Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 7, 2003 P & Z minutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing August 7, 2003 Page 71 of 104 Item 12. Public Hearing: RZ 03-008 Request for a Rezone of 12.74 acres from I- L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 03-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 45 building lots and 14 other lots on 12.74 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 03-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Borup: Item Numbers 12, 13, and 14. Public Hearing AZ 03-008, request for Rezone of 12.74 acres from I-L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC, at 1125 East Pine Street. Public Hearing PP 03-017, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 45 building lots and 14 other lots on the same property, and Public Hearing CUP 03-032, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential subdivision, requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision. I'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this is a Planned Development project for -- a largely residential project. They are requesting a Rezone from I-L to R- 15. I want to go through some of the neighboring properties. This is the Santee Business Park zoned I-L. This is Danbury Subdivision, which are residential properties zoned R-4. The west is currently zoned R-1 in Ada County, and the Union Pacific Railroad track provides the boundary at the south. You can see some of the industrial property to the east and the homes. This is the -- Zaremba: That appears to be the original. Powell: Yes. This appears to be original, so -- that's the new one. Okay. I have gat it. I'm sorry. I get confused on the orientation of this one sometimes. Forgive me. This is Commercial Street coming in here and, then, Pine Street is located up here. This is the -- this is the Site Plan that the staff report is based on and I'll go through another one in just a moment. There is a connection -- this is a parking lot drive aisle that connects Pine Avenue to Commercial Street and staff had, it's fair to say, overwhelming concerns with that. We were not able to make the findings to recommend approval because of that. There are parking spaces here that would be backing out into this drive aisle. It was single loaded, but with the industrial development in this location and the desire of most people to find a way to avoid the intersections and cut through where ever they can, there was a great concern that this would be -- act as a public street, even though Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 72 of 104 it was just a 25 foot parking lot drive aisle. We had -- the staff report as it stands recommends denial of the project. Let me go into some more of the specifics. I'm sorry. I got hung up on that one. It is 12 acres in size. It's currently zoned I-L and they do want to want to go to R-15 and what they are proposing -- it's very difficult to see on this, but there are lots proposed and each of those would have an eight-plex or on the narrower ones it's basically two four-plexes that are attached and those units could be sold as investment properties, so each investor would be either buying four or eight units, depending on the configuration of the lot. Then, the density -- so there is a total of 45 building lots and 14 other lots and, then, each of those would have afour-plex or an eight-plex on them. Their overall density was 14.59 dwelling units per acre and the plat included 3.6 acres of open space or 28 percent of the gross land and they do have -- this is gross area. There is -- the File Mile Creek comes through this corner of the property, so there were flood issues associated with that. There is a park at the center of the property, and, then, there is smaller open spaces scattered throughout. They had -- as part of the PD request, they have requested a number of reductions in the dimensional standards. The front setback currently is 20 feet. They are asking for 14 feet for the buildings, the front stairs to project out as close as nine feet to the front of the property. Rear, instead of a 15 foot setback, they have requested a ten foot setback. On the sides for the multi-family units, it would stay at five feet, but they have some garage lots, which don't show up on this one. Let me go to another one. See these small lots here at the end of these parking aisles, those are, actually, two car garages that would be on separate lots that could be sold to various investors within the development, so you could have -- someone might buy this unit and that storage area or that garage or conceivably this one and that. It would just be sold separately. They were asking for zero setbacks on those lots. The proposed parking is 1.5 spaces per unit. We currently require two. The applicant on this revised Site Plan, which is what you see here, actually, achieved a 1.75 units -- or spaces per unit. For the amenities for the Planned Development they provide greater than ten percent open space and they are providing a sport court within the park space. This -- the applicant went to ACHD last night. ACHD has required a stub street, so that Commercial would come in and stub through to the property. There is -- as you saw Five Mile comes around and it kind of goes like this, so there is kind of a little half moon property that would be serviced by that stub street. Then, ACHD did not approve the connection going from Pine to Commercial. Their preference was for a public street in this location and, ideally, that's what staff would like to see also, but they recommended -- or they approved last night this configuration that has a disconnect, so that they do have to go around the park, basically, to get back out to Commercial, thereby at least you don't have that straight line of sight from one street to the other. Staff received this Site Plan this afternoon. We have not had time to look at it in detail. There are still a couple outstanding issues related to this. One is this parking aisle here. Joe Silva, the deputy chief, indicated that he had problems with -- they wanted another break through in there. He doesn't want it longer 150 feet. The applicant wants an opportunity to talk to him regarding if he pulls in 150 feet, then, the backs of the buildings are within reach of the hose, so there may be a possibility that that configuration may work for Chief Silva or may not be, so that's an issue to be resolved there. Then, there is -- as part of the Planned Development application for multi-family, they are required to provide a hundred feet of usable open Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 73 of 104 space for every multi-family unit and we have not received floor plans for the units that show where that hundred feet of usable open space will be. This is not entirely the fault of the applicant. The request was made to him late in the game for that information, so it's -- I don't want to make it seem like he's in error, but we have requested that and have not been able to get a hold of that yet. If the Commission chooses to -- what we would suggest is that you take testimony, if you decide that you want to recommend approval of the project as redesigned on this or on the other Site Plan, I suppose, then, you need to direct us to come back to you in two weeks with revised findings for approval, rather than denial. That's the end of staffs presentation. Borup: Questions from Commissioners? Zaremba: Thank you for describing to us the ACHD requirements, so we -- we don't have that report, so I appreciate that information. Is the extension of Commercial Street through this property a private road or a public road? Powell: Public road. Zaremba: Okay. Then, the others are private driveways that come off of it? Powell: Correct. I believe -- we tried to remove any reference to private road in there. I notice there is still two in there. These are not private roads in the sense that we can approve private streets within the City of Meridian. These are driving aisles for a parking lot. Zaremba: Right. Separate question. On page two you talked about setbacks and the proposed setbacks. We have in our packet a memo dated May 30th from CMG addressed to the City of Meridian, that has an Exhibit A and on that it appears to ask for a rear setback of 15, instead of ten, and a side setback of 7.5 feet, not just five feet. Is there another document that I'm missing? What I'm looking at is Exhibit A of the applicant's -- Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, regarding the side setback, I think Wendy probably left it at five feet, because that's what's allowed, even though they are proposing something that's larger than that, we generally leave -- Zaremba: We would allow five feet? Powell: We would allow five feet, so that just leaves the applicant a little more flexibility regarding that. Zaremba: Okay. Rear setback 10 she said and I think they are asking for 15. Does that make a difference? Powell: I'll have to have the applicant come up and speak. There may have been a change later in the project. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 74 of 104 Zaremba: Okay. Yes. That letter was from some time ago. Those were my questions Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to come forward? Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Scott Beecham I'm with Conger Management Group, representing the applicant Wildwood Development. I'd like to, first of all, thank staff. Wendy is not here, but Anna has certainly done a lot to work with us on this application and I do apologize for the late change. We do feel that we have a better product for -- after working with staff and we appreciate that. As Anna stated, the applications include a Rezone of 12.74 acres of I-L to R-15, a Preliminary Plat request for 44 building lots on the revised Site Plan, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development allowing for reduced frontage and setback requirements. More specifically, it's a request for an approval of a 44 lot multi- family residential subdivision, consisting of a combination of attached and detached four-plex units. There are no -- a bit of a clarification on the staff report. There are no eight-plex units. However, there are attached four-plex units. Overall, the density on the project, as stated by staff, is 176 units. Borup: Just -- I'm just curious. You said -- what's an attached four-plex? Two four- plexes that are attached to each other? Beecham: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman Borup: So, there are eight units in a building? Beecham: That's correct. Borup: What's the difference between that and an eight-plex? Beecham: Effectively build on a zero lot line and can be sold separately Borup: Okay. Zaremba: The halves can be sold separately. Borup: Right. Okay. They are on separate lots. Beecham: If I could, with my apologies to staff, at the end of the day today, around 6:00 o'clock, I received a preliminary building plan that I'd like to put up on the board here. Borup: That's fine. I understand now. I was not following that. Beecham: Okay. In general, the design that's before you here allows for approximately three and a half acre -- in addition to the residential units, it allows for three and a half acres of open space or nearly 30 percent of the site. This is spread between perimeter Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2D03 Page 75 of 104 buffering, some flood way area that has been maintained in open space in flood plain area, as well as open space at the center of the project that exceeds a half an acre. The staff recommendation is -- rather, the staff report is generally supportive of the project as it relates to the Rezone and Planned Development. However, as staff indicated, they have two significant areas of concern with this -- with the previous layout of the subdivision. First, being the potential for cut-through traffic between Pine and Commercial and, second, a fire turn around issue. As indicated by the staff report and the plan before you, we have reconfigured the site. The staff report anticipated this revision due to conversations with staff and we feel that this effectively addresses those concerns as it relates to the cut-through traffic. It is certainly a more circuitous route and should alleviate those safety concerns. We would commit to formalizing those changes as quickly as possible by having our engineer redraw the Site Plan, as well as the Preliminary Plat and we will get that back into the city as quickly as possible. As it relates to the second issue, the fire turn around, we are working with Meridian fire, it's really a question of interpretation of code. It can be read that a fire truck will back no further than 150 feet and, in addition to that 150, if you can reach all portions of the building within another 150, then, a turn around should not be required. Mr. Silva is out of town right now and I was not able to discuss that with him. I did meet with Chief Bowers, but he was not in a position to make a different requirement than what was done so by Mr. Silva. There are a couple of other clarifications I'd like to address in the staff. The first is -- number three on page five, it would require a Development Agreement because this is a Planned Development I'm curious if that's a necessity. The second is a Public Works issue and a question for Bruce, that number 11 page eight, requires the center line of road elevation three feet above highest groundwater of -- does that condition apply if you're intending to build flat on grade? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Beecham, and the intent to the three-foot separation is to try and insure dry crawl space in a typical foundation. That's a good question. Because of that reasoning -- and if you're going to do slab on grade, I don't think that -- I don't believe that it would be a requirement for the three feet. What kind of separation can you achieve? Beecham: You know, we need to continue to monitor groundwater and I'm not in a position to answer that, but I can say that we -- our intention would be to meet the separation requirements. However, it is a low site and we'd like to minimize the amount of fill. If we do go to slab on grade, I would request that we be allowed to set the centerline lower to minimize that fill. Borup: So, how would that be handled? On a plat note, that all -- all buildings need to be slab on grade? Is that how -- Scott, was that how you anticipate -- Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I guess my thought was that if the condition were to read that a minimum separation of lowest ground floor area of three feet, you could do that by -- with slab on grade with a lesser requirement for fill. Borup: Right. How would we insure that that would be followed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 76 of 104 Beecham: A condition of approval requiring three feet, as opposed to dictating the centerline elevation. Borup: No. I mean on -- that that would be a slab on grade, rather than a crawl space. Would that be something -- be a note that the building requirement would -- Freckleton: I don't think that's something that you would want to put on the final plat. Borup: That's what I was realizing, but it would just be part of the PUD, part of the Planned Development Agreement? Freckleton: That would probably be a good place for it. I think that the applicant is doing ongoing monitoring of the groundwater situation out there. Their soil scientist ought to be able to give us a good number of what kind of separation they can attain. Borup: The last sentence of the staff report on Item 11 says the purpose for three foot is to insure that the bottom of the crawl space be one foot above groundwater. Freckleton: Exactly. Borup: But if there is no crawl space, I assume the bottom would be the bottom of your slab or -- Beecham: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I think by requiring that separation, then, it doesn't matter what the construction method, you still have that separation doing slab on grade, which is to allow you to set the units lower and, therefore, the street center line lower, if I'm -- I may not be communicating that properly, but -- Borup: You're going the wrong direction, aren't you? You're saying if you still have a three-foot separation that you can lower everything? Beecham: The crawl space is considered a floor area, so if you have to set the crawl space up, I think you're raising those units, if I understand it correctly. Freckleton: What we are trying to achieve is that the high groundwater, the highest normal groundwater elevation is one foot below the bottom of the footing. That's what we are trying to achieve, and by stating that we want three feet minimum from the highest established groundwater elevation to the center line of the roads, by taking normal construction practices on the slopping of the front yards and that sort of thing, we feel that we can achieve that separation. The question of slab on grade and what kind of separation we would have to have there, quite frankly, this is the first time that's really came up, so I -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 77 of 104 Borup: It sounds like Mr. Beecham is saying that rather than saying that the top needed to be three feet, if it's slab on grade, the top would need to be one foot. Is that what you're getting to? Beecham: Yes, sir. If I understand it correctly -- I guess what I would like to emphasize is that we want to meet staffs requirement, but we want to make sure of the effect of going from a crawl space foundation to slab on grade and make sure that we don't have a requirement that makes us push the road up higher than need be. Borup: It sounds like you're accomplishing the same thing. You could drop the grade two feet. Is that generally -- Freckleton: Well, there are a lot of other factors that come into play, too. When you have got that kind of a separation issue, handling storm water runoff is going to be a major, major problem. You're going to have to maintain athree-foot separation to groundwater from the bottom of any storm drain facility as well, so -- Borup: I guess you got bigger problems than just the crawl space. Freckleton: There are a lot of things that are playing in here, but the slab on grade questions, that's the first time that one's come up. Borup: So, that's something to be worked out with staff. Freckleton: Yes. I believe I also asked for some updated groundwater -- yes. The initial report that I had was dated in May of'03 and they were going to be doing ongoing monitoring of that groundwater elevation, so I guess what I would propose is that, you know, let's get that information and we can analyze the data and -- Borup: You're going to have a couple months before you get groundwater, don't you? Beecham: Yes. Mr. Chairman that would be our intent is to be able to work with staff and not dictate a specific elevation. There are, obviously, other factors at play and we need to balance all those and it's a delicate balancing game there. Our intent is to work with staff and we are not asking for any exceptions. Freckleton: That's acceptable to me. Borup: Okay. I interrupted you. Did you have some other things you were -- Beecham: No. Actually, with that, I guess I would respectfully request that the Commission approve the applications before you and do so with the findings as stated on pages five and six of the staff report, as well as the site-specific comments included on page 11 of the staff report and in addition to the clarifications that I noted. I would point out that the staff report states that they did anticipate the revision, again, due to some conversations with staff. Our hope is to be able to move forward in a timely Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 78 of 104 manner. We, however, don't want to put staff in an awkward position. I believe the findings in the staff report would support an approval of this revised plan. However, if staff is not comfortable with that, we certainly don't want to -- to force this on anybody and move faster than need be. However, I would reiterate that I think we have solved the issues. We continue -- we can continue to work with fire without materially changing the plan. I think if we did have to make a revision, it would not materially change the plan as far as density or open space. With that, I would stand for questions. Borup: Questions from Commission? Do you have any comment on the setback tables? Beecham: Oh, yes. I apologize. Borup: I'm assuming you would concur with what the staff report has. Beecham: I would. Borup: Since it was more liberal than what your chart had Beecham: I would. It does bring up another issue and I would like to address the requirement for open space on the individual units. There is a requirement for 100 square feet of usable open space per unit. The lot areas allow for -- we have got lots that are about 5,500 square feet for the four-plex -- for the detached four-plex and about half that for the attached four-plex per lot. What that allows for is about 2,500 square feet of open space around the building footprint. In addition, we have got private deck and patio areas that would help to meet that requirement and if I could quickly, I'll put up this preliminary floor plan for the attached product to help demonstrate that. Zaremba: While he's doing that I would ask staff, you intend that usable open space to be a deck or a patio, right, not exterior open space. Powell: Correct. It's private usable open space. Borup: Okay. That's -- and that's a little far away. That has a private deck for each unit? Beecham: It does have a private deck for each unit. The ground floor meets the hundred square foot requirement, however, it does have a stairway passing over it. I would be -- reviewing it myself I guess I would be hard pressed to say that's a hundred feet, upstairs does not have the hundred feet. I would state, though, that we have been involved in a number of projects and I have yet to build or represent anybody building an apartment with a hundred square foot deck. I have got ohe under construction right now not a half a mile from here that was approved last year, Cooper Canyon, same architecture, same process, and they do not have a hundred square foot deck. That's something that did not catch me off guard entirely, but the section of the code that required that also allows the Commission to review it on a case-by-case basis. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 79 of 104 Where we have got nearly 30 percent of the site, regardless of the lots, 30 percent of the site in open space, I would request flexibility in this. We exceed the requirement by nearly three times. If you -- further, if'you would add the 2,500 square feet of yard area around the units, that number goes way up. We have done our best to -- Borup: The yard area around the front and the side of the building really isn't private space. I would say maybe the yard area in back would be, but -- Beecham: I understand. What we have done here is we have made atrade-off and we have provided for larger areas that are highly usable for active and passive recreation, as opposed to yarding off and putting fences around these units. We would prefer the open view. Borup: Okay. I haven't seen that come up before either. Staff, I don't know if -- you mentioned whether you concurred with the new site layout, the new -- did that address your concerns on the cut-through traffic? Powell: It's over -- it addressed my overwhelming concerns. I suppose I still have concerns regarding it, but I think kind of the same position that ACHD took, a public street would have been better, but this is okay. Then, can I comment on the annexation, the question about the Development Agreement? They are not requesting annexation, but they are requesting a Rezone and you do have a number of people here to speak to tonight, so I'd like to -- for you to -- if you want to condition the Rezone -- which you can't condition a Rezone. As you know, so -- the Development Agreement is an opportunity to set limits on the extent of that Rezone, so you may want to keep that option open. Would you like for me to read the code regarding the open space? I was looking for it in the staff report. I don't know if you have seen that code before. It says all residential Planned Developments -- Borup: No, because we don't have a codebook, I don't believe. Powell: Yes. I had asked Wendy to include it in your staff report Borup: It is in there Powell: Oh. Okay. Borup: 12.6.2. Powell: Should be 12.6.2A-4. All residential Planned Developments shall provide each dwelling unit with at least 100 square feet of usable private open space, such as patio or deck. Borup: Yes. She-put that in the report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 20D3 Page 80 of 104 Powell: You have it. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Unlike the other, it's kind of a precursor for being able to request the Planned Development, so it's not one that's really open for a lot of negotiation to just waive it, because it's a Planned Development. There is a little wiggle roam in there as that standard's written, if you think that the rest of the development provides that type of open space, then, you can waive that requirement, but it's not one that you can waive just because it's a PD. Borup: Okay. Well, if we do have some public testimony, we'd like to get to that. Let me ask one question that may answer some of that and that's the fact that this is an I-L zone, you have got existing businesses around, specifically we had one letter from Precision Craft concerned about residential neighborhood perhaps not being happy with their business operation. Have you decided how you would address that issue? Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I -- no, not specifically. There are some inherent possibilities of conflict between adjacent uses. We say that amulti-family residential use is more compatible with an industrial or a commercial use than -- Borup: Than asingle-family? Beecham: Than asingle-family, for sure. This does provide for a nice transition to some of the single-family areas adjacent to our property. Borup: Well, I mean what I was leading to is -- and, I don't know, maybe some staff could help on this. We have the right to farm notations on new subdivisions because of a preexisting operation going on. Is something like that applicable here where there needs to be a note that there are existing industrial properties and businesses around and that, you know, the tenants and the buyers need to be aware of that? How would you handle something like that? I don't think the city wants to have people calling up complaining about a -- you know, I can see there is a possibility of that happening, but the business has been there for 13 years and these people come in later. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it might be applicable place to put that. I think the right to farm stuff -- I think that's usually on there -- as I recall, there is state code that requires some sort of mention on it and I don't know that it would be the same for industrial, but it might be -- Borup: Well, I don't think there is a state code, but I wonder if this Commission could probably do something along that line. Wollen: I think that it might possibly be something -- I can't think of any reason why it would be -- yes, why it wouldn't be advisable, why it wouldn't be allowed at this time, so Borup: Well, we'd had some other experience with residential in the middle of industrial before. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 81 of 104 Beecham: Mr. Chairman, if I could address that. We are sensitive to that and would not necessarily be opposed to some sort of note, whether it be in the CC&R's or on the plat. However, it's important to note that people buying properties will have the benefit of already knowing that these potentially incompatible uses are there. There is some zoning there that -- on vacant land, but, by and large, the incompatibility is present today and that would be known, Borup: Well, we have gone through that before where we have present zoning and that didn't stop a hundred people from filling up this room complaining about the same thing. I mean this is a little different, you know, some of the businesses are there and the size and everything is a lot different and this is -- we are at the reverse. Beecham: I would also note that you generally have alternating or opposite use, a residential is in use in the evenings, where these businesses operate during the day and --just for the record. Borup: Okay. Well, probably not on the plat would be the place, but probably in the CC&R's, at least, and maybe somewhere else. Right. That's -- thank you. Beecham: Thank you. Borup: Do we have someone else to testify on this? Come on up. Smith: Commissioners, my name is Mark Smith, I'm the general manager for Basolite Concrete Products, located at 1300 East Franklin Road, and I have prepared a letter on behalf of Basolite Concrete Products that I'd like to give to you and I have made copies, if you want to -- I'll just go through briefly the points made in that letter for the record. Basolite Concrete Products, formerly known as Builder's Masonry Products, is, as I said, located at 1300 East Franklin Road. We are a manufacturer of concrete block, brick, and landscape materials, that sort of thing. Our manufacturing facility --the actual building that we do that manufacturing is located on the northern end of our 20-acre site. If you look at the drawing that (provided -- yes. We can use that -- with the letter you will see our site directly south of the proposed development. That's right there. I will walk over and point to the area where our plant building is located. Borup: About right in here? Smith: Exactly. Borup: Okay. Smith: If you look at the scale provided on the drawing, you will -- Borup: And there is a -- Smith: Our building is --okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 82 of 104 Powell: Sir, there should be a laser pointer at the podium -- Smith: Okay. Powell: -- that you can use. There you go Smith: Yes. There is our building right there. Okay. We are approximately anywhere from probably 500 to 700 feet from the closest building that's proposed on this development. Okay. The machinery that we use to manufacture our products, block machines, are noisy and we also use, to facilitate the movement of the product after it comes out of the plant, we use forklifts and also we load trucks. Depending on the economic conditions that we are in from -- that vary from year to year, we will find ourselves operating anywhere from one shift, eight hours, to several shifts that could go late into the night. It's always a potential that we would need to operate on a 24-7 basis, some of the other Basolite plants in other areas do that, and when we have a residential development here, in our experience, we have found that when residential development is allowed around block plants, complaints are almost certain, because the machinery is relatively noisy. Borup: And that's residential that comes in after the existing plant is in operation? Smith: Correct. Correct. This has happened at several other facilities of Basolite Concrete Products in other states and, then, also through my contacts with my industry association, there have been other situations like that that have come to my attention where the residents move in and, then, they begin to complain and, then, ordinances change and there is restrictions placed on the business. When you have those kind of restrictions placed on the business, that can become very costly. The business loses efficiencies in their operation and cannot compete effectively. It can be a major impact for us. It is our position that the I-L zoning for this property as it is, is appropriate and should not be changed. We have one other concern and that is a potential safety issue, whenever you have residential development you have families with children and some children, not all, but some don't respect keep out, private property, things like that, so as much as we would try to secure a site and fence it, there is always going to be the potential for kids climbing the fences and coming over and playing on the major equipment and that sort of thing. There are potential injuries, fatality, and we are certainly concerned about that and that's all I have. Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Smith? All right. Wittlake: My name is Don Wittlake. My business address is 1433 East Commercial Avenue, which is right there, them two lots right there. We run a trucking company. We have cars brought in -- we haul cars. The trucks come in basically 24 hours a day, in and out. We have a lot of truck traffic coming down commercial right and there is a warehouse right here that has trucks coming in all the time delivery freight. We have trucks coming in all the time delivering freight. With a subdivision in there, if they was Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2D03 Page 83 of 104 coming out of this Commercial right here, little kids walking -- there is a school right over here somewhere -- they would be walking right down Commercial Avenue, all the truck traffic, all the car traffic -- Borup: Are there sidewalks on that street? Wittlake: What's that? Borup: Are there sidewalks on that street? Wittlake: There are sidewalks on -- not on my side of the street. The sidewalks over here and I think they are down that way. I don't believe there are any sidewalks here at all. There are sidewalks around this way. Our lot is them two lots right there. We are all fenced, big night-lights for safety and security. The one reason we moved to there is we were in another area where there was residential area and that's one reason we moved out here in the middle of the commercial and we spent a lot of money, but we built that building so we would be clear away from any residential, because we do have trucks that move all the time. That's our business. We just -- I don't know. We open our shop at 6:00 o'clock in the morning, so there is a lot of noise, trucks coming and going all night long. That's about all I can say about it. Borup: Any questions? Taylor: Good evening. A little late, but I will make this really short if I can. My name is Larry Taylor, I am an owner and represent the business association, the Santee complex located due east of the proposed project, address 749 North Ralston Street, Meridian. I do oppose this application that they do have. There are a lot of issues I do have involved in this. First would be the access. It looks like you have two main access routes into the property, one would be Pine Street, of which currently has no sidewalks, curbs, gutters, or anything on that street, so for a residential type of a project, you have no foot traffic going into it and I don't see where it's proposed in their project. The next would be Commercial Avenue via Ralston and/or when Commercial gets push onto the proposed Locust Grove extension. That will make Commercial probably one of the primary accesses into this residential/high density residential neighborhood. The access is a major concern. Pine Street at this time is overcrowded as it is. It's two lane, it's barely enough for two lanes as it goes, but, as everybody sees, it has no through -- thoroughfare through there, you either got to go onto Nola or turn north onto Locust Grove. We will get into the noise issue as far as traffic. That will be the same. It will increase substantially having 176 units. I'm not sure of the -- what you're looking at. It looks like two bedroom units -- two and one bedroom units. You have a parking of 1.75 per unit. I know myself I own two cars and I don't know where my third -- my three- quarter car would be parked, but it would have to be parked somewhere. Oh. I'm sorry. Again, the parking. That would be a major issue with 176 units and the amount of traffic that would incur with that and the number of people that would be involved in that project. This site -- the groundwater has been brought up a number of times. I know this is a great year to be measuring groundwater, since it's probably one of the drier Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 84 of 104 years we have had in a long time, but the Snyder drain is located due east of this property. I know when we developed our site we had a groundvvater problem issue with that and the corner of our property was located in the flood zone and we had to build our property according to that flood zone and do the setbacks. I know that if we are located in the flood zone and this piece of property is a minimum of four feet below us, there has got to be some flood issues involved in that and, concurrently, down below in the other flood zone. The other thing I do see is this is kind of like the Boise Home Depot situation that we had a few years back where you had the Home Depot was built in, the residential property that's located right behind Home Depot, they end up having some nighttime deliveries. There were a lot of complaints over that. We are going to have it here. There are businesses around, as well as the businesses in my complex, run 24 hours a day, we have deliveries all night, we have 18 wheel traffic, we have hyster traffic, we have Advanced Heating who is directly -- owns the five units directly to the west 40 feet from the immediate property line is the edge of their building and they do load their vans at nighttime at times for their next day installations. You do have -- is it Mr. Wittlake -- Wittlake. I see his trucks running all the time and they come right in front of my project and they are damn near 24-7. As long as -- with everything else -- and I'll make it really short, I just oppose it. The current zoning is I-L it is the best feasible proposal for the property. Thank you. Borup: Are you concerned that this project could affect operation of businesses around? Taylor: Will it affect -- the traffic will definitely affect it. The thing I see the most would be -- excuse me -- security. We do run video cameras on our property and we have had some break-ins in there. The more residential that you get around it, the higher probability for this type of a situation does occur. The more residential and pedestrian foot traffic you have around a commercial entity is definitely potentially hazardous. Do I see it as a deterrent? Yes, I do. Borup: Okay. Taylor: Any other questions? Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Another close neighbor here. Crane: Yes. Not very close. My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3600 West Ustick Road. Actually, I have come for a later item tonight, but I did want to ask a question about this. Did they say it was 176 units? Borup: Mr. Taylor did. Crane: Okay. Is that accurate? Okay. I just had a personal experience I'd like to add to this. On Karcher Road in Nampa I work right next to a new development that has four eight-plexes. For each two eight-plexes they have a quarter acre little yard to play in. It looked like a beautiful little place, I even considered moving there myself briefly, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 85 of 104 now that it's full there are people there, it's a family based place, but the kids don't play in the little park, they are next to the road, in the road, throwing rocks at cars, just because it's such a small area. If this was a retirement home or a motel or something where people never really left their rooms, I could see it, but 176 families in this little tiny area, I really hope that's not the future of Meridian. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Beecham, last comments. Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, there have been concerns and there are some very legitimate concerns about incompatibility. Again, I think there are certain inevitabilities about incompatibility, you have to change zones at some point, and there is always that point where it does change. I guess I would like to go back to the staff report. We are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. We are in compliance with the zoning. We are introducing diversity in residential product to the city. We are doing it close to employment and we are doing a nice project with significant open space, a couple of the specific concerns regarding children and vandalism. That is not something I think we can address through land use planning. That is, unfortunately, a fact that it does occur. These units are not designed necessarily to be family oriented. They are a combination of two bedroom and one-bedroom units. I suspect that we will see a much lower number of families in these -- in this project. I would I guess like to use -- also like to use Home Depot as an example of -- obviously, that was big news, it got a lot of people uptight. I'd like the Commission to remember that what was determined in that is that the Home Depot was out of compliance. They were operating out of their approved times. I don't know what the requirements are on this development and, quite frankly, that's something I should, but I think being a good neighbor works both ways and tolerance works both ways. I won't deny that there is incompatibility -- or the potential for incompatibility here. I would reiterate that we need to provide for diversity of housing in the city of Meridian and this area designated as mixed-use -- again, as indicated by the staff report, is an appropriate location for that. The land was -- was found under that criteria and plans were prepared under the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. With that I -- Borup: Do you know how many one-bedroom units are planned? Or is that -- if this is going to be sold -- it's not one developer is it? Beecham: It is one developer. Borup: So, one developer is building everything. Okay. There will be one person controlling it all. Has that been determined at this point, the bedroom mix? Beecham: Yes, it has. Of the 44 lots, 20 of them are for the attached four-plex. Each of those attached four-plex buildings consists of four single bedroom units. Borup: So, what's the overall? One hundred seventy-six? Is that accurate? Beecham: One hundred seventy-six overall. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 86 of 104 Borup: And how many of those are one bedroom? Beecham: There are 80. Borup: Okay. Eighty-one bedroom. Okay. Questions from other Commissioners? Zaremba: I have a question that staff might be able to -- this is a challenge for an off- the-top-of-your-head answer. How far west does the I-L zone go? Borup: Well, it's either I-L -- Zaremba: One, two, three more properties? Borup: It's either I-L or commercial all the way to Eagle, isn't it? Zaremba: West I meant. Borup: Oh. West. I'm sorry. Excuse me. That's a good question. Do you know that, Scott? Beecham: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the I-L zone stops at our west property line. Borup: So, this is the -- Beecham: It goes to R-1 Ada county residential zoning. Borup: So, right next to you is county R-1? Powell: Correct. Beecham: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: So, there was no buffer between the industrial and the residential Beecham: No, sir. That's -- in my earlier comments I represented that we feel this is a good transition to asingle-family use to the north of us and what's currently to the west of us. If the I-L was to continue -- and, clearly, it can under the existing zoning, it could present a problem to the project to the north of us. That's my point, that at some point we've got to make a break and we have got to make a change, so while I do understand Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 20D3 Page 87 of 104 and appreciate the comments and concerns, the applicant, who I represent, is purchasing this property knowing what the land use is to the east and to the south. Borup: And that's my main thoughts is, you know, I think the existing businesses need to be able to operation under the agreement that they started with. Somebody coming in later would not have any right, in my mind, to alter of that. How do we assure that, that people aren't going to be calling into the city? I guess you can't assure they aren't going to be calling in. Zaremba: Buffers between uses. Do we have a wide enough buffer, landscape buffer around this one? I guess it's up to code. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we actually exceed the requirement of the 20 foot landscape buffer. Zaremba: I thought that's what it looked like. I looked on the Landscape Plan and it looked like that. Borup: Question for staff -- and I don't know if you -- would that come in -- would complaint calls like this come into your department or would that go to the compliance officer? Powell: Yes, sir. It would either go to the Mayor and, then, get forwarded to our code enforcement officer or it would go directly there. Borup: Would a complaint of a residential tenant even be addressed in this situation? I mean in my mind that's something to be ignored. Powell: Well, there are provisions in the code that restrict any property from glare and noise in violation of those ones that were mentioned earlier. Borup: Right. I mean -- I meant anything that was in compliance with their existing conditions. Do we know what they are on the jointing -- the surrounding properties? Are they all conditioned for 24-hour operation, et cetera? Powell: We are not aware of any restrictions being placed on them, other than, again, the performance standards stated in the zoning ordinance and, then, the noise ordinance and the police code. Borup: Thank you. I have a tendency to feel, you know, if someone wants to go in with their eyes open, knowing what they are in for, and not expect -- you know, that's kind of up to them, but -- Zaremba: Well, I agree with you. If there was a way to put right to industry, you know, note on the plat, the same as there is a Right To Farm Act that would help me a lot. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 88 of 104 Borup: I don't know if the plat's the place to do it, is it? I know other things staff has done to put things on the plat that don't really apply. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, prior to the state enacting the Right To Farm Act, I can think of a couple of projects that we specifically added a note to the plat to make people aware of a potential nuisance. The ones that come to mind are some that are out around out sewer treatment plant. We added notes to plats that talked about potential odors and that sort of thing. Borup: The situation we have here is the owner is the one that's going to see that. The tenants are not going to have any idea. Freckleton: Very true. Borup: And they are the ones that need to be notified and maybe that needs to -- I don't know. Can we require something in the apartment lease stating we understand there is industrial property around and we have no right to say anything? Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think that that might be a little bit beyond the power of the Council to enforce, for the -- basically, the landlord to put something in their lease regarding surrounding circumstances. I don't -- I have never heard of that before and I don't believe it's something that could be enforced. Borup: Again, I'm not -- if the landlord wants to build something like that, I don't have a concern, but I don't want them calling up and wasting the City's. time complaining about something that shouldn't be. Okay. I have said enough. Any other comments? Have we had anything else -- we haven't had anything quite like this before. It's been the reverse. Siddoway: The closest to my mind is Cooper Canyon, which was a series of four- plexes that went in next to Hehr Manufacturing and Butte Fence, industrial uses. That would be the only -- the closest similar in terms of adjacent uses. Borup: Yes. What was that -- but that was -- that was a county RUT zone or something, wasn't it? Siddoway: No. Butte Fence and -- Borup: I mean the Cooper Canyon. Siddoway: It was -- yes. It was annexed in are R-15, I believe. Borup: Yes. Siddoway: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 89 of 104 Borup: So, it wasn't a down zoning in an existing -- Siddoway: Correct. Zaremba: We did have a similar discussion -- I forget the name of the project, but it's on -- one side of it is Fairview and the side of it is Nola and we had people from Lanark that have industrial businesses come and want to make sure that the apartments that were going to be built in that project weren't going to generate complaints about their industrial -- preexisting industrial stuff. We did approve the project and I don't believe we said anything. That's true. I'm not -- I'm not -- well, they have moved some dirt around, but they haven't done anything more than that. Borup: Have you got any other ideas on how to handle this, Scott that might satisfy things? Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little bit hesitant to make any commitments on behalf of my clients that are not present tonight. I would state that in the past we have prepared what's -- what we call a facts you need to know and that's something that's delivered to the homeowner or the tenant that addresses traffic, in this situation the future of Locust Grove connection between Franklin and Pine would be something we would put on that. Maybe that's a possibility. That gets to the tenant. I guess I would agree with legal counsel that requiring that in the lease may go a little bit beyond and, quite frankly, I'm not sure what that would really do to -- to deter phone calls to the city. Borup: Maybe whoever answered the phone calls just need to say don't call us, call your landlord. Beecham: And I think that it's kind of a good point. These people are moving in -- conceivably moving into a project where they have got industrial neighbors and they need to be aware of that and I think it's a good idea to make them aware in writing, but driving to the project is the most telling thing. It's there. It's a known quantity. Borup: It looks like everything is developed on all the adjacent properties; is that correct? Or no? Is there something on this lot? Beecham: Yes. I think there is a warehouse there. I'm not sure what that -- the extent of that building is, but from the site -- generally everything is developed to the east. It's not a very intense development, although there are some large buildings. To the west, clearly, it's still the R-1 County. Borup: Okay. Commissioners, are we ready for some ideas so we can move on here? Zaremba: It's a quandary. It's an interesting project. We keep asking for higher densities here and there and certainly in this area. I'm also sensitive to the issue of several years down the road of how the businesses defend themselves against complaints and I think there will be complaints. They have already set a precedent of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 90 of 104 operating 24 hours. a day with some noise and I would say they have a right to that. How would you protect them? I don't know the answer to that. Mathes: I might add to that, too. When they open Locust Grove you're going to have even more truck traffic in there. Borup: You mean in the businesses? Mathes: Yes. Yes. Borup: Well, why would there be more, unless there is new businesses come in? Mathes: Well, they'd come up Locust Grove and go in. Borup: As opposed to going off Pine? Mathes: Yes. Borup: Yes. It's not going to be more trucks unless the business expands. Zaremba: Just a shorter route. Rohm: The one thing that's for sure, though, the developer, obviously, already sees the industrial adjacent and if they want to take the risk of developing residential type dwellings in an industrial environment, Iguess -- Borup: That's their risk to take. Rohm: It's theirs to take. Borup: Well, the other factor -- I guess I think -- is the buffering. I mean the other property to the west. Somewhere you make a transition, so -- so if afull-fledged industrial application came here, what kind of restriction would we put on them because of the property to the west? Zaremba: And the north. Borup: Are they going to need a 50-foot buffer with, you know, sound walls and everything else? Which wouldn't be fair to a property that's already got the zoning. This is a down zoning situation. Zaremba: Well, this isn't too helpful, but I could go either way, but let me explore the choices. Borup: Well, yes, we either move on tonight or table this for a while or whatever. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 91 of 104 Zaremba: If we decided that we didn't want to change the zone, then, that would pretty much be the end. If we decided that this was a project that was okay for that area, then, I would think we would need to continue the Public Hearing. There are still some open issues. Staff needs to take a good look at the new plat and have their opinion. There is still discussion with the Fire Department. Still discussion with Public Works about how deep the water is, so even if we were working towards saying let the buyer beware, let's go ahead with this, I would say, we still need to continue it to get some issues resolved and the new plat. Borup: Mr. Smith, did you have something you think might help? Zaremba: It's still open. Borup: Yes. The Public Hearing is open, but -- Smith: Yes. Thank you. The real issue here is that, you know, buyer beware for the currently developer does not necessarily mean that a future landlord, someone who may buy the property later, is going to comply with any agreement that might be made in some fashion where tenants are informed that they are moving into an industrial area. While the current developer and landlord may agree to do that, if he sells the property, is that going to transfer to the next owner? Probably not. The other problem that we have is that you're going to have -- you know, you're going to have a hundred or two hundred, however many people there potentially who are voters in Meridian who can have a major impact on business operations. Ordinances can change and we may restricted and not allowed to operate if we needed to 24-7. There really is -- Borup: Is that your present -- is that your understanding? You have -- presently you're allowed to operate 24 hours? Smith: As far as I know there is no restriction Borup: There is no restriction at all? Smith: There are no restrictions. I guess my main point here is that there really is no way, as far as I know, to assure businesses in the area that the landlord and the tenants are going to always be informed and be asked to agree in some fashion that they are moving into an industrial area. Therefore, they may have to put up with noise. That's the main issue. I mean the safety issue with children is a concern as well, but the noise is the main issue. Borup: Well, I think the biggest notification is -- as Commissioner stated, is you got to just open your eyes just driving through -- or whoever stated it -- driving to the property tells you you're in an industrial area. Smith: Well, that's true, but until the resident moves in and finds out he can't sleep at 1:00 o'clock in the morning because our block plant is running, that's when we have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 92 of 104 problems and, really, that is our major concern. I really believe that the Commission and City Council needs to protect the existing businesses, so that we have the flexibility that we currently have to operate, as we need to. If that becomes restricted, then, that can be a major cost to our business. I can only speak for our business, but the efficiencies we would lose would be a tremendous impact. Borup: Thank you. Well, I, for one, would say that there wouldn't be any restriction coming from this Commission or from me. Did you have final comment, Scott? Beecham: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, I would like to state that the applicant is not in the business of running off business. You kriow, what they are trying to do is meet the needs, the demand for housing and a diversity of housing in the City of Meridian. This area was recently considered in a Comp Plan amendment that encouraged exactly the type of development we are proposing. Again, while we are -- while we understand the concerns that the neighboring businesses, our guide for development is the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance and we feel -- you know, we have looked at this property, done an analysis on it, and determined that it is an area targeted for this type of growth. I guess, further, that issue has been heard. Whether you should Rezone or not, I think the Comprehensive Plan encouraging that type of development in this area would indicate that it is appropriate to Rezone. Borup: Maybe just one final question. We had touched on it, but I don't know if that got clarified. Did you have question on that hundred square foot private area? I'm assuming that you realize that's in the ordinance and needs to be complied with or, I guess, a Variance requested or-- Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I think I did address it. Hopefully, I addressed it adequately. Borup: Well, yes, you said you didn't have it, from what I understood. Beecham: If I could restate it. We are providing for private deck and patio areas on the lower floor. Borup: Right. Beecham: They come close to meeting that. However, I'm asking you to consider the second part of that code requirement that allows you the flexibility of making a trade off and where this project has -- is offering close to 30 percent open space, 30 percent of gross land area in open space, we feel that's a significant offering and would hope you would consider that. We have not eliminated private open space -- Borup: Putting a park in the middle of the property you're talking about. Beecham: The park in the middle of the property, as well as an oversize buffer around the perimeter and respecting the floodway and flood plain and providing for recreational amenities there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 93 of 104 Borup: Okay. Beecham: It's I think nearly 3.7 acres of open space on the project, on a 12 and a half acre site. Borup: Okay. Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Well, just on that subject, I -- the way I heard it, alternate compliance is acceptable. You can't just waive the requirement, but we can consider alternate compliance. Borup: Yes. That's more accurate. Okay. Mr. Zaremba, you were formulating some thoughts, I think. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: May I follow up on Commissioner Zaremba's -- Borup: Please do. Powell: I'm fading. I don't know about you all. In light of the testimony that's been provided today, both in the form of a new Site Plan and the testimony regarding the industrial uses, I think it would be appropriate to reconsider not just the Site Plan, but also the Comprehensive Plan issues, given the testimony of the neighbors. If you wanted to table -- I think originally we had talked to the applicant about just going out two weeks, thinking that we would only be looking at the Site Plan, but if we are really re-evaluating the Comp Plan as well, I would ask to go out further than two weeks. Zaremba: Do we know at what point or how this got zoned I-L in the first place? Powell: It was not part of the Santee Park Subdivision. Zaremba: So, it got zoned I-L independently? Powell: We can -- would you like us to research that topic? Zaremba: Only if we continue it. I'm pretty sensitive to the neighbors and they have certainly made their point that they are not effective -- compatible with residential. I'm leaning towards thinking that as a buffer this needs to be a very soft I-L and, then, begin residential on the other side of it. I only say I'm leaning that direction. Borup: What's a soft I-L? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 94 of 104 Zaremba: Well, as the city said, what they want around the waste treatment plant is limited light industrial, but I'm thinking of things that wouldn't operate 24 hours a day or make a lot of noise as a transition. I think it would be attractive commercial property when they do put Locust Grove through and possibly commercial across and maybe even at some point Pine is going to go all the way to Eagle that could be valuable commercial property. Borup: Well, which way are we leaning here? Zaremba: I think I'm leaning towards denying the Rezone. I could be swayed. Borup: Well, someone mentioned earlier to continue it. Zaremba: I wouldn't -- I definitely would not be ready to approve it in its current form. It does -- if it's not going to be denied, it needs to be -- needs to be studied. Borup: If I remember, is that correct that if it -- if the Rezone was denied, the only way for this to go forward would be for the applicant to -- Zaremba: Appeal to the City Council. Borup: Appeal to City Council. It's not like going forward with a negative recommendation. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, point of clarification. I believe it's just the Preliminary Plat that would die here. The Rezone and the Conditional Use would go forward with a recommendation for denial. The plat would die and need to be appealed. Borup: Oh, the plat does. Okay. That's what I couldn't remember. That happened on Blooming -- Powell: Blooming Meadows. Yes. Borup: -- Meadows. Zaremba: Well, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Rohm: Second. Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 95 of 104 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending denial of Item 12 on our agenda, RZ 03-008, request for a Rezone of 12.74 acres from I-L to R- 15zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC, 1125 East Pine Street. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Anything discussion? Rohm: When you make a motion to deny, don't you have to site the specific reasons for that denial? Borup: We have been asked to do that. Yes. That is correct. Zaremba: My reasoning would be that I believe that is -- that piece of property and incompatibility with its neighbors, that property is appropriately I-L. Borup: Okay. Rohm: I mean that's -- that adds the clarity needed. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Do we need to act on the other two? They are kind of moot if it's -- if the zoning isn't changed. Borup: Well, I don't know. We have approved whole subdivisions in I-L zones before. Not we. No one here on this -- no one hereon this Commission, but the city has. Wollen: I believe, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that the other two hearings are pretty obviated by your denial of the Rezone, so -- I don't know. Powell: Don't they -- I believe they have to take some action on it Wollen: They have to take some action. Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Well, I'll make a stab at it, then. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending denial of Item 13 on our agenda PP 03-017. Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 45 building lots and 14 other lots on 12.74 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC, 1125 East Pine Street, for the following reasons: One, we did not Rezone it from I-L -- Borup: That's probably enough. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 96 of 104 Rohm: That's sufficient. Zaremba: And, two, we believe residential is not appropriate next to the current neighboring uses. Borup: And a clarification. Do we do a recommendation to City Council or do we just make our own -- make our own findings? Powell: Findings. Borup: Okay. This one would not go to City Council. The motion would be to deny it. Zaremba: I revise my motion to say that we deny it on those grounds and ask the attorney to supply Findings of Fact for denial. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: This would be forwarded to the City Council, I believe. The CUP. Borup: I think so. Zaremba: Okay. In that case I recommend we forward to the City Council recommending denial of Item 14 on our agenda, CUP 03-032, request for a Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development for amulti-family residential subdivision, requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC, 1125 East Pine Street. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-035 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a material arts /self defense establishment for children in a C-N zone for