1999 08-10 BSIDE 3 (P & Z MEETING)
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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 Leavells. 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 –
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 Leavells 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?
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?
(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 Leavells 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
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.
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