1999 08-10MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING – AUGUST 10, 1999
The regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Malcolm MacCoy, Tammy De Weerd, Thomas
Barbeiro.
OTHERS PRESENT: Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway, Eric
Rossman, Will Berg.
Borup: It is now time to start our 7:00 o’clock meeting of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission. I would like to call the meeting to order. First Item on the agenda is Items
A and B on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner’s?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
De Weerd: I would move that we accept the minutes of the meeting held July 13th
as
well as the minutes of the special meeting held July 29th
.
MacCoy: Second.
Borup: It has been moved and seconded to accept the minutes. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEM NUMBER 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A THRIFT STORE BY THE SALVATION ARMY—EAST
OF 1ST
STREET AND SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW:
Borup: As stated last meeting, this is on the agenda essentially as a housecleaning
measure to clear up staff. Comments on Item Number 1.
Siddoway: Chairman Borup and members of the Commission, I have in my possession
a letter dated August 9, 1999 from Captain Tom Peterson at the Salvation Army which
reads “I Captain Tom Peterson of the Salvation Army wish to withdraw my application
for Conditional Use Permit to operate a Thrift Store at 1626 E. First Meridian Street,
Meridian, Idaho. The Conditional Use Permit has been deemed unnecessary at this
site and we will be working directly with city staff to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.”
Borup: Thank you. That clarifies what we talked about last time. Any questions from
the Commission? I think we need to probably a motion accepting the withdrawal.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I was told I can’t speak until you recognize me.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 2
Borup: I am sorry. Yes, Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: I would move that we withdrawn the request for conditional use permit by
the Salvation Army from our agenda.
MacCoy: Second.
Borup: First and second to accept withdrawal. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEM 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 7.265
ACRES FOR CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE II (FROM R-8 TO R-15) BY WILLIAM &
LUCILE LEAVELL—END OF 5TH
, NORTH OF CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE I AND
SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW:
Borup: Is the applicant or his representative here this evening? Just before we do that,
I am sorry, we would like to—last time we did not have a full staff report on this project
and would like to go ahead and do that tonight. I think Mr. Hawkins is—
Hawkins: I know I am not supposed to turn my back to them, but I will face you.
Commissioners, as you know this project has been continued a couple of times. It was
first presented in May. The property is currently zoned R-8. The application, before you
right now, is a request for a rezone to an R-15 zone. The adjacent properties across
Fairview Avenue on the north, you’ve got the Jackson’s, Texaco. Here on the east side
there are a couple of vacant properties. The Sterling Creek Subdivision on the
southeast existing phase I here, which is all ready R-15 for Creekside Arbour. Now we
have the Mitchner Building, which contains retail and a restaurant which is adjacent to
Fairview and a vacant piece of ground here. That is the surrounding properties. If the
request to amend the land use map to go to an R-15 is approved then there would be—
they are requesting 64 units, 16 for four-plexes. They do have others. A minimal
frontage on this of 64 feet, which is taken. The Five Mile Creek runs along this line here
of the property boundary. The other issues for the condition use permit I can either deal
with now or at that time on the next agenda item.
Borup: You can handle it either way.
Hawkins: I will let you deal with the rezone, I guess.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners from Brad? Would the applicant like to
address the Commission?
Shoemaker: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Fred Shoemaker.
My business address is 815 W. Washington in Boise, ID. Mr. Chairman, did you want
me to speak just to the rezone issue—it always has an opportunity for over lap, not a lot
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 3
of substance on the rezone or I found myself last time talking about rezone and
conditional use permit. Really, not too much to say about the rezone per say. I would
reserve my remarks to the conditional use permit application, if that is the Commission’s
pleasure.
Borup: Normally we’ve combined them. It may be interesting just to address the
rezone. That was the staff report. Let’s do something different.
Shoemaker: I think you are not going to have to listen too much tonight from the
lawyer. Most of the issues that staff has addressed in the staff report are design issues.
I think that Mr. Knopp is here to discuss those. I don’t know Larry—do you want to say
anything about the rezone? Our proposed development is well within the constrains of
the density allowed by the proposed zone. The zone is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. I don’t know too much what else to say.
Borup: Any questions for ---
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
De Weerd: I guess my only question would be if they had any comments to the staff
report. Mr. Shoemaker?
Shoemaker: Mr. Chairman, there is one issue I know that does appear in the rezone
comment and that is the issue of the annexation. There is a very small 500 sq.ft.
property we found out upon review of the staff report located right here, you can see it.
It is a triangular shaped parcel that technically still out in the county. It was never
annexed, apparently overlooked by city staff and of course you can see, as staff and I
were talking earlier this evening, the piece actually that we’re concerned yet a smaller
portion of that triangle, you know 300 square feet, that is going to become entirely
owned by the highway district. I’d like to not defer tonight action on this—both the
rezone—in other words we are asking that all of the property that is currently within the
city be rezoned and likewise when we get to the conditional use I’ll be asking that action
be taken on the conditional use. This parcel is needed of course for any density
requirements. It would be needed of course for access, but whether the smaller triangle
is located in Ada County or in Meridian City is not going to impact I submit the
advisability of you all making a recommendation on rezone for this parcel for the
conditional use permit. We certainly would ask for a recommendation tonight from this
body to City Attorney or staff –I am not sure how you handle your annexations, that you
clean up this—I can’t speak for other property owners but it does look like it’s an
oversight. My client tells me that this parcel number –and it does enjoy a separate
parcel number for tax purposes. They have been paying taxes on this parcel since day
one, so at some point be back in front of somebody. Mr. Clerk your asking for a refund
of the taxes—but for purposes of tonight we’d just like to—I guess we can’t ask you to
rezone more than is all ready within the City, I think your City Attorney will tell you. We
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 4
would like to still, nevertheless, take action on this and then we will maybe ask that you
make a recommendation to have staff or a staff person prepare that annexation.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes Mr. Rossman.
Rossman: Mr. Shoemaker, do you have a separate legal description that would exclude
that little piece there so that if we rezone we can identify the rezone.
Shoemaker: I think what we can do for purposes of tonight and I understand where you
are going counsel, is have the rezone apply to all of the property except for tax parcel
number (inaudible discussion) from the Ada County Tax Assessor’s Office documenting
one time, not today, but at one time this parcel enjoyed a separate parcel number but
there is not legal description. We are mindful in a traditional sense, we are mindful of
the staffs recommendation that for the annexation eventually we need to have a
separate legal description. I think with counsel’s consent, maybe tonight we could have
you act upon it everything. The property is now described, except for –
Rossman: This parcel number up in the right hand corner of this document.
Shoemaker: Yes sir.
Rossman: Why don’t we run these through the City Clerk. I certainly don’t have a
problem with identifying it that way for tonight’s purposes.
Shoemaker: I might have overlooked or forgotten your question Commissioner.
De Weerd: No, you addressed it.
Borup: Mr. Shoemaker, you had mentioned eventually that is going to need to be taken
care of. Can you clarify eventually?
Shoemaker: Well, we are on record here tonight and I think that consenting to and
asking for annexation for purposes of I think—I don’t think I have ever run an
annexation through the City of Meridian, looked at the statute a few moments ago that
your City Clerk kindly provided. Obviously, you need the consent of the property owner.
Although, this property is less than 5 acres, so under 50.222 you actually don’t have to
have Leavell’s consent. You can consent anyway. You can do it without the consent
because it is continuous. A property less than 5 acres continuos you can consent or
you can annex even without the property owners consent. You will have the consent I
am on record as saying that is not an issue of course.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 5
Rossman: I guess what Mr. Shoemaker’s asking is that we rezone the entire parcel
except for that little piece and then if they want to come in with an annexation on that
piece, they certainly can.
Borup: Or it sound like to me you can request the city to go ahead and handle the
annexation.
Rossman: Yeah. Procedural requirements will have to be met to do that, but that is
another issue, I guess.
Shoemaker: Just to be fair, to further respond. Our consent, Leavell’s consent, would
only apply to that sub triangle. You don’t need anybody’s consent. I think what you
want to do is go ahead and annex the larger, the whole triangle, all adjacent to existing
property. Actually—
Borup: It appears that your triangle—the majority of it is in Fairview Avenue.
Shoemaker: (Inaudible) is in Fairview Avenue—
Borup: And the other is in a piece that is all ready –it is rezoned and we assume
annexed. Is that the problem. It wasn’t annexed?
Shoemaker: I think that honestly it’s just an old (inaudible)—
Borup: (Inaudible) Thank you. Brad, you got any other comments on that as far as
that triangle piece. You feel comfortable is the Commission’s wanted to proceed ahead
and this could be taken care of later.
Hawkins: I think Planning and Zoning certainly does (inaudible) public works, Bruce
Freckleton actually identified this problem when he found it. I would defer to him on
that. I don’t think Planning and Zoning does not have any problem with proceeding,
especially given that if not 100 per cent, 90 per cent of it is currently right of way or
future right of way. It is not going to effect the design of the project.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton, any further comment on that?
Freckleton: Chairman Borup, Commissioners. I just brought it up trying to bring it to
light. It does need to be cleaned up. Procedurally, I don’t know how to proceed on it.
Our recommendation was file an application for annexation and proceed that way, but
however counsel feels is best for us to proceed is fine. I do think it needs to be cleaned
up.
Borup: Yes, it’s just a house cleaning procedure that effects the road right away plus
the adjoining property. Looks like it effects it also.
Freckleton: Correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 6
Borup: So that was essentially overlooked when the other property came before.
Freckleton: I don’t know how it was created.
Borup: It is a very weird shaped little piece to have in there. Thank you. Mr.
Shoemaker, did you have anything else? Okay. This is a public hearing. Do we have
anyone here that wished to address the Commission concerning the rezone of this
property? Okay, hearing none, Commissioners. Any other comments or questions?
We can either act on this at this time or –at this time let’s go ahead and close the public
hearing on Item 2.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing.
MacCoy: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we wish to take any action at this time or would you—I think we have 2
choices. Either act on this now or table it until the end of the hearing tonight.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman. If the intention of the Commission is to act upon it tonight,
perhaps they should spell it out that they are acting on it to the extend of the application
with the exception of the parcel number identified on the exhibit that was just put into
the record. There is a parcel number in the upper right hand corner of that exhibit. If
we could just identify that in the motion.
Borup: Do we have any Commissioner that would like to make a motion?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess the process would be if we tabled this until we hear the CUP item.
Then we would table that to vote on this. Is that correct?
Borup: Yes, that should be acted on first. But this is just strictly rezone.
De Weerd: Okay. Rezone, I’m sorry.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 7
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes Commissioner.
Barbeiro: I move that we recommend to City Council approval of the request for rezone
of 7.265 acres for Creekside Arbour Phase II, from R-8 to R-15 with the exception of tax
parcel number S1107212530.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman. Could we have a determination in that motion whether that is
to include staff comments and if so, which staff comments, just so the record is clear.
The present motion can just be amended.
Barbeiro: If I may then amend my motion to include all staff comments as discussed
here this evening.
MacCoy: I’ll second that.
Borup: Okay it’s been first and seconded. All in favor.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of discussion. I think it probably also should
be noted that the applicant should take whatever possible procedural steps as
necessary to annex the piece at the top.
Borup: Yes, good point. Do we want to pub some stipulation on there as far as—that
that would need to be taken care of before –upon final approval of project. At some
time in there, maybe at least occupancy.
De Weerd: Well it’s not my motion. It would be my suggestion.
Borup: Well someday—there needs to be some time frame.
Barbeiro: We could do it—they could have it as a condition of certificate of occupancy.
That a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until –
Borup: Either that or a building permit or something.
Barbeiro: If I may amend the motion to include that prior to a Certificate of Occupancy
of the property that the prior named parcel be annexed into the city and all of the house
cleaning cared for.
MacCoy: I will second that.
Borup: We have a first and second on the amended motion. Any other discussion? All
in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 8
Borup: Thank you.
ITEM 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 16 FOUR-PLEXES WITH POOL AND CLUBHOUSE FOR
USE BY PHASE I & II (PROPOSED CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE II) BY WILLIAM &
LUCILE LEAVELL—END OF 5TH
NORTH OF CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE I &
SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW:
Borup: Staff.
Hawkins: Full staff comments were given in a memo to the Commission dated August
5, 1999, so I would refer you to those for most of our recommendations. A couple of
items to point out. There is number of Comprehensive Plan references. Staff feel that
the majority of those Comprehensive Plan policies, that this project complies well with—
we point out especially the high density the in-fill nature of the project, the access onto
a direct arterial. There are other Comprehensive Plan items that you should certainly
refer certainly in your decision making. One of those being the adjacency to Five Mile
Creek, which is section 1.8 on page 3. The appearance of natural creeks, Five Mile
throughout commercial activity centers should be improved and harmonized with
adjoining land uses in order to protect water quality. I believe that the irrigation district
has, for the most part, a letter of support and recommendation. They would like to see
further review I think from staff perspective encouraging some kind of a possibly natural
swales to protect the ground water right adjacent to Five Mile Creek, particularly with as
high as a density of a development this close to Five Mile would be something to
consider. There is certainly as you know, on going issues with the Badley Street. The
Leavell’s have gone through ACHD. They did appeal ACHD’s recommendation
originally for that to be a public road. The Commission supported the appeal to it being
a private road. At this point, there is a comment, staff do feel that it should be
accessible—direct access from the development to Badley, particularly given the
growing development around that area for foot traffic. There would be a sidewalk, at
least on Badley that gives access out to some of the commercial centers off of 2-1/2
Street. I would point out that if the Commission feels there is an opportunity to still
require the public road. At this point, staff are going to recognize ACHD’s
Commission’s decision for it to be a private (inaudible). You do have the issue of con
activity with the subdivision just to the east. The primary issues in terms of the size of
units, there is a good mix. The buildings A, B, C and D all have varying square
footages in terms of the units. The access, the road access from Fairview here into the
project, there certainly is some concern about safety on staff and insuring that the width
of the public road and the access from Fairview into the project given that this adjacent
parcel to the west is undeveloped be considered, recognizing the Five Mile, keeping the
integrity of the Five Mile Drain there. I think all the other comments are addressed in
writing there. Staff do recommend approval noting the comments in the report.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 9
MacCoy: I would have one.
Borup: Yes Mr. MacCoy.
MacCoy: Brad on this private road versus public road reading material from ACHD and
reading your report also, the private road will end up being maintained by the people of
that place over there—homeowners association so to speak. If it is a public road then
ACHD or the city would take care of it. From my standpoint I think we are smarter by
having a public road, if it is maintained correctly and then fall into a private road.
Comments, what do you think?
Hawkins: It is currently private.
MacCoy: I realize that. Right now we have not got the complex on there either.
Hawkins: Yeah. There is certainly pros and cons and they are both ways. I think the
main issue of maintenance, if that is what I am hearing, is your concern maintaining
private road. If there are standards. If there are maintenance issues that the
Commission feels they would want to put on the applicant to maintain that private to a
certain level, I think that could be requested as conditions.
MacCoy: I just know from the past years we’ve had several private roads that we have
gone back and watch those things deteriorate on us and them becomes the question,
who do you stick. How do you do it and so on to get it back to a good road. In a case
like this I am not too much in favor of private road. If you had four houses on a private
road, what you allowed, different story. We’ve got a complex on there right now. I just
wondered what your comment was.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Tom.
Barbeiro: I’d just like to ask a question regarding swales around Five Mile Creek. I am
not following the idea. Is it that you don’t want run off of water from the complex into
the creek—is that correct?
Hawkins: Correct. As much as a natural filtration process for the (inaudible) not from
the run off from the local drives.
Borup: Any other questions? Brad, could you clarify again on Badley showing what
section would be private. Also, your talking about having a pathway connecting to, I
believe you said to the east essentially. Is that what your talking about? A pathway
connecting though the subdivision to the east.
Hawkins: It would actually be to the –to the terms of Badley see. Here’s the private.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 10
Borup: To the west then.
Hawkins: Yeah. This section right down here.
Borup: That’s the pathway at that section?
Hawkins: Well not currently. (inaudible) in terms of access on to Badley to come out
this way towards 2-1/2 Street. This is the subdivision over here.
Borup: How is it suppose to terminate now? We’ll ask that question—
Hawkins: You should recognize that this—there are a few modifications to this plan that
you should have received in your packets—the most recent.
Borup: We’ll ask those questions of the applicant. Thank you. Applicant like to
address us now. Either one, which ever.
Shoemaker: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I try to keep to my promise
to let you hear more from the architect and not the lawyer because I think the issues
tonight are design issues and Mr. Knopp is more able to speak to those than I. The
most important issue and the one thing I did want to speak to at the risk of repeating
myself a bit with what you heard from me earlier last meeting we had in late June. You
ask the –actually in May—you ask us to come back until Ada County Highway District
had decided on the issue of whether should be public and extended through on a
east/west basis or whether it should be suspended as we wanted. On July 7th
Ada
County Highway District meeting, just to review the bidding briefly, the Highway District
Commissioners by a 3 to 1 vote, even in the presence of Miss Stiles who was there and
testified, to make a long story short, the Badley Street should be public because of
issues of connectivity. I think the Highway District clearly resolved that issue at the
Leavell’s favor and I think one of the reasons, maybe it is all (inaudible) and there is a
great debate as who’s vote counts the most. Your or the Highway District’s in terms of
public streets. I want to try to keep the issue on the merits. I think we win either way,
but I do think the Highway District wants a public street. Doesn’t want a public street.
You can’t force it down their throat. They have to accept the dedication or there isn’t
any public entity around to maintain the streets. Your counsel can speak to that. I think
you’ll agree that the merits of the decision warrant you following the Highway District
policy decision anyway. I just want to be real brief on this. Back before this
Commission in 1992, when we originally submitted the plans for this project, at the time
it was called Hunter’s Glen and you’ll see it bears a lot of resemblance to the project
that is up on the view(inaudible) . The names the same—north at the top—and you’ll
see that Phase I, which you approved in 1992 as depicted to the right, but the important
point is, back in 1992, and we know this is a 1992 drawing because it says so, even
though the name has changed. This project always had private streets and never saw
Badley Avenue, right here, extended, as staff for the Highway District at one time
recommended, and as your staff recommended, I hear Mr. Hawkins-Clark not giving up
entirely, but pretty much conceding maybe that Badley, pretty much deferring to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 11
Highway District on the issue of Badley not being poked through and I think the
Highway District was persuaded that even because this project was approved in
concept, as depicted in this document here in 1992, even though there isn’t a legal
obligation perhaps in a legal sense for the city to do today in ’98 what it approved in
concept in ’92, that just because the Leavell’s did not have the additional 3 million
dollars to develop all the additional 64 units, which is what is at issue tonight, we did
have a development agreement. The center piece of the development agreement you
may recall was that there is an existing laundry facility in the now developed south half,
south third of the project, your development agreement required that the Leavell’s
construct as part of Phases II and III. I is now combined now into Phase II, the second
aspect of that common area. It either had to be a swimming pool or a tennis court plus
a clubhouse. The facility you see proposed and Mr. Knopp’s drawing is both a
clubhouse and a pool. We are following through the Leavell’s, to make a long story
short, are following through with their commitment and I think we are just asking that
you respond to and respect the at least implied gesture that was made in 1992. Now
on policy reasons, as we discussed in front of the Highway District, of course there are
concerns about connectivity and circulation and all that and usually that (inaudible) for
putting public streets through as a normal progression when development occurs.
Except for, here where there was an implied promise at least make in ’92 when this
project was approved Sterling Cove you’ll recall, that is the 42 unit subdivision just to
the east that (inaudible). It is the residents of that 42 lot subdivision actually it is just 12
or 13 lots up here that are really going to be benefited when you boil away all the fat. It
is only 12 or so lots that are going to be benefited by poking Badley Street through
here. Why, because the people south of Badley Street (inaudible) better way to get out.
There is a private lane here, accessing east state street which goes all the way through
to Meridian and the principal access is on Washington Avenue which runs to 2-1/2
street. We are only again trying to weigh and balance the interest of members of the
public that aren’t here tonight, we are really only talking about benefiting 12 lots up here
versus preserving the community, the neighborhood aspect that the Leavell’s want to
maintain, not just in the 44 units that are all ready developed, but the 64 units they
propose in the second phase, the north half of this project—keeping in mind that this
apartment complex, like most, encourages and wants to encourage pedestrian traffic
and vehicles from other areas, other subdivisions aren’t as respectful maybe or
concerned about pedestrian traffic, kids running back and forth, some swimming pools,
a swimming pool here (inaudible) more inclined to be less respectful to safety
concerns. I think that is why the Highway District thought, in this case, despite general
desirability of connection and poking public streets through here, this is if there was an
opportunity for the exception to apply, it was in this setting, given the history going back
to 1992 and the action by the City of Meridian. Now the related issue of, and I need to
ask staff to clarify where the sidewalk to be built. As you can see, there is a sidewalk
shown here that parallel’s Badley Street so that sidewalk is going to be built. If staff is
suggesting that a sidewalk be extended further to the west of Badley, along the existing
(inaudible) my response has got to be, it is probably a great idea but it’s the kind of
thing that should be a –covered by Ada County Highway District impact fees or paid for
by an LID—not the kind of off sight improvement that should be imposed upon the
Leavell’s. Again, I am responding to or need a little more clarification on what’s staff’s
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 12
recommendation was. Build the sidewalk as depicted within the project parallel to
Badley, but don’t propose—I think it would unfair to build it off sight now. Trying to keep
to my promise. Mr. Knopp would like to respond to the other issues which I believe
were purely design issues or more design issues than anything else. I would stand for
questions as you would like Mr. Chairman, for the remarks I’ve made.
Borup: Commissioner’s. Any questions at this time?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would have a question. I was assuming the
pedestrian pathway was to connect from the subdivision to the east to Badley, but—and
you referred to that little piece sidewalk. There is a long stretch there. How do the
pedestrians get to that sidewalk to begin with?
Borup: Would that be a better question for Mr. Knopp?
Shoemaker: Maybe so Mr. Chairman, but I don’t want to try to dodge the question.
There was discussed—I know what the Ada County Highway District meeting
discussion was had concerning extending or providing an pedestrian access from Elvira
Subdivision, the subdivision to the east kind of on a bias—a 45 degree angle if you will,
through to this project. Again, going back to the –there is a street (inaudible) so this
would be a street going nowhere. I really may be more of a design issue. I think Mr.
Knopp might have some feeling on behalf of the Leavell’s about whether that sidewalk
should be there.
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you Mr. Shoemaker.
Knopp: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Larry Knopp, 355 S. 3rd
Street, Boise, ID. I am the architect on the project. I would like to address, item by item
the conditional use comments prepared by staff and I also would like to go ahead and
address this Badley Street. Maybe we should do that at this point of time while it'’ still
fresh in what has been transpired by Mr. Shoemaker.
Borup: Mr. Knopp, may I make a suggestion. Rather then address them item by item, I
think Commissioner’s would rather just hear anything that you have any question or
may differ from staff comments. If you are in agreement I think that is all you need to
say. I am in agreement with everything—except.
Knopp: Okay. That is how I will proceed. I’ll just have the comments on whatever
clarification or if I am in disagreement or got a question on staff comments. First of all I
would like to go ahead and continue the discussion on access and pedestrian access
through the project. It concerns Badley and also sidewalks on the project. I don’t
know—I will put this up and maybe you can see it from this standpoint. This Phase II,
Badley Street is extended and improved by Phase I –this dotted line that comes in and
better shown on the view foil. This is improved now with Phase I, a private drive. Elvira
Subdivision came in stubbed in this street hoping that Badley would be extended which
as Mr. Shoemaker had indicated, there is approximately 14 lots in here that would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 13
benefit access there, but their access is mainly through their subdivision and out
Washington Street. I have talked to the Leavell’s extensively about pedestrian traffic
and also public traffic through here. This is a residential area. They was to minimize
the impact both vehicle and pedestrian into this. They want pedestrian traffic that is
generated in their project to be able to circulate well in it, but they really would rather
control the amount of access outside their project so that they don’t have people using
this, going through landscaping, trample in it, security, maybe trying to use the
amenities as far as the pools and the laundry facilities. I think everybody can
appreciate that because it becomes a big problem on some of these projects. As I
discussed with staff, we do have perimeter sidewalks around the rec. building trying to
inter-relate this project within the development itself. We have provided a bike path—
this hatched line, that connects Phase I and Phase II through the project, both from
Badley Street, from Phase I and out to Fairview Avenue so that we can hopefully have
the pedestrian and any bicycle traffic have a safe access through the project with it.
The Leavell’s main concern with public street and access outside the project, is traffic,
is security and those measures. I think that was one of the big issues when the project
was designed and how they wanted to handle it. I hope that answers the questions on
the private roads and also the sidewalks. We are providing sidewalks down the private
drive on Badley for our length of property that we have control over. Item number 1—
we don’t have a problem. Number 2, no problem. Number 3 deals with Five Mile
Creek. I do have and submitted to Planning and Zoning a letter from John Anderson. I
took this project over to him. I went through it. He had no problem with the way it
submitted. He said that he would be more than happy to work with us on the same
basis that he works with everybody else and with Sterling Subdivision to the east as far
as access for their maintenance and easements. There is a 50 foot easement each
side for a total of 100 feet. I have submitted a site plan showing the locations of the 50
feet and we’re diminishing down to 35 feet. That’s the plan that I showed John
Anderson. He doesn’t have a problem with it. He is more than happy to work with us
on access for maintenance of Five Mile. On the comment that the staff feels the original
50 foot easement is necessary, that easement is in place but Nampa Meridian is willing
to work with us on reducing—not reducing the easement, it will stay there. Whatever
area they need to maintain that ditch. Also, we need to work with them in regards to a
fence for this project and I
END OF SIDE 1
Knopp: This will also come into play with ACHD on the flag portion going back up to
Fairview Avenue. We will work with ACHD. We work with Nampa Meridian to make
sure that everybody’s concerns are covered and handled. By that, I mean like a fence
placement. We will work with them to place a fence for protection of the ditch but also
the safety and protection of the children and people that are in this project. John
Anderson did not have a problem with that. In regards to the flag section going out to
Fairview, Nampa Meridian and also ACHD and the property owners to the west, we will
have to get together and work all that out on a joint effort. What is involved with that is
John Anderson with Nampa Meridian wants to make sure that if we improve this
section, that he has access with either curb cuts—what he would like to see is not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 14
sidewalk through there. He would like to leave it as just a paved area that his
equipment can feed and access Five Mile Creek to maintain it. You also need to know
that they access and maintain Five Mile from both sides of the ditch. They have access
on both sides and they maintain it from both sides. They have access here and also to
the east side. We need to work that out with Ada County Highway District on what we
can do here. Any sidewalks that might be put in here, on this stub for a public street
down here that ACHD is requiring. Mr. Jacobson owns this portion of ground that is
undeveloped. He has sold this portion of ground. I’ve been in contact with him but
have not been able together with him, because he all ready has an agreement in place
with ACHD for access for back to this parcel because he could not land lock it—when
he sold this front parcel off. We need to work with ACHD, we need to work with this
property owner so that we have what ACHD needs for access on to Fairview. I don’t
think it’s ACHD’s purpose to have a public street as it is to have public access, one
egress ingress that serves the Leavell’s property, Phase II and also these two pieces of
property so that they limit the amount egress ingress. What I think will probably happen
is a common portion here, what ever we need to do to satisfy these (inaudible) and that
will be done. We just have not been able to get that processed—finalized with ACHD
and with Bob Jacobson. Mr. Jacobson was in McCall last week on vacation. The 50
feet will maintain on that easement. We won’t diminish that. On number 4 is the
roadway to Fairview that I was just discussing and we will work with them and work that
out for access for them. Number four is covered in the comments I just made on the
Fairview portion access on the flag lot. Number 5 is in regard to the sidewalks and on
Badley Street and like we discussed we have provided a sidewalk on Badley on the
private drive portion next to the rec building and we will continue that down to our
westerly property line and then if Badley Street gets improved with a sidewalk, then it
will be according to what Mr. Shoemaker said, either an LID or paid for through the
impact funds from ACHD. Number 6. The elevations—there is going to be some minor
changes that will be made to the plans and some detailing done and that will be
corrected and of course submitted in the building department stage. There was some
changes that the Leavell’s would like to make and improve on their plans that from the
first Phase to second Phase. That is what we are talking about there on Item 6. Item
number 7, the 21 inch sanitary sewer line that is in, I have drawn that in from my civil
engineer. I have given Brad –I just finished that up this afternoon and I have given him
a copy of it showing where that sewer line is. I was assuming that there was a 20 foot
easement. Ten foot normally on each side. I think Bruce has indicated to me that there
might be a 5 foot and a 15 foot easement on that sewer, but we have to find out what
that in exactly and make sure that we don’t have a problem with it there. I know we
don’t on east side but we may have a problem if there is a 15 foot away from the
Creekside, we may have to adjust this building to accommodate if that is the case—if it
is 15 feet on one side instead of 10 equally on both sides. That easement falls pretty
much within the 50 easement of right away on Five Mile Creek. Item number 8,
sanitary sewer extension—we did submit a sewer and water a preliminary layout to the
city on the original application showing a preliminary service of utilities into this project.
You should have a copy of that that was prepared by my civil engineer, Pinnacle. Item
number 9 is the same thing. Item number 8 sanitary sewer. Item number 9 is domestic
water. Item number 10—there seems to be some real confusion on that existing
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 15
billboard sign. All of the Leavell’s wanted to do was use the footing of it to create a new
sign for the project—not a billboard. What we are going to do is tear it all down. We
have to submit, we will submit a new sign that will meet the ordinance, Meridian’s
ordinance on signs. Hopefully, that will go away. We don’t what to use a billboard,
never have—that wasn’t the intent on that, so anyway Item number 10 will be submitted
with a new sign and it will meet Meridian sign ordinance. Item number 11. Fairview
right away—their comments from ACHD. There is no more right away needed on
Fairview. Where ever the right away line is, and I am not sure exactly where it is but it’s
got to be pretty close to our property because they are requesting any additional right
away. We should be good on Number 11. A minimum of 150 parking stalls we have
provided 174 on comment Number 12. Item number 13, underground pressured
irrigation system. We have two options on that, but right now the Leavell’s have a well
that is servicing their landscaping for Phase II. It was designed to pump size for Phase
II so that will be used. If we need any additional, John Anderson has all ready indicated
that Nampa Meridian will enter into a agreement so that we can use a pressurized
system out of Five Mile Creek for landscaping. We shouldn’t have a problem with Item
number 13. Item number 14, I addressed on Five Mile Creek, the fencing. We have to
do something there. We just need to make sure that it is agreeable with Nampa
Meridian and works for the Leavell’s. I have all ready indicated to them that whatever
fence goes up the Leavell’s will be responsible for it as far as if they have to take it
down or portions of it or what ever for maintenance on Five Mile Creek. That will also
be in an agreement with Nampa Meridian. That should be covered there. There is a
good chance probably what we will use is the same thing that Elvira Subdivision used
on their portion along Five Mile Creek. Assessment fees for water and sewer services
are determined at time of building plan review. Not a problem there. Standard.
Number 16. We will be providing handicap parking per code, which is one for 25
spaces. We need to provide those and they will be covered in the ADA requirements.
Item number 17, no drainage areas are shown on the development. What—I have
talked with Nampa Meridian Irrigation is that if we treat, if we process our run off
through grease and sand traps, boxes catch basins and handle it that way, we can go
into an agreement with Nampa Meridian and they will take that water –we can inject it
into Five Mile Creek. We will either do that or provide a combination of swales and
treatment into Five Mile Creek. General requirements, Item number 1. We have one
ditch that cuts the corner of this project and it will be tiled. That shouldn’t be a problem.
That is standard as far as we have to tile it. It comes through this corner, it is piped
underneath this drive right now—the street. It is piped in here and it comes down here
and drops through into here, so we have to tile that portion of it. That is not a problem.
We will match and meet the requirements—I would imagine that is Nampa Meridian.
That’s also shown on this revised site that I have given Brad as far as the sewer
location on Five Mile also. Domestic wells—there are no wells or septic systems on this
Phase II of the project. We should not have a problem there, like I indicated earlier, we
do have a well that is servicing Phase I for the landscaping that will be servicing Phase
II also. We’ve met number 3, that’s fine. We accept that. Paving and striping, number
4, that’s fine. Drainage plan will be submitted by my engineer Pinnacle for the project.
Outside lighting, we’ll handle that. We’ll meet City ordinance on that. Same with Item
number 7. Signage for the project. Item number 8, I am assuming that –I tried to talk to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 16
Brad a little bit prior to this meeting on provide 5 foot sidewalks in accordance with city
ordinance. I am not sure we have –we provided sidewalks on the project as much as
we could but most of these buildings—a lot of these buildings are four-plexes have
garages on them. This is a driveway coming in to them. We will be providing individual
sidewalks from the front doors to the garages and provide access to parking areas and
otherwise it’s as shown as far as circulation goes on the project. We’ve got site
specifics comments. Item number 1—relating back to existing proposed utilities. We
will finalize that but it has all ready been submitted to the city as far as sanitary sewer
and domestic water service goes. We will provide, as soon as we can and know what
we need anticipated fire flows. There is an existing fire hydrant that sits on the project
right now and I am sure that when I check and find out the mains that are in there we’ll
know how many fire hydrants we’ll have to provide in the project from the fire
department. I have talked to Mr. Boss at the fire department. We reviewed the plans.
He has stamped the preliminary and approved the preliminary plan on this project. The
city should have that. I submitted a copy to them on it. Item number 3, assessment
agreement with the City of Meridian. I am not sure what that is.
Hawkins: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I could probably clarify that.
Borup: Please do.
Hawkins: An Assessment Agreement is basically when we come up with your
assessments for the project, it’s based on historical water usage of say Phase I. At that
point of time when the calculations are done, it’s almost like our best guess of what your
going to use in water. It is what we do when we enter into an agreement that basically
states that these calculations were based on historical usage and that in X number of
months from full occupancy we will re-evaluate the records to see if we were on target.
If we were high, we agree in that agreement to reimburse any overage of assessment
fees. In that same agreement, you agree that any shortage would be made up. It’s an
agreement that basically covers the city and the applicant for assessments.
Knopp: Okay, it’s for water usage.
Hawkins: Correct, water and sewer.
Knopp: Okay. We don’t have a problem with that. I thought maybe it was the property
tax assessment. The Item number 4, we have to meet all of the ordinances on Meridian
for landscaping, so we will be doing that. Item number 5 is—goes back to a previous
(inaudible) as far as screening the site lighting from residential areas and that’s fairly
typical. Five foot pathways, again for pedestrian circulation on the internal—I think we
have tried to address that as best as we could as far as the pedestrian traffic within the
project itself, and that’s again another reason why we wanted private streets and not
turn this into a thoroughfare but establish this as an apartment complex so that there is
some security and there is some limited about of vehicular traffic, except for the peopled
that are in the project themselves, so I think that that should work fairly well. Item
number 8. That will be handled in final design and engineering. No city water for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 17
landscaping. I’ve all ready covered that. They have a private well or they would be
using a pressurized system with Nampa Meridian off of Five Mile. Item number 10. We
will, of course, have to do that. That is not a problem on Five Mile Creek and the
habitat. We don’t even plan on getting close to it. Like I said, we need to leave at least
a 20 foot area up there for Nampa Meridian to access and maintain Five Mile Creek.
They probably damage it more than anybody else does when they go in to clean it out.
I guess that covers it all.
Borup: Any Commissioners have any questions?
De Weerd: Yes sir. I guess I would like some clarification on the public street portion.
Were you saying that you will not have a sidewalk along that public street. Portion.
Knopp: The ACHD wants a sidewalk. Nampa Meridian Irrigation doesn’t for access to
maintain the creek. We will work with ACHD and do what ever we have to do to make
everybody happy—whether that means we put in a sidewalk and we put in curb cuts.
John Anderson at Nampa Meridian felt that he might be able to get by with a curb cut
through the sidewalk. They don’t want to damage a sidewalk and be responsible for it.
They had indicated to me, they might want some kind of a curb cut or access if we put a
sidewalk in here that they can access and maintain this. Otherwise, they don’t if they
can maintain Five Mile from up here without getting over here farther. Although, this
line indicates the bottom of the creek, so there is a vertical height that is established in
through there, so at this point of time I guess what I am saying is that we will provide,
we will have to provide whatever ACHD wants and whatever Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District wants.
De Weerd: Well, that sounds like it conflicts.
Knopp: They do. They do and so –
De Weerd: So we can just add our want to that. I mean it doesn’t make sense having a
sidewalk all of a sudden end. I know we see it throughout the city, but I’m not a
proponent of continuing that trend.
Knopp: What I said was if ACHD requires to have us now—the bike path that we have
indicated here is a striped area on the pavement that’s for pedestrian use only. I wasn’t
a sidewalk, it wasn’t a raised elevated area. It was a striped area in the private drive
that was put on there to access that. But yes, we do have a conflict. Nampa Meridian
doesn’t want a sidewalk because they don’t want to drive over it. They don’t want to
have responsibility of if. It is a standard with ACHD if you put in a public street, you will
put in sidewalk, curb and gutter.
MacCoy: What about a rolled curb and a thickened sidewalk. We’ve done that before
and that works.
Knopp: Right. That might be a very good option.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 18
MacCoy: (Inaudible) I have watched a lot of that stuff and it’s not big equipment any
way. They can get their work done dragging unit and so on, so we get our sidewalk and
ACHD says fine. You can work it that direction.
Knopp: That might be an alternative also.
De Weerd: Oh good. Thank you. I guess another question I had is about the
pedestrian pathway. Now that is a requirement from ACHD and I don’t see how the
connection would be from the Elvira Subdivision to get to 2-1/2 Street through you
complex. I do understand why they don’t want to do that, but I also see we want
connectivity between our subdivisions and all those people maybe have to drive a little
ways, but if they are on foot, they need access to the main thoroughfare as well.
Knopp: I would have to examine ACHC’s approval. Was that a suggestion Fred?
Does that say suggestion on there or was it part of the agreement.
Shoemaker: Let me read that if I could in the Ada County Highway District
Commissioners Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated July—
Borup: State you name again please.
Shoemaker: Fred Shoemaker. Reading from the Ada County Highway District July 13,
1999 report to Mr. & Mrs. Leavell. Mr. Arnold writes, page 3, paragraph E. At the July
7, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission granted the applicants request to not
extend Badley Street from its current terminus to the west property line. Instead, the
Commission to require a paved pedestrian pathway and the alignment of Badley Street
extended from it’s current terminus to the west property line.
Borup: I’ve got some confusion—could you point out on the map exactly what that is
referring to. I think we understand the west property line, but from where to the west
property line.
Knopp: (Inaudible)
Borup: Larry, I think you need to get on the mic.
Knopp: I’m sorry. What the Ada County Highway District suggested or what they are
requiring is at this terminus on the east property line that we provide—
Borup: Essentially they are saying a sidewalk from Badley to Badley.
Knopp: Well, yeah. Sidewalk from that property line up there where it terminates
through the project here to connect pedestrian traffic.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 19
De Weerd: So do you have then a pathway from that point to 2-1/2? Or to Badley?
Knopp: No we don’t at this point of time. I had shown, at one time, a sidewalk coming
off this terminus out through those two buildings to this private drive, but I was
instructed by the Leavell’s that they did not want pedestrian traffic from other
neighborhood going through their development.
De Weerd: And through that loop in that private drive, there are no sidewalks then so if
a resident want to go the pool house they walk on the street.
Knopp: On the private drive.
De Weerd: On the private drive.
Knopp: The reason for that is because as I tried to indicate before, most of these units
have garages—single car garages on them. These are driveways, so whether we
stripe or whether they use this pedestrian traffic, or whether we lose some landscaping
through here and their proceeding over driveways and around is—I think that is why it is
very important that this development stays private drives and limits the access and the
accessibility just to this project and not try to provide access and for surrounding
neighborhoods. It doesn’t on Phase I, but this bike path and this access from 2-1/2
street and from the existing Phase I that goes through and carried through down to
Washington Street, they would have access to this and this is why we felt that this
pedestrian and this bike path needed to be though and connect Fairview and connect
Badley and connect this private drive-thru, because that gives a continuity through the
neighborhood, through the existing streets that are there and not provide new,
additional egress ingress from surrounding neighborhoods.
De Weerd: Whether it’s by car or by pedestrian or by –
Knopp: Yeah, the pedestrian is not too bad, but there again if we provide a sidewalk
through these two building areas, and we’ve got pedestrian traffic from other
neighborhoods, there’s no way of controlling who is going through there at what time of
the day or night and could cause a lot of problems to the apartment complex. That’s
the feeling and the reason why the Leavells didn’t want to do that.
(Inaudible)
Borup: You need to come up and get on record.
Leavell: I’m Lucy Leavell, the applicant or one of the applicants, and my address is
2720 S. Arial Lane in Meridian. The privacy issue is one. We would intend to have the
complex completely surrounded except for specific openings with fences. We will have
a night watchman. We will have a controlled for privacy and security. Another question
that comes up is we don’t allow dogs in the apartment complex. But you’re kind of
asking us to put a public walkway through the private area, which we could not control
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 20
the neighbors, whether they brought their dogs in. Could we or could we not? Could
we or could we not request that bicycles not be on that, and there’s one further concern
that I’m very concerned about. That is providing liability. If we have the public coming
in and we’ve opened this to the public and say they’re welcome in this area, that
heightens our liability a great deal, and I’m not sure I know how to address that with the
insurance companies. That’s a real problem.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? I guess I do understand your concern
but did you say all this to ACHD? I mean this is –
Leavell: Oh, yeah I understand that that says in the report and I hadn’t seen that that
was a requirement. I did not understand that sitting through the meeting. I thought it
was a suggestion. We’ll have to go back and talk to them about it. But there’s
absolutely no way you can control that if you let sidewalks come through between the
buildings. A night watchman cannot know who is there and who is not. This coming in
behind the buildings and who is not.
De Weerd: I understand your concern. I just read it as a requirement and know the
intent of Badly and so I can’t offer you any suggestion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Leavell, I’d like to clarify again. There is the option of
having a walking path that would parallel along the south property line between phase
one and phase two. Is that one of the options that you have or – because as I
understand we’ve discussed here tonight you wanted to come through have them pass
through the main private drive as a walking and the walk around from there. We do
have the option of a perhaps a meandering path following the phase one phase two
property line. We have similar paths like that along –
Leavell: But there isn’t any meandering there. I mean that’s a straight line.
Barbeiro: Right, we have the option of putting a meandering walking path between
phase one and phase two. I imagine that this would be very similar to the greenbelt
along the Boise River where a number of those apartment homes come right up against
the river and there’s the path on the back side there.
Leavell: That’s correct. Now there is that option that should the City of Meridian ever
sign a license agreement or get control of that Five Mile Creek, they do want to have a
walking path back there, and we’re going to have our apartments far enough forward
and we’re going to have a fence to where they could have a walking path there should
they chose to do that.
Barbeiro: Okay this is separate from the Five Mile Creek. Let me walk up to the map
here so that I know that we’re both on the same path. If I understood Mr. Knopp
correct, the idea was to have a path coming along here into the private drive and then
they would meander through here. My idea would be to have a meandering path
between these two along that property line.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 21
Leavell: There really isn’t that much room to make it meander and then you would be
meandering through people’s patios. I don’t think they would appreciate that.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, one thing that might maybe clarify this item E under the Ada
County Highway District staff report page three seems pretty clear. Instead of doing the
street, the commission required the applicant to provide a paved pedestrian pathway in
the alignment of Badly Street, which would be in the alignment that Commissioner
Barbeiro is talking about extended from it’s current terminus to the west property line,
so it would be right down along the boundary between phase one and phase two. That
comment seems pretty clear.
Barbeiro: It didn’t make sense what they were describing sidewise because that’s what
I read is along the line of Badly Street.
Freckleton: And that is a condition from ACHD.
Barbeiro: If that is the case, then if you have a concern that they’re not going to have
enough room along the patios it may be up to Mr. Knopp to move the buildings out a
ways. One more redesign.
Leavell: Yeah, I don’t object to the redesign. What I object to is the loss of space for
tenants, the green space that we’ve worked so hard to build in. And if that is written up
as a requirement and I had not seen that we will be appealing that and seeing if we can
work out an optional plan like to swing that on to the area of Five Mile Creek, something
that we will have fenced off from our privacy. I don’t object to them having access to
anything. I just object to them having access to our tenants’ private areas and our
private streets.
Barbeiro: Well that is much appreciated. I do understand. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Knopp?
De Weerd: I had no further questions.
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, just a couple. I just curious, what’s the size of that pool that
you have up there? You’ve got 42 units plus you’ve got now 64 more too. When you
designed the size of that pool, did you design it to take care of that many people?
Knopp: We have not designed the pool yet. We will be working with a pool company to
make sure that it’s adequate and what the design is and what we want to provide there.
MacCoy: Okay and your clubhouse and your wash house where your laundry is, were
they designed and (inaudible) to take care of the entire complex?
Knopp: I’m assuming that the laundry facility is. I don’t know. I didn’t do phase one.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 22
(Inaudible – off the microphone)
Knopp: I would imagine –
Borup: Can you repeat that Mr. Knopp? That didn’t get on the testimony if you could
repeat what was said.
Knopp: The Leavells indicated to me just know that they have ten washers and dryers
in the existing laundry facility and that it’s supposedly was designed for it. I would
imagine if they have a problem with the laundry facilities size, it will have to expand or
add or something because there’s nothing worse than an unhappy tenant.
MacCoy: That’s my point.
Knopp: So I’m sure that if the laundry facility isn’t adequate for phase two, then they
would be addressing that issue with an expansion of it or an addition to one in phase
two, but to get a little more precise on the rec. building and the (inaudible). We have
not designed it yet. We have just provided space for it and we need to design that
facility both the pool and the rec. building with any particular design aspects that we
need to incorporate in it and that will be done.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. I’d like to go back on the conditional use column here, item
16. We went over that with you and our staff has recommended a way to put the
handicap zones in. I’m assuming that when you said yes on 16, you will be following
that type of procedure so that each apartment complex has handicap usage there.
Knopp: We have handicap units that meet the requirements as far as the number of
units in ratio to the project we’re doing and also for the car ports.
MacCoy: Thank you very much. That’s all I have.
Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Knopp, what was your understanding on the – I had the
impression that your understanding on the pathway connecting Badly on the east to
Badly on the west that ACHD just wants some type of connecting, not necessarily in
straight alignment. Was that what you were trying to imply earlier?
Knopp: Yes and also I would like to clarify that. At the meeting and I did not hear them
state it as a requirement, one of the commissioners said well maybe in lieu of a public
street you can have some kind of a connecting pedestrian path.
Borup: That’s pretty specific in their written –
Knopp: It is and that’s why I’m surprised because that was not – I did not hear them
read in a recommendation as in the approval process, so I was under the
understanding that it was a recommendation from one of the commissioners but not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 23
part of the approval or the appeal process. As Mrs. Leavell has indicated they’re fairly
adamant about that. I guess we will be going back to – if I had known that they put it in
as a recommendation that it was part of the approval process, we would have appealed
it at that point in time, but during the meeting as I had indicated it was suggested by one
of the commissioners. I heard nobody state that in and put it in as part of the approval
process. So what I would like to do and I think what Mr. Shoemaker needs to do is to
go back to the minutes on that meeting with ACHD to see if that really was put in
because I frankly am amazed you know because it wasn’t – I didn’t hear anybody make
it a part of the approval process. But to answer your question Mr. Chairman, if that’s
the case if it is part of the recommendation if we can’t get it appealed, then the Leavells
have another option. I guess that’s not to do the project if it boils down to that. The
sidewalk and the pedestrian traffic through here I think can be designed I don’t know if
it’s the best location between phase one and phase two along this demising line
because both of these units – these are existing, these are proposed, all these are their
back patios, and to have pedestrians and I’m assuming that the pedestrian traffic would
be very limited since it only feeds 40 some lots to Elvira and most of those lots you
know there will be a point here where these lots will exit out Washington rather than
trying to come up here and around depending on where they want to go, but I think Mrs.
Leavell has really a good point. I am not sure if it’s in how the liability is there, but if
Five Mile Creek is to be established as a habitat and an amenity then such as the bike
path and pedestrian path that Boise has down the greenbelt, then that could be a nice
way to handle everybody’s concerns with this and to provide a nice amenity to the
project.
Borup: So you’re saying you would like to go ahead and put a pathway then along Five
Mile then instead?
Knopp: Well this is the first time that I’ve been approached with it, so I would think that
it might not be a bad solution –
Borup: That was my next question. There has not been any discussion with Nampa
Meridian on that.
Knopp: There has not been, no. I’m sure they’ll have the same concern there as they
along the flag lot out there is if you put in and it maybe it’s a gravel path instead of a
concrete path so that any traffic over for maintenance on Five Mile Creek does not
destroy it.
Borup: Question on that, are they doing – earlier you had stated that they were to
maintain that from both sides of Five Mile?
Knopp: This is what John Anderson had indicated to me that maintenance is –
Borup: And how are they accessing the which would be essentially the north and east
of –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 24
Knopp: East side.
Borup: How are they access that now? Obviously not from the same access road.
Knopp: Well it’s just an open area.
Borup: Are they coming off of Fairview then?
Knopp: They’re coming off of Fairview and they’re also –
Borup: On that undeveloped property.
Knopp: Yes.
Borup: That’s what I was wondering why there was such a concern with the sidewalk if
they’re accessing it from the other side right now.
Knopp: I’m not sure. Normally what Nampa Meridian has done with me on projects in
the past is they usually require access from only one side. If they’ve got it from one
side, they normally don’t require it from both side.
Borup: Normally you only have the road on one side.
Knopp: Yeah. This revised site plan that I have given to the Planning and Zoning also
shows the fencing that Sterling Subdivision has put in and you can see where they’ve
located in this area that they have open here for access maintenance on Five Mile. The
balance of all this property to the east is undeveloped so it’s wide open and they get
their maintenance from that way. And so as the parcels to the east are developed, they
will go through the same process as everybody else. Make sure that they provide
access for Nampa Meridian to maintain that ditch and so whatever that is. Normally the
maintenance on them is the weeds and either the burning or –
Borup: That’s what I was wondering why need it both sides and –
Knopp: Yeah.
Borup: I don’t know about the rest of the commissioners, but there’s one commissioner
here that would look real favorably on a pathway along Five Mile Creek. We’ve been
working towards trying to get more that is in the Comprehensive Plan and the progress
has been very slow on that and other parts of the city. That’s maybe my comment
there.
Knopp: Five Mile Creek is a big creek. There’s a lot of water running through it. It
does get deep through a portion of that, but I mean deep by the fact that it’s physically
lower than the surrounding property, but as my client has indicated, they would certainly
be in favor of looking at that as an option rather than having a pedestrian traffic and not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 25
being able to control somebody else’s dogs and vehicles and pedestrian and noise
through their development.
De Weerd: Well it would seem like you have the working relationship with Nampa
Meridian. Perhaps you can actually make this happen. Something that hasn’t been
done yet.
Knopp: As you had indicated Nampa Meridian wants are different than ACHD’s and
sometime the client. But if the project is just a go ahead then there has to be a
compromise on everybody’s part.
Borup: At the beginning Mr. Shoemaker made the statement that the pedestrian traffic
was a high priority. If that’s truly so then I think the sidewalks and even for the tenants
to get around within the project would be a priority if that’s a true statement. Thank you.
Any other questions for Mr. Knopp?
De Weerd: No, not specifically for him other than Bruce might have something for him.
Do you have a question?
Freckleton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I just wanted to point out
item number three on our staff report under conditional use comments page three and
that is dealing with multiple agencies on the Five Mile Creek. We’re not just talking
Nampa Meridian (End of Tape)
Freckleton: …Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and they will tell you that the Corps
has no jurisdiction. However, this is the federal government, the Corps of Engineers.
They claim that it is a natural waterway, and I don’t know that they would be as willing to
give up or let encroachments come into that easement. So the purpose of our
comment there is we want to see some proof from the other agencies that claim
jurisdiction that this is a viable design.
Borup: So either approving or giving up rights of jurisdiction. One or the other?
Freckleton: Correct.
MacCoy: Mr. Chair, Bruce, I served on a committee the last couple of years that’s
working with this project. I don’t know whether it’s ever going to end, but in trying to do
the entire county and with the Corps of Engineers of course is one of the people that
we’ve got to deal with to get them to give up that right along with the irrigation people
and etc so that we could do this pathway across the entire county, and we’re now
working even bigger to go from Ada to Canyon on that thing and so it’s something that’s
way out of our hands, but they are working that system because of what you say. It’s
difficult.
Borup: Thank you. Did you have a final conclusion?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 26
Knopp: Well if I may add to the comment, I stated this at the last hearing. I had talked
to John Caywood Bureau of Reclamation. I phoned him and talked to him because
through a letter from the City Clerk on this as stated that the federal government had
jurisdiction on this. I called him, John Caywood, emphatically told me that they didn’t
and they didn’t want anything to do with it. They didn’t want to be involved in it. But we
certainly don’t have a problem working with whoever has control of it. But as I indicated
at the last meeting, I contacted him and I can get a letter from him. I don’t know if he’s
the man, but that’s the contact that I was given by a letter dated 12th
of April, 99 from
Will Berg, City Clerk, City of Meridian.
Borup: That would probably be good to follow through on that. Okay, thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would have one more thing and first I would ask Mr.
Knopp, did you have any specific ideas on your signs? It makes me a little
uncomfortable when you say that it will adhere to our sign ordinance because we don’t
have much of one. So I guess I would like to kind of know if you had ideas in mind at
this point and then I would refer to staff on suggestions on perimeters that we can build
into this conditional use permit. I guess we have had one circumstance where we didn’t
do this as a condition of the CUP and they came back with a 100 foot sign request. So
I just thought maybe I’d ask you since I have the opportunity.
Knopp: No, I haven’t addressed that issue and the reason I haven’t is normally I let the
sign companies work with the owner on that because they know the sign ordinances.
They know what is allowed. Also they design it for the project and for the owners and
the needs and so I’m assuming that it will be a monument sign. I’m assuming it will be
something that – and we also have a problem you know if we’re going to stick it out
front and stick it in that on Fairview, we’re going to have to make everybody else happy
out there also, and that’s including Nampa Meridian. So I don’t know. The Leavells
have not told me anything about what their wishes are, but I normally have my clients
work with the sign companies to develop a sign and go through the city for approval on
those. Now, I’m not sure what your sign ordinance is. Evidently it’s pretty lax if they
can put up whatever. I would have thought that it would be minimum as far as allowing
a certain size in certain zones, and also what street frontage you’ve got. But I guess
not. I guess you don’t have that, and I haven’t got an answer for you. That’s why I put
on the site plan that it will meet Meridian’s –I was assuming you guys had somewhat of
a sign ordinance that would cover this.
De Weerd: We do have somewhat of one.
Knopp: Okay, so you’ve got an approval process that it will go through.
Borup: Yes, sir.
Hawkins-Clark: I would point out that the City Council does have a standing policy that
they’ve asked staff to enforce along Fairview Avenue. 72 square feet, which basically
results in monument signs. I mean you’re talking about nine by you know – I mean it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 27
could be a pretty good size, but that’s a maximum that the City Council has asked us to
enforce along Fairview and Cherry. Of course you’ve got site triangle issues too with
getting people turning right on to Fairview, visibility issues and that kind of thing.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Knopp. This is still a continued public hearing. Do we have
anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Seeing and hearing none, --
yes sir, come on up.
Leavell: I’m Bill Leavell. I live at 2720 S. Arial Lane also. I would like to tell you that
this apartment complex we have 12 handicap units all of them have garages, handicap
access for wide vehicle and also these apartments they’ll be renting for up to $850 or
maybe a little bit more later on. But we’re looking for an upper class and we’ve got to
have that. That’s why we’re talking about a night watchman and everything throughout
the unit. Right now we have security guard coming in our apartment complex three
times a night and he writes down anything he sees, so that’s all I’ve got.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions?
De Weerd: No, thanks.
Borup: Does staff have any summary comments? Yes, sir come on up. You got to be
quick.
Leavell: My name is Gary Leavell. I live at 7140 Stickman in Melba, and I hope to be
partial owner of this soon. I’m real concerned about the path also as far as the liability.
We can enforce our tenants. If our tenants are out there screaming at 10:00 at night,
we can evict them. We cant’ evict the neighbors. You know we can maintain our
tenants and our quality of our apartment complex if it’s our people. Because if they
don’t follow the rules, they’re out of there. But you can’t do that. Okay, you can’t be my
neighbor any more. You know, we’re not Mr. Rogers, but as far as the laundry mats go,
like my dad says this is real upper class apartment complex. Most of those people
would rather not go to a laundry facility. That’s why he’s put in laundry facilities to –
they have washers and dryers in the apartments. And he also for people who don’t own
their own washers and dryers, offers to rent them at very inexpensively, probably
cheaper than what it would cost to go to a laundry mat every week or twice a week. So
we don’t foresee a big usage in the laundry facility in this kind of apartment complex at
all.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much.
Trent: My name is Darla Trent. I live at 1312 E. 5th
Street which happens to be in
phase one. I’m the manager of it, and I have live there for three and a half years and
managed it for two and a half years. I just want to agree with I see absolutely no way
that the pathway could go between phases one and two without interrupting the tenants’
patio and their private. I agree, I would love to have a walkway going along the creek if
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 28
that were to come to pass. I agree with the whole phase two since I’ve lived here for
three and a half years, it has always been maintained. It has always been planned, and
I would love to see it come to pass.
Borup: Thank you. Did I already ask the staff if they had any final summary? Okay,
thank you. Commissioners, --
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
MacCoy: Second it.
Borup: Discussion?
MacCoy: None.
De Weerd: None.
Borup: I assume you feel comfortable with making some type of decision tonight then?
De Weerd: I just moved to close the public hearing. Yes, I do.
Borup: Okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Now maybe appropriate for some discussion.
MacCoy: Yes.
Borup: Would you like to start, Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: Well yeah, with some of the footnotes that staff has made as well as some
of the comments that Mr. Knopp has made, I feel comfortable with it. I would be
prepared to include some of those comments within a motion if you would like me to tell
you what those comments are, I am prepared to do so.
Borup: I think I would be interested in the comments first before we do the motion.
De Weerd: Okay, in response to a concern or a comment that Commissioner MacCoy
made, it would to assure that there is proper maintenance of these private roads to
ACHD safety standards. Built in protection to assure the water quality along the Five
Mile Creek for the runoff and/or drainage. And again a lot of these comments are
already in the staff’s, but they are comments I feel have been discussed and should
emphasized. Work out the requirement with the public street with the property to the
west, ACHD, Nampa Meridian and to keep the sidewalks in that plan. Signage should
be submitted for the approval of staff. Perhaps stating it’s going to be square foot
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 29
maximum and it should a monument sign. To include Mr. Knopp’s comments on the
pressurized irrigation that it will meet and/or will work with Nampa Meridian to access
the Five Mile Creek. And then just an extra emphasis on staff’s conditional use permit
comment number three.
MacCoy: I’d say that’s very good. She cleaned up all mine. So that’s good.
Borup: Commissioner MacCoy, do you have anything to add?
MacCoy: No, I think that she covered that very well plus the fact that we’re going to
include the staff comments as part of our condition anyway. I would like to state to the
staff I think they did an exceptional job on this project and I appreciate I think we all do.
Your detail of your material you gave us plus the applicant. It makes our projects a lot
easier.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I do have one more thing. It would just be on the pedestrian
path that the applicant will work with the agencies involved to get an agreement either
to connect Badly or to work with the Five Mile Creek idea. That certainly is an idea that
I like, but I don’t know if it would ever happen.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused regarding the applicant’s desire to go out
and appeal the ACHD decision, which of course is fine. How does that affect our
decision on a conditional use permit not knowing if the Ada County Highway District
does require them to put a pathway along the original line of Badly, then the applicant
would then have to redesign his complex. While I don’t know that that’s going to
change the conditional use permit and we will not have a vision of what the final
complex is going to look like based upon not knowing whether their appeal will be
accepted or rejected.
Borup: That was exactly my concern stated very well. That’s the same concern I have.
I’m not sure how we can approve something with that being up in the air and undecided
and unsettled. Is that what you’re saying? Would you like to expound on that any
more?
Barbeiro: No.
Borup: That’s why I was hesitant to close the public hearing. Any other comments from
the other commissioners? How comfortable do you feel with leaving it hanging like
that? I think the other things can be handled. I mean there was several things that
weren’t on the design, but they were probably minor things. The sewer easements and
locations and some of those things. Staff I think is always very does a good job on
following through on those things, but this is kind of a different category.
MacCoy: Well I will put my two bits in. I think our staff is well qualified to work the
system out and whatever minor changes are made, I’ve got my bet on the fact they’ll do
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 30
a good job with it, so I don’t feel as bad about that. I thought about that. I thought that
staff would be the ones that could carry it.
Borup: I agree with that, but is this what we recommend to City Council? I mean do we
have an application here that we can feel good about recommending to them? In my
mind it’s down to just the one question. If there’s an appeal to ACHD not knowing what
the results of that is going to be.
MacCoy: We’ve had this happen before to us. It’s been appealed and we had no
control and –
Borup: At this point we have a written – we have the written findings from ACHD, so
you know we have something specific to go by.
MacCoy: That’s true. Before we didn’t have that.
Borup: But if that is going back and being appealed, then –
MacCoy: That’s something we have no control over anyway. We could have gone
through this whole session and then find out later there was some discussion going
between the applicant, ACHD etc and then a appeal gone through. Yet we have
already done our thing here.
De Weerd: Well Mr. Chairman, I guess I understand your question. If they don’t win the
appeal, we don’t see the plan in front of us as it should be today because today that
pedestrian path is required and it is not in the design. So if they don’t win the appeal
they would have to redesign this. If they do win the appeal then we would be approving
their design. But as designed, it does not fit the requirements that they need to. So I
guess I understand. I would then make a motion to reopen the public hearing and if
that would be the desire of the commission.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, may I? I guess what’s really before you is this plan here
notwithstanding Ada County Highway District’s report. If they do intend to appeal and
they don’t prevail on their appeal, it would seem to me that if this proposal here went
through and was approve and went to City Council and was approved and they did not
win their appeal, it would seem to me that the redesign would be such as it would
constitute a material modification of the conditional use permit that they would have to
come back before the commission with the redesign plan.
MacCoy: And that’s what happened in the past we’ve done a couple of those.
Rossman: So you would see it I guess is what I’m trying to say here. If you go through
and approve it as it shows here and if they’re successful on the appeal, you’ll never see
it again, but you’ve already approved this project. If they’re not successful on the
appeal, most likely I would view that as a material modification of the conditional use
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 31
permit that they’d have to come back before you with a revised plan. If they can do it
without materially modifying what we’re seeing here, then perhaps they wouldn’t.
Borup: So you’re saying the commission would be approving and agree with what is
submitted right now?
Rossman: Yes.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro, you had a comment.
Barbeiro: Even as it is now, regardless of whether the appeal is accepted or rejected,
there is no walking path shown.
Borup: Correct.
Barbeiro: If we accept it now, and they win their appeal, they have the right to place no
walking paths unless ACHD puts another condition.
Borup: Or unless we put a condition.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Rossman: You can put a condition that you either approve it as it shows with no
walking path or you can put a condition that they have a walking path. I think you really
have to make that decision. Ada County Highway District has made a recommendation
and I think you really do have to make that decision at this point, and then they can
always if they want to appeal that or address that before City Council they certainly can,
but I think you do need to take a stand on that issue and make a determination.
MacCoy: We’ve done that before.
Borup: So we can make a recommendation with conditions on it and perhaps move it
along or the other choice, table it and wait for the ACHD appeal?
Rossman: You could also do that yes.
Borup: So the question is what would be in the best interest for the applicant.
Barbeiro: Certainly the best interest of the applicant would be to approve with the
condition.
Rossman: And I guess that would be a question. Is this something that the
commission feels they need the expertise of the Ada County Highway District on before
they make a final determination. I think that’s really the issue.
Barbeiro: Then I wish to make a motion that we recommend approval to City Council
for the request for conditional use permit to construct 16 four plexes with pool and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 32
clubhouse for uses phase one and phase two proposed Creekside Arbour phase two
with staff comments noted and the condition of a walking path pending the Ada County
Highway District appeal and Commissioner De Weerd do you have something to that?
De Weerd: You mean that big long list I said?
Rossman: We can incorporate that list. It’s in the transcript.
De Weerd: Didn’t you write that down?
Rossman: It’s in the transcript.
Borup: Yes you mentioned road maintenance, the pathway, signage, drainage –
Rossman: And I guess to make a further condition, perhaps you should consider
making a condition that if in fact they do prevail on their appeal with Ada County
Highway District that –
De Weerd: What the preference is.
Rossman: Either that you’re approving without the path or that they come back before
you with the appeal decision in hand so that you can reconsider that.
Borup: I was a little confused on part of your motion.
Barbeiro: It is my motion that we approve to City Council this motion with the condition
that a walking path be placed on the property. Regardless of their appeal to ACHD.
Borup: Okay regardless. I didn’t hear the regardless. That’s where I missed it.
Rossman: So whether it be Five Mile Creek as required by Ada County Highway
District, okay.
De Weerd: Well Five Mile Creek is not their property, so if you put in there that it has to
be on their property, then that wouldn’t fulfill.
Borup: I think the property line goes to center of the creek I believe.
De Weerd: Well that eliminates any option of it being on the other side of the creek as
well.
Rossman: It doesn’t sound like it does to the feds.
Borup: Okay then that may not be an option so then they’re limited to through the
project.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 33
Barbeiro: So should I amend to say –
Borup: You can just say a pathway.
Barbeiro: A pathway through their property.
Borup: Joining Badly on the east Badly on the west.
MacCoy: Including the comments made by Commissioner De Weerd to be included in
this.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton, do you have something maybe pertinent to this motion?
Freckleton: Thank you. I was just wondering if the motion was to approve based on
ACHD’s condition? The location that they have specified –
Borup: In my mind –
Freckleton: If they win their appeal, then they’re going to have to come back –
Borup: In my mind and I may be wrong, but I would think there’d be some flexibility on
the location of the pathway as long as it connected the two Badly. Whether it went
behind the building or whether it went in front of the building site.
Freckleton: That’s just something that I think from staff’s perspective we would like to
get it pinned down what your feeling is where this path should go.
Borup: Okay.
Barbeiro: As for my motion I would leave it to the expertise of Mr. Knopp in placing a
pathway that is in the best interest of his client as well as performing on the conditional
use requirement that we’re asking here. If they lose the appeal to ACHD, then it would
require a major change and they would have to come back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. In the meantime I wish to send this as approved to the City Council
stating that a pathway will be placed connecting the east and west Badly at the
discretion of the architect. But fitting the correct perimeters of a reasonable walkway.
Rossman: But I think you have a problem there in that I guess if they do lose their
appeal to Ada County, they’re going to have to comply with what your motion is
proposing to put the walkway in, and apparently they’re going to have to comply with
that either way. So irregardless of an appeal to Ada County, and my question is does
that constitute I mean in order for them to do that, are they going to have to change the
design of this project?
Barbeiro: I don’t believe the project design would need to be changed. I don’t believe
that the addition of a walkway would constitute a material change if they were to place it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 34
as Mr. Knopp had originally showed us where it would be a quick jog through – go to
the private lane in the center.
Rossman: Okay then perhaps your motion should say that’s where the pathway should
be because I think from the testimony it sounds like if they’re going to run that pathway
behind the buildings to directly connect Badly, that it might involve a material redesign
of the project because they’ll be running right through people’s patios unless they do
redesign it.
Barbeiro: Then deferring to the architect’s notes, I would change my recommendation
that we add a walkway as described by the architect in his testimony tonight and that
should the applicant lose their ACHD appeal that they would then come before the
commission again as it would require a material change in the description of the
property and their layout of the site.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman –
Borup: Yeah this is going to be the longest motion we ever made.
De Weerd: The problem I see with that is still that is a private drive. It is just pavement.
There is no sidewalk. You will be sending people down the middle of the street. I have
a problem with that. You know if they want help with their privacy sending people
haphazardly into their development, I mean who knows where they’ll go. They’ll go
through the street. You can connect it between those two buildings and then the option
is theirs. They can continue on through the other buildings, they can go down a street,
they can go look for a sidewalk, but you know without a plan, I just don’t see that that’s
even a viable – well in my mind it doesn’t seem feasible.
Rossman: I guess my proposition would be that if you’re not ready to approve it as it’s
stated right here with no pathway between the two, then my recommendation would be
that you table it until they can get it resolved with Ada County Highway District. If you’re
ready to approve it as stated, then you certainly can do that and –
Borup: The only way we can approve it as drawn right now is to ignore ACHD’s
recommendation.
Rossman: Which you are entitled to do in my opinion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we reopen the public meeting as it appears the
applicant has some notes that they would like to present to us which could possibly
resolve this.
Borup: If it would resolve things, I guess it would be worthwhile to.
MacCoy: Okay, I’ll second that then if that’s the case.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 35
Borup: We have a motion to reopen the public hearing and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay this public hearing has been reopened. Mr. Knopp, would you –
De Weerd: Those opposed, nay.
Borup: All opposed? Sorry.
De Weerd: Nay.
Borup: 2 to 1 it has been reopened.
Knopp: I was just discussing the issue with the Leavell's. They have told me that there
is an existing sidewalk system that front across these two buildings on phase one and
that can be tied back in to the east property line over similar to what we would do here.
We’d bring it down and across and connect to Badly Street that would be fairly easily
accomplished on an existing sidewalk system that’s in on phase one. Just to
complicate matters.
Borup: Why didn’t you say so earlier.
Knopp: I didn’t know that much about phase one. So, I’m sorry about that.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro just mentioned that it’s something outside of this project
that we’re looking at. Did someone I hear that someone over here had a comment?
No? Okay.
Freckleton: Chairman Borup, I think that’s something that maybe they could raise with
their appeal with the Ada County Highway District you know for the connectivity that
there is an existing sidewalk through there. I don’t know what relevance it has to that
plan right there as far as you are concerned.
Borup: Well I guess we can control the part that’s on that, but I don’t know why unless
Counsel has another opinion, I don’t know why that isn’t something that can be a
condition, and again in my mind ACHD’s concern was having the connectivity whether it
went through phase one or phase two, I’m not sure why that would be real critical.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I do notice in Elvira Subdivision is that a walking path that
goes to nothing as well? They have a street that goes to nothing and a walking path
that goes to nothing?
Borup: You’re talking on the east?
De Weerd: Yeah. Well north –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 36
Borup: Up the north there.
Freckleton: There’s a sewer line that goes through there.
De Weerd: Is that an indicated sewer line?
Freckleton: Uh-huh.
Borup: I don’t think they made it a walking path.
De Weerd: See I’m good at those comments.
Borup: I don’t think that ever was a walking path. They always talked about, but I’m –
De Weerd: Well see there’s even space between those lots. I didn’t know what that
was.
Borup: I think it is a sewer easement, but I don’t think they did a pathway over it. Yeah,
it was a while ago.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman from a legal standpoint and at least for my concern, I don’t
see a problem with making a condition. If your concern is connectivity between the two,
I don’t see a problem with making a condition that they provide connectivity whether
that’s through phase two or phase one. I mean I don’t see a problem as making that a
condition of the approval.
Borup: Mr. Knopp back to similar statements earlier what would move this along best
for the applicant? And it looks like we can either make a motion tonight with some
conditions or continue this until the ACHD appeal. What would the applicant’s
preference be? It sounds like the feelings of the commission is we would like to see a
pathway some connectivity there. Whether it went through phase one, phase two or
Five Mile Creek. I don’t know if that’s –
Knopp: I guess that’s what I’m hearing no matter whether we go and appeal it through
ACHD and win, ladies and gentlemen of the commission would like to see a pathway
through there anyway and as the Leavell's have indicated if you approve the pathway
through phase one on an existing sidewalk system, then the project is a go. We’re not
going to appeal it to ACHD and we’re hopefully going to the City Council.
Borup: You just said if that was the commission’s recommendation, you would not be
appealing it? Is that what you just said?
Knopp: That’s correct.
De Weerd: Is that sidewalk a five foot sidewalk?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 37
Barbeiro: It will be I’m sure.
Knopp: What is it now?
(Inaudible)
Rossman: If I may Mr. Chairman, I guess the point Mr. Knopp is making and I would
agree is that if you are prepared to act, whether they appeal ACHD or not is really
irrelevant. If you’re prepared to act and City Council is prepared to act, there’s no need
to even deal with ACHD. Unless you want to table it until you get ACHD’s
determination on it you need their expertise.
Borup: Only depends if the commission feels that was a good solution. Was there a
staff comment?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah Commissioner, I hasten to point out I mean the requirement from
ACHD is to put the pathway in alignment with Badly. That’s part –
Rossman: Do you want to define alignment?
Borup: That would be my question. I was hoping for interpretation a little bit.
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. That would be open to interpretation. I just wanted if
you’re – the appeal may need to happen either way. If Five Mile Creek is the choice, it
certainly would not meet the condition of ACHD.
Borup: Oh, right. I think if we proceed with Mr. Knopp’s last recommendation, Five Mile
Creek won’t be a factor. Is there any concern about this needing to be approved by
ACHD?
De Weerd: No.
Borup: Not from this commission.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, outside of the technical question or concern that staff has
raised, I would like to know what staff’s opinion is on this possible alternative.
Borup: In other words would that accomplish –
De Weerd: The intent.
Hawkins-Clark: Do you know if there is an existing or Larry if there is an existing
sidewalk on the stub street from Elvira? There’s an existing sidewalk on both sides of
that stub street?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 38
(Inaudible)
Hawkins-Clark: The south.
Borup: Could someone repeat that in the mike?
Knopp: I guess a question that Brad is asking is there an improved sidewalk in Elvira
Subdivision on the stub that’s coming into that?
Borup: Yes, that adjoins the east side of your property I believe is what the question
was.
Knopp: Yeah, I believe there is on the south side because I went out and parked there
and looked at it to see where the alignment was on it, and I guess Elvira does have – I
don’t know if it’s improved both sides, but I guess there is a sidewalk on the south side
of that termination there at – right it would tie into the south side or connect it if the
division line between phase one and phase two and I think what the Leavell's are
getting at is it’s partially improved but the traffic in there and across the front of the
existing complex would not hinder the patio areas and maybe landscaping that we’re
trying to do in phase two. I think it would be accomplishing the same thing that there
again I think ACHD was saying okay if we don’t have a public street going through, then
could we have some pedestrian traffic going through? I think the gentleman that wrote
the report from ACHD put alignment in there. I don’t think that was his intent. I think
the intent was that they have some kind of pedestrian traffic connection so that people
Elvira could get to Badly and go on through and over to 2 ½ Street.
MacCoy: You’re probably correct.
Borup: That was my interpretation. But such that it is. Any other question for Mr.
Knopp? Are we clear on what the applicant’s preference is? I think so. I’ll entertain a
motion to close this pubic hearing.
De Weerd: I would move that we close this public hearing.
MacCoy: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: So now we’re ready for another motion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, withdrawing my original motion, I wish to recommend that we
approve to City Council the request for conditional use permit to construct the 16 four
plexes with pool and clubhouse proposed Creekside Arbour Phase No. 2 that we
approve this to City Council with the addition of the walking path as described by the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 39
architect, Mr. Knopp, in testimony to go through phase one running parallel to the
original path what would have been Badly Street, connecting Badly Street east and
west to include staff comments, to include comments as discussed by Commissioner
De Weerd.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman –
Borup: Size of that path, do you want to specify that? The sidewalk?
Barbeiro: Nothing less than five feet wide would be appropriate.
Rossman: I guess you should clarify for the record in the motion as to the fact that
would make the conditions recommended by the Ada County Highway District with the
exception of I guess to the extent of their definition of alignment is different than what
you’ve described that those recommendations of Ada County Highway District be
included as conditions with the conditional use permit approval.
Barbeiro: Rather if the Ada County Highway District requires something different than
we have discussed here today requiring a material change in the design that the design
would come back to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of a
conditional use permit based upon the new plan.
Rossman: I guess what I’m getting at is I assume you are including with your motion
Ada County Highway District’s recommendations except for the pathway.
Borup: Or we could say that Ada County Highway District’s recommendation with our
interpretation of item number –
Rossman: I’m just trying to clarify it because poor Steve is going to have to draft a
recommendation based on this record.
Barbeiro: I’m not having a lot of sympathy for Steve anyway. Oh, he heard that, didn’t
he?
Rossman: He will.
Borup: That was site specific requirement number two on the ACHD.
Barbeiro: Okay so that we would include all of the notes incorporated by ACHD
including of our interpretation of two provide a paved pedestrian pathway in the
alignment of Badly Street extending from its current terminus to the west property line.
Borup: Is everybody comfortable with that motion. If so motion and a second, all in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
August 10, 1999
Page 40
Borup: Just one minute, I hate to tell you this Commissioners, I’m sorry. Did we close
the public hearing earlier? Okay, thank you. We did it twice and I forgot – okay thank
you. That concludes that application. I would like to thank the applicants.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we adjourn.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
__________________________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK