Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 20, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 20, 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 20, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Moe, Tom O'Brien, Steve Siddoway, and Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood., Scott Steckline, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X David Moe -Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin with roll call of members. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I don't believe there are any changes tonight, because there is a single item after the Consent Agenda. So, could I get a motion to accept the agenda? Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second.. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Agenda has been adopted.. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of September 6, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 2 of 80 Rohm: The Consent Agenda consists of the approval of the September 6, 2007, Commission meeting minutes. Any changes or adjustments to those minutes? Moe: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. O'Brien: None. Siddoway: None. Rohm: Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second.. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Well, now we are here to the point that all of you folks are and so before we start I have a little speech and that speech is how the procedures of these go and what we would like to see tonight from each of you and the members of our staff and the Commission itself. Basically, what we do is we will open up with a Public Hearing and we will ask the staff to make a presentation based upon their perspective. The staff speaks to the Comprehensive Plan, the UDC, which is the Unified Development Code, and the specifics of tonight's will hinge also on a Conditional Use Permit and the things that they look at and we look at and, obviously, you folks have looked at. Once our staff, including legal department, have made their presentation, then, we will ask the applicant to come forward and make their presentation. Basically, the applicant will, then, address issues brought up in the staff report and any others that they choose to present at the time and that will be a 15 minute presentation. Once those two presentations have been completed, then, it is your opportunity to speak. Generally speaking when we get this number of people there will be a spokesperson from say a homeowner's association or something to that liking. That person, assuming that others will have relinquished their right to speak, will be given ten minutes to respond to the applicant's testimony. Once that individual has spoken, then, if there is another homeowner's association spokesman, then, that person will follow up and., then, once those have been completed, anybody that has additional testimony that has not been brought up, then, you will be given an opportunity to come forward. Due to the number of people that are here tonight, it's very important that once a point has been made all Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 3 of 80 you need to do is say I agree with previous testimony and this is -- that's my opinion as well. You don't have to restate anything that has been stated previously, other than just to say that you`re in agreement with that testimony. So, with that being said, we will begin by opening -- oh. Each of the individual spokesmen will be given three minutes to speak. Once all public testimony has been taken, then, the applicant has the last word. They will have an opportunity to respond to any testimony given and provide us with their -- with their answer to any concerns brought up in that additional testimony. Anything else? Good. Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 07-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi-family dwelling units in an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned Development for Selway Multi-Family Development by J-U-B Engineers -west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of McMillan Road and '/ mile east of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 07- 016and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct amulti-family development consisting of 171 dwelling units in an R-4 zoning district. The development consists of 17 multi- family buildings, which is four 24-plexes, eight eight-plexes, and five duplexes. One storage building and a clubhouse with managerial living quarters on 10.1 acres. The applicant is also requesting approval to construct a private street loop road to provide access and circulation throughout the proposed development. As part of the Lochsa Falls planned development approval in 2002, the area was conceptually approved for 171 multi-family units. As part of the Lochsa Falls approval, the City Council allowed the subject multi-family development as a use exception to the primarily single-family Lochsa Falls development. The city and the developer have entered into a development agreement requiring CUP approval prior to the construction of the subject multi-family development. A final plat was also approved by the City Council for the subject site in June 2007. The site is currently designated high density residential on the city's Comprehensive Plan land use map and zoned R-4. Staff has conditioned -- the developer requests rezoning the property to R-40 with their approval of the CUP application prior to the issuance of a CZC. The site is located on the west side of North Goddard Creek Way, approximately 500 feet north of West McMillan Road, and a quarter mile east of Ten Mile Road. Directly to the north of the site is single-family residential homes, zoned R-4. To the east, single-family homes, zoned R-4. To the south is a vacant land approved for future commercial development, zoned R-4, and was also approved with the Lochsa Falls planned development. And to the west are single-family homes, zoned R-8. The development agreement associated with the subject site requires CUP approval prior to the construction of the subject multi-family Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 4 of 80 development. Tonight's discussion is to determine if the development is compatible with the surrounding single-family residential. The proposed development consists of 17 multi-family residential buildings, ranging in square footages from 1,916 square feet, up to 16,641 square feet. Additional structures include a clubhouse with a managerial living quarters and a resident storage building. If you look at the site plan up here, this is where the storage unit is going to be for the residents. There is the clubhouse. And, then, the units are along the perimeter and internally to the development. Access to the site will be provided from the North Goddard Creek Way via a public street. So, you have your fire access here and your private street connecting North Goddard Creek Way. And also we have also conditioned them to stub out to the future commercial property. It will also provide circulation through the development and stub to the vacant commercial property to the south. The access points into this development were previously approved with the Lochsa Falls development and also approved by ACHD at the time when you reviewed the application back in 2002. UDC requires multi-family dwellings with one bedroom to provide two spaces, one covered, one uncovered, and two or more bedrooms to have a to -- a covered carport or garage for each unit. The submitted site plan -- site layout does propose covered parking spaces and garages for multi-family dwellings. The site plan shows a total of 360 car parks for the multi-family units, 282 of those are covered, 72 are uncovered, and including the 18 visitor parking spaces and 28 garage spaces for resident parking. So, you can see the parking here. These are going to be covered primarily. And, then, these units to the north will have the garages. There are six under each one of those units. Amenities for the site include a 2,500 square foot community clubhouse and fitness facility, property management office, storage building, development map and directory, pool and hot tub, five foot walking trails around the perimeter of the property, a covered picnic area with barbecues and 2,000 square foot tot lot and open space. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed amenity, but believes an additional active amenity should be .provided on the west half of this site. So, here is where the pool and the spa will be, the tot lot is here, along with the barbecues and the amenities. Picnic area. The path proceeds along the western property line, goes along the north, and down the southern property boundary. And staff has also conditioned the developer to do some kind of amenity here on the western half. The landscaping proposed with the development complies with the UDC. However, because the city has received several complaints from adjacent property owners regarding this development, staff believes that it is appropriate to provide a wider and denser landscape buffer to the north and west. Staff believes the applicant should provide a minimum 25 foot wide landscape buffer constructed along the north and west property lines to include a berm and a minimum of three inch caliper trees. The site plan that the applicant has submitted to staff does primarily show three inch caliper trees. The storage unit here is roughly, I believe, 15 feet from the property line and staff -- and the structures are roughly 40 feet from that property line. And this is a 20 foot buffer along the residential houses to the north. Staff is recommending an additional five feet there with the berming and the landscaping., additional trees, and, of course, push the storage building out and provide a 25 foot Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 5 of 80 landscape buffer with the berms and three inch caliper trees along this boundary. UDC requires 250 square feet of outdoor common open space for each unit containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square of living area. The units for the proposed multi-family development range in size from 922 square feet, one bedroom, one bath, units to 1,167 square feet, three bedroom, two bath units. The proposed development has been approved for 171 units. The minimum amount of open space required per code for the proposed development is 42,750 square feet or roughly an acre. The site plan indicates that 17 percent or 74,782 square feet of the site is being set aside for common usable open space. There are several different structures being proposed for this site. The structures being proposed are duplexes, eight-plexes, 24-plexes, storage units, and a clubhouse. The application has submitted building elevations for all of these structures. Buildings A, B, C are three stories tall and are centrally located within the development. Buildings D, E, and F are two stories tall and building H on the west side of the development is the single-story storage building. See if I can scroll back here. These buildings -- these larger buildings here are the three-story structures and, then, along the perimeter are the two-story structures and, then, these will be two-story structures as well. So, before you now are the elevations for buildings A and B. Here are what's being proposed with C and D. This is building E here. And these are the units that will go along the northern property line adjacent to those residential homes. So, those are -- that's building F right there. Staff has also conditioned the developer to provide an additional elevation along that northern property line, so that it's not the same structure that those residents are looking at, so we want some variation there. We are also asking that -- it's hard to see on this site plan, but their air conditioning units are to the rear of the properties as well and we are also requesting that those be moved to the side or an appropriate location not adjacent to the residential housing to the north. The Comprehensive Plan supports pedestrian connectivity between developments whenever possible. Pedestrian connectivity has been provided to the adjacent residential subdivision to the north. However, staff believes that the applicant should also provide a pedestrian connection to the future commercial parcel to the south near the southwest corner of this project. Again, here is where the path is being proposed to connect to the northern subdivision. Staff is also conditioning them to extend this so that when this future office use or commercial use comes in, that they will have connectivity to that as well. Staff received ACHD's comments earlier this morning. As stated in their staff report, access and driveways were approved with the Lochsa Falls Subdivision in 2002. The access from North Goddard Creek Way was constructed as a residential collector and is adequate to provide access to and from the subject site. A previous traffic study estimated the vehicle trips per day on North Goddard Creek Way to be 2,596 at full build-out. When I spoke with the planner at ACRD regarding the traffic -- regarding the staff report for this project, she had informed me that they had gone out there and conducted some new counts out there and as of 9/10/07 the trips generated on North Goddard Way were 1,753 trips: So, well below what was speculated or proposed in 2002.. Staff also received comments from the applicant regarding -- excuse me. Staff has received several letters and verbal comments from Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 6 of 80 nearby residents requesting denial of this project and the clerk's office received a petition with 742 signatures asking for denial as well. Staff also received comments from the applicant regarding several conditions of approval for this proposed development and should be included in your packet this evening. Staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff report, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the project. Rohm: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of Bill before we ask Caleb to -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, Ihave -- I have one. Bill, with the 25 foot setback on the rear and the west and, then, the setback that's already existing on the property boundary to the north, what's the total distance between the open -- do you know? Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, right now this is -- this building will be 20 feet from the property line and, then, the other residents -- let me -- actually, on this presentation I didn't show you it, but I did take some pictures of the property line to the north and these are the homes that are along that. So, you can see, if you have 20 -- right now they have 20 feet. If they do the 25 feet they will have -- some of these homes look like there may be even 15 feet from the property line. So, you're looking -- maybe from structure to structure you're looking at maybe 40 feet. Newton-Huckabay: On the west end of this there -- there appear to be -- I live out in that area, there appears to be a berm on the west side of it, but -- that's fine. Thank you. Rohm: Any more questions? Thank you. Caleb, would you like to speak to conditional use permits in a general nature, please? Hood: Yes. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to -- they are not too terribly uncommon, but just wanted a quick refresher on the purpose of our conditional use permits. This one has some history, as Bill mentioned earlier, was conceptually approved in 2002 for 171 units. However, they are subject to this detailed conditional permit review and .approval. and I just wanted to read to you real quick the standards that you're charged with enforcing when reviewing a Conditional Use Permit and it starts off by saying in approving any Conditional Use Permit, the decision-making body may .prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this title that minimize adverse impacts of the use on other property. Control the sequence and timing of the use. Control the duration of the use. Assure that the use and the property in which the use is located' is maintained properly. Designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development. Require the provisions for on-site or off-site public facilities or services. Require more restrictive standards than those that are generally required by this title. Require mitigation of adverse impacts of the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 7 of 80 proposed development upon service delivery by political subdivision, including school districts, that provide services within the city. So, it does allow you some leeway to not just stick with the UDC standards for requirement anything that the Commission feels is an adequate condition were it makes this project fit in or integrate in with the existing neighborhood. You can place on them that they do have to have some nexus there, so some link behind any condition. But the compatibility issues -- that's the whole reason we have conditional use permits. Those uses that require CUP are those that are typically -- have some aspect of the use that is a negative -- can create a negative impact on an adjacent property. So, that's why we are going through this process to kind of, hopefully, get through some of those potentially negative aspects of this and have a neighborhood that it is a seamlessly integrated neighborhood. So, that's just a quick refresher on the CUP process. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Mr. Nary, do you have anything that you'd like to add at this time? Nary: Thank you., Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This one, as you can tell by the crowd in the room, is a little more unusual than some of the other conditional use permits that you see. The difference is -- and I think Mr. Hood sort of touched on that -- that this particular project, unlike many that you see sometimes, or have in the past where the Conditional Use Permit and the annexation and the zoning and all of the project comes at one time, this one wasn't done that way and back on 2002 when this project was originally proposed and a development agreement was formulated and signed with the city, all of the various uses were described and approved as part of the development agreement, with the condition that when they actually came forward for construction, then, they would go through the conditional process. So, the ordinance that Mr. Hood read is really what governs that today. So, it's not really an issue today of the proposed use on the property, but how that using is going to be in conformance with the ordinance that's required. So, that's a little bit different than what you usually see, because many times we have all of these wrapped up in one application that comes forward and here the annexation is done. When you get to the point that you are making a decision, if your decision is leaning towards approval with conditions, then, you need to follow the ordinance as Mr. Hood presented. If your decision is leaning towards denial, then, the state law requires and you must also give them specific findings as to what your reasons for denial would be, as well as what they could do to be approved, because, again, those conditions that they are supposed to meet are things that they can meet within their property guidelines and they have the opportunity to do that. So, that's the -- I guess the legal nutshell that's a little different than some of the routine types of CUP's that you have seen. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 8 of 80 Fluke:, Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Daren Fluke with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, and I'm representing the applicant in this matter. Tonight we have got -- we are going to take a team approach to giving you our presentation. I'm going to handle the introductions, as well as the site history and procedural items, and some of the project history and why we think this is a really nice site plan for this project. Then, we have got Wayne Thowless here, who is our architect on the project. He designed the buildings, the landscaping, and a lot of the site design as well, and he will talk about design issues and some of the things we can live with and some of the things we think we can't live with that are in the staff report. And., then, we have got a Hal Wallace here as well, who is the attorney for the applicants and he'd like to speak just, basically, to the economics of multi-family projects and why what Rudeen does, the developer, and why they think this is a nice site for this project. So, having said that, the staff went through a good rundown of the project by the numbers, so I'm not going to restate how many units and how many acres and how much landscaping and how many amenities, and what they are. I think you can see from what the staffs gone through that we put a lot of thought and effort into what we are providing here on the 171 units that were approved back in 2002. There are -- this is an amenity-rich project. It's got a very nice clubhouse that is centrally located to the project right there. Thank you. In addition to a pool and a spa, a tot lot, barbecue areas on the site, as well as covered parking and storage units and other things that make this a desirable project for people to live in. With regard to the history of this, I want to touch on a couple of things that you just heard your staff and your attorney talk about a little bit. This site was approved as a component of Lochsa Falls in 2002. Now, I don't think anybody on the Commission today was on the Commission at that time, although Commissioner Siddoway was on the staff. So, I'm sure he remembers that project going through. I did a number of the initial layouts for Lochsa. We were working for the developer at that time and, then, subsequently it went to another firm and they changed the layout quite a bit again and added in some other land uses that we hadn't added in. At the time in 2002 that the project went through -- and I know this because of having worked on this project, as well as other projects in the area, like Cedar Springs -- the staff was -- was very much pushing to implement the Comprehensive Plan, which was looking for a mix of land uses and a mix of dwelling types, all within a project. Especially a project the size of Lochsa Falls, which was almost an entire square mile. It was -- I believe it was 600 acres --- you know, 640 acres are in a square mile. And so it was a massive .project. And at that time the staff wanted to see -- you had a newly adopted Comprehensive Plan in 2002, which is the year that you adopted it, and that plan is pretty unequivocal about what it wanted to see for projects, and particularly large projects. In north Meridian they did not want to create a ghetto, if you will, of single uses, of family dwellings. They wanted to have an integration of land uses -- they wanted to create an integration of land uses, different dwelling types, commercial projects, they didn't want people to have to get into their car to go and get a gallon of milk, they wanted people to be able to walk and they wanted different -- different dwelling types all in the same area. And so I suspect that that's why you got the layout Meridian Planning & zoning September 20, 2007 Page 9 of 80 that you got, because the developer of Lochsa Falls is not a developer of multi-family projects. So, he built out the single family portion of the project, put up -- the multi- family portion was put up for sale and subsequently my clients purchased the property, because it was already entitled. My clients developed multi-family products and projects and AI Wallace will talk about that some more. But they don't go out and look for parcels where they have to rezone and fight zoning battles, because life is too short for zoning battles, as one developer once told me. They want to find projects that are good to go and this one was entitled and they thought they'd come in and be turn key, design a nice project, and build it. Obviously, as it turns out, that's not quite the way that it's gone, but that was the thinking on the site. The R-4 zone was -- it was typical when a PUD went through that the staff asked us to zone the whole thing one zoning designation, in this case R-4, and allowed use exceptions through the PUD process by doing other things, you know, giving up open space and providing other amenities, they would, then, give you use exceptions -- land use exceptions for the other uses that you wanted to do and that's why the project was zoned R-4. Nothing more nefarious than that. And, interestingly, I have got a project down on South Eagle Road right now as well, Sutherland Farm, that I worked in 2002, with the very same problem. I have got R- 4zoning with two office lots in the front that are now zoned R-4 and when my client went to sell them and have it appraised, the appraiser said, R-4, you can't do office in R- 4, and so now I'm having to go back and go through a rezone process on that to do what the PUD originally allowed for. So, it's not all that uncommon from projects of this vintage in the City of Meridian. Just a note on the conditional use. I agree with what the staff is telling you. The land use was approved, 171 dwelling units was looked at and reviewed by ACHD, the school district, Public Works, the irrigation districts, all the service providers have looked at it and said, yes, this is an appropriate land use for this site. You are approved for 171 units. Come back with a Conditional Use Permit and show us how you're going to do it, so that we can insure that it fits in with what's going on around the site and that's what we are here to do tonight. And so the take-home lesson that I want you to just keep in mind., as you hear all kinds of bad things about the project, is that it's all been reviewed and approved. What we are here to talk about tonight is building design, site design, and landscaping primarily and what can we do with those elements to make this a better project and fit in with the neighborhood. And I'll tell you right now, I think we have done a really nice job and we are going to get into specifically why here in just a second. Just one final word on conditional uses and this whole idea of compatibility versus segway -- versus, excuse me, sameness. This is a residential land use. We have residential land uses around us. What was approved for the southern portion here, the ten acres that fronts on McMillan directly to the south of us here, was office uses. That's a fairly standard technique in planning is to place higher density residential in between commercial uses and lower density residential. It's sort of the order of intensity, if you will, and it's really really fairly common in zoning ordinances in comprehensive plans throughout the country that you would try to put your higher density residential uses against your lower densities just to buffer them from the higher intensity commercial uses that are going on in the neighborhood. So, just -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 10 of 80 I'd like to touch. on the site plan for a minute and, then, what we did with the neighborhood and sort of what -- the things that we have changed based on what we heard and., then, I'm going to ask Wayne Thowless to come up and talk about the hard core design details of the buildings and the site and landscaping. We are really proud of this site plan. This was a difficult site plan to put together, because we have got residential on three sides of us in close proximity. We knew from the outset when my clients called me and I first spoke to them, I told them that there would be a significant amount of opposition, which was mildly surprising to them, since it had already been approved. But I said we need to work on a site plan that tries to minimize impacts on those surrounding single family uses. So, what we did is there were two approaches that were defined and built to provide access to this site. It doesn't have frontage on McMillan, only on Goddard Creek. So, when they built Goddard Creek -- I believe it was in Kelly Creek No. 3 that we built that and put the sewer and water in, irrigation, and landscaping and all those things, the driveway approaches were constructed at that time. One right here and one right here. And so in laying out the site, the first thing we looked at is where are we going to gain access to the site. We have two choices, here and here.. You know, the first couple of iterations used this site, but this was not as good of a location to provide access, because we have got dwellings that are on a little knuckle right across the street here that would get headlights in it as people were coming out and it would just be a higher intensity across from those dwellings. So, we moved the primary access down here and we made this an emergency access only. The fire department has required that that be gated and we will, of course, do that. We'd like to provide a pathway or a pedestrian connection in between the project here and there around that gate and I think we can design that in a way that makes sense. So, that was the first thing we did. The next thing we did is say, we have got back yards of people along here and here, so what can we do. We have got to fit 171 units on the site to make it work, ten acres; right? We have got to provide a certain amount of open space. We have got to provide a certain amount of parking. And we only have a certain amount of space to do that. We have got setbacks and we have to provide amenities. And so it became a real challenge how to fit these together and how to make the buildings work for the site. This I think is one of the neatest things about the site plan are that the dwelling units have been designed here. These are carriage units. They have got garages on the bottom floor and, then, they have got two two bedroom units above them, which are two bedroom, one baths units, one of the bedrooms is fairly small and sort of an office-type space. But what that did is it created structures that are similar in massing and scale to the single family dwellings that are right across from them. Now, technically, this is the side setback on this property, because frontage is right here. In the R-4 zone you would have a five foot setback on there and we, of course, knew that wouldn't fly. When we laid it out initially we had 15 feet on that property line and as you can see we are a little bit squeezed in this north-south dimension and I'm going to talk about this 25 foot buffer here in a second. But the 15 foot was fairly unpopular when we brought the site plan forward to the neighborhood meeting and so we went back to the boards again and redrew it and what we have Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 11 of 80 actually shown here is a 24 foot setback in between the first-story building wall and the property line. Twenty-four feet. We do have second-story projection window pop outs to provide some visual relief on the back and not just have a monolithic wall, that are 22 feet from the property line.. And so, in essence, to get a 25 foot setback there we are going to have to move it three feet to the south, which doesn't sound like much, but with the parking the way that it's configured and the open space the way that it's configured and where these buildings sit, we, honestly, don't have the three feet to go to the south without really making some major changes to the site plan. Our feeling is that that -- that any buffering effect that you might get from that additional three feet is so minimal to the amount of disruption that it causes to the site plan it really cannot be worth the hassle. And Wayne's going to talk about that a little bit more. So, that's how we decided to deal with the north property line. On the west property line we didn't have the option of providing more of these carriage units, because we needed to get some larger units to fit the number of units on the site that it was approved for in 2002 and so we needed two-story buildings here that were a little larger and so the way we treated those was with a 40 foot setback. And so we have got a very generous setback, very generously landscaped. I'm sure you have the color landscaped plan and can see how densely that will be planted and it will provide a very nice vegetative screen of both evergreen and deciduous trees, so that just your screening doesn't go away in the wintertime. The one exception to that is we have got this storage building here that is 15 feet from the property line. This would be the rear property line; it has a 15 foot minimum setback on that line, so we comply with that. The reason we'd like to not change that is because to move that building 15 feet is going to require losing four parking spaces, first of all. Second of all -- and we are tight on parking, by the way. Second of all, the building provides a very effective screen to those properties that are to the west of us, both visually and from a sound perspective, because it is a -- it is a building that is very little used. It doesn't have a lot of activity going on and it has -- so, it creates a buffer up there against the property line. Again, you see very little buffering benefit to making us move that and lose the four parking spaces, which really does create an impact on the project. The site is fenced on three sides. We intend to maintain that vinyl fencing that's there and, then, of course, plant our side of it. One of the amenities that we have provided on the site is a walking path around the entire project. The exception to that is that you will notice that the pathways come to here and here, they do not come along this northern buffer here and that is on purpose, so that we don't create anymore activity along that property line than we have to. We are not trying to encourage people to use that as active open space. We have done everything we can, including planting it very densely to create a buffer in between us and our neighbors to the north. We would ask, however, that the city not require us to plant the berm in that location, because the fence is located here on the property line. If we were to plant -- if we were to create even a three foot berm, what we would typically use would be a four-to-one slope on those berms, which would require 24 feet to get a three foot berm in there and what you would have is about, then, 12 feet from the fence you would have a three foot pedestal to stand on and gaze back into the -- the yards there Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 12 of 80 to the north. And so I think the neighbors would like to avoid that, at least some of them that I talked to at the neighborhood meeting were not in favor of placing the berm there and we'd ask your consideration on that condition as well. So, we held our neighborhood meeting. We heard a lot of feedback, not much of it good, but we took those things to heart and we went back to the boards and we changed the site plan, the building elevations, as well as the landscape plan and we think that we came up with a much better project because of those things. I'm going to let Wayne talk about design and if the Commission had. any questions for me I'd be happy to take those. Rohm: Before you start speaking, basically, the applicant has 15 minutes of which the 15 minutes is up, but I think that due to the nature of this project that it is beneficial to hear this additional testimony and it might segue to less concerns once the total presentation has been made. Does the balance of the Commission feel the same on that or --? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I could agree with that to the extent that I don't want each of the applicant's five speakers to have 15 minutes. Rohm: I concur with that and so with that being said., please, continue, but, seriously, there are procedures in place to limit both presentation and rebuttal, so -- Fluke: We will be brief and we only have three speakers. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. My mistake. Thowless: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Wayne Thowless, I'm with LKV Architects, 1735 Federal Way, Boise, representing the applicant on this project. I'd like to build upon some of the comments that Daren made with regard to design issues, site planning, landscaping, and architectural design in particular. One of the -- one of the other planning considerations of this project was to vary the building sizes, vary the building heights, and vary the building appearances. There are four three-story buildings and they are this one, this one, this one, and this one. We purposely located them central to the site relative to where the single-family residential uses are. All of the buildings around the perimeter of the site are smaller in footprint, smaller in square footage, and lower in height. They are all two-story on the west, north, and east. That was done -- yes. That's fine. Rohm: If you provide testimony, you have to speak into the microphone. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 13 of 80 Thowless: I will be getting to this momentarily. As Daren mentioned, after the first neighborhood meeting we did move these units further from the north property line by lessening the amount of landscaping around these interior units by making these units along the south property line closer to that property line, still well outside of the minimum setback requirements of the underlying zoning, however. As Daren mentioned, staff is requesting a 25 foot landscape buffer without encroachment of building projections or mechanical units along this property line and this property line. As he indicated, we would respectfully request that we be permitted to stay with the 24 feet plus or minus to the first floor building line with the mechanical units on the backside. The only place to move them would be immediately adjacent to the front doors of those units and we feel that would be a detriment to residents. As Daren mentioned regarding. this storage building, one of the concerns that we heard from the neighbors was that apartment complexes have the reputation of having a lot of paraphernalia, if you will, bicycles, recreational equipment, things like that, on people's balconies, because storage is at a minimum. And so this storage building has individual small storage compartments that the tenants can use. It has no garage doors; it's not like aself-storage storage building. It has a single door at the north end, a single door at the south end. It has a corridor down the middle of the building inside and all the doors into those little storage compartments are off of that interior corridor. There are no windows on the building and there are no openings whatsoever on the west side. It's just asingle-story building. As Daren mentioned, we believe that it's providing very effective buffering of this parking and carport area from these residences, far more than a 25 foot landscape strip would do. So, we respectfully request that we could leave that building as positioned. In the comments from other departments and agencies that are in your staff report, the police department had several comments about this project. have spoken with a lieutenant with the police department and believe that I have satisfied him relative to his concerns. One of his primary concerns was access to the individual dwelling units. He did not have access to all of the plan documents when he made his report and he thought that the second level and third level apartment units were served by a single stair only. That is not correct. Each of the breezeways that the apartments open onto that run between -- or through the buildings like so -- here is a breezeway. There is a breezeway. Each breezeway level is served by two stairways. When he heard that he said I withdraw any concerns. I thought there was only one stairway serving those upper floor units. His other concern was regarding shrubbery and vegetation around the buildings. Not the buffering between the buildings and the property lines we were just talking about, but the landscaping in the immediate vicinity of the buildings. For safety reasons the police department is requesting that the shrubbery used as border plantings be limited to two feet in height. And that any trees in close proximity to the buildings be kept trimmed; the lowest branches at six foot of height. We have no problem with that. And that is based strictly on safety concerns of the police department as not wanting places where people can hide, obstructions to visibility if the police are responding to an emergency call, et cetera. However, I'd like to bring to the Commission's attention that the city's landscape ordinance requires that the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 14 of 80 border plantings around these units, particularly on the sides that face the streets, are to be two foot minimum in height. So, we have one department asking for materials at two foot max and another two foot min. We will revise our planting pallet to provide shrubbery that's approximately two feet in height and avoid higher material if that is acceptable to the Commission and to staff in order to meet the police department's concerns. And, again, those stipulations only relate to plantings in the immediate vicinity of buildings. Rohm: Sir, you need to conclude your remarks. Thowless: I'm going to move very briefly to architectural issues. One of staffs comments is they are requesting and have a condition stated that we not use vinyl siding on these buildings. Rudeen Development, our client, has close to 2,000 apartment units throughout the northwest. They all have vinyl siding on them. They believe that it is curable material. They believe that it results in less maintenance requirements and looks better over time and they respectfully request that these buildings be able to be constructed with vinyl siding. This might be a little bit easier to see. We have proposed amulti-color color scheme with earth tone siding and a sage green siding used in various patterns and configurations on the different buildings, so that each building type has a different exterior siding concept. We, at the neighbors' request, also incorporated stone into the pallets. So, we have stone accents on the buildings. We have two different colors and we have three different siding types. A wide plank look, a narrow plank look, and a shingle look. So, there is a great deal of variety on the buildings and I can draw your attention to a sample board we have over here where you can see an actual physical sample of the roof shingle, the green siding material, a tan siding material. Off to the left is a small sample of what the window and trim color would be and at the bottom, which you may not all be able to see, is a sample of the cultured stone material that we would like to use on the building as well. In the interest of time I will conclude my comments there and turn it over to legal counsel for a couple minutes. Certainly stand for any questions, either now or later, that you may have. Rohm: Thank you very much. Wallace: Chairman Rohm and Planning and Zoning Commissioners, Allen Wallace, land use counsel for Rudeen Development, with the Williams Kastner law firm. And I just want to say that I have worked with Rudeen for seven years, I have worked with other multi-family developers, I'm very familiar with the multi-family development processes and the economics and what drives these projects. The important fihings with Rudeen, they primarily build and hold their projects, so that's pretty unique, as opposed to large corporations that come in and soon flip them out and have a constant changing array of property managers and so forth. One of the things we -- that's important to understand here, too, neighbors have a -- always have a concern, well, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 15 of 80 what are the renters going to be like? And what you can see with a project like this is that Rudeen has every incentive to build ahigh-quality project, as explained by the architect, with all the amenities and to mainfain it really well, because the value of a multi-family project is determined solely by its rental income. So, you don't look at the buildings -- the buildings have no intrinsic value, other than their ability to create rental income, so -- and to create the rental income you have to have the occupancy and to create that occupancy you have to have a high-quality project. So, with this marketplace and with this low density and with the site amenities and with the value of the land, you're going to see rents here that are going to be really at the very upper end of the suburban Boise marketplace. And so I just wanted to explain that, so the neighbors understand that point and the Commission understands those -- that point, too, as you deal with this question about compatibility and so forth. We would see the social demographic here would be really somewhat comparable to the demographic in the surrounding single family neighborhoods. I have some pictures of another project, which is really quite comparable to this one in terms of the building elevations. If you can pop that up. I'll run through those and I'll keep a lot of my other comments for rebuttal. Rohm: Very short. Wallace: This is the Adagio project in Covington, Washington, which is a -- a newly incorporated city in the suburbs of Seattle. I worked on this project. We worked with the city in adopting the comprehensive planning and the zoning to allow this project. It's a little bit higher density. It's 24 units per acre. But this is the basic same elevation type that is presented here by the architect. Newton-Huckabay: Excuse me. Mr. Wallace, how old is this -- this development? Wallace: This one was built in '03. '02 to '03. Newton-Huckabay: And how old are these pictures? Wallace: This picture -- these pictures are fairly recent. These were -- last year or so. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Wallace: So, if we could just flip through a few of those -- more of those. Again, this is the two-story office entrance to the project. Can you keep going? This is the clubhouse facility. And the pool and -- which is part of the clubhouse. And these are three-story building elements, which, again., are. only just a few of the buildings on the -- in this proposed project are three-story elements. And this shows the quality of landscaping that's -- that you're bringing to the project site. And, again, the quality of landscaping is very, very important and the quality of upkeep of the landscape is very important in Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 16 of 80 terms of keeping the renters happy and drawing new renters into place as well. If you can just flip through a few more. There we go. One of the important things I think for you to take a look at here, too, I know vinyl has a connotation to it. It seems to be low- income houses. I must admit, too, when I first started working on this project quite a number of years ago I was a skeptic about vinyl siding myself and I have to say if you look at how this building has been up in place now for some five years, the vinyl siding here looks -- it still looks brand new and in terms of maintenance and in terms of color retention, the vinyl siding -- the quality of vinyl siding shown here actually does a very good job, as opposed to wood with paint on it, the vinyl has the color imbued into the product and you can see, again, a sample of the product over here. So, you really don't know it's vinyl unless you're right up next to it. And you're only going to see these projects from a distance and the quality of their long-term maintenance and upkeep really works well with vinyl and I think this Adagio project is -- shows that well. To conclude my comments at this point, Mr. Chair, I know that the neighbors have a PowerPoint presentation about some Rudeen projects, some of which, actually, are not Rudeen projects and I would just like to note that we will go through and respond to all those, but several of these projects, for example -- pictures show a barbed wire fence. That barbed wire fence is around a utility well head area, which is, obviously, protected for reasons and so forth. We are not going to say every project that Rudeen builds is Adagio or what's proposed here. This is a different marketplace. Some of the Spokane projects you will see in the neighbors' PowerPoint are in more industrial areas. There is a different market demographic to some projects and some projects more mid-range in terms of their rental approach and so forth. Rohm: Sir, you need to -- Wallace: So, keep that in -- Rohm: Yes. You need to finish. Wallace: Yes. So, just keep that in mind and -- when you see this next -- or upcoming PowerPoint presentation. With that I'll reserve my comments for the close of the meeting tonight. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. That was a long 15 minutes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd like to get a closer look at the building materials. Would it be possible for the applicant to bring them up here closer? Rohm: One of the things that we strive to do in these Commission meetings is to be extremely fair. I mean if we -- if we can't be fair, then, we are not doing our job and the fact of the matter is the applicant has been given an extended period of time to make Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 17 of 80 their presentation and with that in mind I think that any opposition should be given equal time. Moe:' I have a couple questions for -- for the architect. In regard to the three-story units, what is the height on the three-story units? I was not able to find that in any of the documentation. Thowless: The -- the height to the eave line of the roof is approximately 30 feet. Moe: And you have got a six on 12 roof pitch system? Thowless: Approximately. Moe: In regard to the condition from staff to add another elevation change to your two storage units on the north side -- Thowless: Yes. Moe: -- is that a problem? Thowless: That is not a problem. In fact, I can go over here -- we have taken that unit design, the ones that are over here on -- what would that be -- your left -- are the original unit designs. We propose to do two of the five buildings in that design. Do three of the five buildings in the design on the right. What we have done there is we have taken the balcony from the ends of the units and put them in the center of the unit facing the driveway. That was, actually, a comment that we heard in the neighborhood meetings that they would prefer that those balconies not be located such that people on them could look into their backyards. So, we have moved that balcony around above the garages, which has changed that front elevation, and, then, we have modified the rear elevation as well. I don't have a floor plan with me tonight, but it did involve some floor plan changes also and so we have no problem with that -- meeting that condition of approval. Moe.: And how many of those units -- what have you got, five back there, so how many -- it would be a range two and three or how many -- Thowless: Two would be the -- designed as we had originally designed them. Three would be the alternative design. Moe: Thank you. And, then, one other comment. You talked about the -- your fencing -- the fencing is on three sides right now. What about the south side? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 18 of 80 Thowless: It would be our .preference to allow the developer, whoever that is, of the commercial property to the south, to develop permanent fencing in conjunction with the landscape buffering that he will be required to do to buffer his commercial development from our residential development. We would, however, be willing to provide construction fencing during construction to make sure that trash and debris don't blow off of the project site. Moe: Thank you. Thowless: You're welcome. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant before we -- O'Brien: Yes, I do. I'd like to speak to -- maybe it's -- yes. Maybe it's also a question for -- for staff. So, you're going to lose possibly up to three feet, but you don't want to lose that three foot buffer on the two sides. I think the north and the -- Thowless: West. O'Brien: -- west. What is your measure for effectiveness of the buffer? What effect will it have if you took away or didn't have that three foot buffer or the opposite, if you were given that -- that luxury of having this extra three feet, what -- what is the measure for effectiveness of a buffer in that -- in that area? Thowless: Well, Mr. -- O'Brien: What's a neighbor going to see? What are you guys going to see? Thowless: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my professional opinion, when you're talking about the difference between a 22 or 24 or 26 feet in that range, there -- there is only negligible difference between a building being located any of those distances. O'Brien: So, are you talking visual or acoustics or both? Thowless: Both. What's going to be far more effective is the combination of fencing, landscaping, and potentially some berming, if that is, in fact, a condition of approval that -- that you remain with. We feel that the -- that it's adouble-edge sword. Just to repeat comments earlier, under the basic Zoning for this property in R-4, the minimum side yard setback is ten feet. We designed the project at the outset with a setback along that -- minimum setback along that north property line of approximately 15 feet. So, we went 50 percent above and beyond what the ordinance would require and we landscaped it. After testimony at the first neighborhood meeting where it was clear that we were meeting a lot of opposition and a lot of concern from the neighbors, we took Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 19 of 80 that 15 feet we started out with and we moved it up to approximately 24 feet and we almost doubled the amount of planting that we were proposing along those property lines and the city zoning ordinance requires trees -- deciduous trees of a minimum two inch caliper, which typically translates into approximately a seven or eight foot height at time of planting and we volunteered to provide all three inch caliper trees, so that they are another three, four feet in height at time of planting along that entire north property line and west property line, as well as some of the trees on the east property line. So, we believe that by pulling the buildings even further from the property line and by greatly densifying the planting, that -- that we have gone -- that that will make the biggest impact long-term to buffering between the multi-family and the single-family uses, far more than quibbling about a couple more feet. O'Brien: So, was this an area of contention between you and the homeowners or the residential subdivision people at your homeowners meetings -- or your town meetings, I should say? Thowless: Buffering setbacks, absolutely, was of great concern to the neighborhoods, yes. O'Brien: Onto another particular area. Wfiere are the -- the trash compactors or trash receptacles to be located in this area? I couldn't find out on the map. Thowless: We have a trash area there, there, there, there, there, there, and there. And one there. They are -- O'Brien: You mentioned that these were fenced in with Cyclone fence or -- Thowless: We have indicated in our submission materials they would be metal posts, metal rails, with -- with cedar plank siding. O'Brien: And these receptacles, are these steel bins with the big heavy lifts? Thowless: Yes. We have reviewed the layout of the enclosures, the size of enclosures, the number of enclosures with Sanitary Services Company. They felt that our layout was acceptable and it is based on a twice weekly trash pick up. So, the amount of dumpsters will be on-site is designed for pick up twice a week and that is normative for Rudeen Development. O'Brien: So, what -- have you thought about enclosing this in a more, acoustical environment to keep the noise down for people opening up those big lids and slamming them down and you can hear it for a mile away, especially as many as you have, as .many people as you will have using them, so I'm concerned with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 20 of 80 Thowless: They can be gated... If they are gated, of course, then, that's just one more element that people have to open and close, besides the lid of the unit, they are coming and going through -- through a gate. The primary -- there is no noise, of course, associated with the dumpster itself, but the primary noise is when the trash truck comes and lifts it overhead and dumps it and no amount of screening or different type of screening is going to lessen the impact of the trash trucks. O'Brien: One other question.. Is this -- the maintenance going to be maintained by the homeowners association or rental association in the community or is it done by the developer or what? Thowless: The owner, Rudeen Development, will be responsible for maintenance of the facility, as they will be the owner. O'Brien: Mowing lawns and trimming trees, et cetera? Thowless: Yes. There are some services that they may contract out, but ultimate responsibility lies with them as the owner. O'Brien: That's all I have. Thank you. Rohm: That was the easy part. Now, the difficult part is making sure that those of you out there are represented.. So, the first thing that I'd like to do is ask if there is a spokesperson for Lochsa Falls that would like to come forward and make the first presentation? Maybe not Lochsa, but is there a homeowners association representative that speaks? From the audience there is no homeowners association. Is there a spokesperson in the crowd that wanted to speak for a larger number? . Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Rohm, find out who he is speaking for. Rohm: Before you start, are you representing anybody but yourself? There are, obviously, quite a number of folks in the audience and if each person was given the same amount of time that the applicant did, we would be here until about this time next week. And so we don't -- so, the applicant had indicated that somebody had a PowerPoint presentation. Are you the person with that --? Tiderman: That's correct. We do -- we do have a PowerPoint presentation. I am not the one with the presentation. I wasn't the one that took the pictures. I think that person would be best to speak to those pictures. Rohm: And, again, I'm not trying to direct you folks in any way in terms of limiting, but just from a -- from a perspective of trying to make sure that we don't have the same thing presented in multiple fashion. So, if you'd like to start, we can sure go with that Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 21 of 80 and, then, I think close to the start we should go with the PowerPoint presentation, just -- and, then, we will go through each of these -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, has the PowerPoint presentation been given to staff and we know there will be no technical difficulties? If not, then, maybe -- Rohm: It's on a CD. Nary: It's on the packet. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I can't open it on my screen. I don't have a PowerPoint viewer, so -- can you add it to city staff to put up on the screen, so they have it ready? Hood.: It's ready to go. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it is ready to go. That was my question. Rohm: One at time. Just one at a time can come forward and -- Tiderman: Can I make a suggestion? I think that -- Rohm: First of all, could you say your name and address for the record, please? Tiderman: You bet you. My name is Glen Tiderman. I'm a resident of Bridgetower. am within the 300 foot area of notification. Rohm: And your address is -- Tiderman: 2432 West Los Flores Drive. Rohm: There you go. Thank you. Tiderman: You bet. I'm one of the people that have put together a number of things and concerns about this and meetings. Certainly, not by any means afull-on representative, but what I would suggest is if somebody brings aconcern -- everybody's going to have difficult concerns here, can we just have a hand up, agree with that concern or not, because I may say something that not everybody agrees with and somebody else may say something that I don't agree with. Would that be a fair way to go about doing this? Rohm: Yes. I -- your presentation is yours and so if you want. to poll the audience -- and not in a verbal perspective, but in a hands up, I -- I don't have any problem with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 22 of 80 Tiderman: Right. And that's fine. I just -- it sounded to me like you had some concern about that kind of a -- because my concerns are my own, but I think they are also a general concern as well. So, anyway, first of all, I'd like you to -- I'd like to introduce you to my fellow ghetto members. We are residents of Kelly Creek, Verona, Verona II, Lochsa Falls, Bridgetower -- and I'm sure I'm forgetting some in there. We do have a lot of concerns about this affecting our homes and our families. Number one is the density of the units. On your city map, up until -- I don't know if it's changed recently, but up until just a couple months ago it shows R-4 through there and if somebody were to walk through the door and say, hey, what's going to go on in this lot, R-4 is all we were given and the average citizen wouldn't know or even know how to dig any deeper than that. think that's been a concern for us. Many of us feel deceived by the city and by maybe some of our real estate agents as well. My first -- my first concern is the number of units. Is this up for -- is this something we can discuss? Is this up for change? Because my understanding is 171, but, you know, what we would like to see is a revision to the 171. We don't feel that it fits the area. We feel that some buffering from 400,000 dollar homes to apartments needs to be made. Personally, I'm not -- and I think I speak for most people here, we would like to see this developed, but we would like to see it developed with something like an owner-occupied kind of residence, which Rudeen, by the way, has built in the past and at a much lower R value, for lack of a better term. Maybe an R-8 or something like that. So, that's an issue that we have. Rohm: Before you go on, I'd like to have Mr. Nary respond to the number of units. think that it's important to get that off the table early on and, Mr. Nary, could you speak to that specific issue? Nary: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, 171 units were part of the development agreement, so those aren't a consideration for this Commission to determine the number. All they can consider is the impacts and how those impacts can be remedied through these conditions. But the number isn't something they can consider differently. Tiderman: Well, Mr. Nary, let me counter that. Is there, then, somebody that we can talk to that would be able to change that impact number? Nary: No. Tiderman: So, that's off the table. It can't be more or it can't be less. Nary: Well, they can -- the developer can ask for it to be less. The city can't direct it to be less, because the agreement that they have when the property was annexed and the development agreement was signed in 2002, allowed for 171 units. Now, they have the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 23 of 80 ability to ask for less if they wish. They couldn't ask for more without the approval of the City Council. Tiderman: Thank you. The other concern in general is the effect the project -- the effect the project will have on land values. One of the concerns that we have had in the past -- I don't remember it being mentioned -- is the walkway between Wapoot Drive on the north into the apartments. I know that at one time that came up in discussion and we are a little bit concerned about having that kind of access from the apartments. We don't really see a reason. There is no park in there. There is no -- you know, for the reason -- you know, for the purpose of the apartment dwellers as well, there just doesn't seem to be a real purpose to that. And that's aconcern-- a safety concern for some of the residents there on Wapoot. And on the design, I'm wondering if there is something that can be done to eliminate one of the big concerns also has been headlight intrusion into the backs of these homes, because if you go into these homes you will see that the level of the headlights out -- you can -- you can literally see about 20 feet beyond the fence line. It's almost as if the land is higher in that vacant area. It would -- I could see being avery -- a distracting concern for many. That's what I have. I'm sure there are others that will have more. Rohm.: I'm sure there will, too. Any questions of this individual? O'Brien: Not from me. Newton-Huckabay: None. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Tiderman: Thank you very much. Rohm: I'm trying to stay with some sort of an order here and I think technically I'm supposed to just read the names off as they come, but if it's all right with counsel, the PowerPoint presentation, I believe, is really a valuable tool to move this forward and as opposed to starting with the list, can we ask for that presentation as the next item? O'Brien: So moved. Rohm: Would you like to come forward with your PowerPoint, please? Shilton: My name is James Shilton. I live at 2351 West Quintail. It's about six to eight hundred feet south of the development, so -- it's in Bridgetower. Now, I might preface this with I had no intentions of scouting or doing anything when I was on vacation. I happened to get online and was talking to some of my friends and they were telling me about the development that was going on and I happened to be in Spokane. So, I went Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 24 of 80 and looked at some of their projects and I looked at them and took some pictures and, then, some of the people back here put together a PowerPoint presentation with the pictures that I had taken. They are projects that are on Rudeen's site. Is it Rudeen? I'm sorry, I don't mean to mispronounce. It's on Rudeen's site from their website, so got the addresses and I just went over and I just looked. I will admit that not all of the sites are managed by Rudeen. I never said they were. I didn't want anybody to be led in that direction. My focus was on the building material, what the result was, how it was managed, would it look like some of these are pretty -- well, a year old I think. Some of them are four or five years old. I think that in Spokane in the places where they put them I think they fit quite well. I really do. I think they did a good job and I will compliment them on that. But, you know, they are next to Fairchild Air Force Base, as an example. They are in those vicinities and if you go out to Mountain Home Air Force Base., you know, you're going to find apartment houses and things of that nature and they already stated and admitted that that was -- that was the purpose and design of those units. So, I don't have any problem with those. Our problem -- and the reason why I took these pictures to compare was that these units here are very similar to what they are doing in Spokane. They may have some minor, you know, facade changes with some stone or something like that, but I don't see major changes. I see the same result there or here as what would be up there. And the same problems. I would also -- Ihad one other thing -- well, I guess we can go through the PowerPoint. I don't know. I was taking a few notes while we were doing this and I would like to address a few things. Each time that you crunch -- now, I'm sure that Mr. Nary is versed in the law and what is -- what was agreed to with 171 units, but if you pack -- if you keep taking away land from these people from the buffer, from the 20 -- is it 20 foot, was it? Back 25 or something -- you take three feet away from them and you keep putting this smaller and smaller, the drive becomes smaller and smaller. The parking spots become more packed and the fire department isn't going to be able to get in there, so -- and the first -- and Iguess one of my first questions is -- these were in my original notes -- was I don't understand how the fire department -- I think they need to really take a second look at this, because I don't see how the fire department's going to get in there, personally. And it may meet code now, but if you take any space away from them, I don't know how it can. You, basically got a big parking lot there, so -- I don't know. Do we want to start that -- do we want to -- Rohm: I think that's an excellent idea. Shilton: I didn't mean to ramble on about that, but Idid -- those were some of the things that I -- I was caught a little off guard after being called a ghetto member, but -- Rohm: I -- just for the record I believe that there are more than one definition for his choice of words and so I'd like to say that the Commission itself does not view your properties as ghetto. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 25 of 80 Shilton: Thank you,. .Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair -- and I think it would be appropriate to not bring that up through the rest of the hearing. Rohm: I think that's very appropriate. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Shilton: This is -- this is -- this is not -- well, I don't have a -- Rohm: There is one right there on the -- Shilton: That is not the apartment complex. This is -- the apartment complex is right back here; am I not correct? Right back in here. Back here. It's more like right there. This is part of Rudeen's development right there. My point in this was if I saw this next to my -- I was managing and I saw this next to my house, my homeowners association would remove it right away. Rudeen or the managers of the Rudeen -- this is Rudeen's right here. Notice the truck parked there. There is a boat back in there. There is your abandoned car. Now, I'm not blaming them saying that they personally did that, but, as I said, nobody seems to care about the -- you know, what it looks like in the -- in the neighborhood, so they don't -- they don't go over there and complain and make them remove that. Now, if they'd like to rebut that, that's find and dandy, I don't care, but that was my observation. This is all of their units right here. If you will notice, there is a little bit of -- they are right, they have changed a few of the facades, but if you look at this, this is still the same stuff that they are using -- they must get a good price on it is the way I see it. And that's what they do. This is the same -- this is not innovative architecture, in my opinion. This is the same thing they have done. You see this, this, and this. Which is nothing more than a little variation in that or that example, where ever it went to. There are management skills right there. This here -- this -- I don't know who did this, if it was a Rudeen thing, but if Meridian allows that, I can't see that. Now, these are building principles. That's a downspout. They couldn't get underneath there; they didn't plan to put it under, so they just drop it over the top. There is your barbed wire and there is your stuff. I have no reason -- I have no -- I have no answers for why that's there. I don't know. But I was trying to -- if you can go back once. If I can make a point, we have got this fence here -- you can see that's awrought-iron type fence and you have got a chain link fence and, then, you have got this and, once again, graffiti is not on their property. I'm not saying it is. What I'm saying is if graffiti is next door to me, I'm going to make sure that I knock on my neighbor's door and tell them to get it off. And I was there three days in a row and it was never removed. So, management doesn't seem to be there. These are the neighborhoods that they were building in. They didn't get a lot of -- one of the comments that were made was that they haven't had a lot of opposition to their buildings. Well, this is why. That's graffiti Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 26 of 80 right there. Opposite side of the buildings. I don't remember what -- I think we just had exposed garbage right here. Well, go back one, please. Right here is your stop sign in a five gallon bucket. Or I think that's a no parking sign. There are your air conditioners. Of course, I think that they have got a different design. They want to put standard AC units outside. Is that what -- is that what we are talking about? Or are they talking about this? Central air? This is not their property. This might not be their property. I don't know whose this is out there, but I noticed there were a lot of boats and stuff around there. But a lot of this was in -- the asphalt you can see was in disarray there. A lot of that's cracked and whatnot. There you go. I think this speaks for itself. Like I said., this may not be their management. This speaks for itself. Quality workmanship. There is outside exposed conduit, which is illegal by code. Right there. At least that conduit is. This here, this is what they did -- this is the lighting they had inside of their -- and I'm assuming that this is similar to what they are going to build for the covered parking.. I'm sorry, but this doesn't go in the -- and I know this is a requirement or maybe it's something -- a convenience for the neighbors, but I just couldn't see it. This is -- this apartment complex, if I remember right, was the one that was a year old and my camera wasn't taking that good of a picture that day and you see this -- all this concrete as cracked all the way up and it is rusted and there was a rust spot all the way down and it's not ayear -- well, I don't want to speak for them. They can tell you how old it is. But it was one of the newer ones. This is the surrounding area. Once again, new apartment complex -- different apartment complex, but these are the neighbors. That's why they don't get complaints. In fact, that probably enhanced the value of those properties. Now, this -- once again, I wanted to point out lighting here. I was there in the evening and a lot of the lighting that is there is going to be seen by the neighbors, no matter what kind of buffer or berm you put there. And I think that, you know, if I was looking out my -- my -- I don't have anything like that as an example or any of this stuff outside of my house right now or, you know, that I would be looking at across the street from my neighbors, other than a porch light or something like that. These lights are required by codes so the people can see to go up. But these people have to look at them. This right here, once again, was back to lighting -- I don't know if they planned on lighting inside of their parking -- covered parking or not. If they do, this is what it's going to look like and, then, we are back to what I think Glen was talking about and that is the glare into the back yards, et cetera. So, we have got that as a problem, too. Now, once again, I'm back to this point. See right here, that red right there is a fire lane and toured -- this was going to be part of my other presentation, but it looks like I'm down to this. I went through Bridge -- Bridgewood Park, Aspen Hills, James Court Apartments, Creekside Arbor, Cherry Lane Apartments -- this is all in Meridian. Cherry Lane Apartments. Pine Street Apartments. And a couple others. And every one of them had fire lanes. They also had do not park signs where it said that -- that all streets were deemed as fire access and., once again, I come back to this -- and, of course, you guys can't see what I was looking at, but this configuration here -- I wish we could -- had another thing. This configuration with three parking stalls in there, I don't see any fire department access there. All right. Go ahead. This here was all cracked. That was all Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 27 of 80 coming apart. Which my homeowners association wouldn't allow. This here -- that's a chip off that one right there. By the way, speaking of a lot of those garages, as I went through there and didn't get any pictures of those, but a lot of the garages that were in -- and Idon't see them, but the single unit -- they were used as storage. I mean, you know, there was nothing but -- all the enclosed ones were used as storage. They really weren't parking cars there. Go ahead. This here - Deerfield, I think, is brand new and., like I said, you can correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure these guys are going to have -- they are making notes like crazy back there. But you know -- but this is a nice looking entrance. It doesn't look that bad. And you have tree lines and everything else. But back here -- and I don't know if the -- if the PowerPoint addresses this, but --. There is where we change. When they don't have to put in anything -- and this is what I'm worried about, Rudeen. They are going to give you the bare minimum. Now, they are saying this is up scale, but this is no different than what's over -- what I saw in Spokane. mean it -- you know, I don't know, maybe a little bit different on the inside, but the outside looks the same. But when they don't have to, it looks like this is what they do. Once, again, you have got your fire lanes. Go ahead. So, I guess I'm going to give them acompliment -- and, like I said., in Spokane, Ithink -- and other areas, I think, in Meridian they would do just fine. I really do. And although -- yes, this is the area. This is the part I was looking at. Right here -- I wished the Meridian fire department would look at this again and tell me that that's legal and if you have to shift everything back, how are you going to get this? Now, I want to show you something. This here -- and, I'm sorry, I do not have copies and maybe that's not legal if I don't have copies for everybody, but you're welcome to look at it. This is what I envision access -- and this is what I'm talking about. And I will show you -- these guys -this, and they can -- if you want to -- here is what I envision happening there, because you have got covered parking right here and I don't know how -- I made a little smart remark, which wasn't -- didn't seem so smart after I wrote it down, but, you know, I can just see the outrigger of the fire department right there trying to get his ladder to the third floor, and it's going through the -- you know, back end of a Toyota or something and -- because the outriggers have to be put out, so they can get up and get access to this. So, I don't see how life safety is being met in these areas. I also don't see how drainage, as an example -- if --Ithink Mrs. Huckabay -- Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: It's Newton-Huckabay. Shilton: You said you lived in this area. Well, if you remember, all of this area around here, the water table is about three foot, you know, it's terrible and all these drainage -- all this drainage right here that we are looking at, I hope that's not included in the access for free area part of the -- 200 square feet or whatever it was per person. I don't remember what it was. Whatever it was. Because that drainage is going to be full of water. Once, again, I'm back to the same thing. How are you going to get a ladder up there if you're the fire department if that's full of water? Because that's where all of this -- this is all concrete and asphalt and that's where that water is going to go. My last Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 28 of 80 comment and I will get out of your way. By the way, that came out of OSHA's code book here, which is nothing more than IBC and UFC. Open areas are taken up by drainage. In this area the water table isn't very far under the surface and drainage from the excessive amount of asphalt parking will take up most of the free recreational space. Just look across the street for the proof, if you look right straight across the street you will see right behind Glen's house and you will see a huge drain pond there. My point is, is that the pride of ownership is what I'm looking at? All of these people here spent their weekends fixing their homes up, tinkering., planting shrubs. They are going to give you whatever you tell them to give you. That's all they are going to give you. So, the pride of ownership is what we provide on the south side -- or, excuse me -- on the north side of that, the west -- well, even into Bridgetower. My neighbors and I feel like we go beyond to assure that our neighbors are safe and friendly and welcome to share -- all of them to share all of our goals, but -- and I repeat this one, because it looks just like this -- the pack 'em, rack 'em, and stack 'em character of the Selway apartments is not a positive addition to this area. That's it. I thank you for your time. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, maybe to clear up one thing and so we don't get repetitive testimony about something that isn't applicable, we don't have a ladder truck in Meridian and our building code requires that these facilities are going to have to be sprinkled. So, we don't have ladders that are going to go over the top of garages. All of these buildings are required to have fire sprinklers in them by our code. So, it isn't -- it doesn't make adifference -- as long as the roadway width is wide enough for the truck and that's what the fire department evaluates is the roadway width can withstand the width of the truck, that's what they need. They don't have ladder trucks that go over the top of garages. Shilton: And I agree with you. I agree with you that -- that sprinklered -- a sprinklered facility will exclude some of these things. However, when we are talking fire -- we are not just talking fire and if you go into the IBC, which I believe you guys are 2003; is that correct? If you go into the IBC you will find out that, yes, fire codes will give you that permission. I hope that we don't settle for mediocrity here, because that's what we are doing. Because not only are we talking about a fire department that needs to get up there to do whatever to fight a fire, we are talking about maybe evacuation of a sick person or something like that. That may have to happen. That's why I mentioned the ladders, that the ladders are not going to be accessible in those areas. Nary: All I'm saying -- I'm not commenting on your statement, sir, I'm saying we don't have a ladder truck. We put ladders up to buildings. So, that's how they do that. That's all I'm saying. They don't have ladder trucks and the buildings are sprinkled, so that that's not something -- if you want to elicit the testimony, that's not something that's relevant to this application. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 29 of 80 Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. At this time I'd like to take a short break. We will reconvene at a quarter to 9:00.. Thank you. (Recess.) Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and I have got a number of people that have signed up, but at this time we do :have one individual that has requested to testify that is a member of the Life Flight team and he could be called away at any time and I'm going to give him the opportunity to speak next. So, Mr. Brian Katcher, would you like to come forward., please? And the balance of the testimony is I'd like each of you to keep your comments to three minutes apiece and if, in fact, there is testimony that mirrors your concerns, I would appreciate it if you would just say I agree with that individual that has testified, rather than restate it in the entire three minutes. So, with that being said you're on. Katcher: Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, thank you for letting me speak now. Rohm: Please name and -- Katcher: I'm sorry. My name is Brian Katcher and my wife and I live at 5447 North Stanley Creek Avenue. Rohm: Thank you. Katcher: It's in the Kelly Creek Subdivision. Just to bring up a point, you asked earlier if there were spokespeople for the -- for each subdivision. Our subdivision in particular has not yet been turned over to us in that fashion, so we don't -- we do not control our homeowners association at this point, so that's the reason for not actually having that. In regards to the homeowners association, I would like to bring up that we do all have CC&Rs that we are bound to. That was touched on. I wonder who would be responsible for upkeep -- you know, enforcing upkeep. We can be told any number of times by any number of people that, you know, upkeep will be done, that things will be neat, that things will be repaired. There is a governing body, so to speak, that enforces that for every one of our homes that says this is broken, this doesn't look good, this is a bad color, you know, this is falling down, you need to fix it and if you don't fix it there will be a monetary penalty. Is there going to be something like that for this part of the property or is this going to be completely separate and left kind up in the wind and they can do whatever they want? That doesn't help with blending in to our community. As far as blending, I know there is copying, there is blending, there are a lot of definitions that can be spoken of here. I don't think any of us are questioning the durability of Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 30 of 80 substances here that are being used.. I have lived in a house that had vinyl siding. Yeah, you can scrape it and it still has -- it's still the same color through and through, that's all well and good. It fits into channels; we get wind, it comes out of the channels, it's not the end all, be all of building materials. Everything that is being built in our area, including all of the, quote, industrial areas, the shops, stores, businesses, multitude of dental offices, all look the same and use the same building materials as our homes do. They don't just have a couple of stone accents with the rest of it being vinyl, because it upkeeps well. Yes, it's a financial issue. But I believe that Rudeen should be held to -- if you're going to build this, you build it so it fits, not kind of fits, not kind of looks, not -- but it's the same color. It fits. Will it upkeep as well? Maybe not. Well, you have to paint it, then. And that's got to be someone's -- that's where it comes back to enforcement. You paint it. You fix it. Just as we do. Rohm: May I ask you something? Katcher: Yes. Rohm: Is it within your CC&Rs that you not have any metal siding? Katcher: We are -- I believe we are forbidden to have vinyl or metal siding. Rohm: Thank you. Katcher: That is expressly forbidden in all of our surrounding CC&Rs, I believe. I can only speak to the ones I have read, though. Rohm: Thank you. Only the individual testifying should be speaking at any one time. Thank you. Katcher: But I will thank you for bringing that into my ear. I believe it's one-third of the front -- of the frontage of every one of our homes -- I believe it's one-third must be stone, brick, stucco, something of that. Is it expensive? Yes. We all did it because it adds to the look and the feel of our neighborhood that we wanted to live in. And we are responsible for the upkeep thereof. I'd like to touch quickly on entrance and egress, not so much for emergency services -- I was a firefighter, I am a paramedic. This is a concern of mine. My concern right now, however, is shuffling 230-some odd, I believe was the number, cars through one driveway. There is -- on one of the pictures on the south side going into the business area or the industrial area, there is slated some kind of access. I know I for one would love to see that being another road., another way of these people going out, instead of straight through our neighborhoods where our children are playing in the streets -- well, their children are playing in the streets. I don't have any that I know of. And the other thing I'd just like to touch on is the ACHD study that was done earlier this week. Yes, the number was lower. It was done on a random Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 31 of 80 day and I understand the need for random sampling. However, our subdivision is not completed yet. There are still many homes that are -- or several homes, I should say, that are not -- that have not been filled., that have not been purchased and add to that the number of cars coming through there, we are going to, then, jump well above. I'm sure, that number and allowable number really -- you know, that's almost kind of a random thing. Who is to say that's too much traffic, not enough traffic, it's a lot of cars coming off one road into a neighborhood, as opposed to onto a main road. Those are my -- those are my comments. I thank you. Rohm.: Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: Oh. A lot of agreement from the -- from the field. Sylvie Carbajal. That individual's not responded. Joanne Stevens. Sheryl Hopkins. If you -- you don't have to speak. You can just from the audience say that you -- . Please come forward.. State your name and address for the record.. Hopkins: Sheryl Hopkins. 2550 West Anatole Drive. And my question was regarding the guest parking. I believe they said that there were going to be 18 guest parking spaces; is that correct? Garages, as people have stated previously, most likely are going to be -- well, not most likely. Possibly going to be used as storage. How are there going to be enough? For 171 units you have 18 guest parking spaces? Where are all the people going to park? Guests -- that's a big deal. Are they going to end up parking along Goddard? Are they going to end up parking -- is that what the walkways are for into the other residences, is to park on the other side so they can walk through to their apartments? I have a big problem with that. Rohm: And the way this process works, just so that you all know, you may ask your questions in your testimony and the responses to any questions brought up in testimony will be responded to in their rebuttal to any testimony. So, this isn't a debate as we go through. Hopkins: Sure it is. Rohm: You list your questions and the applicant will respond to any questions as -- as part of their rebuttal. So, if you have -- do you have anything else? Hopkins: I have many other things, but I know there are other people that are going to bring them up, so I will let them discuss it. Rohm: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 32 of 80 (Audience: l agree.) Rohm: From the audience there is a lot of agreement with that. Don Fleck. Fleck: I have a couple things to -- Don Fleck. 5197 North Black Sand. I live in the. direct neighborhood adjacent to this project. There was -- just briefly to bring up the 9/10 revision to the study. McMillan has been closed for most of the summer due to road construction, which could impact the traffic study that was made during that time. Eighteen parking spaces, I concur with the lady previous. This roofing material that's presented here is a basic three tab. All of the roofing material in the surrounding areas is an architectural shingle, which is black. This will not fit in with existing homes. And one other point that was made in the slide presentation was that fencing seems to be left up to whoever comes in next and they made that same statement with the property to the south. There was a -- the section down here. They said that whoever occupies that puts up the fencing. That seems to be the way that this company does business. If it's chain link, then, that's what you get. It seems to me that they should be held to the standard of putting up their own fence, because the people to the north, they have fencing up there by themselves and people to the -- the other side to the west also have fencing up on theirs. I have a written statement that I have also prepared. This is -- and addressed this to the City Council, not to the Zoning Commission, but I'll address it to you. In reference to this Conditional Use Permit, this parcel of land was zoned R-4. There has been a lot of discussion about this, whether it was -- but it was never rezoned as R-40 and that's part of the discussion here., whether this should be rezoned... In my opinion that it should have been the owner's responsibility to get the rezoning at the time that this was made and not upon this committee at this time to state that this was done.. So, as I purchased this property, this was designated R-4 residence and now I'm coming into a community that's now going to be technically zoned R-40. That wasn't what I was looking for and most of the neighbors I have talked to also feel the same thing and to find out that this was put in as 171 units, you have to go deep into the documents, which is way beyond what the average homeowner purchaser should be expected to do. And that is -- concludes my statement and I will pass this -- Rohm: Thank you very much. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: Just to address -- just to address the fence to the south. I can assure you that when that parcel to the south of this development develops, it's not going to have a chain link fence there and so -- Mel Grant. I believe he's left. I would assume Lillian Grant as well. Dan Skoric. Skoric: Dan Skoric. 2496 West Wapoot. Just a few concerns and I know not to ,bring up the same things, but with the traffic study where they said it was all right. It's not all Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 33 of 80 right, because 30 percent of that area is still empty and that needs to be reconsidered. And my other concerns are -- I don't know if you guys have actually been in that area between 3:00 and 5:00 o'clock anywhere, basically, from Cherry Lane down, and even Meridian Road and Ten Mile, but it is just a complete cluster. I mean you got one channel coming into Meridian and -- I mean if you want to see how everybody makes it down that way, go onto Franklin Road at 4:30 -- on Linder and Franklin Road., turn right by the bus barn and head down towards Ten Mile -- it will take you about 40 minutes to get to the stop sign. I don't know if anybody's ever had that. But that -- that is the main in to that area and once you get past that -- I mean you got a 30 minute commute home, just once you hit town and with all the construction that's ongoing now, I mean my concern is what are you guys looking at as far as future road widening -- and not road widening as far as putting a bike lane in or a -- you know, a turn lane, but, you know, two lanes and making that to where it's more convenient. I mean with 171 people moving in, most of these are going to be probably couples that are living in there, that's, what, 352 cars? And so you got 352 cars that are jammed into that area. I don't know how many parking spaces they have, but 18 overflow, I mean I live on the corner pretty close to there and I mean I know I'm going to have big oil spots sitting in front of my driveway, because there are going to be cars parking there all the time and, you know, you have heard people express their concerns on how well we take care of our properties and one of the reasons we moved in and purchased these three to five hundred thousand dollar homes is because we knew that it was a development we would move into. We looked at Lochsa Falls, we looked at Paramount, we looked at Bridgetower. It's the community we wanted to be in. I don't want to look at one of the tallest buildings in Meridian from my front door. And it's -- unfortunately, it's what we are going to do and if I do have to look at a tall building, I want it to be the same appearance of what everything else in the community looks like and I know that's the grand plan that the Mayor has put forth and I know you guys have your plan for Meridian and I hope it's included. The other point I want to put across is last year -- well, within three years my child has had to go to three different schools because of the zoning that's gone on because of the population growth within that area and I tried to vote last year, but I think I stood seven hours I think down at the voting station, because there was one voting station for the whole district at the Catholic church and most of us probably stood four, five hours down there just wanting to cast our vote, but it -- I mean, hopefully, that's addressed this year. Sorry for breaking away from that, but with the influx -- with the influx, people that are coming in here, I would hope that you are talking to the principals associated with Hunter, that brand new school Paramount. Paramount just opened up this year and my -- Hunter Elementary is directly across the street -- I live five blocks from there, I can't go to Hunter, because we are forced to go into Paramount. Paramount, I believe, is 400 students over this year. So, just even bringing this in is only going to make that worse. So, I would hope that you guys would be speaking with the education department as far as the growth that that's going to incur and, you know, how many little buildings you guys are going to have to do just to support the education, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 34 of 80 but that's all I can really bring off the top of my head right now, but appreciate it. Thanks. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: Thank you, sir. Andrea Skoric. Do you have -- oh, she 's left. Jeff Weeks. From the audience he said his subjects have already been addressed. La Dawn Weeks same? From the audience she said that her issues have been addressed as well. Ron Horsley? Sandra Freeman? Her subject has been discussed. Jim Freeman? From the audience his subjects have been discussed.. Linda Ullman? Her concerns have been addressed.. Jim Ullman? And also his concerns. Jim Shilton? Oh. Excuse me. Yes, they have. Mark Wheeler. Wheeler: My name is Mark Wheeler and I live at 2649 West Wapoot, which is directly to the north of this project. The only -- almost everything I had written down here has been -- been very well presented. I just had one kind of a question. It seemed to me that -- that -- and I know vinyl siding -- the use of vinyl siding has been mentioned many times tonight, but the one thing I don't think that's been mentioned is that because these apartments and this type of complex surrounds all our homes, this is all you're going to see of Meridian. If we allow, you know, a -- send a written invitation for contractors to come in and build low cost, vinyl clad, high density units in Meridian right now, which don't think is the best time to be doing that, but I think that's kind of what we are doing. That's all we are going to see. Meridian is -- you're not going to see the beautiful houses, you're not going to see any -- anything that you have done so far in Meridian and all the beautiful -- it is a beautiful city. You're going to see these structures, because they are so tall and you're going to see vinyl and you're not going to see architectural shingles, but you're going to see just straight tab shingles and the ones that blow off the -- I think they tend to blow off in the wind a little easier, so it's going to be an eyesore and the other thing is I had a real problem with the ADT numbers that some of you folks had come up with. I know that it -- it sounds like everything's good -- and I'm not speaking into the mike and I apologize, but I can't stare at anybody and do that, but there is -- there is -- there is like a number called an 85th percentile of traffic that means you can have 1,700 cars a day go through a unit and that -- or through a street and not have any problem, but if they all try to go through at the same time you have a huge problem. And I think it wasn't -- it wasn't too long ago that someone -- and think it was from out of state came in, they hired -- they actually enlisted someone from another state to come in and tell us that we are about to have a traffic nightmare in Meridian, due to thinking pretty much like this. And the thing that really particularly bothers me is that we had to have somebody from out of state come in to tell us this. And that word nightmare was used in the paper. So, one unit -- I know it's -- it's inexpensive to build a unit like this -- it is cheaper to build a unit like this with only one road in and out, but it's not going to be good for the people that live there, it's not going to be good for the kids walking to school or however they have to get to school these Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 35 of 80 days and it -- it's already a huge frustration. I'm clawing the upholstery in my -- in my vehicle trying to get home -- back and forth to work. And I think there are probably other people doing the same thing and it's -- you know, somebody someplace has to put a -- you know, the brakes on a little bit and I guess that's -- everything else has been addressed.. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. (Audience: I agree.) Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I think it's worth pointing out that in the ACHD report it is pointing out that the intersection of McMillan and Linder will be improved in 2008 with the development agreement with -- I believe it's Bridgetower. Am I correct? So, that intersection is within three months of the year that it will be improved and I believe that the intersection at McMillan and Meridian is also due to be improved in 2008. It's done now? Well, I understand that, but a stop light is much better than afour-way stop, at any rate. But there are intersection improvements pending in that area. Rohm: Moving forward. Sarah Markfield Katcher. S. Katcher: One of the things that -- oh, sorry. Sarah Markfield Katcher at 5447 North Stanley Creek Avenue. One of the concerns that were addressed during our citizens meeting several months ago was the price point of these rental units and they are approximately the same price as those that are located downtown. Our concern is that this is the only apartment complex that will be located in this area. There are no others. We don't find a draw. Many of these people moved out there because they wanted yards, they wanted to be able to garden and things like that. There is nothing in this area that we feel that would draw people there and once -- if apartments do not rent for whatever reason, as there are many, many houses currently available and there are many, many other apartments available in the area, what will, then, happen? How will they keep the price point high enough to encourage the level of citizen that is commensurate., that is currently living there now to keep up with the neighborhood? That's my questions for them -- for them to rebut at the end. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: Thank you. Brian Katcher. Oh. Excuse me. That's -- . Bernadette Resibeck. From the audience, she has left the building. Daniel Clizbe. Clizbe: Dan Clizbe. 2668 West Los Flores Drive. I'm in the Bridgetower development. Most of the issues that I have written down have been addressed.. Probably the one big issue that hasn't been addressed is the noise -- the increased noise from the trash trucks, from the people -- from 171 apartments having double, and, then, some, of Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 36 of 80 people. Typically apartment people are more than just 8.:00 to 5:.00 people and the noise level that will be increased during the summertime, late at night, in their park areas., that's a concern. Another thing that hasn't been really addressed is the view from the south. The people who live in Bridgetower, myself and several people, my backyard is going to be looking right at them, right at the lights, right at the car lights, it's just going to be a real issue. And that really hasn't been addressed.. The fact that there are going to be three-story buildings there, that's an issue. And I'm hoping that the Commission will really look at this. I moved here a little over a year ago from out of state and I particularly picked Meridian and this area, because I thought what a great plan, what a beautiful area, and now I'm getting into something worse than I left and it's the thought of the buildings, the size of the buildings and the density, it's a big issue and I'm sorry to put this as an emotional statement, but that's where my heart lies, so -- thank you. Rohm: Appreciate your comments. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: Wally Reisbeck. I assume he's also gone. John Bellamy. Bellamy: My name is John Bellamy. I'm at 2464 West Wapoot. Most of my issues have been covered. Two points I would like to make. I keep hearing in the discussions this was approved under Lochsa Falls in 2002. My understanding is that developer actually sold this property and that the current developer is piggybacking on the approval of the previous developer. If that is true, then, should it not be that the current developer must hold to the CC&Rs that were approved of the previous developer? And I'm talking about structure, building material. The second point I'd like to make out -- keep hearing that the developer has all these problems if he does a 24 foot setback with an allowable of an additional three feet, how much problem this is going to cause. would submit to the developer and to the council that a lot of the problems that they are facing and having to make exceptions for would go away if they would willingly reduce the density down from 171. That is the maximum that was approved. A lot of the problems that are facing my neighbors and the developer, if they would rethink this plan and instead of going to three-story buildings, go to duplexes -- there are duplexes over at what used to be the Kelly Creek Golf Course that fit in nicely. They are density housing. They are multi-family. They look nice. And everybody loves them. But they are not trying to do this. I thank you for your time. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: Donna Eggers. From the audience she said that her concerns have been addressed. Lawrence Gibson. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 37 of 80 Gibson: My name is Lawrence L. Gibson and I Five at 2352 West Wapoot. Most of the people my age have already left to go to bed and I will shortly. But shortly after we had the homeowners meeting I drove down West Wapoot and there were seven houses up for sale and those people had only lived in there less than a year. Now, I don't know where those people are tonight, but at that meeting they were quite vocal and I live within the 300 yards. But that's just a comment. I'm not moving. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. And just as a comment, I don't believe that anybody's having any problem voicing their opinion tonight. Jennifer Regner. Her concerns have been addressed. Ken Pahlas. From the audience he said his concerns have been addressed. Carmen Pahlas. Her concerns have been addressed. Ann Nikakis. Ditto she says. Nick Nikakis? His concerns have been addressed as well. John Nelson? Nelson: Most of mine have been addressed, but I just had one issue with regards to the traffic study that was done there. Rohm: Before you begin your testimony you should get to the microphone. Nelson: I think everybody can hear me; right? John Nelson. 2479 West Wapoot. The only additional issue that I had pertaining to the traffic study that was done, number one, I think it was already pointed out that McMillan was closed down for a portion of that time. Secondly, the count meter was only located at one exit and only one exit of that whole subdivision and there are about six other exits out of that subdivision in which cars travel every which direction and so I -- as far as I'm concerned, it -- it did nothing. And that's the only issue I have at this point. Everything else has been -- I could stand up here all night long, but it's all been addressed.. Rohm: Thank you, sir. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: Laurie Miller. Her concerns have been addressed. Karl Miller. Miller: Yeah. It's Karl Miller, 2295 Apgar. And my concerns are -- is the egress is -- in the public meetings all the -- and everybody's told all of us that all the traffic study is to divert the traffic onto Goddard only. But if you look at that, the exit is a straight shot onto Apgar, it goes straight to McMillan. My concerns are that is not a major road -- or was not developed as a major road, as a residential road. Down Apgar is a public park for Kelly Creek Subdivision. Now, if you drive down there in the mornings, you're leaving, we have the high school kids at one corner for the bus stop. You go around the corner, you have -- you know, there are probably about 30 grade school kids waiting for their bus. We have already had one high speed through there that took out a tree and a fence on the corner. What's it going to take, somebody to come out and hit some Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 38 of 80 children? And who is liable for that? Are the developers liable for that? What's going to keep the traffic off of Apgar to prevent it? Because Apgar is not a major street, it's a residential street. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: Brian Coffey. From the audience he says that he agreed with the testimony against the development. Dion Callahan. From the audience he said that his issues have been addressed.. Matt Hessing. Hessing: Matt Hessing. 2745 West Wapoot Drive. The main issue that I have is concerning the -- I don't know if this works anymore. But there is going to be a path at some point -- or proposed path coming out of the project into Wapoot. I have four small children that ride their bikes on the road and they go down to this path. My wife and both contacted Daren, who is the project manager for JUB and he stated that it is possible and probably likely that we could get that closed off. My concern is that if it's not closed off, there is only parcel fence on that path, so I know that my friends that live on that path are very concerned for their children and I'm concerned for my children as well as for safety and the amount of traffic that will be going to and from that area. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate the testimony. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: David Budolfson. Boy. B-u-d-o-I-f-s-o-n. Anna Budolfson. I don't know how to say it. Boy, that's got an extra letter in there it looks like to me. Tammy Witham. Witham: Hi. Good evening. Tammy Witham. 24 -- let me think -- 33 West Wapoot Drive. Most of my concerns have been met -- or discussed. I had a couple points that wanted to make as far as -- we talked about traffic a lot and I do concur that that wasn't an accurate -- .just being at one end. I happened to go through Lochsa Falls onto Chinden myself to avoid McMillan, because there is so much traffic. So, that is, obviously, a concern. At one of the meetings Iasked -- I'm sorry -- Daren --Iasked him about entrance into the subdivision. My concern was Goddard; that people would exit onto there and, then, filter out through the subdivision out onto the main roads as we do, obviously, in our subdivision. One of my points was --Iasked him if the current owner of the front ten acres was the same owner as the back ten acres that they were purchasing and he told me that they were and I asked him if they could make it part of their contract to have that owner grant easement, so that they could exit out onto McMillan for traffic to go out. And his response to me was -- is that the town will not Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 39 of 80 allow so many entrances onto McMillan within a certain range of space or frontage. And so I wanted to ask if that is correct, first of all? Because that would be a concern of mine in having them enter onto McMillan would save us a lot of traffic issues onto these roads. And the other thing I wanted to say is when they talked about stucco or stone or frontage on our -- fronts of our property, it was, actually, 40 percent. And I don't quite understand how you can have a planned unit development and take one part of the unit development and make it not comply with the rest. I don't understand how that quite works. So, I would hope that they would comply. I would hope that they would be two- story and not three, because we don't have anything over two-story. And if you have 30 -- I can remember what they said -- 32 feet, plus a roof pitch and you have trees that are probably six feet tall, I think those trees are going to be very little compared to these big buildings and are not really going to help. Maybe in about 20 years when we are all -- you know. Well, I'll be alive, but I don't know about -- I don't know about the rest of them. Beyond that, those are my concerns. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Erin Tiderman. From the audience, she's no longer here. Paul Valas? Please come forward. Valas: Yes. My name is Paul Valas. I live at 2704 West Cedar Grove in Kelly Creek. And Mr. Rohm, Members of the Commission, what I'd like to say is that the problem -- a lot of the problems are this plan was approved in 2002 and from what I understand the meeting here that we are looking at is to decide what changes have taken place between the time that they submitted their plans and the time they get to build them and I don't think there is anybody that is going to disagree that the changes have been rapid, they have been profound, and the City of Meridian has grown immensely in that amount of time. What was acceptable in 2002 may well not be acceptable in 2007. With all due respect to Mr. Nary, I don't believe that the amount of apartments agreed to of 171 units are -- is set in concrete. I think you're here to assess more than just the color of the shingles and the paint and the rest of it. I think you have more leeway than that. And I think if you're going to make this acceptable to everybody we'd have to come to some type of a compromise and one of them would be to lower the amount of three-story buildings here and, of course, all of this would result in less density if you do that. That's the reason I'm saying the 171 units. You would have to reduce if you wanted to really make everybody happy. You could make single-story around the perimeters and give them more set-back. There, again, we are talking less units. I don't know your complete authority here, but I'm sure that you are going to have to take into account what has taken place. A three-story building is not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood and there are no -- well, there are two three-story buildings there. Most of them are two-story at the most. I would just have to say that there is an old premise in the law that nobody should act in such a manner as to be detrimental to the whole society and that should apply even down to subdivisions. I think if they are not willing to compromise on some of this, maybe there are other remedies to it. Thank you. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 40 of SO Rohm: Thank you. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: Jacquelyn Valas. From the audience she said everything that she had has been covered. Tracy Fries. Fries: Tracy Fries. 2787 West Wapoot. My home borders this proposed subdivision -- this proposed project on the north. Mr. Rohm., Members of the Commission, we do appreciate your time this evening and I promise to be brief. With all due respect to Mr. Nary and your statement about the 171 units being not negotiable, I would like to bring a couple of things to your attention. The first comes from a letter that I received from the Mayor yesterday evening and., by the way, Machelle, thank you for handling me with kid gloves when I came in last week. The Mayor writes that -- she's explaining to me that design review is a generic term that her staff uses. What she writes is what this application can consider is whether the building size, footprints, landscaping, architectural or construction enhancements, i.e., siding and style, are compatible with the neighboring properties, along with the issues of infrastructure, such as highways and streets. I would propose that schools are considered part of our infrastructure. On that note I'd like to say that when your staff gave information regarding what the Conditional Use Permit process would be, they stated that it should not have an adverse impact upon public services such as schools. Mr. Nary himself stated when he gave you instructions this evening that the conditions that the applicant is supposed to meet they are able to meet. I'd like to tell you that when I was employed by the school district at Ponderosa Elementary, we were capped. Students had to be bused out of our district. Hunter opened. That was to relieve that. Guess what, Hunter was overcrowded... Hunter was capped. I have a letter here from the Paramount Elementary School which just opened with the intent of relieving the pressure on Hunter. What that letter states is that the school was intended to hold a student population of 475, with an additional 122 -- 125 students planned for the magnet program. That would mean the expected number of students for this year was 600. As of September 11th that school housed 680 students. They are in the process of beginning to cap enrollment. Paramount Subdivision is not complete. Our subdivision, Kelly Creek, is 30 percent unfilled. Explain to me how this project can meet the requirement of not having an adverse effect on our infrastructure and our public services when our schools are at that capacity. There is no way that Rudeen can alleviate that crowding. All 171 units will do is add to that. Therefore, I submit that your own statements give us the notion that this project should not be granted a Conditional Use Permit and now that I have been beeped., I will say thank you very much, I appreciate your time. Rohm: Thank you. Marion Matthis. Matthis is the last name. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 41 of 80 Matthis: Hi. It's Marjorie Matthis. I live at 2299 West Kelly Creek. Thank you so much for your patience and listening to us all. I know that as servants of our community that these can get to be very long evenings, having sat through a couple of City Council meetings here recently. I'd like to address you as succinctly as I can and as clearly as I can in regard to the compatible infrastructure, such as highways and streets in our community. And Rudeen is no stranger to my feelings. I have spoken with them directly after their meetings. I have been to the City Council meetings in regard to the Paramount commercial development that's going in on Linder and McMillan. There is a new commercial development going in on Linder and McMillan that backs up to our community off of Apgar Creek. My street borders Apgar Creek. I am exactly on the direct side of it. I would address to you that you need to take a larger look at this picture. I think everybody here is missing the grand picture on this. Apgar Creek aligns directly with the main entrance from Paramount commercial division that is going in. Yes, Linder is being widened. Linder is going to be widened from McMillan to the end of the high school to a five lane road with a center lane turn. McMillan is going to stay a three lane road. We have a high school with one ingress and one egress going in on Linder. We have a middle school that has just opened on Meridian. We have another high -- the grade school Paramount is there. We have Hunter on the other side. We live there. We operate aSnap-On truck. We drive through this community every day. When you put this -- when you approve this division it is going to directly align on Apgar Creek. Apgar Creek runs straight through parallel to McMillan. It was not on the plat mat when I bought my home to be a through street. I would have not bought there had it been a through street. This is the first gentleman I have seen at any of these meetings from Apgar Creek saying we have a problem on our street. Apgar Creek is Aspen homes. I would like to say that I wish that every resident who lived there was a homeowner. There are a large amount of rentals there. I don't think they are getting notices. I don't think they know what's going on around them. There are school buses that stop on this street. There are fifteen to seventeen cars parked along Apgar Creek on our park at the -- they are playing football. Four to 12-year-old kids. They practice in our park. You're going to put in a Rudeen and you're going to put in all these apartment buildings and as I have said to the City Council, you're going to have two, three bedroom homes. You're not going to have just parents -- single people, you're going to .have kids, you're going to have teenagers and you're going to have high schoolers going to Rocky Mountain High next year. You have impacted roads. We know this. The Mayor sat tonight and implored, along with the Mayor of Eagle, do something about the Ten Mile interchange. When our neighborhood is so impacted and we put 350 parking spaces with 171 cars in this unit and they go to leave and McMillan is impacted, Linder is going to be torn up. Where do you think they are going to go? You have heard everybody in this thing that talked tonight about finding other routes through tracts to avoid 40 minute drives. They are going to go down Apgar Creek during the worst possible time of the day for our children and you are going to rob our neighborhood of our kids being able to play safely. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 42 of 80 Rohm: Thank you. The next name is Chris something, but it's -- it's a symbol. All of his concerns have been addressed.. If you're going to testify you have to come forward. It's one or the other. Fries: Chris Fries. I live at 2787 West Wapoot. One of my other neighbors that was, unfortunately -- he was attending a soccer event with his children, was unable to be here in time to put his name on the list, that is Russ Pollock and I would like him to have the opportunity to speak in my place. Rohm: He will have an opportunity. Fries: He's not on the list, so -- Rohm: He will have an opportunity. Sandra Lighton? Robert Lighton? That's the end of the list. So, at this time anybody else that has not yet spoken has an opportunity to come forward and we will take one at a time. Sir. Pollock: My name is Russ Pollock. 2773 West Wapoot. And thank you for the opportunity. I apologize. I went right straight from work to soccer practice. I apologize. You guys may be able to smell me here tonight, because I ran around for an hour and a half, but -- Rohm: We will live with it. Pollock: Pretty much everything has been addressed that I wanted to address this evening, but there were a few things that -- that I wanted to speak out about. My wife was going to speak tonight. She was unable to be here. And so, really, these are my feelings as well, but I wanted to represent her and -- because she had some concerns. I have all the concerns that my neighbors had.. The schools, the CC&Rs. It doesn't fit. The traffic. The property value. You have heard it all tonight. But we did, we bought a home -- we built three homes in Meridian and we bought this one with the intention of staying here for quite awhile. We have four small children. One, four, seven and nine. They play in our back yard.. They kick the soccer ball around. They jump on the trampoline. This is different. I have been to all the meetings and there have been comments made about, you know, somebody's going to build back there, there are going to be houses, there are two-story houses, there are three-story -- whatever. It's different. It's very different. My wife and I live and breathe to watch over our children every single day and I'm sure a lot of these people do as well. There are a lot of different age groups here, but at one point they did. We all do. We all have to look out for people and things and you can monitor a certain amount of things. The amount of people and impact that's going right off my back fence is huge. And that's a huge concern to us. I guess in a nutshell, too, I -- again, taking everything that's been -- been spoken here tonight, it doesn't fit. It simply just does not fit in every aspect. And with all Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 43 of 8Q due respect -- and I don't mean this in a -- I think this is an appropriate comment. would dare say that each of you -- you live in a home and if you were living in my home and this was going behind your house, I think it would be fair to say that you would have some concerns as well. I appreciated your comment -- is it Rohm? Rohm? Rohm: Rohm. Pollock: Thank you. When we first started off the meeting you said you wanted to be fair and I appreciate that, giving us the opportunity. I hope that each of you say what you mean and mean what you say and really take that into consideration. I do not believe that these people are evil, ugly monsters. They are businessmen, you know. I'm a businessman. But, again, it doesn't fit. I think there are some flaws here. I think there are some real concerns. I think you have seen tonight there are people like myself, maybe just sharing some emotions. There have been a lot of people standing up that are very well versed and very knowledgeable about critical things. These are not a bunch of radical neighbors that are just trying to stir the pot. This has been going on for quite awhile. It has petered out and I think you have seen that and I'm sure that you have been in the position before where, you know, people just get ticked off about something -- everybody's got an opinion; right? And -- but I think there are some very legitimate things that do need to be -- that need to be looked at. I think there are some concerns here. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you for your testimony. (Audience: I agree.) Rohm: Anyone else like -- please come forward. Hayes: Good evening. My name is Mindy Hayes and I live at 2574 West Divide Creek Street. I live a few streets further north of the proposed development and my question's actually for these gentlemen. I was a real estate agent and I'm a loan officer in the area and I plan on living in this community for a very long time. I appreciate individuals that are willing to step out and improve our communities with appropriate developments. But my question to you is -- I'm looking at you very handsome gentlemen, nicely dressed, and I'm sure you drive very nice cars and I'm sure you live in very beautiful homes. Would you put this type of development in your backyard? That's all I have to say. Rohm: Thank you very much. Please come forward. Nelson: My name is Rachael Nelson. I live at 2479 West Wapoot. I just -- I agree with everything that has been said here. I sent a letter into the city and I just want to make sure it's going to hold equal weight as people speaking here. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 44 of 80 Rohm: Yes. Nelson: And, then, also I wanted to know when will the determination be made? Rohm: Tonight. Nelson: Tonight. Rohm: More than likely. I can't speak for the balance of the Commission., but we will deliberate. Whether or not we come to a conclusion, we'll have to wait and see what the balance of the Commission has to say. Nelson: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Any additional testimony? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward and respond to testimony? Please keep your comments to ten minutes. Fluke: I'll sure try. There are a lot of issues here to touch on and so I'll do my best. Rohm: Thank you. Fluke: First, Mr. Chairman, thank you again. Daren Fluke. JUB Engineers. 250 South Beachwood, again, representing the applicant. Apology to the Commission and the crowd for two things. We need a little more time. This is a complex large application. didn't realize you were going to hold us to 15 minutes and so apologize for exceeding that, but we did need to get on the record what we were proposing to do, so -- and I should apologize for the ghetto remark. I know you asked us not to say that. When I said that I meant something that was homogenous and lacking in diversity. That's what the city was trying to avoid.. They didn't want just single-family dwellings; they wanted commercial uses that served those single-family dwellings. They wanted attached - single-family attached., multi-family, a variety of uses and that's what I meant to speak to. I have got about 13 items here that I want to address and so I'm going to go quick on those. By the way, I appreciate the handsome comment. I drive a '96 Subaru, if anyone is interested in it. With regard to -- there was a mention that headlights would be an issue from the property. I just simply disagree. The property will be entirely fenced and it's a good point for the Commission to keep in mind that this site is entirely enclosed. It only connects to the neighborhood at a single point. We did that on purpose. We had two driveways. We could have used them both, but we didn't. We kept it where we thought it was the least impact to the neighborhood. It aligns with another street and it made the most sense to come out there. And so the neighbors who live here will drive by this every day and they will see the landscaping and the buildings that extend above the fences and that's it. Unless you drive into the project Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 45 of 80 you're not even going to see what's in there and the landscaping and fencing that we have will mitigate any issues with headlights. With regard to the PowerPoint project, I would just say those were nicely maintained buildings that you saw there. I feel that the gentleman really made our point for us. There was nothing there that I saw that was really bad on the property. If you saw the -- and you did see the Adagio project in Seattle, which is most analogous to this. The neighborhood is most similar. The buildings are most similar. It's a nice project, well maintained, and it will be well maintained, because that's how these gentlemen make a living is by keeping a well maintained project. There was a comment regarding lighting. The Meridian ordinance does require that all site lighting be directed down and not splay out. We will comply with that, so there will be no light pollution coming off the project any more than what you see from your street lights in the project. There was a comment made that there would be no pride of ownership with this and I'm going to respectfully disagree with that comment. Rudeen takes great pride in their projects. It's in their best interest to maintain these projects and to have a certain amount of pride in them. That's what they do. They own and maintain over 1,300 units and they know what they are doing with regard to those projects and they are not going to create a piece of junk here in the neighborhood. With regard to parking on the site, we comply with all the minimums. I would point out for the Commission that Meridian requires two parking places per dwelling unit, which most jurisdictions for multi-family will be anywhere from 1.4 to 1.7 on parking. And so it is a well parked project. There -- we comply with all the standards and as far as the fire department access to the project, the fire department has approved it, they have conditions of approval. We will comply with those. The drive aisles are all 26 feet in width. You can get a fire truck in there and get it around and it complies with their standards to the letter. We have not requested any sort of a variance for this project and I think you see why. We have complied to the letter with every law that you have. A couple of the big issues regarding traffic schools. These are land use issues that were decided when the planned unit development went through. It's already been determined that these projects -- that this project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as far as multi-family fitting in. They looked at all the issues surrounding land use, including traffic, and there was two traffic studies done back when this was applied for. ACHD did not do a traffic study at this time. They did a traffic count on one road there to see what -- what it would accommodate and it's well below what it will accommodate. Will I disagree that there are -- that there is congestion at peak hours? Of course not. There is congestion at peak hours everywhere. You can't avoid it. You know, everybody wants to drive one person to a car to work and there will be congestion on the roads if that's how people are going to drive. Whether this project goes in or not, there will be issues with traffic out here. There already are and you have heard testimony to that effect. With -- I should mention as well, that the impact fees that will be paid by this project are 2,148 dollars per dwelling unit, times 171 units, is 367,000 dollars in impact fees that will be dedicated to this direct area. As the Commission knows, ACHD impact fees, by law, are required to be utilized in the area in which they are generated and they will be utilized on road capital improvements within Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 46 of 80 this area. Another good point with regard to schools and other taxing districts is that we anticipate about a thousand dollars per dwelling unit per year within the project, generating another 171,000 dollars to the various taxing districts. So, will it solve all the problems that north Meridian is facing now? No, it won't. But it will be a contributing member to society. With regard to the market demand for these units, again, my clients do this for a living; they have been doing it for 20 years or so. They own and operate over 1,300 multi-family units in -- well, currently in Washington. They have researched the market thoroughly, they took a look at this site, and they looked at it thoroughly before they committed to it and they are confident that -- that this project has demand and that it will work for what they want it to do. There was a question about the ped path leading to the north into Kelly Creek. I apologize if someone -- if I gave someone the impression that it would be easy to close this off. What I said was -- is that we would be happy to not make that connection if you guys don't care. Every project I've ever had where there is a stub street or a ped path stubbing to the property we have had to connect and that's the impression that I tried to leave the neighbors with, that we made the connection because we know you're going to make us do it. If you don't want us to we will be more than happy to fence that off and leave it just as it is. With regard to access to McMillan -- and I did speak with the lady about that and I recall that conversation clearly, because at the time I didn't know what the office project was approved for for the south. They were approved for two driveways onto McMillan and those will be developed with the office project. We are making -- could I see the site plan, please? We will be making a connection to the office park here and, then, the police department has required a connection there as well. So, we will have two connections upon development of this project. There will be connectivity down to McMillan Road. A thought on connectivity. As the Commission well knows, the road system is designed to have multiple points of connectivity, so that not all traffic is funneled through a single road and that's why you have an interconnected system of roads within that Lochsa, Kelly Creek, et cetera, because we are required to do that and it, actually, relieves pressure on the system when there are multiple ways for people to get to where they are going. With regard to the CC&Rs, we -- it's -- this is not a typical project, although I would say that it's not uncommon. CC&Rs are entirely a private agreement between neighbors. You agree to your CC&Rs when you buy a lot within a project and, then, you abide by them voluntarily or the homeowners association can enforce them. If a different developer buys adifferent -- buys a portion of a project, he institutes his own CC&Rs. The only thing the city enforces are their own conditions of approval. Compatibility of three-story structures. The height limit in the zone is 35 feet. Any house out here could be built to 35 feet. We have done a very good job I think of limiting the three-story structures best that we could. There are only four. Right there. Right there. Right there. And right there. And they are clustered internally to the site to have the minimum impact that we could possibly create on the neighbors with the height of those. So -- I mean I want to convey -- I want to leave the Commission with the impression we worked very hard to make this project fit with what's out here. The buildings have been well designed and thought out very thoroughly. And this project is - Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 47 of 80 - is a nice looking project and will be a nice addition to this neighborhood. I'll leave it at that. If the Commission had questions I'd be happy to take those. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Can you address the drainage issues, please? Fluke: I can. The conditions of approval require that we retain all drainage on site. At this point we are still gathering groundwater data, but we anticipate being able to use infiltration trenches within the roadways. If that's not possible, we will use some drainage structures, you know, dry ponds within the project, but they will comply entirely with the city's requirement for a pond within an open space area. Moe: Okay. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I have apparently missed something regarding design. May Wayne address three points on design in two minutes or less? Rohm: Absolutely. Fluke: Thank you. Thowless: Mr. Chairman,. Members of the Commission, there was comment regarding the slides that were shown about the flatness of the facade to the buildings. That particular slide was of a project that is much different in design than what we are proposing. If you look at these floor plans you can see that there is a great amount of in and out on the facades. The massing was specifically done this way to break up the visual impact of the large buildings and there is very little resemblance between what we are proposing here and the slide that was made reference to previously. I need to enter something to the record. The documents that were submitted graphically are accurate in terms of the building sizes, but the tabulations do not entirely correspond with the plans that were submitted., so I'd like to submit this updated square footage tabulation for the record. Lastly, there were comments about visitor parking being inadequate. I'd like to reiterate to the Commission that -- and to the public and the neighbors that we are exceeding the city's parking requirements. The city does not require visitor parking. It is my understanding that within the ratios of parking that are in the zoning ordinance, visitor parking has been factored into that equation. We have gone above and beyond that with what we are proposing. Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 48 of 80 Hood: Mr. Chair? Can I ask Wayne while he is up here, what are the changes in the tabulations for square footages that you have? Do any of the units now exceed that 1,490 some square feet or whatever that was before? Thowless: No. The unit sizes are accurate as reflected on the plans. We did a summary table of the building sizes and those do not relate exactly with the floor plans as drawn. Hood: Thank you. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, finally, I just wanted to direct your attention to the written comments that I submitted regarding the conditions of approval. There was just one that I needed to -- I spoke about the things that we'd like -- like the Commission to consider regarding the conditions. There was one that -- that is quite important that just needed to mention to get on the record twice, although it is in my letter, and that has to do with 1.1.10 and 1.1.20, which requires -- which pertain to issuances of certificates of occupancy. First of all, the two conditions conflict somewhat. And second of all, neither of them are realistic for construction of amulti-family project and just what we are requesting is that the -- that we be issued certificates of occupancy as we finish the buildings and that we not be required to complete all the site improvements until we are at the 14th building, because as you construct the project we can't have our equipment running over brand new roads and concrete sidewalks and curbs and, all of that and so we build it phases -- in chunks as we move along. And so as we complete the first chunk we move onto the next and we need to be able to get occupancy on the buildings as they are completed., rather than waiting for every last site amenity to be installed. Newton-Huckabay: Could you point out your phase plan, please, on the -- Fluke: It will be built in a single phase, but the way I understand it is that it will -- I lost the pen here. We will build the road coming in and, then, we will probably start here, do the foundation, you know, and, then, go vertical and, then, you move onto this one, this one, this one. And so it's likely that this building will be done eight months before this building. And so all we are saying is that we would like to have the ability to get at least temporary certificates of occupancy, so that we can start to market these units as they are constructed, without being held up because we don't have a barbecue pit installed over here or something like that. But we -- the phasing plan is that we anticipate the project will take nine to 12 months to build.. Newton-Huckabay: Will you put in the clubhouse and the pool as your fifth building or your -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 49 of 80 Fluke: No. The clubhouse will be one of the first buildings that we build, because it will be the marketing center and it will be the grand entry, if you will, to the project. So, it will likely be the first building that we start or it will be started concurrently with at least two of the other dwellings. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. Fluke: And we'd gladly submit to a condition of approval to that effect. Moe: And all your infrastructure would be in prior to you starting your buildings themselves? Fluke: Yeah. All the piping and watering will have to -- all the piping and water will have to go in first, of course. So, we will -- that will all be good to go. Rohm: Staff had mentioned that they wanted to see an additional amenity on the west end of the development. Do you have any comment to that? Fluke: We are totally fine with that. I mentioned in my letter that whichever the Commission prefers we will do, whether -- Rohm: I would be interested in what you would offer up. Fluke: Well, in other projects we have done similar things, like the horseshoe pits, additional barbecue area. We could put abasketball -- they have done half-court basketball over there, if we have got enough room to do it. I mean, honestly, it's a pretty amenity-rich project as it is. So, if you'd like us to add a horseshoe pit or something, we will certainly do that. Rohm: Maybe just work with staff on that. How do you feel about that, Craig? Hood.: Yes. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I -- that's fine with me. I mean something along those lines. So, that's -- I was just throwing out a couple examples for example, so yes. Rohm: Thank you. From the audience it would be appreciated if you would keep those to yourself. Fluke: The point's well taken. We don't need to do a basketball court. Horseshoes is fine. Whatever. Barbecue pit. Whatever. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 50 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. I was just going to comment that I always think that a half-court basketball is a nice addition to amulti-family complex, because it eliminates multiple -- need for multiple movable basketball -- Rohm: Additional questions of the applicant? Commissioner Moe, anything else? Moe: I have no further questions. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway? Siddoway: Daren, is there any lighting planned on the rear of any of these structures or is all lighting -- any outside lighting is what I'm wondering about? Fluke: Wayne, do you want to speak on that? Wayne can talk to you about that more. Thowless: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, because the buildings have through breezeways that are pedestrian spaces, we do have to have some lighting on the backs, particularly in the vicinity of the breezeways where they go through and where you have the rear stairway. However, as Daren mentioned earlier, we will do our best to specify fully shielded fixtures that direct the light downward and won't shine out to where it's going to impact property owners off site. But for safety reasons, particularly near those breezeways, we have to have some lighting., but it won't be like what you saw in the slide earlier. Siddoway: The structures along the north side, they don't have a through breezeway; is that correct? Thowless: That's correct. Siddoway: Do they have any lighting on the rear? Thowless: They do not have to have lighting back there. Siddoway: Okay. Thowless: If I could add one other point to that, however. I think we are all aware that the issue of lighting can be a double-edged sword, because you don't want -- you don't want lighting that interferes with a neighbor's privacy or shines in their windows, but we also don't want to create unsafe areas that are dark and can't be monitored and supervised properly. So, we'd gladly work with staff to come up with an appropriate lighting plan that would meet the neighbors' concerns and also address the police department's concerns regarding public safety. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 51 of 80 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the next question -- and I'm not sure who would be the right one for this, but I wanted to clarify the fencing. If I understand correctly, there is existing fencing on the north and the west -- and the east? So, are there any -- is there any fencing being put in by this development or is it all existing? Fluke: It was all included in the price of the land, the existing fencing. Believe me. Siddoway: The last question I have for clarification has to do with the storage structures. There are 171 units and what appear to be 14 storage units. Is that -- you know, based on experience at other projects is that enough? Fluke: Well, I guess, first of all, I'd say that they are not required. It's 14 more than many projects have. Not everybody has enough stuff that they need a storage unit to put the stuff in. So, in our experience it is an amenity that adds a premium to certain units and people who are willing to pay for those that -- yes. So, what I'm saying is, yes, it's adequate for a project of this size. Siddoway: That's all I have at this time. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question probably to the architect. Based upon the fact that the staff is basically stating that they don't want to see vinyl siding on this project, did you guys think of anything else that you would be putting on if, in fact, that condition was kept? Thowless: If that condition is imposed, we will likely propose use of a product called hardy plank, which is a composite siding product and it's really colored, much more compatible in texture and appearance to the types of products that are found in the adjacent neighborhoods. So, we do have that as an option, but our respectful request is to be able to build the project as Rudeen has elsewhere with the variety of colors and siding textures that we have proposed. Moe: I understand. Thank you. Rohm: Along that same line, the architectural shingles that adjacent properties have, as opposed to the three tab asphalt shingles shown here, do you have any comment to that? Is there any willingness to change your roof line? Thowless: I guess the two issues with regard to the roof shingles, Mr. Chairman, are appearance and durability. There was a comment made about standard three tab shingles like these being more prone to blow off and whatnot. I would respectfully disagree with that. The product itself is warranted for up to 30 years. That's an incredible warranty on a roof product and it's not so much the thickness of the shingle as it is the manner in which it is installed that dictates how long the roof will last. So, if Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 52 of 80 they are installed properly and according to our specifications, Ibelieve that it will serve the project very well. From an esthetics standpoint on a roof this large -- as large as the roofs are on these buildings and with the height of the buildings being as has been mentioned numerous times of a slightly larger scale than a typical home, the texture of an architectural shingle will not be as visible or as noticeable on buildings of this size as a single family residence. So, we do not feel that the added expense of an architectural grade laminated shingle is -- is worth the expenditure given the minimal real esthetic impact that it would have. Rohm: Okay. Thowless: I'm sorry. Apparently that didn't make sense. Rohm: No. No. It did.. I just -- I'm tryin testimony was given that the architectural remember what color it was, but do you h color? Thowless: No, we don't. g to think of a follow up to that. Ibelieve shingles were black in nature and I can't ave any objection to at least matching the Rohm: All right. Thank you. Again, I would appreciate not having any comments from the audience at this time. We have given everybody their opportunity to speak and this forum is -- that's enough. Wallace: Mr. Rohm, Allen Wallace again, for the record. A few concluding comments. Wayne was going to mention, but I think he forgot. The -- in terms of the PowerPoint slide presentation, there is a statement that the facade you saw on some of those new Spokane buildings, that that's identical to this. That's, actually, not the case. Those were flat facade buildings. Again, those -- those were projects that Rudeen bought that were permit reaay, so inelr arcniiecis au think as you have seen before, these d Wayne has pointed out, the color modulations helps -- helps pop them out, situation of having a flat facade in the would point to the Adagio apartment prc there, that's what you're going to see h going to see more modulation -- it will pc the use of color, the different -- the sag further and also the cultured stone, whicl state of the art for Rudeen in terms of question about dumpsters. Ifll Ue51t~.fl UIVSC f./IU~GIrW. I IIGJG GIGVQLIVIIJ, ~ ~ have modulation in the facades. The -- as iistinction between these different building too, more and break them up. So, this is not a sense of esthetic compatibility. And, again, I ject and its facades. You see the modulation ;re in terms modulation here. You're actually p out more, because Wayne has adroitly used and the green colors to help pop things out i will pop this out. So, this will be really kind of ;sthetic compatibility. Mr. O'Brien, you had a O'Brien: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 53 of 80 Wallace: I just wanted to -- O'Brien: Still do. Wallace: There is something very important to note here -- you know, I actually do a lot of work with garbage companies as well, but the -- what you have with the dumpsters used in residential projects these days are not what you see in industrial building -- commercial sites where you have the metal lids. Rudeen doesn't want noise for its tenants anymore than anyone else would want to hear a noise a block away and these are all plastic lid dumpsters. So, they are not producing noise the way the dumpsters of old might or what you might see in a commercial setting. So, that's the standard template for Rudeen in all of its projects to have plastic lids on these dumpsters. O'Brien: Excuse me. What size are these, then, and how are they going to -- are they the 96 gallon guys or are they -- are they made out of steel siding, something -- they can't all be vinyl. Wallace: No. The dumpsters have steel sides -- O'Brien: Okay. Wallace: -- but the lids that you open up to pour your garbage into the dumpster, they are plastic. O'Brien: And what size are these? Wallace: Usually the purveyor provides a six yard dumpster. O'Brien: Thank you. Wallace: Thank you. A few other quick points to respond to some of the testimony here today -- Rohm: Absolutely. Wallace: And the PowerPoint is -- do any of the Commissioners, can I ask, have any questions about the citizens' PowerPoint or any concerns? I can go through them one by one. I don't know if you need me to -- Rohm: No. I think not. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 54 of 80 Wallace: Again, I would just point to the PowerPoint of the Adagio project, because that's really the template for this one. I think that speaks for itself in terms of the quality of the maintenance and the landscaping and so forth. I did want to respond to just a few of the neighbors comments and one in defense of city staff in this project here is -- I was just at the planning department today and you go up there, you got the zoning map and, yes, it says R-4, but the comp plan map is right next to that tacked up on the wall and that shows this site as R-40, multi-family. So -- and, again, the density here is, of course, far, far less than that. But that's readily available information and so I don't think it's fair to city staff to say that they are hiding the ball from the public as to what the permitted land use is on this -- on this project site. CC&Rs -- does the Commission have any questions about CC&Rs and what -- again, they are a private contract. The city doesn't enforce private CC&Rs, That's for those homeowners -- Rohm: Neither do we. Wallace: Right. So, that's not -- and I did review the title report for the subject property and there are no CC&Rs that have been recorded against the title to this -- to this particular site. With regard to compatibility and the rear yards, I'd like to add, you know, compatibility is a bit of a two-way street here as well and so I went out and looked at the site, the neighbors -- you have large back yards. It's -- you know, we are doing a very extensive landscape buffer along our whole 25 foot property line separation, but in these large back yards is also -- they are bereft of any landscaping in terms of trees today. In terms of a visual screen, neighbors can plant laurel hedges, a row of arborvitae, and have a -- have a really hundred percent opaque screen in their back yards that wouldn't take up very much space. So, there is ample room for people to address that concern themselves if they do see over time that there is -- that's a -- that's a continuing concern. Mr. Paul Valas, I think was his name, that said he disagreed with the city attorney with regard to the development agreement. I don't want to get into the legalistics of this here, but it's important to understand the development agreement is not a zoning regulation. That development agreement is a legally binding contract between the owners of the property and the city. As Mr. Nary will tell you, the city has obligations under that contract. That contract says 171 units. So, that's why his letter to you dated June 9th, letter to the neighbors and it's in the record., says that you do not have discretion to reduce the number of units. That's a legally binding requirement of that contract. Your duty is to apply the CUP criteria to this site plan and I think, as Daren and Wayne have explained, we have already done a really, really good job in bringing you a good proposal here tonight. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Wallace? Wallace: Yes. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 55 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: I think that we probably have covered everything, unless the Commissioners have more questions. I think we are well aware of the legality issue. Wallace: Right. Thank you. The last point I have here is -- is Mrs. Hayes asked and pointed to us all and said would any of you want this in your backyard. Well, I'm here to tell you that I do have multi-family across a green belt across my backyard and it's -- I have a very nice house. The multi-family is very nice that's across the way. I don't see it's a problem. Now, it's -- much of the problem is the problem of change, but my experiences over time, people will understand and see that this -- their worst fears are not going to be realized in term of light and noise and visual intrusion and that this project is -- is and will be compatible as has been conditioned by staff. Rohm: Thank you for your time. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question if I might, please. Rohm: Please. O'Brien: There was a question that came up earlier about who enforces the upkeep, wear and tear on the buildings. Who do they -- who do they report these kind of things to if the citizens of the community are concerned about issues of that nature, what is the process for getting things repaired and taken care of and the time frame to get it done? Wallace: Well, if there are any concerns whatsoever, the first remedy is to talk to the site manager. Typically Rudeen -- not a hundred percent of the time, but typically Rudeen does manage its own properties and it would be to talk to the site manager with regard to that concern. Again, because Rudeen is most typically along-term holder of their properties -- they are not a typical apartment developer that comes in, develops it, gets the take out financing and, then, flips it to the next buyer, that's -- and how most apartment developers frankly operate. They have every incentive to be a good neighbor. These two gentlemen here have -- they have the incentive to not have a litany of complaints go unanswered and are causing problems. And so because, again, they are long-term owners, they have that incentive to answer any concern about maintenance. I think as Mr. Shilton here noted., there was one stair rail that had a rust patch on it that was shown on the PowerPoint. Well, his comment to me, yes, out of 1,300 units there can't -- there are problems. They require continual maintenance. And that's what they do, they have continual maintenance and upkeep and that rusty stairwell will be taken care of. It's not allowed just to rust forever. O`Brien: Thank you. Thank you. Wallace: Any further questions? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 56 of SO Rohm: No. I believe that's -- Wallace: Thank you very much for your time and attention tonight. Rohm: Thank you and thank you to all of you in the -- offering up testimony tonight. Commission -- Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any final comments here? O'Brien: I believe I have covered just about everything -- at least my concerns. I think need to hash around a few things in my mind right now before we take it to a vote, but I haven't fully decided yet in what direction to go. I would like to hear more from the other Commissioners on what their finals thoughts are, beings I'm kind of new to this. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I have a few follow-up questions for staff. One, in reviewing the report I did not come across comments from the school district. Did they submit -- ? I'll look those over momentarily. Hood.: And Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, the rest of the Commissioners, that's one of the things that wasn't brought back up after the public testimony and I was just going to mention that we received comments -- no conditions from Wendell at Meridian School District, but they estimate that 52 elementary, 48 middle and 37 senior high school students as what they can anticipate if this is, in fact, constructed. I'll paraphrase here, but he also goes on to say that they are currently over capacity and that there are no guarantees that the kids in this neighborhood won't be bused somewhere else because of the overcrowding. But, again, there are no conditions of approval. Just as a side note, too, you know, we are working on an adequate public facilities ordinance. There isn't anything like that in place now. Hopefully that next year we will have something where we can address schools a little bit more and it isn't just these comments that say, hey, help us over here without having something from them that says here is how you can help us. So -- but those were the numbers they gave us and did want us to know that there is an existing problem out there today. Siddoway: As you researched the original approval from 2002, did it address any of the CC&R type of issues regarding design of this property and how it would relate to the surrounding subdivision? Parson: Sorry. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, no, nothing was in there. Siddoway: And, then, one final question. The idea that was raised about issuing certificates of occupancies for the earlier built structures prior to the last one, can you comment on that? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 57 of 80 Hood: I can. And I actually worked up -- so that's condition 1.1.10. I really don't think that one needs to be changed. 1.1.20, though, I do have some -- just some clarification., so I think we are all on the same page, but maybe some language there for that condition. It says prior to obtaining the first certificate of occupancy all landscaping on the north and west property line shall be installed. So, get that -- get the landscape buffers starting to mature before you get too far along. I don't want to see it piecemealed in. So, let's get it all put in at the same time and all the trees and shrubs can grow at the same time. And., then, that would go on to say prior to obtaining any CO for any buildings, ail development improvements, such as irrigation, parking, and landscaping shall be installed. So, that would be on each building pad area. So, that the parking for that building would have to be constructed. The landscaping around that building would have to be constructed., those types of things. So, that in conjunction with condition 1.1.10, which says basically we don't want the amenities to be the last thing in, we want them to be one of the first things in and that's what the applicant testified they would do is be one of the first buildings. So, I don't see them conflicting. do think that 1.1.20, if it's cleaned up, so we get, again, the landscaping starting to mature, then, it will create a better screening by the time this is fully built out. So, that's kind of our rebuttal comment, I guess, to those conditions. Does that make sense? Siddoway: Yes. Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Let's see in my notes here. I did want to have some discussion about the pathway we need to make. And have some discussion related to the vinyl siding. I believe that we are moving to black shingles. Was that decided? Rohm: I thought that was a good idea to make that a requirement. Newton-Huckabay: The south fencing I -- we probably should have some conversation around that. Let's see. Oh. One comment that I had related to lighting on the perimeter -- the rear perimeter of the development. I don't like the idea of it being completely dark, but I don't like the idea of having lighting that is higher than the fence line.. So, I was wondering if there was some type of down facing back lighting that could go on the back of those units that we'll say is at about four feet, maybe. Something that would give enough light that it would be difficult for it to be completely black back there. I mean you heard talking about a 25 foot area, dense with trees, and that have -- the idea of that being completely dark to me I think would pose a safety issue at some point. So, I have seen some lighting on buildings down low -- I guess we could look for something like that to see if it would help, just give some kind of safety lighting to that that doesn't give that aura of complete darkness back there. Although it never gets completely dark in this city anyway. Meridian Planning & zoning September 20, 2007 Page 58 of 80 Moe: Could you put the site plan back up? The one with the landscaping, please. Newton-Huckabay: What I'm thinking is, you know, along here, if there is absolutely no lighting -- here is not so bad, because I believe there are some street lights out here. But you do have a pathway that comes up to here and, then, you have got all this dense -- dense trees in this 25 foot area. You have all these homes with no -- what didn't appear to be any access off the back. I think that some lighting below the six foot fence level would -- it's going to be very dark there if we don't have some kind of safety lighting. Moe.: Well, the applicant did discuss that they will have down lighting -- you know, shielded down lighting in the breezeways and whatnot in between those areas. Newton-Huckabay: These will have -- but these don't have breezeways? Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. I apologize. Newton-Huckabay: These do. But I'm talking about just right in there and, then, this -- and then -- now, these probably have access out the back. You'd have a back porch light or something like that on them, but to me these are very dark in the back. So, I'd like to see something below the fence line. You're the professional at that type of thing., so -- and so other than needing to talk about those issues, the pathway, the vinyl siding -- and I didn't know how you wanted to kick off that conversation. Rohm: Well, let's -- let's just start with the pathway to the -- Moe: Close the Public Hearing or -- Rohm: Well., the thing that I'm afraid of, if we close the Public Hearing if we need to actually come back to the developers and ask them a question, so I -- for the moment let's just keep the Public Hearing open, but we will have a dialogue between us and staff, unless we need to actually get the developer back in. There was an issue on the pathway leading out of this development to the north and, basically, the public would rather it not be there and the developer doesn't care if they put it there or not. Would the staff like to weigh in on that? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I mean as Mr. Fluke mentioned earlier, those pathway stubs or street stubs are put there for a reason so there is interconnectivity between the two developments. I mean that doesn't -- nothing has changed. I mean that's something that was anticipated back when that pathway was put there, that some interconnectivity -- we have got a really long block and no interconnectivity between the two developments, so -- I mean that's pretty standard. mean, yes, that's something that we require all the time. So, that's up to you. If you Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 59 of 80 think it's something that isn't appropriate, that's on you guys, so -- yes, our stance hasn't changed. Rohm: Thank You. Appreciate that. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I would just make the comment that I -- being a north Meridian resident and have absolutely loved the path system as it starts to come together, my family and I use it all the time. That said, I will go with the balance of the Commission on how they feel about that. I can see the argument that it may be a little bit different and the fact that I -- we have passed that also stub into commercial areas that are coming in around town as well, so -- Rohm: My personal opinion on that path is there are going to be more people traveling south to the commercial development once it occurs than there are people from the apartment complex going the other direction. That's just my personal opinion. I couldn't validate that. Newton-Huckabay: Well, you're going to have commercial -- you have commercial coming in there at Black Cat -- the southeast corner of Black Cat and McMillan. You will have commercial on actually all four corners there. Potentially some big box commercial in that C-G zone and then -- Nary: It's Ten Mile. Newton-Huckabay: Ten Mile. Excuse me. Rohm: What was your next concern, Wendy? The pathway and what was next? Newton-Huckabay: The vinyl siding. I don't think the balance of the Commission weighed in on the pathway. Rohm: Personally, I think that the balance of the community does not have the vinyl siding and I think that it would be in keeping with the community that's around them, they should match what's existing. That's my opinion. Moe: I didn't think you would ever get to me. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Actually, quite a few of the items that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay has discussed I'm in pretty much agreement with her. There are a couple things that have -- that are still somewhat outstanding in the staff report and whatnot that we also need to talk about -- is whether or not to keep the berm on that north area as well, with Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 60 of 80 explanation as far as what that berm does as far as increasing the elevation so that people could look into the other backyards and whatnot, I'm of the opinion I'd like to see the berm go away, but all the trees and whatnot would stay. As far as the 24 foot setback, as opposed to the 25, realizing that the -- some of the windows creep out a little bit, I don't really have a problem with the 24 foot either on that. And I'm going to start weighing in on -- as far as the siding, I am completely opposed to putting vinyl siding in there. And as far as the neighborhood out there, you have basically got hardy plank, you have got stucco, and you have got stone and the applicant talked about putting hardy plank, but I didn't hear anything about any stucco accents or anything else. My concern is this development should blend right in with the rest of the neighborhood and., quite frankly, I would like to see, you know, some -- some new concept in possibly doing a little bit of stucco. I realize cost-wise it's increasing and whatnot, but I think we need to make this thing blend in with the neighborhood as best as possible for that. As far as the roof shingles, quite frankly, three tab -- the applicant's right, if it's installed correctly there is nothing wrong with that. You got a 30 year warranty on those. I don't have a problem with what they -- what they have proposed on it. I don't know that an architectural shingle is going to be -- it's not going to make much more of a difference, especially, you know, in this application. So, I think I could just stay with the roofing that's there. Rohm: With the stipulation that it be black? Moe: Oh, yes. Absolutely. To match out. That's correct. And in regards to the south fence, Idon't -- where do we sit with the property to the south? I don't know too many developments that we haven't required fencing all the way around. Simply because we don't know when that development will happen to the south and so I'm of the opinion I'd like to see that south be fenced in as well, realizing that it may be a double up at some point, but I think we need to contain this development as well. So, I'd like to see the. south fence put in. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Moe? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, can I -- Rohm: Absolutely. Moe: Oh, please do. Newton-Huckabay: Related to the fencing on the south, do you think that that potentially would limit us when the property on the south develops in a commercial nature, depending upon the intensity of use we would, then, be limiting ourselves say to Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 61 of 80 a vinyl fence when maybe something more like a concrete or the block fence or something -- something might be more appropriate? That's my only concern with fencing on the south is depending upon the intensity. Is it L-O zoning? I can't -- on the south or was it -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, it's actually R-4 zoning, but approved for office uses. Newton-Huckabay: (A blank was here). Hood: So, yes, similar to L-O zoning. Moe: I would say I had the same concerns. My biggest concern is as to when something is going to develop and -- Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and office uses I can't really see where the concrete fence is going to -- or the block fence would be -- Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: And the only other thing that I guess I'm not real -- I don't really have a real problem with the storage building pretty much staying -- staying where it's at. I don't think this development needs to lose any more parking spots and -- you know. So, don't have a real problem with not changing that setback there. That's about all I have got. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, have your concerns been addressed or do you feel we need some additional discussion? Newton-Huckabay: Well, Ijust -- I have made notes in about 12 different pieces of paper here, so -- Moe: Me, too. Newton-Huckabay: I agree with Commissioner Moe related to the storage unit. I would prefer to keep as many parking spaces as we could., just to make sure that the landscaping behind it is appropriate enough to make it -- screen it, the building, and have it look nice. I was also in agreement with the 24 foot versus 25 feet. I didn't think that that was going to accomplish too much. And the landscape berm, given the way that -- because there is not that huge difference in topography there, like say four or five feet, I think a landscape berm would just -- I think it would take away from the density Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 62 of 80 we would get from it. And the blocking from the fence, so -- I guess the only other thing I'd like to say to the residents is I -- I don't know what -- we can't -- we don't have the ability to reverse and deny those 171 units, as I understand it by talking with city staff. We have the capability to try to do the best we can to make this -- this apartment community compatible with your community and in hopes of that when your children or your parents get to a point where they maybe need this kind of home, it's a nice enough community that you might consider having they could live there close to home, so that you would have some close to you. I mean there are -- could be positive -- positive events that do come from mixed use communities and I do hope that -- we don't have that in the City of Meridian a lot now. But it has always been in the Comprehensive Plan. I think that with the changes that we are suggesting and the concessions that the developer has made, I think that it will go a long way to making this a nice facility. I think that once the commercial development to the south comes through and it allows that connectivity to McMillan, that will make a huge difference. I do think the residents who live on Apgar Creek; you do have a very bad situation with your street. recognized that when that was being built. I think that -- and hope that you will appeal to ACHD to give you some kind of relief there, whether -- maybe contact the city and see if they can point you in some direction in some other way, because that -- possibly get a right only off of Goddard, something like that, because that is a -- that is a very long narrow street and having lived on a few of those in my life I can definitely understand your concerns with that. The crowding in the schools. I have grown up in this city. Went to Meridian schools in the city. Schools in Meridian have been overcrowded since I was in kindergarten and they have had more than 30 years to figure out a way to work that together and it looks like we are finally getting to a point with the laws that will be enacted next year to find a solution to that, so -- does that make it right? No. But overcrowding in the City of Meridian schools has been a problem my entire life and my kids have also gone through Meridian schools and gone to many of them due to the development in north Meridian. So, that said, I do appreciate everybody's comments and I do believe that this development will come together and be compatible in a way that we in the west are just not used to seeing with the way that we live and, hopefully, will be a community that you would Like to see when your children grow and would like to move out of the house, they might be interested in living close to home. So, I'll leave my comments there. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that very much. Any final comments before we close the Public Hearing? O'Brien: Not from me. Rohm: Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 63 of 80 Siddoway: Well, I have some more things to talk about when we get to a motion, but don't mind closing the Public Hearing first if you want. Do you want me to go through them now? Rohm: No. Let's get the Public Hearing closed. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: On the issue of the berm on the north, I believe it should not be there. believe that you will have better screening when -- without the berm. On the issue of the 25 foot buffer on the north, I am okay with the 22 foot buffer per the upper floor, 24 foot on the -- on the ground floor. I don't know that -- I don't believe an additional three feet will make a big difference to the residences north of there. What I think is going to make the biggest difference is the density of that landscape buffer and when I look at that buffer, while it looks rather dense, in reality, you know, those trees are drawn at mature size and they are either touching or close to touching, but I would actually say that some could be -- could be added, such that the spacing of the trees is at approximately 80 percent of the tree's mature width and that's -- that kind of language is already in the ordinance for the closest spacing that would be allowed.. So, I would just employ that -- that wording that's in the ordinance and actually require that additional trees be added such that there is overlap and not just touching at full maturity. So, that they touch sooner than that. I think that will make a bigger difference than three feet of the additional width. Newton-Huckabay: That's a good idea. Siddoway: The AC units, I think they should move to the side. I don't -- we didn't really talk about that. I'd open that for discussion, but on every resident -- you know, home have seen they are always on the side and to -- I think it would help mitigate some of the noise that they create for the residences to the north. On the -- Rohm: As far as that -- may I speak to that for just a moment? Siddoway: Yes. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 64 of SO Rohm: Air conditioning units, if, in fact, you have them clear down at the end of the building, your freon lines -- it almost becomes cumbersome to have them work properly if you have them that far away and I think that the applicant addressed that issue of -- in part by saying that in order for it to function properly they would have to move them to the front of the building by the -- by the front door for it to work properly and I think sometimes you have to just accept that just the physics of a development don't allow you to get everything you want. But that's just -- that's just my assessment of it. Siddoway: It's not a deal killer for me, so if that's the -- if that's the way it needs to be, guess that's -- I raised it for discussion. I was just thinking about the -- the noise. .Rohm: Well -- and the second thing is when you have a thousand square foot apartment, the size of an air conditioning unit is like two ton, as opposed to a 3,500 square foot home that may have a five ton or larger unit. And so the size and the noise associated with a smaller air conditioning unit isn't going to be as obtrusive as one that you would have for a larger home. Moe: I will just basically add along with the landscape and whatnot that's going to be in that 24 foot section between the -- it's also going to deaden some of that sound as well. Siddoway: So, I'll strike that one. On the west side, I was going to suggest that maybe -- well, first of all, what is the width of that buffer as it's currently shown? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, that is 15 feet. Siddoway: Fifteen feet. You know, a typical buffer between land uses is 20 feet. I was -- the staff report suggested 25. I was going to split the difference and go to 20 as a buffer between land uses, but I could buy the argument of not wanting to lose parking spaces also. So, while it's not deal a killer for me, I would -- I lean towards widening that out to 20 feet. Rohm: So, losing one parking space on -- Siddoway: You would probably lose two, because they are about ten feet wide. Yeah. So, you wind up losing four parking spaces. Well, if you only move -- if you moved it -- I'm sorry. That's if you moved it a full ten. Rohm: Well, if you. only moved it five feet, though -- Siddoway: If you moved it five feet -- Rohm: -- parking spaces are eight feet wide each, I think, so you'd only lose one on -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 65 of 80 Siddoway: Yeah. You'd lose one on each side. Yeah. I was thinking of 20 feet. Moe: Just a question. What do you gain with that extra five feet? Siddoway: The ability to put -- Moe: When you have a solid wall there for a storage unit. Siddoway: I think it's the ability to put larger trees in there. But in terms of screening sight and sound, the wall is going to do that, but -- Rohm: I think the storage unit itself is going to do that. O'Brien: I agree with that. Hood: Mr. Chair? If I may, just as another option, just looking at this. The applicant has sidewalks on both of the ends of those parking areas, too, so you may be able to pick up the five feet. Let's see if I can hold still enough to point those out. Right there is a sidewalk and right there is a sidewalk. So, if you just lost that sidewalk and brought it all the way up to the landscaping, you still would have sidewalk there and there. If you just picked up the five feet. If, in fact, you want to change it to 20. I'm just saying you could pick up five feet by taking out the sidewalks that are near the drive aisle. Siddoway: I think I'd rather have the sidewalk. I'm going to move on. On the vinyl siding, I do not favor it. I believe that this project was approved in concept as part of the Lochsa Falls Subdivision and should be held to the same or at least similar requirements in terms of building materials, appearance -- you know, build it so it fits. That is a lot of what we are about tonight, given that we are not addressing, you know, the numbers directly. I think building it so it fits involves building materials that match the high quality building materials of the remainder of Lochsa Falls. So, you know, based on previous discussions, something along the fact -- the line of requiring them to be wood, hardy plank, stucco, stone,. or stone veneer, those types of building materials would all be fine with me. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Are you -- so, you're proposing a condition that all of those materials could be used? I think we would have to -- Siddoway: No. No. That's the pallet. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 66 of 80 Siddoway: On the -- the shingles have already been addressed. I'm going to skip that. On the trash enclosures, what's proposed right now are these cedar plank enclosures and I'd actually like to see those be masonry block. We see that in -- in probably most of the multi-family complexes I have seen that -- I think the cedar fencing planks will get damaged and look bad sooner. I think that the block trash enclosures will look nicer over a longer period of time and help to, you know, address some of the sound. Mainly it's visual for me, though. Newton-Huckabay: Are you thinking the block with the cedar plank gates or no gates? Siddoway: With gates. Most of the gates that I have seen are still just, you know, chain link slats. But it could be -- it could be cedar plank gates, but I'm just thinking about the main body of the trash enclosure. Rohm: I didn't think they were going to be gated. O'Brien: No. Rohm: They are the three sided enclosure. Siddoway: Right. Rohm: Okay. Hood.: Yeah. I believe that's what the applicant testified to is just three sided. I was going to say, typically if someone does a block trash enclosure is what you typically see in your commercial developments, they usually have offset metal gates, so you can still walk in without having to open the gate, but when they come and take the trash, they actually open the gate. But it's that offset, so you kind of do the -- the maze thing to get in and drop your trash off. So, if you want to put a gate on that's -- that's pretty typical with block. Siddoway: We see those everywhere and Ilike -- I like them better than just a three sided plank enclosure. Just my -- I know we already addressed the shielding of lights, but I think it's important enough that I really want to make an underscore of that in our motion. I don't want anyone from the adjacent properties to have to look directly at the hot spot of a bulb. They really need to be shielded. And is it my understanding that that is what the -- the current ordinance actually requires? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, the rest of the Commissioners, it requires you to not have any light bleed onto adjacent properties and onto public rights of way. So, basically, no lumens leaving your property line, so -- yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 67 of 80 Siddoway: Okay. Hood.: And we have -- we have -- we actually have an engineer verify that, because we don't go out there usually at nighttime and check. So, we actually have them submit the plans showing where the lights will hit and that they die off at the property line, so -- Siddoway: On the path I do favor the connection. I really do like the pathway system that's being created to the- city. So, I do agree that the -- the micropath connection should be made. That's all I have. Moe: Any thoughts in regard to the fencing on the south? Siddoway: Fencing on the south. I'm fine with leaving it open and being addressed with the development that -- as it comes in on the south. Frankly, I could see it being left open and never fenced, is why I picture that. But it's not a hot issue for me either way. Do you feel strongly about the south fencing? Moe: My biggest concern, as always, is with the development happening on the south, you know, that ends up -- you lose your enclosure factor, as far as I'm concerned. Siddoway: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, have we had application on the south yet? An application for the south part? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I haven't talked to anyone on that. If I heard Daren correctly, it sounded like they have that remainder parcel under contract or no? No, I haven't -- I haven't talked to anyone about development of that property, so I'd have to agree with Commissioner Moe that I don't know when. And with the roof tops slowing down, there may not be any need for more dentist offices at this time. Rohm: I kind of think that the south fencing is a good idea from the standpoint that the commercial development south of that isn't going to be a big block type development, it's going to be professional office buildings and I can't see there being a block wall necessity. And so we might as well get the fencing in now, as opposed to waiting until the next development comes through. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I would just say if we are doing the fence, the quality ought to be up with the rest of Lochsa Falls as the vinyl fence, that the -- we need to make sure we know where the future connections will go through, because -- and continue those micropath connections. They may be just on the sides where the street stubs are, but I just want to make sure we are thinking about where those pedestrian connections need Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 68 of 80 to penetrate that fence, so that there is not a problem with making those connections in the future. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, we are thinking vinyl fence, the same nature as Lochsa Falls or Kelly Creek? Moe: I would anticipate it's everything that's already there. We just want to match the same fencing that's already in the development. Newton-Huckabay: There are like two -- I think there are two kinds of fencing there. There is the lattice work and., then, there is the white and beige vinyl that runs along Goddard.. See? Probably the fence that runs along Goddard there. The solid fence.. Rohm: That looks appropriate. Moe: Yes. Siddoway: I'm fine with that. That's all I have. Hood: Mr. Chair, just real quick, just a question. Are you guys talking about fencing the entire southern boundary or would it stop like where the private street ends and just where it -- essentially, adjacent to the rest of the units or were you envisioning it going all the way out to Goddard and just having a break for -- as Commissioner Siddoway mentioned that future drive aisle, it's kind of penciled in there on the site plan. Because fencing right up to a drive aisle looks a little odd sometimes. I don't know how wide that is or if there is even going to have to be asphalt that's going to have to be patched in when that southern property comes in, but just curious. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's like a half road.. Hood: Yes. Just curious if you guys were thinking the entire length or just the back two-thirds. Rohm: I think just up to where the drive aisle is. Siddoway: And, then, pick it up there. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Siddoway: So, I would support starting it at the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 69 of 80 Newton-Huckabay: End of the drive aisle. Siddoway: -- end of the drive aisle -- you know, where the drive aisle makes the turn and -- starting here and moving over. If this connects, then, there should be a pedestrian connection here. It should break and., then, pick up there and go to the corner. Hood: Sorry. Again, just for clarification -- I know it's getting late -- but you have kind of broke against the -- the vehicular drive aisle, too? Are you -- maybe those were just the points you were moving too fast. Staff asked for a pedestrian connection, an additional pedestrian connection to that -- to that south and the police department would also like to see that opened up for vehicular traffic in the future and that wasn't something that you guys have talked about and I didn't hear the applicant talk about that either tonight. But it was something that the police department raised and I don't know if -- with the meeting with Lieutenant -- Newton-Huckabay: I think we were always in favor of the -- Siddoway: I support the connection. Newton-Huckabay: -- the connection. Hood.: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: The driveway connection. Siddoway: Driveway and pedestrian. Newton-Huckabay: I think ultimately three exits out of this facility will be a nice benefit. O'Brien: So, I have a question about that. That's only a -- it looks like it's only like a single car width going through there, that one particular area compared to the other egress -- Rohm: You're talking here? O'Brien: Yes. Yes. It just seemed like it was awfully narrow. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it would look a little different than it does now. You'd have to take out -- you'd have to lose some of those parking spaces we have been trying so hard to preserve. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 70 of 80 Hood: Mr. Chair -- and to answer that question, the internal drive aisles are 26 feet from back of stall to back of stall. O'Brien: Okay. Hood: So -- and that is just, by the way, one foot wider than our typical requirement, because the buildings are -- are taller. So, to get the -- the fire department does want that one foot wider, because they do have to go taller with their hoses and maybe a ladder in the future. And, then, I guess the entryway road is even wider than that as it comes in, it's probably right around 30 -- 28 feet. O'Brien: Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien, do you have -- O'Brien: Just -- I'm in favor of the pathway going through, too, from the -- I think we will have just as much traffic going south -- or north as we do going south, especially when there are children involved. Instead of having to go all the way around the complex if they wanted to visit some friends in the subdivision they go to school with, that might be a good egress. That's my thought on that one, so -- I think we have covered everything else pretty well. That's all I had. Rohm; Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, one question I would ask the Commission -- because this is a CUP and we are looking to make modifications to the siding on this facility, are we wanting to see that before we start approving things, as far as what the siding will, then, look like? I, for one, would like to see it before we would move it on. I'm not trying to stall anything here, but where we are making a condition that we don't want vinyl siding., we are asking for different materials -- and so I'd kind of like to see what kind of a concept they come up with with different materials. Rohm: From my perspective I think the differing materials in and of itself addresses the issue and the fact -- they have already got the relief as far as the building itself and just elimination of the vinyl siding and replace it with any of the aforementioned alternatives to the vinyl is sufficient for me. Siddoway: I would just add to it that Idon't -- you know, I'd hate to see it done as just all one that's on this list. You know, I like the -- there are a lot of points made that it was -- there is a lot of articulation in the facade and I agree, it's a -- it's a nice looking facade. And the way they have worked in the different colors, you know, if each of those colors represented, you know -- were still different colors or different materials or something, Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 71 of 80 that's still -- you know, that arrangement of the colors and materials works for me, I just need it changed from vinyl siding. Rohm: That's kind of what I was. saying is as long as we have the color break up and just don't do it with vinyl siding., I'm happy with that. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, maybe a suggestion. I think they said they have had three public meetings and certainly the siding is not the only issue that was of concern to the neighbors, but certainly was a significant concern to the neighbors. If this Commission is inclined, we can still go ahead and begin the preparation of the conditions of approval, if that's where you're inclined to go. And if Mr. Hood is comfortable with what your recommendation is and what those conditions are in regards to the siding, then, we can certainly get those prepared. But you could certainly direct that they bring that back before you approve the final conditions of this project. If not only for this Commission's benefit, but for the neighbors and they have -- again this isn't the only issue they have had, but certainly that's a significant issue to them in relation to their homes and from my understanding and the testimony you have heard, they have raised that every time and they have never been shown anything other than vinyl siding and what's been placed in the pallet in front of you. So, maybe for their benefit as well of being able to see exactly what you were describing of what you would like it to be and the percentages and those types of things, that might be beneficial both to you and them before you approve the findings. Now, we could still have the findings at either the next meeting,, the 4th of October, or the meeting following the 18th of October, but you could certainly direct that they bring that material so that you can see it before you approve it. Newton-Huckabay: I think that's appropriate. Siddoway: I agree. Newton-Huckabay: I mean -- and I think Mr. Nary makes the point is I think that an expectation for the neighbors to see what the final materials are going to be and that expectation for all of you. And I mean I don't mind the colors. I guess I would have hoped to see more colors, similar to what you're seeing around town with -- with not so much homogeny -- if that's the right word.. Siddoway: Ghetto. Newton-Huckabay: We need to wipe that word from the record. But I think that's appropriate and I think it's -- I would be in favor of that on the October 4th meeting, if possible. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 72 of 80 Rohm: I guess the thing that I would want to also make clear, though, is if we continue this to the 4th, it isn't for further discussion of all the balance of the attributes of the project, it's just to give the applicant an opportunity to present their proposed changes to the exterior of the development and as long as we are all in agreement with that, I have no problem with continuing it to give them an opportunity to come back with those changes. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. Just to do that and have the findings, what we are going to basically do is take that -- the changes in material that the applicant is going to propose and we are going to assume that it is going to meet your criteria and we will have that findings document on that hearing. So, they can present it, you can either approve it or say, no, that isn't what we want. If it isn't what you want, then, we are going to have to pull the findings and do it at another time. But that's -- we have no problem preparing that as if -- I mean they are here, they are listening to you, I think they know what you're looking for. We'll assume that that's what you're going to approve. What I do need from the applicant though, is to have that by at least next Thursday, because that only gives us one day to do those findings before we have to get it to the city clerk to put in the packets. So, there is somewhat of a rush there. I did speak with them and it sounds like they can have it by next Thursday, but we do need to have that by next Thursday to keep on that time line, so -- Rohm: I think that's an excellent suggestion. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I mean if it will be helpful -- I mean this is a fairly lengthy involved Conditional Use Permit at least for my edification -- and I know we are going to probably use Mr. Willis' minutes more than any, but I have a number of conditions that -- if you're going to incorporate them into your -- your motion, it would be helpful to make them clear. What I have notes on -- and you may have different ones. Mr. Siddoway usually is pretty good at keeping track. There was discussion about a phasing plan and I think Mr. Hood has language that you all seemed to be comfortable with, if that's what you're interested in adopting. Their issue of siding we have just discussed. Their issue of fencing and whether it should be on the south or not. And if all the rest of the current fencing is adequate, then, if you could address that. The issue of setback, it seems that you have addressed that a number of times now and seem to have the mood that that being proposed at 24 foot with 22 feet for the upper levels of some of those buildings may be adequate. There was a question about other impacts into the community, whether it's drainage, schools, roadways, if you have any thoughts of that that you think need to be addressed in your motion, even if it's to not address them in your conditions, that's fine. There was a discussion of the additional amenity and I think the language you had discussed was simply working with staff to come up with an additional amenity. If you want that broad of language in your findings, that's your discretion. The rear lighting and the down-shielded -- I think Commissioner Siddoway wanted specific language as to that. And all the rest of the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 73 of 80 lighting would basically have to be required with our code. You discussed the roofing materials matching the colors of the roof to the adjacent homes, as well as that the shingle material that's proposed was adequate as long as it did match the other residences in the area. There was discussion about other building materials and so just being clear as to what you want in regards to both the siding and what other building materials, options that they have, would be helpful. There was discussion about parking and landscaping and I think that goes with the phasing plan from Mr. Hood. There was discussion about amenities in general and I think when those had to be in in relation to a certificate of occupancy. That I think also goes maybe with the phasing plan that was proposed by Mr. Hood.. You had discussion on the pathway to the north and at least didn't get a sense of which particular direction you wanted to have with that. It did sound that the berms that were being considered are -- the mood of the Commission was not to require the berms on the northern boundary. There was discussion about Apgar Creek. Again, I don't know that that's something you want to address and if you don't, if you would at least include that you -- if you don't leave it to your decision, that's fine. Commissioner Siddoway wanted additional trees to overlap on the northern property. If that's the Commission's desire, you can make that clear. The western boundary of the property in relation to the storage units currently has a 15 foot setback. You discussed a 20 foot setback and potentially an additional layer of trees and whether or not to eliminate a parking space to get that. The trash enclosures. You may want -- you did discuss whether to have a different type of construction than what was proposed, which I think was chain link and to have something other than chain link, whether it's with a gate or without and out of block material or something else. And, then, last was the driveway and pedestrian connections along the southern boundary and how those interrelate with the fencing along the southern boundary. And those are all the conditions I tracked and I don't know if you had others, but if you could make clear in your decision of how you want those addressed, so that Mr. Hood and myself, when we review them, make sure that what we bring back to you on the 4th is reflective of what you want. Rohm: I thought we were done. Siddoway: So moved. No. Rohm: Actually, that was a great laundry list and I appreciate you keeping those notes and I think that each one of them can be responded to to give staff the direction needed to create those Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Just -- I will take one at a time, I guess. Siddoway: Sorry. I will go on the record. I was asking Mr. Nary do we -- if we make the motion tonight, do we still want to keep the Public Hearing open for the point of bringing forward the revised elevations -- how do we do both? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 74 of 80 Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission and Commissioner Siddoway, you have a couple of options. Obviously, your usual practice is to make a motion, direct staff to prepare findings and bring those back. You would probably at that juncture also move to reopen the hearing for the limited purpose of bringing the building material products back to you with those findings at your next hearing. Because this is so lengthy and so -- and., obviously, very important to the neighbors, as well as we want to be sure that the language is reflective of what you want, if you want to direct staff to prepare findings -- and I don't know if there is a time issue here. I mean this property has been vacant for five years, but I don't own it, so if they think that there is a time issue, they may have a concern, but if you would prefer that we work with the staff and you can answer some of the questions that are still open ended and you want them to prepare, essentially, draft findings for your review on the 4th with those building materials and, then, if those findings meet your satisfaction, then, make a motion to approve this project with those findings that have been prepared., you certainly have the option to do that. It's not common, but it's certainly not without -- it's certainly not outside your authority to do it that way if you want to. This is a fairly unusual project just because of the complexity of it, so it's certainly your call. Siddoway: And I was just thinking that Iwould --Iwould probably intend to tie the elevations they bring back to the findings. Nary: Okay. Siddoway: So -- but I haven't seen them yet. So, I just wanted the ability to incorporate what they bring back into the final motion. Nary: And I think that's what Mr. Hood had said is they would prepare -- maybe he has a different perspective. They would prepare the findings, essentially, in anticipation of your approval. If it doesn't meet your satisfaction, then, they will have to pull them back and correct them and bring them again. Again, you can open your hearing for the -- just the limited purpose of submitting examples of both the building material and the elevations as attachments. So, you can do it any way you want to. If you want to wait to make a finding of approval until you can actually see the findings, because of the hearing and the length of it and the complexity of it, you can. I don't -- again, I don't know if Mr. Hood has a different thought with that, because our window is pretty short for October 4th and that was part of the reason why I suggested looking at least at the 15 or 17 ones that I wrote down. But I don't know if Caleb has a different thought on that. Hood.: No. Iwould concur with that and depending on what the Commissioners would like to see -- I mean we can either leave the findings document referencing an exhibit that isn't adopted until you see them and say, yes, make this Exhibit A and make this Exhibit B and we can -- we can give it to the clerk and we are on our way or we can just Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 75 of 80 scan those in again under the assumption that you will ratify those. If not, we yank them off and it's another two weeks. So, it's up to you how you want to proceed. We can go either way. Newton-Huckabay: Well, what's keeping us from making that motion? I guess that's where I got lost in the conversation. Just because it's complex? Siddoway: No. Just that if we finalize the motion tonight, including what they bring back into the findings, just worried that we couldn't do that. Newton-Huckabay: Can't we leave that section of the motion opened with that date? Siddoway: Yes. That's what I'm trying to accomplish. Newton-Huckabay: Well, make it happen. Siddoway: Here is how I think I want to try and make it happen, then, try and give some direction on these issues for the intended motion and to direct staff to prepare findings and, then, we will reopen the Public Hearing and finalize that motion at the next hearing after we see the elevations. Moe: I concur. Siddoway: Mr. Rohm? Moe: How is that? Rohm: Yes. I was -- go ahead. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Let's see how this goes. Siddoway: This would be my intended motion. That there be no berm along the north property line. Number two. That the buffer width along the north side be 24 feet from property line to ground floor and with an allowance for a two foot projection on upper floors. Upper floor. I guess there is no multiple -- you know, three-story along the edge. Moe: But both those would be in for 1.1.4? Siddoway: Oh, yes, I don't have those numbers. I'm just giving the direct -- Rohm: I think for this proposal tonight just going through the list -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 76 of 80 Moe: All right. Good enough. Rohm: -- is a good idea. Siddoway: That the buffer along the west side -- the width of the buffer along the west side be -- remain as is. Newton-Huckabay: Related to the storage facility? Siddoway: Related to the storage facility. That trees be added on the north and the west such that the trees are placed at 80 percent of their mature width. That no vinyl siding be allowed on the project and a mix of other quality materials, including wood, hardy plank, stucco, stone, and stone veneer be used on the structures. Newton-Huckabay: Agree with that. Siddoway: That the trash enclosures be constructed of block instead of cedar plank. With a gate. And constructed with the opening that allows people to access the trash enclosures without having to open that gate. It's a typical design that -- staff can help them figure out, because we see it all the time. That the architectural shingles will -- sorry. That the shingles -- I guess we weren't going to require them to be architectural. Newton-Huckabay: No. Siddoway: So -- but they do have to be black to match the rest of the subdivision. To make a point that all lighting must be shielded, so that no one has to look directly at a filament. That 1.1.20 be modified per the proposal that Caleb provided earlier tonight. Newton-Huckabay: And that was related to the phasing of the occupancy? Siddoway: The phasing of the occupancy and the -- yes. The way that would word. To clarify that the micropath should connect to this project. And also to clarify that the driveway on the west side of the project be connected south to the future commercial lot. That fencing along the south side should be required as vinyl fencing, to begin at the end of the access road coming into the site where the stub goes south into the project and continuing west to the edge with a break for an additional vehicular and pedestrian connection. Moe: Work with staff on the other amenity. Siddoway: Oh. On the additional amenity, I am comfortable with the language to work with staff on determining. what the additional amenity should be. The examples that Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 77 of 80 were provided tonight as barbecues, basketball, horseshoes, any of those are fine with me. Regarding the issues of the school district, drainage swales, parking, Apgar Creek, the other things, I have no changes to the conditions based on those discussions. And that would be the end of my motion. Newton-Huckabay: Was it officially a motion? Siddoway: I don't know. No. It's just for clarification of what the motion will be. Moe: I would second that if it was a motion. Newton-Huckabay: As I would. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, maybe before it becomes a motion, if, in fact Commissioner Siddoway decides to -- the AC units, I think you guys are pretty clear, but if you could make that also -- address that, because I think that's a condition now. If you want to change that, that needs to be addressed., please. Newton-Huckabay: I think we decided on what was most energy-efficient for the building. Rohm: I think we were just going to allow them to install them as proposed. Siddoway: The condition as currently written requires them to be moved.; is that correct? Hood: To the sides. Correct. Moe: Strike that motion -- or strike that -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Siddoway: That's a little painful to me, but if that's what's right for the function of them, then, I would concur. Newton-Huckabay: Well, the other option they said was to put them on the front of the building. Siddoway: Yes. Moe: No. Newton-Huckabay: Do you want them on the front? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 78 of 80 Moe: No. Siddoway: No. Moe: That would be between the garage doors. Rohm: Anything else, Caleb? I think that pretty well covers it. Siddoway: You know, I just want to say that for me the question of -- the bigger question of should amulti-family dwelling project be allowed here is clearly -- is yes, but because it's -- it's already been approved -- and what I don't understand is why this was such a surprise. I don't know if the marketing that was -- that happened for Lochsa Falls, you know, kept this a secret, but it was approved as a total concept and I -- for me, personally, the issue that I'm trying to answer is with 171 units how do we minimize the adverse impacts and what we just went through for me is the way that I see trying to do that. Rohm: That's the best that we can do. Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and do you -- I guess the question that I would throw out there as well is how do we avoid what appears to have been a huge communication breakdown? Do we have any way to do that in the future? Rohm: Well, I think the way you address that in the future is they actually change the zoning so that it is zoned R-40 or whatever, so that anybody that is buying would see that change in venue and -- Newton-Huckabay: .Require it at the time of the PUD? Rohm: Well, it's -- that seems appropriate, but that's -- Newton-Huckabay: Having not been here at the time, I -- it's hard to -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, just maybe another -- Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I mean part of the problem from the communication standpoint is this project was approved, like Commissioner Siddoway said., also under a different set of code that existed at the time that allowed use exceptions that our -- and PUDs that our current code doesn't favor in the same manner and part of the reason why in 2002 and prior it did is because we didn't have a lot of code. The code wasn't very adequate and so to allow for varieties of housing style, varieties of mixed uses of commercial, office, residential, in different areas and to try to get varieties of different development, that was the only way to do it. If you -- for those like Commissioner Meridian Planning & Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 79 of 80 Newton-Huckabay, who has lived here a long time in Meridian, back in the mid '90s and early '90s we had R-4 after R-4 after R-4, they all looked the same and so that was the only tool that existed and rewriting a code, as you all know, takes a long time. Redoing the Comp Plan took a long time. So, that was the fix at the time. That necessity to do it that way has changed in the code, so that's one means. Commissioner Rohm is correct that, you know, the marrying up the use plan and the zone map would be helpful. They both existed., but not everybody knows that and not everybody maybe has ever had to deal with that. So, that's another thing that might be a better tool. But predominately you have to remember that everything north of Ustick didn't even exist before 2002, except for farm houses. This is one of the first projects that was ever approved in the north area of Meridian. So, has the code gotten better? Yes. Has this Commission, the staff, the Mayor and the Council, changed in how they approach these things over time? Yes. Is it still an ongoing process? Of course. It doesn't help anybody or doesn't answer any questions or make anyone feel better, but, unfortunately, that's the - - sort of the by-product of the growth we have had and the way the growth has developed over time. But some of the -- some of the things that maybe made this situation problematic wouldn't likely exist today in the same manner, but it did exist from 2002, because that's the code we had to deal with at the time. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Could I get a motion to continue this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 4? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman., I move that we reopen the Public Hearing for the sole purpose of accepting the revised elevations showing the modified facade and building materials and continue it to our next regularly scheduled meeting on October 4th. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing for the sole purpose of continuing it to the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 4th for review of building materials at that time. All those in favor say aye. Newton-Huckabay: Findings. Moe: Findings. Rohm: Oh. And direct staff to prepare Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law pursuant to our discussion this evening. Siddoway: Correct. Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 20, 2007 Page 80 of 80 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we adjourn Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:29 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED: MICHAEL E. ROHM -CHAIRMAN All those in favor say aye. DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK