,
but he wants to see the development completed correctly.
d. Don Bryan testified substantially as follows. He is
a property owner on Locust Grove whom has been affected
and impacted by a multitude of subdivisions in the area
between Locust Grove, Fairview and Eagle Road. He has
had a history of fighting water problems and the way
developers develop. Some of the problems into which he
has faced have managed to work out, both the pros and the
cons of these developments. Because of the problems he
has faced in the past, he desires to have addressed in
this development to avoid problems for himself and other
neighbors. The separation between agricultural areas and
residential areas needs to be examined. He lives behind
Fred Meyer on Fairview. He worked with the developer of
that property. The developer erected a chain link fence
along his property line; however, this fence does not
keep the kids away from his horses. He is in the process
of posting his property with signs advising people to
stay out. The vacant lot next to his property is a
magnet for children, parents and dogs, and this creates
a real problem. He does not know what the solution may
be, but the problem needs to. be examined. The issue of
pressurized irrigation which the Applicant is putting
into the development needs to be examined. The proposed
development of this property connects with Packard
Subdivision No. 1. The lateral ditches to my property
from the main ditch runs along the two sides of Packard
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Subdivision No. 1. He wants the developer to state his
plans for the ditches and to maintain the ditches until
the property is developed. He does not know how the
pressurized irrigation which the Applicant is installing
will effect him or other property owners with regard to
the delivery of irrigation water. He also has a concern
about the flow of traffic. The traffic will apparently
flow to Fairview which is beneficial to him as he lives
on Locust Grove. Locust Grove is so busy he cannot
access the road during peak hours. According to the Ada
County Highway District traffic study, the development of
the property will increase the traffic on Locust Grove by
950 vehicles per day. He questions whether Locust Grove
can handle that amount of traffic until it is improved.
Locust Grove is to be improved in 1998, but the
improvements will probably not occur until the year 2000.
In response to a question from Commissioner Borup, Mr.
Bryan stated that the irrigation ditch which delivers
water to his property is not affected by the proposed
development of the property.
e. Marc Peterson testified substantially as follows.
With reference to the gates and pedestrian and bicycle
access to Wingate Lane from the property, he does not
agree with such access. His property is approximately
100 feet from the proposed location of the gates. He has
horses and livestock on his property. He has electric
fences along his property. He does not want people going
up and down Wingate Lane. He is also concerned about the
size of the lots. The Applicant has increased the lot
sizes around Carol Subdivision, but have not increased
the size of the lots directly across from his property.
He believes that the size of the lots along Carol
Subdivision and his property should be increased for the
reason of future widening of the road and a buffer zone
from the livestock. He likes the idea of a berm and
fence between the property and his property. Of
particular concern is that he saw the proposed
subdivision plat for the first time on March 10, 1997.
He was the last property owner to be approved by Ada
County to have access on Wingate Lane. To have the
access, he had to have a minimum five acre parcel of
property. It appears that the Applicant is attempting to
squeeze one more house in between his house and his
neighbor's house. It appears to him that this Lot 14,
Block 9 is land locked because it should not have access
to Wingate Lane and it does not have access to the
streets in the proposed subdivision. So he does not
believe that Lot 14, Block 9 should be a buildable lot.
He understands that the Applicant plans to split the lot
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
to put a lot in between the existing house on the lot and
his house.
f. Helen Sharp testified substantially as follows. She
cannot believe this development can be approved when
there is a conflict between the proposed subdivision plat
presented at this hearing and the one shown to the
neighbors at the March 10, 1997 neighborhood meeting.
She has spoken with Boise Planning and Zoning and there
is to be no more building on Wingate Lane, which means
that one cannot use Wingate Lane as a means of access to
the property. She is also advised that the area is a
buffer zone between Boise and Meridian. She was also
advised that one cannot divide the property if purchased
after 1968. The Borup portion of the property has been
sold to a young couple, which means it has not been zoned
but there is a break. Her concern is that the process is
not only zoning, but also planning. She would like to
see some planning done in this area. Wingate Lane is a
small one-half mile lane. Pictures have been presented
previously of Wingate Lane, and the question is what
benefit will the City of Meridian receive from this type
of zoning. Meridian does not need many new houses right
now. Realtors she has contacted say there are over 500
houses available, which does not include those houses
which are to be built in new subdivisions. Her property
abuts the property. A fence exists between her property
and the property, over which people dump their grass
clippings and other material. She requests that
foresight be used rather than hindsight. She realizes
that development is going to occur, but the development
should be accomplished with planning. She does think
that all of the issues have been addressed at this point.
g. Dixie Roberts testified substantially as follows.
She opposes the growth in the area in which the property
is located. She moved out to the area for country
living. The developers want to come and develop the
area, and ruin it, so to speak, for the residents in the
area. Her son tried to buy an acre from her to build on
it. But, because of the zoning he could not build on the
one acre parcel to be purchased from her. He was
required to own five acres. One and a quarter acre have
been sold since her son's attempt to purchase the one
acre. Her primary concern is the availability of
irrigation water, because her property is worthless
without the water. She does not want a Pump to irrigate
her property, but wants to be able to irrigate her
property the way she presently irrigates. The lay of the
land allows for the irrigation of the property without a
pump, and this is how the land should be irrigated.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Another issue is the number of children which will come
with the development. She loves children. However, if
the children enter upon her property where she has cows,
the children may be injured. Although there is to be no
access to Wingate Lane from the property, she is
concerned about the traffic on Wingate Lane created by
the proposed development of the property.
h. Craig Thompson testified substantially as follows.
He does not live adjacent to the property, but is
concerned with what will happen in the future. The
development should provide some type of blending effect.
He does not know how to make the area look nice when
there are five acre parcels of land next to a subdivision
development with 8,000 to 10,000 square feet lots. He
has a concern of children playing in the south slough.
He questions how safety can be promoted with the number
of people in the area. He questions why the proposed
plat presented at the hearing is different from the one
he saw previously. It bothers him that he is told one
thing but finds the contrary to be true or that things
are different. He thinks there are too many questions
right now. The Applicant should respond to the questions
and concerns presented.
i. Helen Sharp further testified substantially as
follows. A big issue is the crossing of Wingate Lane
with the sewer line. In response to a question of
clarification by Commissioner Borup, Helen Sharp stated
that Wingate Lane is a dedicated private lane pursuant to
a 1913 contract. She questions how the sewer line can
cross this private lane.
j. Vern Alleman further testified substantially as
follows. He has livestock on his property. He desires
a proper fence be constructed to protect against children
entering the area in which livestock are pastured.
18. At the March 11, 1997 public hearing Dan Wood testified
in favor of the application. Mr. Wood testified substantially as
follows. The City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan provides for
this area to be residential. The applicant proposing to
development this into a residential area. The size of the lots in
the proposed development of the property are larger than the lots
of surrounding subdivisions. The proposed lot sizes meet or exceed
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
the minimum requirements of the R-4 District. The Applicant is
doing everything it can to help the neighbors. However, the
Applicant, as the owner of the property, has rights. If it follows
the requirements of the City of Meridian, Ada County and the state
of Idaho, it should be able to develop the property as it desires.
19. At the March 11, 1997 public hearing, the Applicant's
representative, Pat Tealey, responded to the comments presented
from the public substantially as follows. With regard to
irrigation water, the Applicant must see that the same quantity of
water is delivered to the same place. Those neighboring land
owners will receive the same quantity of water at the same
location. If these land owners desire an agency review of the
Applicant's irrigation plans, the Applicant will gladly accept such
review by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, whether it has
jurisdiction, or the City of Meridian. The Applicant will not
provide pressurized irrigation to the neighboring land owners, but
will provide the irrigation water each is to receive. The
Applicant does not intend to disrupt the delivery of irrigation
water. The construction of the irrigation system will occur in the
winter so as not to interrupt the delivery of the irrigation water.
Situations do occur in which a contractor does not do what it is
suppose to do or complete the work timely; however, the Applicant
will do whatever it can, including entering into an agreement, to
assure that the delivery of irrigation water is not disrupted.
With regard to Wingate Lane, the Applicant does not plan to access
Wingate Lane in any way. An additional lot along Wingate Lane was
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
discussed at the March 10, 1997 neighborhood meeting, but that
additional lot is no longer part of the plan. Lot 14, Block 9 is
one lot, and the Applicant does not plan to split it to create
another lot. There exists a house on Lot 14, Block 9, but the
owner of the house does not own the entire area of this lot
represented on the proposed subdivision plat. In response to a
question of Commissioner Borup, Mr. Tealey stated that it is
correct that if the Lot 14 is changed,
proposed plat of the have to change and
configuration of the
subdivision will be
resubmitted for review. The Applicant does not plan and the Ada
County Highway District does not plan, based upon his conversations
with it, to improve Wingate Lane. It is to remain as it is.
Initially, the Applicant planned to ~ke Wingate Lane an access to
the property and to improve Wingate Lane by constructing curbs,
gutters and sidewalks and install water and sewer lines. However,
the Applicant was presented with so much opposition that it
abandoned its attempts to improve it. The Applicant's present
plans are to dead end an access road at the Alle~n property, so
that in the event the Alleman property is developed the road can be
extended to Ustick Road. With regard to the development of Packard
Subdivision No. 1, the Applicant is waiting for the approval of
this application so it knows the plan for the location of the lift
station. With regard to the sewer line crossing Wingate Lane,
although the Applicant owns the property over which the easement
exists for Wingate Lane, the Applicant cannot disrupt the use of
the easement. However, the Applicant maintains that the easement
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
for Wingate Lane does not preclude the installation of utilities
through the area of the easement. The Applicant believes it has
the right to cross Wingate Lane with utilities.
20. Mr. Sharp further testified at the March 11, 1997 public
hearing that he would like to see a gate constructed to discourage
people entering upon the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's
maintenance road for the Stokesberry Lateral and his property. He
would like to discourage traffic there, and a gate would stop
people from entering the area.
21. In response the Applicant's representative stated at the
March 11, 1997 public hearing that the Applicant had not discussed
such issue with the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District; however,
if it wanted a gate at the location the Applicant would construct
a gate there.
22. Richard A. Scarr submitted a letter dated March 10, 1997
concerning this application, and his concerns and desired
requirements for the development of the property. This letter is
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
23. R.W. and Mary Lee Peckenschneider submitted a letter
dated March 10, 1997 concerning this application, and their
concerns and desired requirements for the development of the
property. This letter is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
24. Floyd F. Reichert submitted a letter dated March 10, 1997
concerning this application, and his and his wife's support of the
application and their desired requirements for the development of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
the property.
in full.
25.
comments.
forth in
This letter is incorporated herein as if set forth
U.S. West submitted comments and may hereafter submit
Its submitted conunents are incorporated herein as if set
full and such comments hereafter submitted shall be
incorporated herein as if set forth in full when submitted. Its
submitted comments included that it requests a ten feet easement
along front and rear property lines, and a five feet easement along
all side lot lines.
26. Idaho Power submitted comments and may hereafter submit
comments. Its submitted comments are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full and such comments hereafter submitted shall be
incorporated herein as if set forth in full when submitted. Its
submitted comments included that it requires a permanent ten feet
wide easement along all lots adjacent to a road right-of-way
dedicated to public or private use.
27. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted
comments and may hereafter submit comments. Its submitted comments
are incorporated herein as if set forth in full and such comments
hereafter submitted shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in
full when submitted. Its submitted comments included the
following. Its Finch Lateral courses through the north portion of
the property. The right-of-way of the Finch Lateral is 80 feet: 40
feet from the center each way. Its Stokesberry Lateral courses
through the south portion of the property. The right-of-way of the
Stokesberry Lateral is 40 feet: 20 feet from the center each way.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
The Applicant must contact it for approval before any encroachment
or change of right-of-way occurs. It requires that a Land Use
Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to
final platting. All laterals and waste ways must be protected.
Municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any
surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District must review drainage plans. It is recommended that
irrigation water be made available to all developments within this
District.
28. The Central District Health Department submitted comments
and may hereafter submit comments. Its submitted comments are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full and such comments
hereafter submitted shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in
full when submitted. Its submitted comments included the
following. After written approval from the appropriate entities
are submitted, it can approve this proposal for central sewage and
central water. Plans for central sewage and central water must be
submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &
Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. Street runoff is not
to create a mosquito breeding problem. It recommends that the
first one half inch of storm water be pretreated through a grassy
swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to
groundwater and surface water quality. The engineers and
architects involved with the design of the project should obtain
current best management practices for storm water disposal and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
design a storm water management system that is preventing
groundwater and surface water degradation.
29. Joint School District No. 2 submitted co=~ents and may
hereafter submit comments. Its submitted comments are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full and such comments hereafter
submitted shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full when
submitted. Its submitted comments are summarized substantially as
follows:
(al
(b)
(o)
(d)
The proposed subdivision will create approximately 95
homes at a median value of $115,000.00;
The property is located within the attendance zone for
Chief Joseph Elementary, Meridian Middle School and Eagle
High School. It may have to bus children in the proposed
subdivision to other schools due to overcrowding;
Before it could support this application, it needs land
dedicated to it or at least made available at a minimum
price for a school site in the area. The site would need
water and sewer services available. It would also need
to pass another bond issue for the construction of
schools; and
It is in a difficult position and needs assistance to
deal with the impact of growth on schools.
30. The Meridian Fire Department submitted comments and may
hereafter submit comments. Its submitted comments are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full and such comments hereafter
submitted shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full when
submitted. Its submitted comments included that open spaces will
need to be kept clear of trash and weeds, and whether there will be
only one way in and out to E. Quartz St., N. Simerly Pl. and N.
Devlin Way.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
31. The Ada County Highway District submitted comments and
may hereafter submit comments. Its submitted comments are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full and such comments
hereafter submitted shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in
full when submitted. Its submitted comments included the
following:
a. The Applicant provide documentation to the District
that the authorized users of the private road have
subordinated their rights to use the road to the Highway
District to the extent that public roads and utilities
may cross the easement for the private road, o~ an
opinion from a practicing attorney that such crossings
can legally occur;
b. The Applicant construct all internal streets to a 37
feet back-to-back street section with 5 feet sidewalks
within a 50 feet right-of-way;
c. Two of the knuckles or half culdesacs shall be
constructed with median islands, maintaining a minimum
travel width of 21 feet to the back of the curb;
d. Ail landscaped medians shall be separate platted
lots owned and maintained by a homeowners association;
e. A minimum radius of 100 feet be maintained on all
curves having other than a 90 degree angle of deflection;
f. E. Challis Street, as depicted on the drawing on
file dated September 15, 1995, shall be dedicated but not
constructed across Wingate Lane until the two properties
south of the street crossing are developed and
construction has been approved bythe Ada County Highway
District Commission. The Applicant shall deposit the
cost of construction of E. Challis Street across Wingate
Lane and the cost of removal of the gates required in
item g., immediately hereinbelow, to the Public Rights-
of-Way Trust Fund;
g. Provide and install two gates, one at each end of
the unconstructed portion of E. Challis Street across
Wingate Lane, which will allow the passage of pedestrians
and bicycles, but not automobiles, along the
unconstructed section of said street;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
h. The Applicant constructa 14 feet wide all weather
road along the route of sanitary sewer line in all
unplatted areas of the proposed subdivision, including
the portion of E. Challis Street across Wingate Lane;
i. The Applicant provide a legal and physical means of
access from the Reichert parcel of property to the public
street system;
j. A request for modification, variance or waiver of
any requirement or policy outlined in the Ada County
Highway Districts submitted comments or comments
submitted hereafter shall be made in writing to the
Development Services Supervisor;
k. A right-of-way permit must be obtained from the Ada
County Highway District for any street or utility
construction within the public right-of-way. Utility
cuts should be combined where practical to limit pavement
damage;
1. The Applicant shall submit site drainage plans and
calculations for review and appropriate action by the Ada
County Highway District prior to issuance of building
permits or other required permits. The proposed drainage
system shall retain all storm water on-site and shall
conform to the requirements of the City of Meridian;
m. Public street drainage facilities shall be located
in the public right-of-way or in a co~on lot owned by a
homeowners association set aside specifically for that
use. There shall be no trees, fences, bushes, sheds or
other valuable amenities placed in said easement.
Drainage lots and their use restrictions shall be noted
on the plat when applicable;
n. The Applicant shall locate driveway curb cuts a
minimum of 5 feet from the side lot property lines when
driveways are not being shared with the adjacent
property;
o. The Applicant construct pedestrian ramps on the
corner of all street intersections in compliance with
Idaho Code Section 40-1335;
p. The Applicant dedicate a 20 feet by 20 feet right-
of-way triangle, or an appropriate curve to keep street
improvements within the public right-of-way, at all
intersections abutting and/or within the development
prior to issuance of building permits or other required
permits;
FINDINGS OF FACT A~D CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
q. The Applicant continue existing irrigation and
drainage systems across the parcel of property;
r. The Applicant continue the borrow ditch drainage
abutting the parcel of property and culverts may be
required;
s. The Applicant provide written approval from the
appropriate irrigation/drainage district authorizing
storm runoff into their system;
t. If street improvements are proposed, the Applicant
locate obstructions; such as utility facilities,
irrigation and drainage ditches and appurtenances;
outside of the public right-of-way, as may be required by
the Ada County Highway District. The Applicant shall
obtain authorization for relocations from the appropriate
entity;
u. The Applicant locate proposed sign(s) out of the
public right-of-way and out of the clear-vision triangle
of all street and driveway intersections;
v. The Applicant install a stop sign on every
unsignalized approach of a project street to an
intersection involving a collector or arterial as a
cross-street. The stop sign shall be installed when the
project street is first accessible to the motoring
public;
w. The Applicant is required to install street name
signs at the locations approved by the Ada County Highway
District. The Applicant shall purchase street name
signs, sign poles and mounting hardware from the Ada
County Highway District's Traffic Operation Department or
an approved outside supplier. The District will not
manufacture street signs until a copy of the recorded
plat showing the recording data has been provided to
Development Services staff;
x. The Applicant shall cause to be provided a clear
vision sight triangle at all street intersections.
Within this triangle, no obstructions higher than 36
inches above the top of the pavement will be allowed,
including landscaping, berms, fences, walls or shrubs.
The triangle shall be defined by the long leg measured
down the centerline of any collector 350 feet and the
short leg measured down the centerline from the collector
street curb line 20 feet. The Applicant shall provide
notes on the plat and street construction of these
restrictions;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 21.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
y. The Applicant shall submit three sets of street
construction plans to the Ada County Highway District for
review and appropriate action;
z. The Applicant shall provide design data for proposed
access to public streets for review and appropriate
action by the Ada County Highway District;
aa. Ail public streets and drainage systems shall be
designed and constructed in conformance with the Ada
County Highway District's standards and policies;
bb. Specifications, land surveys, reports, plats,
drawings, plans, design information and calculations
presented to Ada County Highway District shall be sealed,
signed and dated by a Registered Professional Engineer or
Professional Land Surveyor in compliance with Idaho Code
Section 54-1215;
cc. The Applicant shall submit revised plans for staff
approval which incorporates any required design changes
prior to issuance of building permits or other required
permits; and
dd. The construction, use and property development shall
be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the
Ada County Highway District prior to District approval
for occupancy.
32. The Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles,
submitted comments and may hereafter submit comments. Her
submitted comments are incorporated herein asif set forth in full
and such comments hereafter submitted shall be incorporated herein
as if set forth in full when submitted. Her submitted comments
included the following:
a. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan indicates the need
for a park in the area of the property. With over 75
acres annexed or proposed for annexation in Packard
Subdivision No. 1 and Packard Subdivision No. 2, open
space appears inadequate to mitigate the impacts of the
both subdivisions;
b. The south slough is designated as a future pathway
in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Construction shall
be in accordance with the Ada County Pathway Plan and the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 22.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
City of Meridian's requirements. Any relocation of the
south slough will negate its consideration as a "natural
waterway" and will require tiling;
c. Perimeter fencing shall be required prior to
obtaining building permits. The south slough shall be
fenced with non-combustible fencing outside of
existing/required easement to accommodate future
pathways;
d. A development agreement is required as a condition
of annexation;
e. [At the time these comments are made,] no school
capacity is available to serve this subdivision;
f. No access is available to the property [at the time
these comments are made];
g. She has had reports that apartments have been
constructed on Lot 7, Block 2. In the event these
reports are accurate, this lot does not conform to the R-
4 District zoning requirements. Additionally, it would
appear that this proposed lot has already been split
illegally;
h. Ail corner lots shall have a minimum of 80 feet of
frontage. For purposes of calculating frontage, the line
length plus one-half of the curve length is used. Some
lots of the proposed subdivision; such as Lots, 1, 3, 4
and 6, Block 7; will need arrows indicating the direction
the house must face;
i. Lot square footages are to be determined exclusive
of irrigation easements. The south slough area should be
designated as a separate lot to be owned and maintained
by the homeowners association;
j. Phasing of the development of the project, if
applicable, shall be indicated on the preliminary plat;
k. Easements shall be provided as required by City
Ordinance Section 11-9-605 D.;
1. Any changes to existing natural features shall meet
the approval of the City of Meridian and the appropriate
public agency prior to any construction activity taking
place;
m. Pressurized irrigation is to be supplied to all lots
within the proposed subdivision;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 23.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
n. Buffering of adjacent residential rural lots is
required. While consideration has been given to some
adjacent property owners, the lots in Block 6 do not show
the same consideration;
o. Ail ditches crossing or abutting the property are to
be tiled per City Ordinance unless a variance is granted;
p. Driving lanes at culdesacs, "knuckles," at the north
and the south ends of N. Malachite Avenue, with a 21 feet
width, do not appear to be adequate; and
q. Applicant is to address all of the foregoing
comments, in writing, and submit such response to the
City of Meridian's Clerk's office.
33. The Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton,
submitted general and site specific comments and he or the City
Engineer may hereafter submit general and site specific comments.
The submitted general and site specific comments of the Assistant
to the City Engineers are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full and such general and site specific cor~ents hereafter
submitted by the Assistant to the City Engineer or the City
Engineer shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full when
submitted. The general and site specific comments submitted by the
Assistant to the City Engineer included the following:
General Comments:
a. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing
the property to be included in the proposed project shall
be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. The ditches to
be piped are to be shown on the preliminary plat of the
proposed subdivision. Plans will need to be approved by
the appropriate irrigation/drainage district or lateral
users association, with written confirmation of said
approval submitted to the Public Works Department. No
variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches
crossing the proposed project;
b. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
within this project will have to be removed from their
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 24.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517.
Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation;
c. The Applicant shall determine the seasonal high
groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the
subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil
scientist with the street development plans;
d. The Applicant shall submit a copy of proposed
restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions for the
City of Meridian's review;
e. The Applicant shall provide 5 feet sidewalks in
accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B.;
f. Water service to the proposed development is
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic
analysis by the City of Meridian's compute model;
g. The Applicant shall sUbmit a letter of approval from
the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the
subdivision and street names. The Applicant shall make
any necessary corrections to the preliminary plat map
prior to resubmittal to the City of Meridian;
h. The Applicant is to coordinate fire hydrant
placement with the City of Meridian's Water Works
Superintendent;
i. The Applicant shall indicate any existing FEMAFlood
Plain Boundaries on the preliminaryplat map, and/or any
plans to reduce said boundaries;
j. The Applicant shall submit a master street drainage
plan, including the method of disposal and approval from
the affected irrigation/drainage district; and
k. The Applicant is to respond, in writing, to all of
the comments of the Assistant to the City Engineer, and
submit the responses with copies of the revised
preliminary plat map to the City of Meridian's Clerk's
office.
Site Specific Comments:
a. The legal description submitted with the application
and the preliminary plat appears to meet the annexation
criteria of the City of Meridian and Idaho State Tax
Commission;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 25.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
b. Sanitary sewer service to the property shall be via
an extension of the south slough sewer interceptor. [As
of the date these comments are made], the south slough
interceptor is at Locust Grove Road, approximately 1,800
feet west of the proposed development. The interceptor
line would need to cross the length of the proposed
"Cha~erlain Estates" parcel and parcel owned by Vern
Alleman. Without the extended interceptor line, the
proposed development is not serviceable with the City of
Meridian's municipal system. The Applicant will be
responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through
the proposed development. The subdivision designer is to
coordinate main sizing and routing with the Meridian
Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be
provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west
sides of the centerline. [At the time these comments are
made,] the preliminary plat submitted does not show how
the proposed development will be served. Until the sewer
line routing is proposed, this development should not be
considered;
c. Water service to this property could be via mains
installed in N. Hickory Way as part of the first phase of
the "Dove Meadows" project; however, [at the time these
comments are made,] the approved preliminary plat of
"Dove Meadows" [had] expired beyond the one year time
frame established by the City of Meridian's ordinances
for completing the second phase. This leaves a gap of
approximately 300 feet between the existing water main
and property that the Applicant controls (Packard
Subdivision No. 1). The Applicant shall be responsible
to construct the water mains to and through the proposed
development. The subdivision designer is to coordinate
the main sizing and routing with the Meridian Public
Works Department. [At the time these co~ents are made,]
the preliminary plat submitted does not show how the
proposed development will be served. Until the water
line routing is proposed, this development should not be
considered;
d. The subdivision designer is to coordinate E.
Carnelian street stub alignment into the proposed
"Chamberlain Estates" with Eubble Engineering, Inc.;
e. The Applicant is to revise the preliminary plat map
to show all adjacent land use and existing zoning of
properties surrounding the proposed development,
including existing or approved proposed streets and lots,
and to include all proposed and existing utilities
including pressurized irrigation, with proposed source,
and addressing all other comments of the Assistant to the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 26.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
City Engineer. The Applicant is to resubmit the
preliminary plat with said revisions;
f. The Applicant is to submit a master street grading
and drainage plan including the method of disposal and
the approval from the affected irrigation/drainage
district;
g. One hundred watt high pressure sodium street lights
will be required at locations designated by the Meridian
Public Works Department. Ail street lights shall be
installed at the Applicant's expense. Typical locations
of the street lights are at street intersections and/or
fire hydrants;
h. The minimum street frontage for Lot 17, Block 2
shall be eighty feet, measured at the arc for the curved
portion per City of Meridian ordinance;
i. Lots 1 and 6, Block 7 shall have a limitation on
house orientation towards N. Hickory Way. Lots 3 and 4,
Block 7 shall have a limitation on house orientation
towards N. Malachite Ave. Lot 5, Block 6 shall have a
limitation on house orientation towards E. Meadowgrass
Street. Lot 7, Block 10 shall have a limitation on house
orientation towards N. Devlin. The Applicant is to
indicate said house orientations on the preliminary plat
and final plat maps;
j. The Applicant is to provide a 50 feet radius paved
temporary turn around at the westerly end of Quartz St.;.
k. The preliminary plat map contour lines need to be
labeled and tied to an established benchmark;
1. The preliminary plat map needs to be stamped, signed
and dated by the design engineer or land surveyor;
m. The Applicant is to provide statements of
dedications to the public and/or easements, together with
a statement of location, dimension and purpose of the
dedication or easements;
n. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the
City of Meridian's water system to pressurized irrigation
system being proposed will need to be reviewed closely
due to the size of the area to be watered. The Applicant
shall provide a statement as to the ownership of, and
operation and maintenance for the pressurized irrigation
system;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 27.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
o. The Applicant is to revise, the preliminary plat map
to show the extension of N. Wingate Ave. across the
Reichert property. The Applicant shall make provisions
in the design to accommodate access from this extension
to the Sharp parcel;
p. The width of the pavement in the "90 degree Knuckle"
turn outs need to be reviewed and approved by the
Meridian Fire Department and Meridian Joint School
District No. 2; and
q. The correspondence between Larr~ Sale of the Ada
County Highway District and Gary Smith, P.E., Meridian
City Engineer, respectively dated October 2, 1995 and
October 12, 1995 are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full.
34. The Applicant's represenative, Ted Hutchinson of Tealey's
Land Surveying, responded to the general and site specific comments
of the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, by letter
dated December 12, 1995. The responses contained in said letter of
December 12, 1995 are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
35. The Applicant's representative, Pat Tealey, testified
substantially as follows at the May 6, 1997 public hearing on this
application. This application was originally submitted in 1995.
The Applicant has been going through this process for some two and
one-half years, and it has finally come to City Council. The
Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously on March 11, 1997
to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law to support an
annexation of the property. The property is adjacent to and
abutting the present city limits of the City of Meridian. The
property is within the area of impact to the City of Meridian, and
is included in the Urban Service Planning Area of the City of
Meridian.
The property is designated in the Meridian Comprehensive
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 28.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Plan as singlefamily residential. Ail services can be provided to
this parcel as a condition of this annexation. The Applicant is
requesting R-4 zoning of the property which is consistent with the
zoning in the immediate area.
36. Vern Alleman testified at the May 6, 1997 hearing
substantially as follows. As a point of clarification, the plat
for the property shows the irrigation district as Settlers
Irrigation District. This designation cannot be correct because
the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District delivers the irrigation
water and collects the irrigation taxes. He is concerned about the
delivery of the irrigation water to his property which flows
through the property according to plat dated April 1997. He does
not find on the plat map how the irrigation water is delivered to
his property through the property, or any of the applicable
specifications such as size of the pipe, grade or placement of
manholes. He specifically requests that as a condition of the
approval of the plat that such applicable information be set forth
on the plat, and the specific time period of October 15 to March 15
be designated as the period for construction of the irrigation
system for the continued delivery of irrigation water to his and
surrounding the property. As a result of another development and
the failure of the irrigation system to be completed on time, he
suffered damage to his crops due to a lack of irrigation water.
Additionally, the developer, who was to install the system for the
delivery of irrigation water in accordance with specific
requirements, attempted to cover the system before it was
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 29.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
inspected. An inspection was made of the system. However, if the
inspection had not been ~made, the system would have been installed
improperly. Based upon his experiences, he specifically requests
that Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, the City Engineer and he
have the opportunity to examine and approve the installation of the
irrigation water delivery system. There were problems created with
the delivery of irrigation water with the development of the
property where Fred Meyer is located, which he understands was the
result of improper installation of that system. He understands
that his irrigation water delivery system should be depicted on the
plat for future reference in the event there is an issue of access
for the delivery of irrigation water. Otherwise there should be a
recorded easement to avoid future problems concerning access to the
property in the event there is a problem with the irrigation
system. Livestock and children are not compatible. ~e
specifically requests the installation of a six foot high chain
link fence on the north side of the property, and the south side of
his property to prevent children and dogs from entering upon his
property where livestock are pastured. He also requests the
erection of a fence between the property and his property to the
west, which he understands to be a requirement of the City.
37. In response to a question of Councilman Rountree, Mr.
Alleman testified he does not have any objections to the annexation
of the property as long as the Applicant complies with the imposed
requirements.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 30.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
38. Dale Sharp testified at the May 6, 1997 hearing
substantially as follows. The Applicant has stated that it intends
to provide utility services across the private road known as
Wingate Lane. The agreement concerning the existence and use of
Wingate Lane has existed since 1913. Wingate Lane must be
maintained as a private road. The Ada County Highway District has
made some comments which concerns and affects Wingate Lane, for
which it has no legal basis. Addressing the issue of whether
Wingate Lane is a public road, Mr. Sharp read from a letter written
by his attorney as follows: "It appears evident that there is no
statutory basis pursuant to Idaho Code Section 40-202 and relevant
Idaho case law, including Cox vs. Co~, 84 Idaho 513, 373 P.2d 929
(1962), to support the idea that the proposed crossroad being
proposed to be built across the private road would in any way
satisfy the test for being a public road, so that unless the County
Highway District undertook some affirmative action to declare the
road a public and/or record some as a public road in compliance
with such statutes. Your private road . . . [inaudible] based upon
the facts as represented to me it appears that there is no
satisfaction of statutory or criteria to declare the private road
a public road in any respect of the current." He wanted to raise
this point so in the event the Applicant crosses Wingate Lane with
utilities, sewer or whatever, there cannot be access for
pedestrians, bicyclists or any other unauthorized user. There
exists a question of liability arising from an increase in traffic.
He requests that Wingate Lane be protected from such traffic, and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAw - Page 31.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
there be no public access on the road. The residents along Wingate
Lane need the construction of fences and a gate across the Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District road. He has spoken with Bill Henson
from Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District who said the District
would be willing to work with the developer to construct a gate
across the District's road. As part of the approval of Packard
Subdivision No. 1, the Applicant was to build a lift station in
that subdivision development. However, it is now moving that lift
station to the property. The moving of the lift station from
Packard Subdivision No. 1 to the property renders null and void
Packard Subdivision No. 1 because the lift station has been
eliminated. With regard to the delivery of irrigation water, he
has a ditch that courses on the side of his property which comes in
behind the subdivision to the west of his property and services
property adjacent to Locust Grove. He also has a lateral which
courses on the east side of his property which goes down through
the Brown property, past Reichert's and Brown's subdivision and
services Alleman's property. The developer has stated that it will
tile those ditches and assure the delivery of irrigation water. He
does not want construction workers or equipment on or using Wingate
Lane. Wingate Lane is a private lane, and the landowners along
Wingate Lane have collectively agreed that it will remain a private
lane. In the event the sewer service lines or utilities cross
Wingate Lane, he does not want such lines or utilities to impede
access to Ustick Road, to the homes along Wingate Lane, or
otherwise inconvenience those who live along Wingate Lane. He
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 32.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
desires fences to protect livestock in the area, as well as,
barriers to prevent dumping of refuse and people entering upon his
and other owners' property. People
over the fence onto his property.
discarded rocks and cement on his
throw their grass clippings
Construction workers have
and adjacent property. He
objects to the zoning of Packard Subdivision No. 2. He does not
think the development of the property is needed. Plenty of houses
exist and are available. The grow-th is not good for services the
City of Meridian provides. The schools are overly impacted by the
growth. The traffic on Locust Grove is a mess. The development of
the property will create more traffic on Locust Grove. With regard
to the sewer system with a lift station, as pointed out by Mr.
Smith at the hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Applicant cannot develop the entire subdivision because a lift
station will not provide the necessary service. He thinks there
needs to be a more definite statement as to the development plans
for the property to avoid future changes in the plans and
development of the property. He is opposed to the application.
39. Dixie Roberts testified at the May 6, 1997 hearing
substantially as follows. She shares the concerns expressed by
others. Her main concern is the delivery of irrigation water.
Without irrigation water her land is worthless and she does not
want the delivery system changed. She does not want the pump
system installed. Her property is set up for regular flow
irrigation. The use of Wingate Lane is also a concern to her. It
is a private lane, which the users have invested money for its
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 33.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
maintenance. She does not want other people having access to
Wingate Lane. Children also present a concern. She has livestock
on her property, which is in close proximity of the property. She
has a concern for the safety of the children. Her son attempted to
purchase from her a parcel of property, the size of which was less
than five acres, upon which he was to build a house. The Applicant
is now allowed to sell its property, which is adjacent to her
property, in parcels which are less than five acres. She does not
know how this can occur. She is opposed to the application.
40. A1 Dauven testified at the May 6, 1997 hearing
substantially as follows. He lives kitty corner from the property.
The Applicant's representative stated that all the surrounding
property is zoned R-4. He does not know how all the surrounding
property can be zoned R-4 on the east and north sides of the
property when those properties are five acre parcels. The
development of the property as proposed will create lower income
houses with a lot of children. His attorney says that if the
application is approved without certain conditions, the City of
Meridian is in jeopardy of lawsuits. The City of Meridian is not
providing for parks in the area of the property. A park does not
exist within a four mile radius of the property. Assuming that 95
houses are constructed on the property, many children will move
into this R-4 residential zone. There exists a five acre parcel
next to the property with a stream running thrOugh it. He has five
to eight horses pastured on his property. He is not willing to be
responsible for the children from the property who come onto his
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 34.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
property. One does not know what a horse or other animal may do.
The horse could charge a child and trample him or her. This issue
is a consideration to the approval of the application. He
acknowledges that his property is in the City of Meridian's Area of
City Impact, but the residents in this area need to be contacted
concerning development of the area. In the plans for the area,
there is a nice green path drawn across his property, the existence
of which he does not agree. No one has spoken with him about this
green path, and the City of Meridian has no right to place such
path on his property. The Planning and Zoning Commission is
nothing but a joke. Commissioners go to sleep during the
presentation of testimony and it ignores the facts. These issues
are considerations for this application. The prior subdivision
developments abutted property which was being farmed and no
livestock pastured on it. However, this property abuts land on
which livestock is pastured. He does not understand how the
Applicant could split and sell the Brown house which is
approximately one-half acre in size, or how the Applicant split and
sold the Borup house which is less than one-half acre in size.
These are issues which need to be addressed. He is not permitted
to split and sell a portion of his property. These issues need to
be addressed, and there must be consideration given to the
residents of the adjacent properties. The development of the
property impacts his life, but he is not impacting the Applicant's
development. The Applicant will make a profit by impacting him.
The property should be developed as the people want it developed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 35.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
The children in the subdivisions are not supervised very well, and
they go onto adjacent properties and into the slough. There was an
incident earlier this year in which a three year old just about
drown in the ditch right-of-way just above the location of the
diversion for his ditch water. Had the child's father not been
there, the child would have drown. He is a Meridian businessman so
the development, because the development provides him
for me, but development needs to follow the applicable
he likes
business
rules.
41. Billy Jo Premoe
substantially as follows.
testified at the May 6, 1997 hearing
He wants to go on record as being in
opposition to the application and the development of the property.
His quality of life will change if the proposed subdivision is
approved. He has lived in the area of the property for 14 years,
and he is probably one of the new residents in this area. He
appreciates the quality of life he has. When he purchased his
property on Wingate Lane, he was assured that there would be no
more building along Wingate Lane. The area is in agricultural use,
and he recognizes the area is changing. The majority of the
residents in the area desire to keep the area as it is and beg for
the considerations to their needs.
42. Mark Peterson testified at the May 6, 1997 hearing
substantially as follows. He wants to go on record as being in
opposition to the application and the proposed subdivision. His
property is adjacent to two sides of the proposed subdivision. He
too has livestock on his property. He emphasizes that if the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 36.
P.N,E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
application and proposed subdivision is approved, the residents of
the subdivision cannot have access to Wingate Lane. The
installation of a simple barricade is not sufficient to prevent
access to Wingate Lane. It is easy for children on bicycles or
people walking to go around such barricade and access Wingate Lane.
He is uncertain whether the Applicant has shown
property owners a proper type of
prevent access to Wingate Lane.
43. Don Brian testified
barricade which
the surrounding
it proposes to
substantially as follows. He has two concerns with the application
and the proposed development of the property. His number one
concern is the increase of traffic to result from the development
of the property. If he does not leave his house before 7:00 a.m.,
he cannot get onto Locust Grove, because the traffic is bumper to
bumper all day long. With regard to the consideration of this
application, the City of Meridian has information concerning an Ada
County District traffic study and the results of the study which
date back to October 1995 when this application was first before
the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ada County Highway District
determined that the proposed subdivision will generate
approximately 950 additional trips' per day on Locust Grove Road.
This information dates back to January 1994. The Ada County
Highway District made a traffic count of 2,794 vehicles on Locust
Grove Road as of October 2, 1996, and the vehicle trips per day on
Locust Grove Road were 10,026. Accordingly, a substantial
difference exists between the prior study of Ada County Highway
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 37.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
at the May 6, 1997 hearing
District and the present traffic conditions concerning the traffic
impact from this proposed development of the property. He
acknowledges the position that the upkeep and development of the
roadways is the responsibility of the Ada County Highway District.
However, according to the Ada County Highway District, the
construction date for improving and widening Locust Grove Road is
in the year 2001. Consequently, the new subdivision developments
create an increase in traffic, but improvements to accommodate the
increase in the traffic will not occur until 2001 assuming the
Locust Grove Road project is not delayed. He wanted to bring up
this issue of increased traffic to determine whether other traffic
studies have been completed, what solutions exist to address the
traffic issue, and how it affects the approval of the application
and proposed subdivision on the property. His second concern
pertains to fencing and livestock. The issue of separation of the
rural and agricultural land with livestock, and the residential
land. He has first hand experience with the combination of the two
areas. The residents along Wingate Lane have horses, and there
needs to be fgncing which separates the residents of the
subdivision and the livestock and prevents the residents from
entering upon the property where the livestock are pastured. The
residents in the developed subdivisions think they have a petting
zoo behind Fred Meyer. As a result he had to post his property.
As a condition of the approval of the annexation and the proposed
subdivision development, there should exist a requirement for a
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 38.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
separation between the residential area and the pastures
animals, such as a solid fence.
44. Floyd Reichert testified at the May 6, 1997
substantially as follows. He wants to go on record as
favor of the application and the proposed subdivision. His
property is adjacent to the east side of the property by the old
Kirkpatrick property and Brown property on the north side. The
expressed concerns to the application and proposed subdivision can
probably be alleviated by tiling the irrigation ditches. When he
first purchased his property along Wingate Lane, he had difficulty
obtaining a building permit due to the access to his property. He
was given an easement for the access as part of the deed to his
property. Subsequently, the other residents along Wingate Lane
have had no problem receiving approval for the construction of
their houses, but now they desire to deny other people access to
Wingate Lane. He has a problem with the livestock of the residents
along Wingate Lane. The livestock go through the fences and rip up
his flower beds and yard. If one looks at the community's interest
as a whole, he believes the Applicant's development proposal is a
worth while project to address the traffic problems on Fairview,
Eagle Road and Locust Grove. The traffic on Ustick is bad and will
only get worse. It [Wingate Lane] should be used for access
through that mile section to eliminate some of the traffic
problems. With regard to utilities, the utilities are under it
[Wingate Lane], so public utilities lay in the right of way of
Wingate Lane.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 39.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
for the
hearing
being in
45. ~elen Sharp testified at the May 6, 1997 hearing
substantially as follows. The ordinances must be observed and
followed. She has been advised that a buffer zone between Ada
County and Meridian exists, and this buffer zone is located in the
area where she lives on Wingate Lane. As a resident on Wingate
Lane she desires the buffer zone to continue, and she, therefore,
opposes the proposed zoning change. With regard to the applicable
ordinances, Mr. and Mrs. Kirkpatrick requested to split off one
acre of their property because of the work required to maintain it.
They were not allowed to split their property because of the buffer
zone. As a result, they were not able to do what they desired and
had to sell all their property. She realizes that comprehensive
plans are created and every time something is rezoned it is
changed, but such changes Occur when requested by a few people at
the expense of those opposed. At one corner of the property or
section is a large farm and a church. At the opposite corner of
the property on Locust Grove and Ustick is 20 acres of farm land,
the owner of which does not propose to sell it or have it
developed. She owns five acres in the area of the property, and
has lived there since 1968 with the idea that one cannot split the
property, portions of the property have been split and sold by the
Applicant. The splitting of the property is prohibited by
ordinance, so does one abide by the ordinance or does the one with
the loudest voice, such as a developer, get what is desired
contrary to the ordinance. With regard to lift stations, are lift
stations appropriate for the City of Meridian? If [gravity] sewer
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 40.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
is not available, the developer and the development of the property
should wait until it is available. She recognizes that the City of
Meridian and the entire Treasure Valley is experiencing tremendous
growth. She believes more planning is needed. Development of
property for the sake of development is not an answer. Livestock
do occasionally escape from their pasture. She has presented
pictures of the area in which the property is located, and she
prefers the rural type of area rather than a mass of houses.
According to realtors she has spoken with, there presently exists
an abundance of houses, which does not include the houses to be
constructed. Presently, there exists over 600 vacant and available
houses. She believes there is no demand for the construction of
additional houses. Maybe such demand will occur in the future and
it is at that time she may be willing to give up her five acres for
development. Potential buyers of houses in the proposed
subdivision need to be advised of the lift station and the monthly
or quarterly charge for the operation of the lift station.
Further, when the [gravity] sewer is available the lift station
will be eliminated and the residents will have to connect to the
sewer. With regard to the requirement of connecting to the sewer
system, the proposed development would bring the sewer within 300
feet of her property which may create the requirement to connect
her property to the sewer system. The City Engineer attempted to
advise the Planning and Zoning Commission that the issues
concerning the sewer were not resolved, yet it was passed onto the
City Council with the idea that the City Council would decide what
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 41.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
needs to be done. Additionally, Mr. and Mrs. Premoe tried to build
a 20 x 40 shop on their property, but they were unable to because
the size of their property was less than five acres. She
recognizes that Wingate Lane is to have only four houses
constructed along it, but there are many more houses. However, if
a developer can rezone property and build upon it, property owners
should be able to build a shop on their property.
46. The Applicant's representative, Pat Tealey, responded to
the comments of the public at theM ay 6, 1997 hearing substantially
as follows. The sensitive issue appears to be Wingate Lane. The
Applicant proposes no access to Wingate Lane whatsoever from the
proposed subdivision. The Applicant owns the property on which
Wingate Lane runs, and the residents along Wingate Lane have an
easement for access. The Applicant will enter into a development
agreement which will address many of the expressed concerns, such
as fencing and irrigation issues. The Applicant will fence the
entire property as part of the proposed subdivision. As the phases
of the proposed subdivision are approved and built, the Applicant
will provide for delivery of irrigation water to each parcel of
property that receives irrigation through the ditch on the
property. The Applicant will pipe the irrigation water, and will
provide an easement for that pipe in the recorded subdivision plat
on each phase. Wingate Lane will remain private with no access
from the proposed subdivision. There was some mention of the Ada
County Highway District traffic study. The Applicant conferred
with the Ada County Highway District two months ago. Ada County
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 42.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Highway District advised the Applicant that a new traffic study is
not needed, and that they have updated figures concerning traffic.
The information and data supplied as part of the traffic study have
not changed. The updated traffic figures from Ada County Highway
District showed that the level of service for Eagle Road and Locust
Grove Road will not suffer. These studies are not the Applicant's
studies, but studies of the Ada County Highway District. The
commuter traffic will shift from Locust Grove as a result of the
construction of Hickory, which is a collector road that ends in the
middle of the subdivision. Mr. Alleman alluded to the delivery of
irrigation water and the problems that he has had with.developers
in the past. The Applicant will sign a development agreement
guaranteeing him access to his irrigation water and that the
Applicant shall provide easements through the plats as the
subdivision phases are developed. The period for construction will
be such to avoid interruption to the delivery of irrigation water.
With regard to the traffic problems on Locust Grove, Ustick and
surrounding roads, each of the lots in the subdivision will be
assessed an impact fee to fund the construction of improvements on
these surrounding roads to improve the flow traffic.
47. In response to questions of Councilman Morrow, Gary
Smith, the City Engineer, commented substantially as follows. On
or about April 25th he received some prints for the sewer system
for the development of the property from engineer David Marks of
Tealey's Land Surveying. On these prints, Mr. Marks outlined the
revised location of a lift station to the northwest corner of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 43.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Packard Subdivision No. 2 from the northwest corner of Packard
Subdivision No. 1. The relocation of the lift station would
require the installation of some eight inch diameter lines from the
northwest corner of Packard Subdivision No. 1 to the location of
the lift station. The sewage then from Packard Subdivision No. 1,
the 9roposed Packard Subdivision No. 2 and the progosed elementary
school site to the east of Packard Subdivision No. I would flow to
the northwest corner of the
The sewage would then be
Subdivision which would then
proposed Packard Subdivision No. 2.
pumped into Chamberlain Estates
gravity flow into the south slough
that has been built. This sewer system plan and the flow of the
sewage is referred to by the Applicant as option 2. Option 1,
which is shown on the [original] plan, provides for the sewer to
cross vern Alleman's property with a gravity sewer interceptor line
which is an extension of the south slough. The Applicant has
spoken with Mr. Alleman over the past several years concerning an
easement for the sewer line. Mr. Alleman has offered to discuss
the grant of the easement subject to approximately 19 different
conditions. These conditions were set forth in writing in a letter
to the Applicant, a copy of which he received from Mr. Tealey for
his file. At this point in time, Mr. Alleman has not consented to
an easement for a gravity sewer line. However, he has spoken with
Mr. Alleman recently, and he does not believe that the grant of the
easement presents an insurmountable situation. However, there
exist two proposals for sewering the property. The gravity sewer
line to the lift station in the northwest corner of the proposed
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 44.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Packard Subdivision No. 2 is less than the minimum grade for an
eight inch sewer line. There is approximately 1,500 feet of line
that would be at 3/10 percent slope. Mr. Marks from Tealey's Land
Surveying said this grade could be increased by raising the
elevation of the sewer line in Packard Subdivision No. 1. He does
not know to what extent, but there apparently exists an option to
increase the grade of the sewer line in Packard Subdivision No. 1.
He does not think this is a significant problem. He [Mr. Marks]
has estimated the velocities in the lengths of sewer lines at 3/10
percent slope at about one and one-half feet per second. This
velocity is slightly less than the two feet per second minimum at
which was looked for in an eight inch line. It appears that the
sewer lines will be less than 4/10 percent even if the lift station
is not constructed. However, these details need to be worked out.
The one positive point of the relocation of the lift station from
Packard Subdivision No. 1 to Packard Subdivision No. 2 is that the
sewage will be pumped into the service area for the south slough.
In Packard Subdivision No. 1, the sewage was pumped into another
service area which is not the drainage area for Packard Subdivision
No.1. The relocation of the lift station places the sewage into
the south slough drainage basin.
48. In response to a further question of Councilman Morrow,
Gary Smith, commented substantially as follows. The resolution for
the sewering of the property is not a detailed resolution.
However, he thinks there are twQ viable alternatives. One
alternative would require the agreement of an adjacent property
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Pa~e 45.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
owner for the grant of an easement for the sewer line. Ee does not
think the grant of this easement presents an insurmountable
situation, but it comes to the negotiations between the Applicant
and Mr. Alleman. The other alternative is the installation of a
lift station, which, from an engineering standpoint, is possible.
He has not seen any details of what will occur in Packard
Subdivision No. i as compared to that which has been approved and
that which is presently under construction. He assumes that the
Applicant is able to connect to the facilities being constructed in
Packard Subdivision No. 1, and extend the sewer line to the north
and to the west to extend the sewer lines to the northwest corner
of proposed Packard Subdivision No. 2.
49. In response to
Stiles, the Planning
substantially as follows.
questions of Councilman Morrow, Shari
and Zoning Administrator, commented
She has received notarized consents to
the application from property owners whose property is included as
part of the application.
50. In response to a question from Mayor Corrie, Gary Smith,
the City Engineer, stated that the lift station is an interim lift
station.
51. With regard to the map of the proposed lift station and
its presentation, the Applicant's representative, Pat Tealey,
testified substantially as follows. The map depicts the location
of Packard Subdivision No. 1' and the lift station in the
subdivision, which is presently an approved temporary lift station
right now in this position. With regard to Packard Subdivision No.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 46.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
2, if the property is annexed and Packard Subdivision No. 2 is
approved, the lift station will be moved to the area depicted on
the map. The map depicts the area in which the south slough is
located and the location of the last manhole of the south slough.
There is 230 feet between the last manhole of the south slough and
the Applicant's property. If the Applicant is granted an easement,
which is option number 1, the Applicant will construct and install
a gravity flow sewer line for the sewage to flow into the south
slough and eliminate all of the lift stations. If the Applicant
cannot come to an agreement with Mr. Alleman, it proposes locating
the lift station to a location depicted on the map until Mr.
Alleman sells his land, develops it himself, or the City of
Meridian obtains some type of easement for construction of the
south slough sewer interceptor. At such time the lift station will
be eliminated, and the sewer system flows by gravity to the south
slough interceptor. The 40 acres as depicted is Packard
Subdivision No. 1, and to the east is the new elementary school
which will receive sewer service through Packard Subdivision No. 1.
The sewage would eventually flow into the south slough.
52. In response to questions of Councilman Morrow, the
Applicant's representative, Pat Tealey, testified substantially as
follows. The elevation of the sewer in Packard Subdivision No. 1
can still be raised. The Applicant has not yet commenced
construction of the sewer. The Applicant has had a pre-
construction meeting. When it first proposed Packard Subdivision
No. 1, the Applicant designed the sewer to provide ample coverage
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 47.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
of what would be developed in the southeast corner. The Applicant
can raise the depth of the sewer lines a little bit in order to
provide the necessary sewer flows and velocities for the flow of
sewage into the south slough. As Mr. Smith stated, the velocity in
the eight inch sewer line is just a little under what is needed to
make it flow. It will flow but not at a sufficient velocity, which
will cause more maintenance of the sewer line than would be
required for a sewer at 4/10 percent slope. The Applicant can
alleviate that problem by raising the level of the sewer in Packard
Subdivision No. 1. As he previously stated, the Applicant is
waiting to commence construction of Packard Subdivision No. i until
it determines whether it has a project on the property. The sewer
in Packard Subdivision No. i was not only for that property, but
also for the school district. So, the Applicant kept the depth of
the sewer line as iow as it could. The raising of the sewer line
to facilitate gravity flow does not include the school district.
The raising of the sewer, line elevation possibly removes the little
bit of safety margin that would typically exist. There needs to be
some flexibility in where the school is placed on the site, its
height, or the amount of fill put on the site for the school.
53. In response to a question from Councilman Corrie, Gary
Smith, the City Engineer, stated that the flow of the sewage into
the south slough from Packard Subdivision No. i and Packard
Subdivision No. 2 is the proper direction.
54. In response to a question from Councilman Rountree, the
Applicant's representative, Pat Tealey, testified that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 48.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Applicant had reviewed and is in general agreement with the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law adopted and approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
55. There were no other comments by the public regarding this
application.
56. The property is adjacent and abutting the present city
limits of the City of Meridian.
57. The Applicant is the owner of the majority of the
property which is the subject of this application. Robert Cassell
and Willa J. Cassell are the record owners of a portion of the
property which is the subject of this application. Robert Cassell
and Willa J. Cassell have consented to this application of the
Applicant, have consented to be bound by the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law approved and adopted for this application, have
consented to be bound by the ordinance annexing their property into
the City of Meridian, if annexed, and have agreed to pay any and
all applicable fees associated with the annexation of the property.
Robert E. Coburn and Michelle L. Chesworth are the record owners of
a portion of the property which is the subject of this application.
Robert E. Coburn and Michelle L. Chesworth have consented to this
application of the Applicant, have consented to be bound by the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law approved and adopted for
this application, have consented to be bound by the ordinance
annexing their property into the City of Meridian, if annexed, and
have agreed to pay any and all applicable fees associated with the
annexation of the property.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 49.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
58. The property which is the subject of this application is
within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
59. The entire parcel of the property is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
60. The property is in an area designated on the Generalized
Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a single family
residential area. In the Comprehensive Plan property inside the
Urban Service Planning Area may be developed at greater densities
than one dwelling unit per acre.
61. In the Meridian Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, Rural
Areas, Section 6.3 provides that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can
be provided. See COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 29.
62. The City of Meridian has, and is, experiencing a
population increase. The~e exist pressures on land previously used
for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots.
63. The property can be physically serviced with City of
Meridian water and sewer if the Applicant extends the lines, and
constructs and installs the necessary equipment and facilities.
64. The R-4, Low Density Residential District is described in
the Zoning and Development Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows:
(R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only single-
family dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional
uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential
Development and public schools. The purpose of the (r-4)
District is to permit the establishment of low density
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 50.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas
where predominately residential development has, or is
likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of
the City, and to protect the integrity of residential
areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System of the
City of Meridian.
65. Pursuant to the Zoning and Development Ordinance, 11-2-
411 D 1., all new single-family detached housing in the (R-4) Low
Density Residential District shall be constructed to contain at
least 1,400 square feet of living spaoe of which the garage is not
included in determining the square footage of living space.
66. The following pertinent statement is ~de in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, "2. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES 2.1U
Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-
family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments,
condominiums etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a
range of affordable housing opportunities." COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 23.
67. The following pertinent statement is~de in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, RURAL AREAS, section 6.3 c.:
Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may
occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings units per acre
if physical connection is made to existing City of
Meridian water and sewer service and the property is
platted and subdivided in accordance with Ada County
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Policy. Development
density below three dwelling units per acre may be
allowed by conditional use permit if a cost/benefit
analysis indicates positive impacts to the City of
Meridian.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 29.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 51.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
68. The following pertinent statement is made in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, RURAL AREAS, section 6.4 c.:
Residential development is allowed in the rural areas
provided that said development does not exceed the Rural
Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the
Urban Service Planning ~rea and City sewer and water is
provided, when Low, Medium and High densityresidential
may be considered. All residential development must also
comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 30.
69. The following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan under HOUSING, Housing Policies:
1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular,
mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices
between ownership and rental dwelling units for all
income groups in a variety of locations suitable for
residential development.
1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless
of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background, shall
be encouraged.
1.4 The development of housing for all income groups
close to employment and shopping centers should be
encouraged.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 67.
70. The City of Meridian has experienced an influx in its
population which influx is reasonably anticipated to continue. The
property borders upon city limits of the City of Meridian, and
economic conditions are making the continuation of farming in the
area difficult.
71. With regard to this application, Planning and Zoning
Administrator, Shari Stiles, made specific comments concerning the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 52.
P.N.E./HDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
need of parks in the area of the property, the lack of capacity in
the area schools and that the annexation should be conditioned upon
a development agreement.
72. In 1992, the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to
the Local Planning Act, which included amending Idaho Code Section
67-6513. Section 67-6513 provides in parts
Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the
effects of subdivision development on the ability of
political subdivisions of the state, including school
districts, to deliver services without compromising
quality of service, delivery to current residents or
imposing substantial additional costs upon current
residents to accommodate the proposed subdivision.
73. The City of Meridian is Concerned with the increase in
its population, and the impact such increase has upon its ability
to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks
and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City of Meridian. The City of Meridian is further
concerned about the impact and burden placed upon the schools of
Meridian School District No. 2 resulting from the influx of its
population. The City of Meridian knows the increase in population
does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the costs of
providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, and
parks and recreation services. The City of Meridian further knows
the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
74. Pursuant to the instruction, guidance and direction of
the Idaho State Legislature, the City of Meridian may impose either
a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 53.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
if possible, would be retroactive to apply to all residential lots
in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare and
safety of its citizens.
75. Section 11-9-605 C of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides, "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the
middle of the long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain
convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping
pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
area; the
wide."
76.
Section 11-9-605 G of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides in part:
Planting strips
shall conform to the following:
Plantinq Strips - Planting strips shall be required
to be placed next to incompatible features such as
highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses
to screen the view from residential properties.
Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal
street right of way or utility easement;
77. Section 11-9-605 H of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides in part:
Public sites and open spaces shall conform to the
following:
Natural Features - Existing natural features which
add value to residential development and enhance
the attractiveness of the community (such as trees,
watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the
design of the subdivision;
78. Section 11-9-605 K of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 54.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined largely by natural
features and, to a lesser extent, by man-made features
such as utility easements, transportation rights of way
or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal
open space corridors may be required for the protection
of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets,
waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As
improved areas (landscaped), semi-improved areas (a
landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a
natural state), linear open space corridors serve:
1. To preserve openness;
To interconnect park and open space systems within
rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural values, especially waterways, drainageways
and natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
To enhance local identification within the area due
to the internal linkages; and
To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities.
Subdivision plats or development plans shall show the
location of any lineal open space corridors.
79. Section 11-9-605 L of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged
within new developments as part of the public right of
way or as separate easements so that an alternate
transportation system (which is distinct and separate
from the automobiles) can be provided throughout the City
Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council
shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Desiqn Manual for
Ada County (as prepared by Ada county [sic] Highway
District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway
provisions within developments.
80. Section 11-9-605 M of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides in part:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 55.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Ail 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.
81. Proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Ail the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met;
me
and of
including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300
feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants' property.
2. The City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant
to Idaho Code Section 50-222 and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. The City Council of the City of Meridian has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Idaho Code Section 50-222,
Title 67, Chapter 65, idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it may take judicial notice.
4. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing
requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 56.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
5. The City Council may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and State.
6. The land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to
the present city limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation
would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. The annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. Since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative
function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the
annexation of land. See Burr vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P2d. 1075 (1983).
9. The development of the annexed land, if annexed, shall
meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian
including, but not limited to: Section 11-9-616 which pertains to
development time schedules and requirements; Section 11-9-605 M,
which pertains to the piping of ditches; and Section 11-9-606 B
14., which pertains to pressurized irrigation systems.
10. The development of the property shall be subject to and
controlled by the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of
Meridian.
11. Section 11-2-417 D of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides in part as follows:
If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 57.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
of the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the
property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the
parcel.
It is concluded, however, that it is more appropriate to enter into
a development agreement for the development of the property, and
therefore as a condition of annexation a development agreement must
be entered into prior to development of the property or issuance of
final plat approval.
12. As a condition of annexation and the zoning of (R-4) Low
Density Residential District, the Applicant shall enter into a
development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D.
The development agreement shall address, but not limited to, the
following matters:
a®
Inclusion into the development the requirements of
11-9-605;
0
Payment by the Applicant, . or if required, any
successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors
or personal representatives, of any impact,
development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City;
C®
Addressing the property access linkage, screening,
buffering, transitional land uses and traffic
study;
de
An impact fee, or fees for fire, police, emergency
health care, water, sewer, and parks and recreation
services as determined by the City;
e. Appropriate bermlng and landscaping;
f. Submission and approval of any required plats;
Submission and approval of individual building,
drainage, lighting, parking, and other
developmental plans of the property;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 58.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
k®
me
Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements
with the surrounding residential development and
other development;
Addressing and complying with the present comments
of and the comments hereafter made by the Planning
and Zoning Administrator;
Addressing and complying with the present general
and site specific comments of and the comments
hereafter made by the City Engineer and the
Assistant to the City Engineer;
Addressing and complying with the comments and
requirements of the Ada County Highway District;
Addressing and complying with the comments and
requirements of other governmental agencies
submitting comments;
Addressing the sewer and water requirements,
specifically including a resolution to the physical
means of providing sewer service to the property by
either:
A grant of an easement through an
adjacent parcel of property for the
construction, installation and
maintenance of a gravity sewer
interceptor line as an extension of the
south slough sewer trunk line, or
(2)
The construction, installation and
maintenance of a temporary lift station
on the property at the location as
represented by the Applicant's
representative, and the construction of
the sewer in Packard Subdivision No. i to
provide the necessary flow velocity of
sewage to accommodate sewer service for
the property and elementary school site
adjacent to the property;
Traffic plans and access into and out of any
development, specifically including protecting the
integrity of Wingate Lane as a private road and
protecting it from unauthorized use, and erecting
appropriate signage to designate Wingate Lan~ as a
private lane with no access to or from the
property;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 59.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
o. Erection or construction of non-combustible fencing
around the property to protect the integrity of the
surrounding adjacent properties, specifically
including the area along Wingate Lane, as rural and
agricultural in nature, and to provide a buffer
between said surrounding adjacent property and the
property; and
p. Any other items or matters deemed necessary by the
City Staff, including design review of all
development, and conditional use processing.
13. As the property is in an area marked as a single family
residential area, the annexation and zoning application is in
conformance with the Rural Area policies.
14. The development of the property as an (R-4) Low Density
Residential District, as requested by the Applicant, would be
compatible to the development in the surrounding area.
15. It is therefore concluded that the annexing and zoning of
the property is in the best interest of the City of Meridian, and
it is concluded that the annexation shall he conditioned upon
meeting the requirements of these Amended Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and if they are not met the land may be de-
annexed.
16.
Planning
The requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Meridian
and Zoning Administrator, Ada County Highway District,
Central District Health Department, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District and other governmental agencies shall be met and, if
necessary, addressed in a development agreement.
17. All ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a
condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be
subject to de-annexation. As further conditions of annexation, the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 60.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Applicant shall not cause the interruption or disruption of the
delivery of irrigation water to property which receives irrigation
water through ditches, canals and waterways coursing through the
property during the designated irrigation season; the Applicant
shall maintain, including cleaning on a regular basis, the ditches,
canals and waterways coursing through the property so as to permit
the free and proper flow of irrigation water through said ditches,
canals and waterways; the Applicant ~ha!l plan, co~ence and
perform the construction and work of tiling the ditches, canals and
waterways on the proper=y outside the designated irrigation season
so as to avoid the interruption or disruption of the delivery of',
irrigation water to property which receives irrigation water
through ditches, canals and waterways coursing through the
property; and the Applicant may meet the requirement of tiling the
ditches, canals and waterways coursing~through the property in
stages or phases of its development of the property; provided,
however, in the event the Applicant causes, whether directly or
indirectly, an interruption or disruptions'of the delivery of
irrigation water to property whi=h receives irrigation water
through ditches, canals and waterways coursing through the property
during the designated irrigation season, or the Applicant fails to
maintain, including cleaning oil a regular basis, the ditches,
canals and waterways coursing through the property so as to impede
'the free and proper flow of irrigation water through said ditches,
canals and waterways, the Applicant shall be required to and shall
immediately cause all ditches, canals and waterways coursing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 61.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Applicant shall not cause the interruption or disruption of the
delivery of irrigation water to property which receives irrigation
water through ditches, canals and waterways coursing through the
property during the designated irrigation season~ the Applicant
shall maintain, including cleaning on a regular basis, the ditches,
canals and waterways coursing through the property so as to permit
the free and proper flow of irrigation water through said ditches,
canals and waterways~ the Applicant shall plan, commence and
perform the construction and work of tiling the ditches, canals and
waterways on the property outside the designated irrigation season
so as to avoid the interruption or disruption of the delivery of
irrigation water to property which receives irrigation water
through ditches, canals and waterways coursing through the
property~ and the Applicant may meet the requirement of tiling the
ditches, canals and waterways coursing through the property in
stages or phases of its development of the propert¥~ provided,
however, in the event the Applicant causes, whether directly or
indirectly, an interruption or disruption of the delivery of
irrigation water to property which receives irrigation water
through ditches, canals and waterways coursing through the property
during the designated irrigation season, or the Applicant fails to
maintain, including cleaning on a regular basis, the ditches,
canals and waterways coursing through the property so as to impede
the free and proper flow of irrigation water through said ditches,
canals and waterways, the Applicant shall be required to and shall
immediately cause all ditches, canals and waterways coursing
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 61.
P.N.B./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
through the property to be tiled. If the Applicant fails to meet
said further conditions of annexation, the property shall be
subject to de-annexation.
18. Pressurized irrigation shall be installed and
constructed, and if not so done the property shall he subject to
de-annexation.
19. The Applicant shall be required to connect the property
to Meridian water and sewer, extend the water and sewer lines to
serve the property, and resolve how the water and sewer~ins will
serve the property, all of which shall be at the Applicant's, or
its successor's, or successors' cost and expense. Said water and
sewer requirements shall be performed on or before the time that
the Applicant or its successor, or successors, desire to use the
property or place a user on the property.
20. These conditions shall run with the land and bind the
Applicant and its successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors
or personal representatives.
21. With compliance of the conditions and requirements
contained herein, the annexation and zoning of the property as (R~
4) Low Density Residential District would be in the best interest
of the City of Meridian.
22. If these conditions of approval are not met, the property
shall not be annexed or if already annexed, it shall be de-annexed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 62.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
APPROVAL OFAMENDED FXNDZNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSXONS OFIJ~
The City Council of. the City of Meridian hereby adopts and
approves these Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER MORROW
COMMISSIONER BENTLEY
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER TOLSMA
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BRFJ%KER)
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED ~'~,~-
VOTED
VOTED
DECISION
The City Council of City of Meridian hereby decides that the
property set forth in the application be approved for annexation
and zoning under the conditions set forth in these Amended Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the Applicant or its
successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors or personal
representatives enter into a development agreement; that if the
Applicant is not agreeable with these Amended Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and are not agreeable with entering into a
the property should not be annexed.
development agreement,
MOTION:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 63.
P.N.E./EDMONDS' CONSTRUCTION
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 12
Rountree: I make a motion that the Meddian City Council adopts the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as prepared by Planning and Zoning.
Bentley: Second
Morrow:. It has been moved and seconded to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as prepared by Planning and Zoning, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow:. Is there a decision?
Rountree: I move that the Meddian City Council approve the conditional use permit
requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the property
be required to meet the water, fire, sewer requirements, life safety codes, uniform fire
code, parking, paving and landscaping requirements and all of the ordinances of the
City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the
applicant by the City.
Bentley: Second
Morro~r. It has been moved by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley to approve the
decision as read all those in favor?. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.23 ACRES TO R-4 BY PNE/EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION:
Morrow Counsel, question with respect to the findings of fact and conclusions, did we
table, we asked for new findings of fact and conclusions based on new information at
our last public hearing.
Crookston: That is correct.
Morro~. So, I think it is appropriate then that we take action on this and then hear the
continued public hearing on the preliminary plat. Or, if you prefer we can invert the
sequence of these two items and hear the preliminary, the continuation of the
preliminary plat and then step back and either approve or change the findings of fact
and conclusions and then approve the preliminary plat or disapprove the preliminary
plat as you desire.
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 13
Crookston: I don't see that the preliminary plat is on the agenda.
Morrow:. It is item #10, it is a continuation of a public hearing from last meeting.
Crookston: That is up to the decision of the Council on how you wish to do that. I would
say that it would be appropriate not to take action on the findings of fact if you are going
to put the plat on before that.
Morrow:. Well my point is as an option that the council has is they wish if they are not
totally comfortable with the findings of fact and conclusions or if they wish for further
information concerning the preliminary plat before adopting or modifying the findings of
fact and conclusions. Mr. Bentley?.
Bentley: I myself am not comfortable with these findings so I would be in favor of
listening to the plat.
Rountree: I think the continuation of the hearing on the preliminary plat may add some
specificity and clear up some of those issues with the findings.
Tolsma: I have the same comment that Charlie does.
Morro~. is there a motion to reverse the order of agenda items 9 and 10 then?
Rountree: So moved
Bentley: Second
Morrow It has been moved and seconded to reverse the order of items 9 and 10, all
those in favor?. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow, we will now take up item #10 on the agenda which is a continued public
hearing (End of Tape)
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MAY 6, 1997: REQUEST FOR A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION:
Morrow Mr. Tealy I believe that is you.
Pat Tealey, 109 S. 4th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 14
Tealey: I received a copy of the findings of fact before the meeting and read through
them. There appears to be four major points. I will try to limit my comments to those four
major points because evidently there are some questions about the findings or I guess
whether or not they have been addressed or not. The first is the sewer, we have worked
out a plan with the City Engineer, there will be the grade that is recorded by the City the
four tenths grade there will be no three tenths grade as indicated in the last meeting.
We have done this by raising the sewer in Packard No. 1 which is already an approved
subdivision. This will eliminate the lift station at the northwest corner of Packard No. 1
and move it down to the northwest corner of Packard No. 2. This sewer lift station will
then be eliminated with connection to south slough sewer when it is advanced to our
property. This can either be worked out by the City or us with an easement through the
Alleman property. There is no question any more about grades or service ability of the
sewer. Irrigation, we will provide access and maybe, do you went me to stop now and
let the city engineer (Inaudible)
Morrow We can deal with that at the conclusion of your presentation.
Tealey: Okay, irrigation, we will pipe all irrigation ditches through the property as the
phases of the subdivision occur. We will provide delivery of water in its present delivery
point and capacity to the surrounding properties as it required by City ordinance and
State code. These irrigation ditches will be tiled and constructed during off season time
so as not to disrupt any irrigation water that will be flowing to these lands during the
growing farming season. The fencing of the property wes a third issue, the property will
be totally fenced as a result of this subdivision with fences that are consistent with the
farming practices on two sides the Alleman property and I believe the Reichert property
on the south. If there are any other conflicts with Farming practice the appropriate fence
will be up again as stated as the phases of the subdivision are approved. We sort of see
this thing developing in one of two areas. First area being the old Borup parcel
approximately 12 acres if we develop from the south to the north or the Brown property
if we choose to develop from the Chamberlain Estate side. If we do a phase on this
portion of the property this whole 12 acres will be fenced with the first phase. In other
words if we just do a phase down here this whole property will be fenced. If we choose
to start development phase over in here this whole 23 acre parcel will be fenced so as
not to have a conflict with the adjacent farming practice which is along the South slough
here and I believe it is Dixie Robert's property here on Wingate. The other issue is
Wingate Lane itself we propose no access to Wingate Lane whatsoever as part of this
plat. There will be a crossing of Wingate Lane for emergency vehicle purposes only.
The road that does come up to Wingate lane will have ballards put in it so that there will
be no vehicular traffic across Wingate Lane, emergency vehicle access only. If there are
any other questions I would be glad to answer them.
Morro~. Mr. Tolsma? Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: Show me the proposal on Wingate Lane on the plat?
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 15
Tealey: This is Wingate Lane running from north to south, this road here will dead end
at Wingate with Ballards here. This read here will dead end at Wingate Lane with
Ballards here for emergency access vehicular access across here. This plan has been
approved by the Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian in pdor
discussions. There is no access at all from this lot or any of these lots that back up to
Wingate Lane. These will all be Wingate Lane itself will be totally fenced off other than
the emergency vehicle access across this road here.
Rountree: So what you are saying by totally fenced off those lots that are in your
eventual subdivision would not have access to Wingate Lane
Tealey: Absolutely no access to Wingate Lane.
Morrow Mr. Bentley questions?
Bentley: I have a question on the irrigation, are you going to do that in phases or are
you going to do it all at once?
Tealey: The irrigation will be done in phases as we pipe it through the subdivision
phases. We will not pipe the irrigation through the total 35 acres until the phase gets
there. In other words, Mr. Alleman has access to that ditch and anybody else who may
have access to it we will pipe that ditch through the subdivision as part of the phasing.
We will provide pressure irrigation to our lots through the system that we have now.
Bentley: In the last meeting we had there was discussions on if they have a problem
getting their water that it would be piped.
Tealey: If for some reason we fail to clean the ditches on a regular basis so the delivery
of water is denied to Mr. Alleman the way I understand it is the applicant will be forced
to tile the ditches in their entirety and if he doesn't do that the property be de-annexed.
Bentley: Next, do you have any plans in your plat there for open areas for parks?
Tealey: In this phase of Packard Subdivision we don't have any large open areas for
parks, we provided that in the first phase of Packard No. 1 approximately 5 acres worth.
Morrow Any further questions or comments Ms. Stiles?
Stiles: I believe you have all my comments in my previous memorandums.
Morro~. Mr. Smith, I think there is a direct question in terms of the sewer issue or an
update on the sewer issue.
Smith: Yes, Mr. President and Council members, David Marks from Tealey Land
Surveying did bring in a plan view of the sewer line for number 2 that would sewer back
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 16
or actually it would sewer through number 2 and also carry the sewage from number to
the northwest corner of number 2 at minimum grades four tenths percent there wouldn't
be anything less than four tenths percent Then the sewage would either be handled by
a lift station or into an extension of the south slough interceptor depending upon
negotiations between the land developer and Vern Alleman. They did have some
revisions to Packard No. l's development plans that raised the sewer from what was
designed so that this would all work and still maintain the cover that we needed on a
sewer in Packard No. 1. I think that pretty well answered my questions on the sewage
or the sewadng of these two pieces of property.
Tolsma: I have a question for Gary, by raising the elevation on this and moving the lift
station or doing away with the lift station is this still going to gravity back over to where
the school is going to be built off of Eagle Road there?
Smith: Yes, they showed a sewer line stub to that corner of that property approximately
9 feet deep. I don't know where the school is to be located but it appeared to me that
with the grade of the existing ground out there falling from the east to the west if you
start at the west end at 9 feet deep you should be able to maintain an adequate depth
by the time you get to the east boundary or to Eagle Road. They did not have survey
data, topog data for that piece of ground that 20 acres. But just a feeling, my feeling the
way the land runs in this area that if you are going upgrade with a sewer you should be
alright. Mr. President, I did have another question, I think I heard Pat say that the
Highway District had approved closing off what would be Challis Street at Wingate is
that con'ect Pat?
Tealey: Yes, we went through that in their meetings that wes a solution to the problem.
Smith: Does that create any problem on access to Locust Grove in terms of number of
lots on a single access. Because I think Chamberlain only has on access doesn't it?
Tealey: It filters back down, our map doesn't go far enough. But I think Chamberlain
does have only one access that is correct. The secondary access the emergency
vehicle access would be through this ballard portion of the road.
Smith: That was my only question was I understood the highway district in the past had
a policy of 100 lots on a single access or 1000 trips per day. If they have changed that I
don't know.
Tealey: Their comments were specific to this subdivision with the number of lots that
were shown in Chamberlain Estates also. They approved this total concept, we do
provide access points to go out to Ustick in the future if the Alleman property is ever
developed so it will provide another access from Uatick. The traffic consultant showed
this access as such and the Highway District approved it in our traffic study that wes
addressed.
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 17
Smith: Mr. President, Pat that means there will then be a turn around on the east side of
Wingate Lane for that section of Challis is that correct.
Tealey: The turn around essentially is affected by this motion right here. This is only one
lot deep so that they don't require a turn around. This right in here they didn't require a
turn around if they do we will address that as part of our site specific when we get to
submitting the final plat on this portion of Packard No. 2. They did not make specific
comment to a culdesac.
Smith: I think it would be my recommendation that a turn around be provided down
there because it is four lots deep, if they are not going to be able cross Wingate I think
they need to have some way to turn around without backing out 400 feet.
Tealey: The developer wouldn't have any problem with a turn around in that area. This
was not addressed by the Highway District, this is the first time it has come up.
Morro~r. Any other questions of sta~.
Rountree: Just an indication from staff, apparently we haven't received the minutes or
the action on the part of ACriD?
Stiles: Not that I am aware of.
Rountree: I haven't seen anything.
Stiles: I had one comment, Mr. Tealey indicates he thought he had responded to my
comments earlier I still have not received any response to those comments.
Tealey: Just an answer to one of the questions, there are two access for Chamberlain, I
think if you look on your City maps you can see two access points. Excuse me there
will be one access through Chamberlain and then chamberlains connects to another
road down in Chateau Meadows I believe and it gets out that way.
Morrow'. While you are there Mr. Tealey would you respond to Mr. Stiles comments
about have you responded to her comments in writing?
Tealey: All of her, I think she had in this, are you referring to item #32 in these findings
of fact? All of those items are addressed on this preliminary plat
Stiles: I don't believe any of these comments have been addressed and I, it said that
you are to submit your response in writing.
Tealey: Those are the comments that I was looking for in the package from 1995 and in
fact this thing is asking us to address it as part of a 75 acre. It was part of the total
package of the 40 acres of Packard NO. 1that have already been approved and such.
Meridian City Council
May 201 1997
Page 18
So I assume that all of these have been answered or it will be answered. They certainly
can be answered, there is nothing in there that presents a problem whatsoever.
Stiles: I would like to see this addressed in writing prior to any action being taken. I think
two years is long enough to wait.
Morrow Final questions of Pat? Thanks Pat, this is a continuation of the public headng
is there anybody else from the public that would like to offer further testimony? Mr.
Alleman
Vem Alleman, 2101 East Ustick Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Alleman: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this subdivision. I have a hard time
separating preliminary plat and facts and findings so I will just go through mine as I have
prepared it which is probably covering both. I need to clarify an answer I gave to a
question by Mr. Rountree, he asked me, this was at the last meeting, he asked me if I
favored this subdivision, I tded to look at things from a broad view and that was what my
answer was based on. From a strictly personal view I would prefer that it remain like it
was before the developer purchased it. The following is made to findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Reference is made to item 19, page 12 which reads as follows, "the
construction of irrigation system will occur in the winter", now this is a reply from the
engineer, "so as not to interrupt the delivery of irrigation water. Situations do occur in
which a contractor does not do what he is supposed to or to (inaudible). This is not
specific enough, this allows the developer too many (inaudible) and this couldn't get
done on time. Then there is the question of what is the irrigation season or the
contractor couldn't do it when wa needed it done. I request that it specified it must be
started after October 15 and completed before March 15. There is no reason they
cannot start it in the last of October which would be more than adequate time to
complete it well ahead of the dead line. Reference is made to item 32 A page 41 which
reads as follows, "the Meridian Comprehensive Plan indicates the need for a park in
the area of the property." My understanding was that they did away with the five acre
plot on the Packard No. 1 if it is still there I would like to see it. With over 75 acres
annexed or proposed for annexation in Packard No. 1 and Packard No. 2 open space
appears inadequate to mitigate the impacts of both subdivisions. I request that you
address this issue now and I ask you to decide if a park is needed now or in the future.
If you find that there is a need now or in the future for a park please address where and
how land will be provided. I beg you address this question now even if it will be needed
at a later date. I plead with you don't ignore this issue now and then at a later date
come to me and say wa didn't take care of this when we should have and now we need
your land to solve our problem. I would like clarification of item 32 D and F on page 21
of the facts and findings. Now my facts and findings are the ones from Planning and
Zoning so if there are new ones I haven't had access to them. Reference is made to
item 33A page 23 which states, "any existing irrigation, drainage, ditches crossing the
property to be included in the proposed project shall be tiled per City ordinance 11-9-
605 M. The ditches to be piped are to be shown on the preliminary plat of the proposed
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 19
subdivision. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation, drainage
district or lateral user association which written conformation of said approval submitted
to the Public Works Department. No variance has been requested for tiling of any of the
ditches crossing the proposed property. I haven't seen anything on the preliminary plat
covering the ditches across the property and request approval of the preliminary plat be
denied until this is shown and the irrigation district and the lateral users approve the
plans. It is my understanding that once this property is annexed it is the obligation of the
developer to maintain the irrigation ditches crossing the property. I wish to compliment
Mr. Morrow for the motion he made pertaining to Packard No. 1 subdivision whereby if
the developer doesn't maintain these ditches he will be required to tile the complete
system immediately. I request this same provision be made applicable to Packard No. 2
subdivision and reference is made to site specific comments and page 26 which
pertains to pressurized irrigation. It is my understanding the water needed for
pressurized irrigation dudng the off irrigation season will utilize Meridian dty water.
Should there be any change from this such as drilling a well it should be cleared with
the Idaho Water Resources agency and we the surrounding private property owners of
private wells should be notified so we can protect our private water. Then in this last
item is in general so it is not pertaining to a specific subdivision, reference item ~L53
page 31, concerns increased population not paying for the impact need for services and
so forth and thus imposing additional cost for those that have been here prior to all of
this development. I ask that impact fees be implemented on new development to
correct this problem. I stand for any questions that you may have thank you.
Morrow Questions for Mr. Alleman?
Rountree: Would you repeat the window of time for the construction on irrigation?
Alleman: October 15 to March 15.
Rountree: And that would be a period of time where work on the irrigation system would
be acceptable?
Alleman: Yes, it would need to be started after October 15 and completed prior to March
15.
Bentley: Is October 15 their date certain for shutting the water off this year with the high
water we have?
Alleman: Not necessarily but I think a person can live with the possibility of that late
watering getting by.
Morrow Any further questions of Mr. Alleman, is there anyone else from the public that
wishes to offer testimony?
Don Brian, 2070 N. Locust Grove, Meridian, wes sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 20
Brian: As a matter of sawng time I would just like to make sure my testimony that I gave
at the previous testimony gets recorded into this meeting which I believe it will vet
batim. As in that same idea I would like to get an answer to my question on the traffic
study. That is my biggest concern on this subdivision since it putting out all the traffic
out to Locust Grove which is the road that I exit on. When I stated at the previous
meeting about the traffic study that wes done in the packet that you have the one that I
got and is public record with 10,000 trips per day now and the last traffic study that I
know about wes done in 1994. I was wondering if there is a new traffic study and if I
can get a copy of the findings on what that traffic study found as far as the amount of
vehicles on Locust Grove and how this is going to affect that. With the construction of
widening Locust Grove not to happen until 2001 I think it is going to be a major problem
on Locust Grove for the next 4 years. So that is only thing that I would like to take up
your time with tonight.
Tolsma: I think he has a well sounded comment (inaudible)
Brian: Anyone who does up and down Locust Grove Road knows what it is like and if
you can't, like I stated previously if you don't get out before 7:00 in the morning you
might as well have breakfast on the way. Stop at the end of your driveway and finish it
off
Bentley: I want to know what your feelings were on his responses to the fencing of the
irrigation?
Brian: Well I don't feel it is my place to speak on it in regards to this subdivision because
it doesn't affect me directly but I will because I have been affected directly with the
development around me. The fencing has always been a problem and they didn't
require fencing when they developed around me and it wes a problem. They need to
fence the whole subdivision at once and not in phases to contain the whole the mess an
the people mostly the people. When you have a situation like Wingate Lane you have a
lot of horses and livestock out there and you are going to have to keep the people they
are going to have to take special steps to keep the people away from these rural areas
because it becomes a petting zoo and that is going to have to be looked at real
seriously to avoid future problems.
Bentley: And the irrigation?
Brian: I think we have the irrigation taken care at the last meeting with their agreement
to be required to tile it if any problems come up down the road.
Morro~ Anybody else from the public that would like to offer further testimony?.
Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, Meridian, wes sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 21
Sharp: I apologize for my voice but it is something I can't control. I don't know if that is
good or bad, but anyway my big concern right now is the comment "1 think" this is what
is going to happen. We are dght back to square one we don't have definites. I don't care
what kind of fencing they got and I don't care if they build something designed like the
TajMahal I would not like to see the zone change and I would not like to see the
development because I moved out to the rural area to have just what we have got a
private lane with few houses. The 20 acres is against Wingate Lane would be
developed. What happens to that phase of Wingate Lane as our friend that is at the end
of VVingate Lane has land and he can't build there and it borders against Wingate Land
and Ustick Road and has been told he cannot build there. I am having a little problem
too with they say we have all the problems resolved with the sewer and the water
irrigation. What happens with the flood irrigating and we have water under new houses
because of the run off. Now we know that is a fact we know it has happened because
there has been pending and threatening of lawsuits. Somebody buys a new house and
finds out I have six inches of water under it, who do I go after, the guy that has the run
off water he wes there long before they built the house and the subdivision was made. I
think it is something that needs to be seriously considered. We have a very high water
table and they say you won't have that much flood irrigating, are you going to stop
people from sprinkling and that is still going to saturate the ground. You will have more
houses watering so are you saying then there isn't going to be as much water used.
You are still going to have to have a (inaudible) and something to handle that water run
off because there is a high water table. We may not have had as much problem when
we had (inaudible) but with the abundance of water we could have a very serious
problem and we have just a spot under our house where we keep a pump and when the
water table is high we do pump water in July and August. What is that going to do to
the subdivision. We can still put dry lines as I mentioned before into these subdivisions
and make sure the people (inaudible) that they have to be well aware of the fact that if
the sewer line is there and the sewer is available they have to hook up. We know that,
that was one of the issues with the meeting that we were here the first of the month, one
young couple is faced with that very problem. I think that because there is not a great
need at this time for housing that they should wait until phase one is done to see how
that goes before we get too involved with phase 2. We are talking about emergency
equipment going across Wingate Lane and only then. I have a letter in my hand that
was addressed to Mr. Floyd Reiterate, a copy sent to us dated January 2, 1996 and I
am not going to read all of it but a paragraph so states, "Since E. Meadowgrass
terminates at your east property line you will have full access to it. The developer is
required to install a barricade at the end of the public street. But it typically does not
extend across the entire width of the street and since the street abuts your property you
may drive around the barricade and use the public street as you would any other
property owner who's land abuts the public right of way. Similarly you can access East
Challis Street by driving north along the Wingate Lane easement only the (inaudible) to
block public usage from Wingate Lane and use that public right of way also. We haven't
been that we are going to put gates on there and once one car goes around a barricade
you can imagine the others are going to bypass that. So this is in black and white from
ACHD and we have a date on that. I think that again is that really needs to be
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 22
addressed. I think we are right back and I think we should consider the staff's
recommendation until we have cold, hard facts and definites on a plan it should be
denied. Thank you
Morrow Questions for Mrs. Sharp?
Rountree: I know it is your only copy but can you get us a copy of your letter from
ACHD?
Dixie Roberts, 2855 Wingate Lane, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roberts: Well my statement stays the same as last time. I still have concems and
everything I think that has been said has been very vague. As far as the irrigation I
think is the biggest thing for me and should this go through I would like to see the whole
thing tiled all at once and at the beginning. Of course the fencing is a concern of mine
because of the animals. They talk about fencing their part but I think it really boils dow~
to fencing mine also should this go through. Everything I think is very vague and I think
it would ruin our country living there and I am very much opposed to this. That is
basically what I have to say.
Morro~. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony?
Al Dauven, 2820 Wingate Lane, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Dauven: I guess I stand on my statement from the last time and it doesn't seem like
you guys are taking in the animal factor and the amount of houses you are putting in
this area. So I think that I am dead against this. I think they should be big lots and they
should probably have a berm hill around them with a fence on top if it. Because that
might discourage little kids from crawling over it. The animal factor has to come into it
some time. If it is not going to come into it then there is something wrong. As far as this
Council goes I don't think that wa might be in your impact area but you guys are
negligent to govern in your impact area as well as Ada County is too. When you are
addressed with an ordinance violation nobody will address it. So what happens when
we are outside the City limits and we have these people that are in the City limits
dumping their garbage over the fence. We are in the same situation once again.
Nobody takes responsibility for it. So I think maybe we better back up and took at what
has happened there so far. Browns are operating I don't know what you want to call it a
garage or junk yard or whatever. They broke that property off and sold it. Mr. Alleman
sold that property to his brother so it wes already split once. You cannot keep splitting
property without going through zoning. It doesn't fall under the five acre requirement,
neither does the Borup property with the house there. Somebody is going to have to
address this and somebody is going to have to be the governing body. So who is going
to take responsibility. So I think somebody has to step up here pretty quick. If you guys
don't went to take it then throw us back to Ada County. That is all I have to say.
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 23
Morrow:. Anyone else from the public that would like to testify?
Floyd Reichert, 2575 Wingate Lane, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Reichert: I have always been in favor of the subdivision out there around because I
have been out there 30 years and like I say there are a lot of problems with the lane. I
can go ahead like Mr. Dauven did and go on and on but I would like to have them on the
east side of the lane ever show me that they have anything in their deeds or right of
ways from the conception of their property being broke off consistently from the 50's
(inaudible). The right of way we have in front of our place is a road agreement it was
1903/1908 is the east boundary of the property owners on the west side of that lane.
When I bought my place that wes on my deed and I would like to see everybody else
show me facts that they instrument number is attached to their property. But on the
request I had from Ada County Highway when the subdivision was coming in yes I
would like to have that read abut my property on the east line so I can move my
driveway over from the house and modify it so I can cross the lane and go out onto a
paved street and go to Fairview. I would not like to see that blocked off that I don't have
access to drive around. I own the property to the access the public right of way why
should I be blocked off from it. I have made an agreement with the developer on the
north of my property when they do the fence I can have right of way to get off, I will have
to redo my driveway again to get off on the north side to go out on the other road to
have access to the public read so that it can be fenced so it won't be hindered. If we
don't take into consideration the future you don't have to worry about a park down there.
My piece of property isn't going to be worth nothing so there is going to be open
property down there that the kids can some down and play on it on my five acres
because it isn't going to be any good to me or I can't sell it. If you don't have access for
the future of that community out there that is all I have to say.
Morrow:. Questions for Mr. Reichert? Anybody else from the public that would like to
offer testimony?
Billy Jo Premoe, 3045 Wingate, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Premoe: I would also like to go on record again as being opposed the subdivision for
the traffic, for the concern of people coming on our lane. If there is emergency access I
am sure there is going to be filtering down problems with the lane and we are really
concerned about that about the animals on the lane. Also, the lack of planning for a
park, all of these things concern us and our quality of life. First and foremost we all
moved out there with one thing in mind and we are going to lose it if this subdivision
goes through. Thank you.
Morrow:. Thank you, anyone else?
Date Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 24
Sharp: I also oppose this zoning and also the preliminary plat and spelled out by Mr.
Alleman there are certainly quite a few concerns there that I agree with. Also in the
findings of fact that I have I don't have the most recant but it said that provide
pedestrian bicycle access across Wingate Lane and we are opposed to that because
this is a pdvate road and we want to keep it such. These gates that we are talking
about should be adequate enough to restrict any bicycle or foot traffic over Wingate
Lane, there is liability involved here and we certainly don't want to be involved with that.
As far as fencing, it should be entire fencing of the whole project so that we don't have
all of this trash come over from the housing when it is being built. As I have had happen
on the south of me on the Woods and they developed that. As far as the gates are
concarned or the barricades they have barricade on a street that abuts my property the
Nampa Irrigation (inaudible) we have, we finally put a cable across there with a sign up
that said no trespassing. People pay no attention to that, they come across there. They
were coming through with their motorcycles and cars and everything else. We
padlocked a cable across there. On the east side of my property on Nampa Meridian
Irrigation we also need a fence across the road there so Nampa Irrigation road so that if
this is, even with phase one we need that there to keep those people from accessing
that property. Because they don't pay any attention, there is a sign there also. If you
would care to come out and take a look at it, it is plenty visible and they pay no attention
whatsoever. The tiling of ditches, I think that should be done not in phases but all at
onca. If they are going to do this development why don't they do the tiling of ditches and
then we don't' have any problems. Who is going to monitor this down the way, just go
ahead and do it. Above all I am opposed to this project.
Morrow:. Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony? Okay, Mr.
Tealey it is opportunity for response.
Tealey: I guess I stand by the testimony that I just gave you earlier, we have dealt with
the sewer, there is concrete answer to it. We have it there is nothing ambiguous about it
whatsoever. There is nothing ambiguous about the irrigation problem, we have said that
we will pipe this thing in phases and we will clean the ditches. We will only construct
during certain times of the year. If we do not live up to these requirements one of them
being that we keep our ditches clean and the flow of the water to adjacent properties as
it is today then yes we will be subject to a penalty and that penalty will be tiling of all of
the ditches immediately. You have never required that I know of a parcal this large to
tile all the irrigation ditches as a matter of (End of Tape) we are more than willing to
work with these people. I guess I just don't know how much more specific we can get.
The fencing for instance, this project essentially once we fence VVingate Lane is two
parcals, one 12 acre and one 22 acre and we will develop on one side or the other of
Wingate Lane (inaudible). This 12 acre parcel Wingate Lane will be fence, essentially
then we will have this part the eastern parcel and the western parcel. If we choose to
develop here we will immediately fenca this entire parcel here and will be self contained
within itself and will be self contained in itself because Wingate Lane will be fenced
here, we will then if we choose to develop here we will fence the entire parcel. If we
choose to develop down in here with Wingate Lane being fenced here we will then finish
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 25
the fencing of this parcel so it will essentially be self contained. Wingate Lane issue, I
don't think these people will ever be satisfied, we have done our best, we have worked
with the Highway District, we have provided them with the traffic studies. We have
repeatedly gone back to them. As a result of this application been taking over the 2 year
pedod and asking them do you want anymore input, do you stand by your evaluation of
the situation. The answer has been resoundingly yes, never a maybe never do we want
another traffic study. We will not access Wingate Lane, there will be emergency access
across it that we can't stop. I think that is in the best interest of the general public
anybody that lives in Chamberlain Estates at the east end of Chamberlain Estates
would like another outlet, emergency outlet back down towards Hickory and Fairview. I
think that is in the best general interest of the public. I guess you can go on and on
trying to address the numereus issues that they bring out but as soon as we address
them then they will have another issue. I figure it is best to stop dght now, if you have
any questions I would be glad to answer.
Tolsma: Is there such a thing as a deed restriction on this property that abuts Wingate
Lane so there would be no access so when you build a fence in there they don't cut a
hole in the fence and decide to put a gate in there to access Wingate Lane.
Tealey: There will be a note on the face of the plat that says no access from any lots in
the subdivision to Wingate Lane. That is one of the requirements of the Highway
District.
Tolsma: Would that be on the deed, the preperty (inaudible)
Crookston: It could be
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Crookston: It could be, it is just as good to have it in a deed restriction. Any type of
restriction like that is just like a speed limit sign on the highway.
Tolsma: But if they cut a hole in the fence at least (inaudible) something on the deed
that said you couldn't do that or it is on the plat. Maybe (inaudible)
Creokston: The plat will be recorded
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Crookston: That is true, you would have to go through, you would have to have some
means of accessing the recorded document.
Tealey: The plat is a recorded instrument and on that instrument if we restdct the
access to Wingate Lane, you would certainly can enforce it that issue on from that
recorded instrument. There are numerous issues that can be covered in notes on the
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 26
plat such as addressing maintenance of common areas to addressing maintenance of
irrigation ditches and stuff. That seems to work for those issues so why wouldn't it work
in the access to Wingate Lane. Typically like if you have a double frontage situation
where say Ustick Road and you have a read parallel to it the note on the face of the plat
says no access to Locust Grove Road. That is covered all of the time with a note on the
plat. Plus if you wanted a deed restriction it would apply to, there are only about 10 or
12 lots along Wingate Lane actually back up to where that situation can occur.
Tolsma: The other thing on the baliards they are using for emergency access several
subdivisions in Boise now have what they call a fire gate it is a swinging gate that the
fire department has the key for it only. Some of them are running on the ditch rider
roads that they are put a gate across there that goes to the ground up, 42 inches tall
that if the fire trucks carry the key if they need emergency access to the ambulance they
have a key to gain through that access rather than the ballards which seems to be right
around because the motorcycles go up and down the ditch banks where there are
ballards. But where there is a gate across there, there are no motorcycles that go up
and down the ditch bank.
Tealey: A gate would be fine if that works and it works for the City of Meddian it works
for us.
Tolsma: There are several developments in Boise that have want to those fire gates and
the fire department likes them better than trying to get posts out of the ground or
something like this to get through because it is better for them easier to gain access
through. That is just a statement.
Tealey: If the City of Meridian fire department would rather have those than the ballards
then that is what wa will install.
Tolsma: Most of the ballards if they are a break away ballard they are touch and go to
run a truck up against one of those things to try and break the thing off and get through
it. Anyone in a four wheel drive will be able to the same thing. If they are a gate at least
they are going to damage something (inaudible) that is something that you might check.
I know they have done a lot in Boise for the irrigation district and fire department both.
Tealey: If there is a better way than ballards and it is approved by the Meridian fire
district and the ambulance service and emergency medical we will definitely look at that.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Rountree: The last time you were here you indicated there had been a traffic study
done, ACriD had indicated that no additional traffic study was necessary because of the
date of the previous traffic study. Am I remembering correctly or did you say something
different?.
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 27
Tealey: I think the traffic study was referring to was updated in mid-year 1995 I have a
copy of that here if you want to look at it. It addresses the connection with Chamberlain
Estates and Locust Grove Road.
Rountree: Specificity in terms of construction timing of irrigation if that were added to the
findings you indicated you would work within whatever time pedod is non-irrigation if
specified October 15 to March 15.
Tealey: Correct, that is my understanding and the developer's understanding also.
Morrow:. That being the case I will close the public hearing, Council your pleasure?
Rountree: Vem had a question.
Morro~ Okay, Vern please come forv~ard I will re-open the public hearing.
Crookston: You need a motion to re-open it.
Rountree: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Morro~ It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
^lleman: Can I ask a question of the staff, Shad in regards to the comment that is
pertaining to the parks, you state that there is no provision for park area, is there in
Subdivision No. 1 or in that area? I was under the impression that the park for number
one the five acre had been done away with, is it still there?
Stiles: The 5 acre park they originally proposed is no longer there, they do have some
small pocket parks and some pedestrian pathways. I am not sure what the total acreage
of that is. As far as 5 acres in one spot there is not one.
Morro~ Now I will close the public headng. What is your pleasure.
Rountree: Well I think the appropriate thing to do would be to go back to the findings of
fact and conclusions on the annexation and take action on it. That will drive what
happens with the preliminary plat. So I move that we go back to item 9.
Tolsma: Second
Morrow:. Moved and seconded wa go back to item 9, all those in favor?. Opposed?
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 28
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow Now we are at the findings of fact and conclusions of law for annexation and
zoning of approximately 35.23 acres to R-4 by PNE/Edmonds Construction.
Crookston: I think the testimony is reflected in the findings of fact and conclusions of
law. I don't think that there has been anything significantly different in the testimony
tonight.
Rountree: Point of discussion on the findings of fact I think it is somewhat of a record in
terms of conditions some 63 pages. If any action is taken on them I would suggest that
we modify on page 59 item N, talking about the 4~h line in Item N an erecting appropriate
signage, fencing and gates should be added to designate Wingate as a private lane. It
just refers to signage and there should be a reference to fencing an or gates.
Toisma: (Inaudible)
Rountree: That is just for the emergency access.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Rountree: I don't have any problem with that, gates approved by the fire department
emergency services. On page 61, starting with the clause the applicant shall plan
commence and perform the construction and work of tiling the ditches, canals and
waterways on the property outside the designated irrigation season so as to avoid the
interruption or disruption of the delivery of irrigation water to the property with
construction to start after add with construction to start after October 15 and be
completed by March 15.
Morrow;. Mr. Bentley did you have any items in terms of what you wanted to see
incorporated within the findings of fact and conclusions?
Bentley: I think Mr. Rountree got them.
Tolsma: That emergency access gate would that be a sealed gate to limit (Inaudible)
Rountree: That was my understanding of the situation you described.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Morrow So if I am understanding you have added three basically three considerations
with respect to the deed restriction or plat restriction Mr. Tolsma for access to Wingate
Lane. Also with respect to gates on page 59 with (Inaudible) and they are on page 61
the issues with respect to construction season starting on irrigation. Raise one other
Meridian City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 29
issues Ms. Stiles has an ~ssue with response or written response to her conditions
(inaudible)
Rountree: That was a condition on the findings of fact and conclusions of law as it
relates to annexation. The same comment for comments on the plat. One and the
same.
Stiles: It does, that is one of them comments it is included in the findings. I don't know
how you will address any response we might get.
Crookston: I thought that your comment referred to the platting and not the annexation
and zoning.
Stiles: It was both.
Rountree: Help me find that comment.
Morrow:. He is looking for your in the findings of fact and conclusions he is looking for
your comment requesting written responses to your comments.
Stiles: Page 24, item Q, the comments that are indicated my comments apparently it
references the preliminary plat. There are items in there that do deal with the
annexation.
Rountree: The findings do indicate that any questions you do have will be responded to.
Stiles: What page is that on?
Rountree: That is page 24, it says the applicant is to address all the foregoing
comments in writing. That wes one of your comments that is included in the findings of
fact and that needs to be done or that needs to be done as part of the findings of fact,
depending on what happens to them.
Morrow:. Technically speaking if they are adopted then that response has to (inaudible)
what is your pleasure?
Rountree: Mr. President, I would move that the City Council of the City of Meddian
hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
amendments.
Morro~. It has been moved and seconded the City Council of the City of Meridian
hereby adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law and approve them as amended,
roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma -Yea
Meridian City Ceuncil
May 20, 1997
Page 30
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow:. Is there a motion on the decision?
Rountree: Mr. President I move that the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby
decides that the property set forth in the application be approved for annexation and
zoning under the conditions set forth in these amended findings of fact and conclusions
of law and revised including that the applicant or its successors and interests, assigns,
heirs, executors or personal representatives enter into a development agreement that if
the applicant is not agreeable with these amended findings of fact and conclusions of
law and are not agreeable with entering into a development agreement that the property
should not be annexed.
Tolsma: Second
Morrow It has been moved and seconded for the decision as read by Mr. Rountree, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow:. Item nine has been taken care so now item 10 is the preliminary plat. Is there
a motion, now that we have done item 9 we need a motion to direct the City Attorney to
prepare an annexation ordinance.
Tolsma: So moved
Rountree: Second
Morrow It has been moved and seconded to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
annexation ordinance, all those in favor?. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow;. Now item 10 on the agenda is the preliminary, what action do you wish to
take?
Rountree: Mr. President, I would move that we table action on the preliminary plat until
such time as we have the annexation ordinance and the applicant has addressed in
writing the comments of City staff and had an opportunity to review the findings of fact
and make appropriate modifications to the plat.
Tolsma: Second
Morrow It has been moved and seconded by Mr. Rountree and Mr. Tolsma to table the
preliminary plat pending the adoption of the annexation ordinance and response by the
Meridian City
May 20, 19~7
Page 31
applicant in writing to staff conditions and response by the applicant to the recently
adopted amended findings of fact and conclusions, all those in favor?. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Bentley: I move we take a ten minute break.
Rountree: Second
Morrow It has been moved and seconded to take a ten minute recess.
TEN MINUTE RECESS
ITEM #11: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO BUILDINGS
WITH DRIVE UP WINDOWS BY R.T. NAHAS:
Morrow;. I believe that is you Mr. Knopp.
Knopp: My name is Larry Knopp, the project consists of two buildings, two separate
buildings on a lot out here at a commercial subdivision off of Meridian Road, 1~t Street.
What we are proposing are two approximately 4,000 square foot buildings with
appropriate parking, landscaping that meets or exceeds the City of Meridian's
ordinance. The one building will have an optional or the flexibility of having a drive up
window facility located on the east and west ends to get some flexibility for the leasing
of this facility. It is not for a restaurant, the facility, the drive up window would be used
for a facility similar to an espresso coffee fast service not a restaurant service. The
buildings are constructed of stucco, brick, store front, glazing, fiat roofs with parapets
continuous on all four sides so that there is no visibility of roofs or roof top units and
fabric awnings at the windows.
Morrow Questions for Mr. Knopp?
Rountree: have you read the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by
Planning and Zoning and if you so do you have any items you would like to discuss?
Knopp: I have read them and I have no questions or no problems with them.
Morrow:. Ms. Stiles do you have any questions for Mr. Knopp? What is your desire?
Rountree: Mr. President, I would move that the City of Meridian City Council adopts the
findings and approves the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by
Planning and Zoning.
Tolsma: Second