Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 18, 2003 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 47 of 119 Item 8. Public Hearing: RZ 03-011 Request for a rezone of 9.34 acres from I-L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 03-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 38 building lots and 17 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 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-057 Request for a Cohditional Use Permit for multi-family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Borup: Okay. The next item is 8, 9, and 10. The Mayfair Commons Subdivision. We'd _J tike to open the follow public hearings. RZ 03-011, request for a rezone of 9.34 acres from I-L to R-15 zones and PP 03-031, request for preliminary plat approval of 38 building lots and 17 other lots on the same -- on the same -- it says 12.74 acres. Is that -- and also CUP 03-057, request fora Conditional Use Permit for amulti-family residential subdivision. Start with the staff report on this project.' Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, before I begin with my staff report, I wanted to address, I, just a couple minutes ago, received a fairly detailed memo from the applicant. Borup: Do they want to table it? Kirkpatrick: No. Concerning -- unfortunately not. Concerning several modifications to the staff report. Generally, we like to receive these at least several days before the hearing, so we have time to go through and evaluate and research what the applicant is proposing and I haven't had any time to do that this evening. I think you probably all have a copy of this also. I wanted to point that out before I started my staff report, that I haven't had time to review this. I will go ahead and start with the staff report. This application is for a rezone of 9.34 acres. It's currently zoned I-L and they are proposing to rezone it to R-15. The property is, actually, 12.74 acres in size, so the remainder of the property that's not being rezoned to 9.34 acres of the R-15 will remain I-L. The application consists of a preliminary plat for 38 building lots and 17 other lots. The application also consists of a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to allow reduced setbacks, reduced parking standards, and dimensional requirements. The applicant is proposing 35 multi-family residential building lots and three I-L lots. I will go ahead and show you the preliminary plat. There will be 14 other lots, including ten garage and storage lots and four common lots. The residential buildings will consist of 15 four-plex buildings and these four-plexes will be -- I will go ahead and show you an example of what one of these looks like. These four-plex buildings will both be attached and detached four-plex buildings. In a number of these, there will be a lot line Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 48 of 719 that actually splits the four-plex and some of these the entire four-plex will be on one -- on one lot. I will go through the surrounding properties. Put back up the vicinity map. Pine Street borders the property to the north. Danbury Subdivision is located north of Pine Street and is zoned R-4. To the south the Union Pacific Railroad tracks border the subject property and the property to the south of the railroad tracks is zoned I-L. Santee Business Park is located directly east of the subject property and is zoned I-L. To the west of the subject property there is a single family dwelling, which is still in the county and is zoned R-1. Let's see. There is several considerations I wanted for you to -- I wanted to bring to your attention. Put up the plat. The first of these is North Stonehenge Way, which runs through the subdivision. There are -- North Stonehenge Way is, essentially, a parking lot drive aisle that connects two public streets. The applicant has changed -- has changed this road from the first submittal. Originally, it was sort of a straight shot between the two public roads and they have added a curve in the road, which is a large improvement. There still is the potential we think for a potentially dangerous situation, cars will be backing out of the drive aisle -- or backing out of the parking stalls into the drive aisle, so I just wanted for you all to look at that and give your own judgment to that. The subject property is also located in the flood plain and the flood way. Well, actually, the entire property is located in the flood plain and a portion of the property is located in the Five Mile flood way. Approximately, half of Lot 1, B lock 2, i s l ocated i n t he flood w ay a nd w ill b e u ndevelopable. All d evelopments must comply with all of the flood hazard reduction provisions in Section 10-6-5 of the code. And I also wanted to pointed out for the proposed I-L lots, that Section 10-6-6 of the code restricts storage of hazardous materials in the flood plain and that will be applicable. I also wanted to go ahead and at this point make a correction to the staff report. If you go to page eight and look at comment number one, I wanted to, in the second sentence that reads: The development must comply with all provisions for flood hazard reduction as outlined in 10-6-5, I wanted to add in 10-6-6 of the Meridian City Code. Page 8, general comments, Number 1. Let's see. Another consideration -- special consideration is parking. Two spaces per unit are required per the code. The application is asking for one and a half spaces per unit, because of the number of one bedroom and studio apartments. You all should evaluate that proposal. Another special consideration has to do with open space. The code requires that all residential planned d evelopments p rovide 1 00 s quare feet o f usable open s pace d eviation from this standard must be approved by the Commission. Those are a couple of things I wanted for you to consider while you made your evaluation of this project. Oh. I wanted to go ahead and show you the elevations of this project. Again, here is what is the basic format for the four-plex and here are some elevations of their proposed project, so you have an idea. This is, actually, the large four-plex. This is what the elevation looked like. a have also -- I wanted to point out we have a number of conditions regarding upkeep of the property and installation of amenities, so go ahead and take a look at those also, because this is something that should be evaluated also. Staff recommends approval of the project. This is -- it's an improvement over the first Mayfair submittal that we have seen. I do want to, again, let you know I have reservations over not having had time to look at the applicant's submittal that they gave me this evening. Do you have any questions of staff? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 49 of 119 Zaremba: I had one procedural question, actually. In your report where you get to what we normally call conditions, you say zoning comments and, then, site-specific comments. Should we be calling those conditions or are we having a change of what that means? Comments usually don't have the force of a condition. Kirkpatrick: Are you referring to page five where it says zoning comments? Zaremba: Page 5 where it says zoning comments and, then, again -- well, on Page 6 at the bottom, site-specific comments. Kirkpatrick: Actually, let's go ahead and modify Page 5 Where it says zoning comments, just say site-specific comments. Zaremba: Well, it's the comments that I'm questioning. Should that be conditions? Kirkpatrick: Well -- Zaremba: To me, conditions is a much more forceful word than comments. Borup: Well, the first two are comments. The third one maybe would be a condition but the comment says -- Zaremba: These reports have said they are conditions. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, you can -- I think what Wendy has done is provide a number of comments and the ones that you want to make conditions of approval you could, then, include those as conditions -- additional conditions of approval. She does generally structure her staff reports that way. If in the future you would like them all listed as conditions and, then, you can take them out, that's the other option of doing it that way. Zaremba: I don't find any conditions in this report. Comments. Considerations Borup: I think you're saying on Page 6 that should be -- and Wendy mentioned that site specific conditions. Powell: Yes. Borup: Is that what you're referring to, Commissioner? Zaremba: Yes. To me it's a much more forceful word. Kirkpatrick: So, we will go ahead and make that modification from where it said site- specific comments to site-specific conditions on page six. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 50 of 119 Zaremba: Okay. What I was wondering is whether that was a procedural change that I should just ignore or whether -- Kirkpatrick: Yes.' Actually, let's go through and change those. We have -- the first one is Page 5. We will change that to say zoning conditions. Site-specific zoning conditions. Again, on page six we will change that to state site-specific conditions. Page 8, we will change that to say general conditions, Preliminary Plat. End parenthesis. Zaremba: Page 12 as well? Kirkpatrick: Yes. Also Page 12. That will say -- that will state site-specific conditions, with Conditional Use Permit in parenthesis. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: I think that's cover it. Zaremba: It's semantics, but -- Kirkpatrick: No. It's important. Zaremba: -- I think it's an important word. That's my only comments Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Scott Beecham. I'm representing Wildwood Development. My address is 405 South 8th Street in Boise. Commissioner Zaremba, thank you very much for bringing that up. We had the same question. We did, indeed, review the staff report. Everywhere there was a numbered item, we took that to be a condition. If it was a letter or bullet point, we assumed that was a comment or a narrative. I think we are on the same page and not an issue there. However, I would like to open and just apologize to staff. The handout that we provided to staff, as well as yourselves, was simply to help you follow along with what our testimony was going to be tonight. I think when we get into these issues, as we work through them, we will see that they are really minor issues and I would ask staff if we do hit something that's a major deal, please, let us know and we will work through that, but I do apologize for not having that to you sooner. Largely, those items are issues of clarification, as opposed to significant modifications to the staff report. As staff indicated, this is a resubmittal. The previous application was withdrawn after numerous meetings with staff, as well as the neighbors. We have revised the site plan. We have revised the landscape plan and we have brought forward a development proposal that we think is a better proposal and we are happy with where we ended up and where we expect the Commission will as well, based on our last hearing. We have the three applications before you. Commissioner Borup, you hit o n the difference in acreage. The entire property 12.74 acres. The Conditional Use Permit and rezone is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 51 of 119 only for a portion of that property. It does not include the industrial or commercial lots at the south end of the property. Borup: Wendy clarified that, so I understood that. Beecham: Okay. Good. Again, w e f eel t hat t hese m odifications -- a nd t hey would include enhanced buffering, landscape buffering, and noise mitigation through that, the inclusion of the industrial lots and the reconfiguration of the drive aisle and parking lot is avast improvement and we hope you are in agreement with that. I'd like to go through, first, the general comments that we had and we had two there. The first is neighborhood compatibility. Again, we have met with a number of the neighbors, we understand their concerns, and we understand the interest of business owners in this area. What we have done is enhanced landscaping, increased the buffer beyond the minimum required by the city, also focused densely planted landscape areas where there were openings between the industrial properties to the east of us. We have also, again, minimized the impact by changing to the south with the block plan across the railroad right of way. We have minimized the impact there by creating an additional 300 plus feet of separation between those uses. Obviously, with construction on these lots that will enhance that buffering. The proposal that's in front you I think what -- and we touched on it a little bit in the last hearing. What it effectively does is provides for a nice transitional land use between the more intensive industrial areas along the railroad corridor to the single-family neighborhoods to the north and east of us. At some point, obviously, we need to make a change in zoning. We feel that this proposal, with a higher density residential product, is a great opportunity to make that change, that transition. The second item under general comments is related to traffic. Staff has expressed a number of concerns in their reports on internal, as well as external traffic issues. I will start with the external. There is some commentary on ingress and egress and the impact it would have on Pine Street, as well as on Commercial Avenue. As we all know, there is significant roadway improvements planned for this area. Locust Grove roadway extension between Pine and Franklin is currently getting underway, at least in some form. I 'm n of s ure w hat d ate t hey h ave t argeted for c ompletion. Pine i s also intended to extend out to Eagle Road and we expect to see an extension of that. I'll add that the ACHD report did not have a concern with that, so, in all honesty, with that report and those improvements, we didn't spent a lot of time focusing on that issue, but would be happy to address any questions the Commission or staff has on that. The internal circulation is the other issue that was raised and I think we are in a situation where we have got a large multi-family development that -- that is not unlike many other developments, w hether t hey b e c ommercial o r residential, y ou n eed t o b ack i nto t he drive aisles. That is the access to -- to and through your development. Oftentimes, there is a hierarchy required in major commercial developments. This is less than 10 acres and, obviously, cost, where you're trying to provide an affordable housing product and a diversity in residential development, you want to keep the cost down, providing those connector roads drives the cost up, reduces your density, and doesn't allow you to achieve some of those goals that the Comprehensive Plan cites. I think it's not something that we are doing any different than anybody else. If you look at the multi- family developments, this is how they are typically laid out. With that, I would move Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 52 of 119 onto the requested modifications to the staff report. I just have two issues here and I think they are both fairly minor. Under the landscape issues, Condition Number 12 requires the use of sod, rather that seed. We have not seen this requirement before. It is a significant financial burden on the development and it also has negative engineering drawbacks in terms of drainage facilities. Sod, typically, is grown on a denser soil base, in this area, anyway you get a lot of clay content in that, and you don't get drainage. We are -- I don't think we have ever put sod in the bottom of a drainage facility, but in terms of the other common areas, we have 30 percent of this site in open space and that's a large number and it amounts to close to three acres and that's a lot of sod and a significant financial burden. Borup: Let me ask a question for staff. Wendy, was the staff comment that you want to make sure there was rolled sod orjust that there was grass in those areas? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the condition was related to the development. We struggled with the landscaping with the development by the same developers and we were just trying to clear up some of the issues and problems that we have had in allowing their occupancy permits to go forward as they have been developing portions of the property at a time. It was an effort to be clear on the expectations upfront, because we have struggled with this other -- Borup: And that was my question -- Powell: And related to that, what they have done, they had seeded the common areas, but, then, as each builder finishes a building, they are required to put sod, so right now we have got avery -- it doesn't look good. Borup: You mean because there is seed and sod? Powell: Yes. It goes seed, sod, seed, sod, seed, sod, basically, ahd it's not -- Borup: Well, after three months seed becomes sod by definition. Once the grass grows, it's considered sod. Powell: Well, it hasn't on this other site. Borup: You mean the grass isn't growing? Powell: Correct. Borup: Because it's wintertime you mean? Powell: No. Borup: Well -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing December 18, 2003 Page 53 of 119 Powell: The problem has been going for, I don't know, eight months. Beecham: Chairman Borup, if I could address this issue further. We do acknowledge the situation that the staff is talking about. We were in an unfortunate situation of needing t o s Bed i n a 100-degree p lus w Bather, s o w e d id have s ome p roblems w ith seed coming up. That has been remedied and, furthermore, we do -- you are required to bond for these and it requires maintenance and we have to bring it up to speed before that is released. I think there are mechanisms to do that. Our point in this, in our write up here is we haven't seen this requirement before and I'm not sure is supported by code and so we wanted to raise it. We would adamantly be opposed to doing sod. It would be cost prohibitive. Again, we are talking about adding significant cost to an affordable housing product and these things add up quickly. Borup: Is there an intent to be multiple buildings on this project? Beecham: No, sir. Single builder on this project. Borup: On the whole product. On the other project, were there multiple builders? Beecham: Single builder. Borup: Oh, a single builder there, too? Beecham: Yes. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Was it your intent to use hydro seeding orjust -- Beecham: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is. We have done that in many many projects in the past and occasionally you will run into some weather issues, whether it's rain eroding the soil or hot weather, you have problems getting it germinated, our landscapers warranty their work, they come back out and they remedied the situation. We think that given the requirement of the code, we can live within that and is seeding, if I understand it correctly. We would ask that that be changed. Borup: Okay. Continue on. Beecham: Okay. The second issue -- and I might ask for a little assistance on this. We do have an error on the landscape plan. There is plant material shown here on the flood plain area in the middle of a developable lot. My request is simply that you allow us to work with staff to get an agreeable landscape plan. We'd like to clean up that error. What I have been told is there is a layer turned on that was from the previous proposal, so we'd like to clean that up. We will certainly meet the minimum requirements of the City of Meridian for landscaping. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 54 of 119 Borup: Are you saying the error was just in the flood way? The rest of it would be as drawn or the whole industrial area? Beecham: The entire industrial area. We have asked to be able to modify that. We have had requests from the neighbors to the south to actually do continuous evergreen trees along that border, rather than the deciduous that are shown. Again, we can meet the requirements of the City of Meridian. This plan does not represent what the neighbors would like to see and what we would like to install. Borup: Okay. Beecham: Okay. The next item I have is -- is I think simply a typo and it's in regards to setbacks. We submitted as a part of the Conditional Use Permit an exhibit, it was Exhibit A, that identified the setbacks that we would be requesting. In the staff report, it identifies a side yard setback of 7.55 feet. I think it's simply a typo. The request was for 7.5 and I wanted that to be on the record. The next area that we wanted to talk about was simply clarification issues and there are two issues -- or, excuse me, three issues here. The first being a public works issue in regards latecomer fees. We would request that we be required to pay those fees at the time of building permits. I'm not sure what the c ode c urrently requires, B ruce. I t hink what w e h ave d one i n t he p ast i s pay a t building permit and so the Commission understands, our concern is that with this coridition you're required to make a large payment to the city prior to having a recorded plat. There area number of t hings t hat c ould g o w rong i n b etween a nd i is prior t o putting use into the system. We would make that request if that meets the intent of code. If the code requires it at the time of signature, then, we are happy to live with that requirement. Borup: Would you like to clarify that, Bruce? Freckleton: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Scott, the code regarding the reimbursement agreements is pretty vague as far as how they are to be structured. The structure of those agreements has been something that has evolved over the years. I -- like Wendy, I received this tonight. I can do some research on the particular agreement that affects this property and see how the language reads. That's going to probably be the dictating factor is this language of the agreement. I believe that this agreement is the same one that affected the Woodbridge project. Beecham: The Five Mile project? Freckleton: Yes. I'll have to do some research on that and get back to you, but -- Borup: So, you're saying that's referring to a previous agreement that -- Freckleton: The latecomer's agreement that affects this property is one that's been in place for two or three years. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 55 of 119 Borup: So, some of those have been collected? Freckleton: With the signature on the Final Plat. Borup: Yes. Has that mainly been on industrial and commercial projects, rather than residential? Freckleton: Both. It's been both. Borup: It just depends on the agreement? Freckleton: And I have got to say that from Public Work's perspective, it's definitely our preference is to have it with Final Plat. Borup: Well, less paperwork. Freckleton: A lot less paperwork, a lot less -- a lot less parties involved. The payback comes in quicker. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, Bruce, I -- we understand that and what we would like is if there is flexibility in the code, if we could modify that condition to read as required by code and in agreement with staff and allow us to do that research and come to terms on that prior to Council. Borup: Well, I think what Bruce is saying more than code, it's per the previous agreement. There has already been an agreement in place. Beecham: Yes. If precedence has been set, we are happy to live with that. I mean it's a cash flow for both parties, so we want to, obviously -- Freckleton: Sure. I don't really have a problem with putting something in that says that we will research it and whatever the agreement says is what we are going to live with you, but like you said to Chairman, the code is not going to answer our question here. Borup: Right. That was the point I wanted to make. The code is probably, as Bruce said., ambiguous on that, but whatever the previous agreement was for this area is what would apply. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, I guess I was looking for language that would not leave a condition so open ended, so that you could move forward. Borup: Right. That makes sense. Beecham: And I don't know what that language should be, but that's what I guess is targeted. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 56 of 119 Zaremba: Payment of latecomers fee shall be required in accordance with prior agreement. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, another alternative might be that before this application reaches Council we will have an answer to that question, so we have another opportunity to modify that condition is what I'm saying. Borup: Okay. You had some comments on phasing? Beecham: I do. Yes. Under the phasing section, there were a number of conditions, site-specific c onditions s pecific t o t he P reliminary P lat t hat r elate t o t his. I t hink t his goes back to Anna's concern with some of the occupancy permit issues. I guess we would like to iron that out a little bit and understand where we talk about phasing is that by platting or is that phasing plan, can we submit -- and this is a question to staff, obviously -- can we submit a single Final Plat for the entire property, but prepare a phasing plan within that plat. That when we develop say the first 20 home sites, we are only required to stripe the parking lots within that phase, install the landscaping within that phase, and bond for those improvements accordingly? I think there were some issues around that and it's just a clarification, I think, on the terminology of that phasing plan and when that's appropriate and what that looks like. Borup: And what was the intention on the roadways? Beecham: On the roadways? Borup: That would be phased also or would that -- Beecham: Well, let me -- thank you. That's a good question. Mr. Chairman, the intent would be to build commercial from the east to the west property line the entire section. That would be to make those industrial lots marketable at the onset. The residential portion, which the staff report identifies as the portion being appropriate to the phasing, we start at Pine and work to the south. We want to be careful not to be required to install landscaping on the entire residential portion of the project at the time of the first phase. Borup: I understand that, but there is only going to be one entrance into the project, then, until the phase gets back to Commercial? Beecham: Yes, sir. That's correct. We will provide secondary accesses as required by fire, but, as you know, that can be an all weather surface and temporary in nature. Borup: Okay. Does staff have any questions on the phasing aspect? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the phasing is, generally, just in reference to the plats, but the phasing of the construction of the u nits has b een the challenge in the other project and we were trying to address that. Bruce has some idea Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 57 of 119 about anon-development agreement that -- that might be the more appropriate route to take and I'm not that familiar with them, so -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, we haven't done a nondevelopment agreement for quite some time. I believe the basic framework is that it allows them to record their Final Plat with all their lots, they would request a nondevelopment agreement for that portion that they are not going to develop, they have to post surety for the improvements, they have to come get release of the nondevelopment agreement to do each -- each phase. That might be a mechanism that we can use. Borup: That would -- does that make sense, Scott? That would mean to plat the whole thing at once and -- Beecham: It does. I think that's agreeable and I would also note that staff did say in the report ten days prior to the next hearing we need to determine what this is. I think that allows us to do it, we just wanted to raise the issue on the record to make sure that we were all talking about the same thing and I think we weren't, because we were thinking of it in terms of construction phasing, as opposed to platting phasing. We can work with staff. The condition is written, I think, that allows that, but we just wanted to raise that issue. Borup: It sounds like you want construction phasing. It sounds like the condition would be the bonding. Beecham: Yes. Yes, sir. That's not an issue. We have done that regularly, obviously. Borup: Okay. Beecham: The final item I had under clarification was the construction method and I -- Bruce Italk to you about this on the phone a little bit. I think it's a nonissue on this site, but what the Condition Number 21 reads is that if you have a crawl space, you need to - - well, it assumes a crawl space construction and requires that you elevate the centerline of the road three feet above the highest established groundwater. We are in a flood plain s ituation h ere, w here w e h ave g of f o r aise t hat finish floor e levation u p anyway. I think it makes it a nonissue on this project, but we are proposing -- the developer is proposing slab on grade construction, we will not have a wet crawl space issue on -- I think the depth to groundwater that we have seen on this, it's a nonissue. We are going to build that grade at existing grade, we will build the road at four feet plus, based on the logs that we have received. I think it's a nonissue, but I wanted to raise the issue that where we are doing slab on grade, this condition would not really apply. Alternatively, address the issue appropriately, I should say. The final item I have is under special considerations and Wendy addressed this in her staff report. There is a condition within the planned unit development -- or a caveat within the planned unit development ordinance that requires 100 square feet of private usable open space. On this p roject, a s l m entioned e artier, w e h ave g of 3 0 p ercent o f t he s ite d edicated a s common open space and that's, again, nearly three acres of land. It's inclusive of a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 58 of 119 landscape perimeter buffer, it also has a large park area in the center of the site, with extensive landscape islands throughout. In addition to that, if you take the building lots, remove the building footprint, you have between -- I think it was 25 and 35 hundred square feet of yard area on each of these lots that hasn't been counted in that open space calculation. I think as a whole, we have got a lot of open space and we meet the intent of that ordinance to have open space, as I understand the ordinance. I would add that I think this condition is typically imposed on single family developments that go through the PUD process and you're requesting a reduced lot size, we want to make sure that you still have some yard area, where this project is proposing a park and significant other open space. We feel we meet the intent and would request that the Commission recommend approval of the site plan as submitted. With that, I will stand for any questions. Powell: Chairman Borup, could I ask the applicant for a couple of clarifications? The applicant stated that he intends to build at grade, but raise the finish floor elevation, so are you considering doing a grade on this property and taking it out of the flood plain; is that what you meant? Beecham: Mr. Chairman, Anna, I don't know what mechanism the applicant would choose to go through, but we will need to do one of two things, as I understand it. One is the lowmar process, which would address the entire site. The other is the elevation certificate process, which you do on a lot-by-lot basis at the time of building permit. Where we want to minimize the fill in this flood plain area and thereby maintain that flood storage capacity, we would really be asking through a lowmar just to pull the pads out. We are just pulling the footprints out of the flood plain and so that may present some issues and that's why we are undecided at this point. If that makes sense to staff. I hope I said that right. Powell: Yes. Just so you're aware, it would have to be engineered fill and you may still need to go through the lowmar process to raise those pad sites, but you seem to be aware of that. I wanted to make sure you were aware of that. Beecham: We do. We have our engineer here tonight and this is something that we'll work out. We are aware of that we understand the issue. We do want to minimize the fill on this site for a number of reasons. Powell: Okay. Chairman Borup, forgive me, the last clarification or the last request I wanted to make of the applicant is I think we need at some point to know exactly what you want to do with phasing, because if you are phasing the construction of the services on the final plat, then, that would definitely be a nondevelopment agreement. If you're talking about phasing just the striping and the landscape and that kind of thing, then, that's a different issue. You just need to let us know exactly what you want to phase. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, Anna, we will -- per the staff report, we'd like to have that resolved and have a plan to you ten days prior to the next hearing on -- the applicant needs to determine what the best strategy is for him. The endresultiswewantto Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 1B, 2003 Page 59 of 119 minimize those conflicts and issues that we have experienced in the past where there was some uncertainties of how it should be approached. We will coordinate that with staff per the report. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Powell: A nd I d id w ant t o s ay t hat t he p roblem w ith n eeding t he s pecificity w as we discovered that apartment complexes are a little bit unique in that they are like -- they are similar to a commercial project in that you have this common landscaping, common areas, and things like that. They are similar to single family home construction in that you're doing the building at a time and we really didn't have a good mechanism in place to account for both, because the lots were being built under different ownerships -- they might have been the same builder. I don't know, it didn't -- but they were taking out different building permits for each one, so we were struggling with it just because it's an apartment complex, so -- Borup: I did have a question back to the comment on the groundwater separation. Even with the slab on grade there still needs to be minimum separation; is that correct? Beecham: Commissioner Borup, I'm not sure of the technicalities of the building. The builder is here and maybe he can address that, but the issue in the policy is about keeping crawl spaces dry. Borup: Right. That solves that problem and it -- yes, it solves a lot of problems on the moisture aspect. Beecham: Yes. Borup: But you still need a separation from the bottom of that slab to the groundwater Beecham: And I think we have that in that -- Borup: Yes. That's where -- the other question I had was clarification on the -- was your intention to seed -- either hydro seed or drill seed the whole project orjust the large common area and sod around the buildings to -- I don't know if that was clarified. Beecham: I'm not sure I know the answer to that question. Clearly, the common areas we want to seed. The developer is here and he may address the sod on the properties versus seed. I'm not sure what the answer is there. I think staff may have indicated that there is a requirement to sod around the buildings and if that's the case, then, that's what we will be required to do, but -- Borup: Okay Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meefing December 18, 2003 Page 6D of 119 Beecham: -- that's a little more challenging, Chairman Borup, because, obviously, they are happening one at a time in their staging of construction and the cost efficiencies may be different to seed an individual lot, than to a large extent the open space. Borup: And that's why I was asking for some clarification. You know, if we can get some clarification on that. Beecham: Okay. Borup: Did you have someone else to -- Zaremba: I have a question of staff while he's still there, actually. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: On the issue of the 100 square feet, this has come up before and I don't remember whether it was on the first version of this project or some other project, but my recollection is -- Kirkpatrick: I believe it did come up on the first version of this project and I just wanted to clarify that this -- this does apply to multi-family housing, this provision of the code. It does not apply to single-family housing. Zaremba: That's what I thought. The requirement is that each unit has either a ground floor patio or a balcony that is 100 square feet. Kirkpatrick: Correct. Zaremba: So, that isn't really called open space, it's part of a unit Kirkpatrick: I think that that's what it's called in the code and I think that I quoted the section in the staff report. Zaremba: But that's not a requirement we can waive; right. Kirkpatrick: It is up to the discretion of the Commission. If you do wish to waive it, you need to make that a part of your motion. Zaremba: Okay. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, while it may apply to multi-family, we were not able to find a single example in Meridian or in Boise, for that matter, that had multi-family buildings with one hundred square foot balconies on it. Anna may have misstated that, but I think any one of us would be hard pressed to go out and find an example and in talking with staff, I don't think they have made that requirement on a multi-family project before. If they have, I haven't seen it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 61 of 119 Powell: Maverick Subdivision or Sage Crest, it had a different name as it went through also, but we did make that a requirement and they didn't contest it and got approved by Council Tuesday so, we have made that requirement. Borup: To do 100 square foot balconies? Powell: T hey s aid t hat t hey would p rovide o ne h undred s quare f eet o f usable o pen space per unit. We will be looking for that on the drawings, if they come through. That was a requirement of Maverick. Borup: Yes. That may be interesting to -- I mean it's easy on the ground floor. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask, what type of residential product was that? Was it a four-plex type or -- Powell: It was afour-plex. Beecham: With upstairs downstairs units or were they vertical -- Powell: It was -- it was -- they were Tamura layouts, basically. They were two up, two down. Beecham: I will be interested to see that project as well. I guess to back up and say that I think the code does read that the commission has the authority to waive that requirement. We would request that you waive that, in light of the 30 percent of open space that we are providing and in light of the additional on lot open space that's there. We do, in fact, have ground floor patios that will meet that requirement and I believe we are in the 15 to 75 square feet on the upstairs balconies. We do have balconies. It's not that we are not providing that space, it just does not meet that hundred square foot requirement. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'll go ahead and read you the section of the code addressing this. This is under the planned development section of the ordinance and it reads all residential planned developments shall provide each dwelling unit with at least one hundred square feet of usable private open space, such as a patio or deck. The Commission and Council shall judge each project on this own qualities and may recommend deviation from this open space requirement, when to satisfy that the private and common open space proposed meets the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Zaremba: Are there any amenities in the big common area open space, like abuilt-in barbecue pit or anything like that? Beecham: Yes, sir. We have identified the -- within the park area, active and passive recreational opportunities, including a barbecue, picnic table, type amenities. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 62 of 719 Zaremba: I'm just thinking what I would do if I had a balcony and had a little Beecham: Absolutely. Yes. Zaremba: -- if there was an alternative, then, I might be satisfied. Beecham: And in discussions with the builder, we not only have the alternative of using the large park area for that type of activity, but also the open space. Again, that 2,500 to 3,500 square feet, if you wanted to wheel your barbecue out, have a picnic table, that space is available to all of the tenants within that individual building. There are opportunities for that and clearly, that's a needed amenity. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Are there proposed dimensions for the decks? Beecham: There are. The building plans were submitted with the application. I, unfortunately, do not know the dimensions on those on decks offhand. I could -- Borup: I was just curious what the depths were. Beecham: I could quickly look. I believe they exceed six feet. Borup: Okay. Beecham: In the narrowest dimension. Wendy, do you have that handy? Borup: Well -- and that's what I was wondering. You need to get about six feet to be usable, probably. Other than that about all you do is put a chair out there. That answers my question. That's fine. Did you have anything else? Beecham: Well, I would just add that the building product that we will go on these lots is, actually, a little bit unique. They are actually full stucco, same as Cooper Canyon. I don't know if any of you have had the opportunity to see that, but it's really an upgraded building in terms of finish materials. That stucco may not be apparent to most people or something to consider. Y ou can melt vinyl siding pretty easily when you're trying to barbecue on a deck, you don't often see that. With the stucco, you do have the ability to do that and the dimensions are, again, gracious enough to allow for that type of activity. At least that's what we have experienced in those units. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did you have someone else from your group that had some additional information? Beecham: We have a few other people in the group that will address issues potentially brought up by the neighbors, as well as any outstanding building issues that -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 63 of 119 Borup: Okay. Beecham: Thank you. Borup: Come forward. Beecham: I should say though -- Borup: If anything comes up, you're saying they will address it. Great. I'd rather see it that way. Do we -have anyone here to testify on this application? Yes. Now is the time. Whitlake: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Judy Whitlake and my address is 1433 East Commercial Avenue in Meridian. In 1998 D&J moved to our present location from Garden City. In Garden City we were bordered with commercial on two sides of us and residential and mobile homes on the other two sides. The residential owners called us, called the police, and called the Garden City Council complaining about the noise. We were in court over this two or three times. We chose our present site, because it backs up against the railroad tracks and it was surrounded by commercially zoned property. We did not want to go through the irate neighbor calls ever again. Since we have moved we have increased the number of trucks, we own from six to 12. Also, several other transport trucks use our facility to drop off and pick up cars. Our business operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Please don't put us back in the position to have irate neighbors. Are there any questions? Rohm: What's your business? Whitlake: D&J Auto Transport. We haul cars Rohm: What's the noise that was -- Whitlake: Loading. Unloading. We are coming and going all the time. It's kind of like a roller coaster. When we drive cars up on the truck they bang, they clang, and, then, we have to tie them down with chains, they are noisy when they hit against the ramp. Borup: And you're saying you're doing that in the evening, in the middle of the night? Whitlake: Yes. Borup: Can you -- do you know what your zoning was at your previous -- Whitlake: I do not. We were originally approved by the Garden City Council, but the neighbors sure didn't like it. Borup: But the neighbors were there before your business went in. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng December 78, 2003 Page 64 of 119 Whitlake: Right. Borup: Okay. See, that's kind of a different situation. It's the other way around here. Whitlake: Yes but I sure don't want to get any phone calls. Rohm: I don't blame you. Whitlake: It has been improved, you know, with the commercial directly west of us, but diagonally across, I gather there are still going to be apartments. Borup: So, you're south of Commercial Street? Whitlake: Yes. Up against the railroad tracks. Rohm: Well, the railroad tracks, in and of themselves, offer some sort of a buffer between your property and this planned development, so that should help -- Borup: No. The tracks are to the south. Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. Oh. Okay. You're on the same side as they are. Whitlake: Yes, we are. Rohm: Okay. I was thinking you were saying you were over here. Whitlake: No. I think that's Basolite or Basolite. Borup: Their property is directly to the east of -- the industrial property on this project borders theirs. Rohm: Not specific to this development, but I think that multi-family developments are -- it's hard to find suitable property that is developable. I think that, generally speaking, these units all face to the inside and they are going to have a certain amount of internal noise within the development itself, which, you know, it's kind of like you already have noise and the adjacent noise isn't going to make it any worse and -- Whitlake: Does that mean all their bedrooms are going to be facing us? Rohm: I understand your concern. It's not that I don't understand your concerns, it's just, -- it is extremely difficult to fine developable apartment property. Whitlake: I agree. Yes. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 65 of 119 Whitlake: Thank you. Taylor: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Larry Taylor, 749 North Ralston Street. I'm here representing the Santee Complex, myself as one of the owners of two of the 23 units. You did receive letters for the last meeting from many of the owners there. I would hope that those got moved over for this meeting as well. In regards to, you know, your noise over there, we are approximately 600 feet away and during the evening hours, the evenings that I'm there, I can hear the trucks, you know, going, the clank of the ramps a nd everything else and we are that far away. Anyway, we are another 24-7 operating area. We have 23 owners there. The area is directly behind and adjacent to the proposed area. That is a common area that is specifically for the loading, unloading of property, and equipment there. The current people, which are Advanced Heat, they have been using it themselves. They haven't had in the past too much, but it's still for their use and the use of everybody else in there. If we have any of the lifts or anything else, they have those backup beepers on them and that will be a major concern just on the noise issue. The remaining issues for us are the fact that it is industrial property. It's been zoned industrial, a residential right there is not conducive or a really good mix with what we have already got established. I'm just here in opposition for it and the value of my properties, as well as the other owners there and keeping everything conducive. Any questions? Borup: Questions of Mr. Taylor? I have got one. What would you propose as an appropriate transition from industrial to residential, then? Taylor: Well, you have already got the industrial and it's even industrial further back. Borup: But at some point it has to transition to something else. Taylor: Correct. Borup: And what would be an appropriate buffer or appropriate transition? Taylor: I would hope that you guys would have a great determination for that. Would I believe that high density residential? I don't believe that, but if it is -- Borup: Well, that's what I'm asking you. What would you think would be more appropriate? Taylor: Me personally at this point would be going into a general commercial type of a atmosphere to where you do have maybe not 24-7 operations, you have something that is a more limited to where maybe you have the daylight hours of maybe an 8:00 to 8:00 or something like that. Even with all the properties that are there, they are pretty much all 24-7's and there will be issues. I mean there are issues already we have had with just the one neighbor after we came in and he just finally quit calling. That's just on -- with having just one person within 200 feet and now we are going to have -- I don't know how many units within 20 feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 66 of 119 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Question for staff. I don't know if you can answer this. What would be the approach on any of the tenant's phone calls or complaints about noise? How would the city handle that? Do we have any idea? I mean I know what my answer would be to them, but -- Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, we'd probably hear about it, if not first, probably second. I don't believe that we have a noise standard, except for parties and things and concerts and stuff like that. I don't know. I'm not too familiar with the noise ordinance standards that the Police Department may have. Borup: Well, my point is -- I think there is a big difference between a residential coming into -- next door to existing businesses and an existing industrial area and vice-versa, where that type of business would come in next to an existing residential. Is there any mechanism -- any method that we can -- we have talked about this a lot before, about putting them on notice that -- you know, that they are aware. I know it's always been complicated, though. Powell: Would y ou I ike m e t o l ook u p t he n oise ordinance? I can d o i t w Nile o they people are testifying. Borup: Well, that would be f ine, b ut the noise ordihance is going to be in p lace no matter what and I guess if it is going to adversely affect these businesses, then, I would have some concern. If it's such that it wouldn't -- you know, that there would be no legitimate reason for it to affect their business, then, I'm not sure if it would make any difference in my mind. Powell: I think the easements that -- the easements that you discussed in regard to the Stapleton project, you know, I think those perhaps protect the other businesses from lawsuits, but I don't know that it protects them from getting the phone calls. Borup: Right. Powell: And I think that that's what they really don't want is the phone calls. I mean if somebody gets awakened at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, they are probably going to call anyway. Borup: Okay. Thoughts on that, Commissioners? I mean to me. that's -- to me that's the issue, at least as far as these last couple of testimonies. Yes, sir. Buckley: Kelly Buckley. 1380 East Commercial. We -- we are not 24-7, but we deal with trucking across the country and whenever they -- as far as shipments come in, if they come in at 2:00 in the morning, they are there, they idle, they are waiting for us to come there the next morning to take care of them. I have about six issues that I would like to bring up here. Right now it seems like the traffic on Locust Grove heading to Pine Street heading south, every time I'm on that street it's a horrendous wait and horns Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 67 of 119 honking and the business that's just west -- orjust east of Locust Grove and Pine. They have blocked off their driveway that their employees can't even use, because people ended up cutting through the driveway, because the traffic's horrendous. You have to schools that feed in -- that feed off of Pine here, the -- down a little bit. Plus, a main thoroughfare of Pine'for the high school, which is down an additional couple of roads. I'm there anytime from ti:30 until 9:00 in the morning, traffic is always horrendous and from, you know, 2:30 in the afternoon until 6:30 it's horrendous. It seems to narrow down right at this property. I suspect that something would have to be done on the widening of that when he had -- when Scott said that Pine wasn't a concern to ACHD right now, I'm quite concerned when Locust Grove goes all the way through and Pine is busy, where does all that traffic go to? The zip through the eight-plex or whatever that four-plex unit there, they go down to commercial and they head over to try to catch the road there on Locust Grove when it goes through. That a horrendous amount of traffic there. Borup: Did you go to the ACHD hearing? Buckley: What? Borup: Was there a Public Hearing at ACHD? Buckley: Not that we ever got anything on it. Borup: Okay. I don't think we -- all right. Go ahead. Buckley: And so, then, a concern is that if all the traffic is there, do we end up, while we are making this transition from residential to commercial, do we end up with speed bumps like they have in a lot of the residential areas? That's not very conducive for -- Borup: You're talking about a speed bump on Pine? Buckley: On Commercial. If .all that traffic -- and I'm -- we are talking about some scenarios here. When Locust Grave goes through, which it will, I think that a lot of that traffic, is going to head down the south of this proposed development and, then, hit Commercial and hit right over to Locust Grove. Borup: Why are you assuming that? Buckley: Because Pine doesn't seem to have a -- it's kind of a small street, I guess. Pine doesn't have any anticipated expansion to it and so you're going to be crowded. They are going to figure that -- it's like everybody else, trying to find a quicker, easier way, like there on that Maaco Tools place where they actually had to end off their own private entrances to their building, because they were getting too many people cutting through on Pine. There is an issue with traffic on Pine right now. He had talked about the neighbors would like to see evergreens on the property, instead of trees. I haven't talked to every residential -- every neighbor around there, but I have talked to a number Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 68 of 119 of them and I haven't talked to any that wants to even see it go in, let alone -- I mean are we cutting our losses already and saying, well, it's got to go in. I mean he's acting like the neighbors are anxious to have it there and I haven't talked to any neighbors that are. Borup: He's only got one neighbor to the south, so -- Buckley: That's correct. Borup: Okay. I believe that's who he talked to. Buckley: Okay. When I talked to him -- if he's talking about the -- Borup: Basolite? Buckley: Yes. I f h e's t alking a bout t hem i n m y conversation w ith h im, t hey a re n of eager beaver to have it go in. Borup: Well, I don't think he said they were. He just said they wanted to see evergreens. Rohm: I think the evergreen is just a denser tree. Buckley: Right. I accept and understand that. I can appreciate what they wanted. It's -- okay. He had also mentioned about reducing the fill to allow the flood plain to have as much volume as possible. I might note that we weren't -- not only able to reduce our fill, but we had to raise our fill up two and a half feet on our property at an extensive cost to us when we came in front of your guys about two and a half years ago when we built. There was no leniency given to us whatsoever. Borup: Were you in the flood plain? Buckley: We are in the flood plain by about 12 feet is all. Borup: Which property is yours? Are you on Commercial you said? Buckley: Yes. Right there. Borup: I don't believe that's on the flood plain from the maps I have seen. Buckley: Right there there is just a little bit of a flood plain that -- Borup: Flood plain or flood way? Buckley: Whatever. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 69 of 119 Borup: Well, there is a difference. Buckley: Well, all I know is that it was to the tune of about 50,000 dollars of fill in. Borup: Okay. Well -- and not to belabor this, but I think that the purpose for not bringing that up is something that is beneficial, so the -- so the flood way will act as it's intended to do. When you start filling that and, then, it causes problems upstream and starts flooding out other areas, so -- Buckley: We are 50,000 dollars poorer to belabor it, though. Borup: Well, but that's -- Buckley: I mean we would have loved to have allowed it to have gone through, because we all recognize what the odds are. Borup: Okay. Buckley: What separates their complex from ours? Is there a fence? Is there a brick wall? Is there -- they refer to it as kind for affordable housing and, you know, when I first got married, I lived in affordable housing, then. It was appropriate I think to call it low income housing. It was -- I suspect I'm going to have kids getting married some day and they are going to live in that same low income housing, affordable housing. That's kind of the nature of progressing. I'm a little concerned with affordable housing of the age group that moves in there, has a tendency to be a little more reckless. We have delivery trucks that are coming all the time. Once, again, they are pulling in, they are pulling out, the tenants that also deal with our building, they have delivery trucks coming in and out all the time. I realize we don't own the roads, but there is -- it's commercial. It was zoned commercial. We bought it because it was commercial. We bought it with the intent that next to us was commercial and that it was all going to go commercial. We talked earlier about --along time about the Farmers and Merchants Bank, about a sign, about keeping the integrity of downtown and keep the feel and look of how it was there. I realize it's a total different thing, but, you know, this is zoned one way and the look and feel of this isn't right going to residential. It was zoned for commercial and, you know, that was what the intent was. I think that drew us to it that drew many other people there to it, is that we were going to be kind of in the middle of a commercial park. I think that's about -- about all of it. One other thing is that, you know, along with phone calls, p eople a re o my g oing t o -- a nd t his i s m gybe a negative a ssumption, b ut, y ou know, people are only going to call so long and you get that young reckless age of the affordable housing and, you know, what's the next step when nothing's done to them. You know, if there vandalism? Is it driving on the yard. You know, we have -- once, again, it's speculation stuff, but -- Borup: The next step is probably they'd move. Buckley: Well, we hope so. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. December 18, 2003 Page 70 of 119 Borup: But, I mean, that's the solution if someone's not happy where they are at, they can leave. I would hope that's what the city would tell them if they get any complaints. If you don't like it there, leave. Buckley: Good in theory. Borup: Pardon? Buckley: I said that's good in theory. Thank you Borup: Thank y ou. Did y ou h ave a q uestion,Commissioner? Do w e h ave a nyone else? Uriona: I'm John Uriona and Idon't -- I'm not commercial and I'm one of the neighbors that I didn't get talked to. I'm right across the street right here. Rohm: Use this microphone, please. Uriona: I was just going to point to where -- Rohm: Oh. Okay. Uriona: I'm right there. My irrigation water comes -- Borup: You need to be on the microphone now, sir. There is a pointer there -- Uriona: My irrigation ditch comes across the street there under that big black line there on the west side and I was wondering what they were going to have there. Borup: Okay. Uriona: One question. The other question is do you see where I'm at, when I come down Pine Street now, with the traffic we have now, when I slowdown, to go into my little driveway, people honk at me, flip me off, and everything else, because I'm holding them up. The school buses it's just ridiculous going up and down there already. They back it up clear passed our house when they stopped there at Stonehenge and I would like to know how bad it will be with all them houses -- there is at least two cars per house, probably, and that's all I have got to say. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anything else? Yes. Uriona: My name is Shannon Uriona and I live at 942 East Pine. I'm his wife. I'm very concerned about the impact so many more families moving in this already crowded area. There is several apartment buildings in the area going up, like down Locust Grove, and these people are not tax payers and we are and I feel like that we need our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 19, 2D03 Page 71 of 119 voice heard, because those people don't vote, most of them don't, and they don't pay taxes far our city. They sometimes do vandalize. Borup: Indirectly they do pay taxes, because all those buildings are taxed. Uriona: But not property taxes. Borup: Yes. All those buildings have property tax on them. Uriona: But the people who own the buildings pay the taxes. Borup: Where do you think they get the money from? Uriona: Well -- Borup: They better get it from the tenants or they are going to go broke Uriona: Well, I know but it's the exact -- the tenant does not pay it out of their pocket, they pay it through rent. Correct? Rohm: Right. The still pay it. Borup: They still pay it. It's like saying you don't have taxes to pay when you -- when a business pays taxes, that none of their -- you understand. Uriona: But they can move away in one month and they don't pay property tax like we do and we have been there four and a half years. The commercial property across the street, that's the reason we chose to buy that piece of property, because it was commercial. We weren't going to be pushed in by a whole lot of housing and I don't mind these commercial people. We get along very well with them and I feel like they are being crowded out if you put those houses in there, when they bought purposely to have a business in there and it was all commercial around them and people who move in, they do complain, they begin to fear for their children, and so they make trouble. They don't realize when they move in there that all of these things are around there and that train sits out there and idles and you can feel it clear over into our property. I know it's there. I know why it's there. It doesn't last a whole long time and some people don't understand that and they get very annoyed and, then, they start griping and I really think that we should take a long, realistic look before we make a change of this magnitude. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Beecham, any final comments you may have --that's why I asked three times if there was anybody else. Collister: I apologize. The reason I didn't sign -- I'm going to be the builder -- Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 72 of 119 Collister: And I wanted to wait to see if there were any other -- Borup: Oh. Okay. I apologize. Collister: -- issues to address, so I didn't waste your time. My name is David Collister, I'm at 2378 West Wind in Eagle. I participated -- well, I built out the last subdivision that this d eveloper d eveloped, a nd I'm i ntending t o b uild o ut t his s ubdivision i n t he s ame manner. I want to just briefly discuss a couple things that you may not know. We became aware of some of these concerns at the meeting in November -- or I guess in the meeting in October. Is that more correct? Then, it was known to us who had these concerns and so I and the developer went around and met with many of these people and we did deal with a significant amount of these concerns. The gentleman at Basolite had a concern about him impacting this, because he does have a factory that works -- or potentially can work at night. He's been in there before on the noise ordinance that Meridian City has passed and so he's concerned that that might impact him. What we did, we redesigned this and took off a whole slough of four-plexes in the back, three acres we took off of residential housing and put them back in their existing zoning. Then, he asked us if we couldn't maybe put a berm and pine trees along that perimeter and he is -- and the developer agreed to do that. As a result, you notice he's not here and he hasn't sent a letter in opposition. In addition to that, we tried to do that to mitigate -- I forget the person who presented -- the lady who presented -- that had the -- Borup: Mrs. Whitlake Collister: Mrs. Whitlake. She -- we talked to her husband and he had some of these same concerns and so we thought this also would help address his, so instead of having residential next to his, we had a commercial lot. Then, we met with Larry Taylor also, who is, I think, the second or -- presenter. He is involved with this complex that you saw next to us and I have gone and spoken with many of those folks who work at the complex and after I received these letters I went and spoke with some of those folks that sent these letters. Many of them simply don't have -- have not been made aware of the changes we have made in this complex or the negotiations and concerns that we have dealt with this Larry Taylor. I'll tell you what, those basically were. When we met with him, he shared these same concerns, they are absolutely legitimate, and we are sensitive to them. To deal with that, the first thing we did is we asked the landscape architect to completely come back and redesign to do what he could do to use landscaping as a sound barrier and so he put the trash enclosures in the areas where the b uildings opened u p. There might b e s ound channels, as best he could, b uried them with earth, so we had to make earthern berms, and, then, concentrate the landscaping as best possible on th se berms. In addition to that, we thought that was a -- as far as landscaping goes, that' pretty much the extent that we could do, we did. In addition to that, we made a com fitment to him that we would use sound reduction windows on the -- on those units th t face east or the east -- I'm sorry, the east side of those units. We made a commit ent to him -- and these folks didn't know of that commitment, but I also made that ame commitment to this gentleman over here, who Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetin December 18, 2003 Page 73 of 719 is the cars, and our window guy went out and priced those and it's not that much more money to use the laminated windows that reduce sound. In addition to that, we told them that we would run a sheeting layer, an insulation sheeting layer on the exterior of the buildings before we stuccoed to reduce -- mitigate that again. Significant changes have happened in this proposal to make sure that we are listeriing to and addressing those concerns. Will it eliminate everything? No. It goes a long ways towards mitigating legitimate complaints. Now, let me just address real quickly. The complex that Larry was describing is, actually, a complete wholly enclosed complex, it doesn't have construction yards or exterior activity. It has a parking lot, man doors with garage doors, and that's the -- I guess what you call flex-tex type of elements. The letters you received are things that people like, optimism management, who uses their -- and they also have a place in their same place called handyman manners. I talked to Nina there, she indicated her concerns were that she sometimes uses saws inside the building and that might -- you might hear them. Those -- she's hundreds of feet away from where our first building would be through this mitigation. There is an additional building in between -- a building that goes almost from side to side between us and her back -- along the different channel. The same is true for most of those in there. Those industrial uses -- many of those industrial uses would be considered commercial uses and they are not exterior and they are not -- they are, actually, not very noisy. I spent a lot of time over there. I certainly wouldn't want to be selling a product that was unsalable and those kinds of issues make sense. I great point was brought up there. These kinds of projects don't get where they want to go. We don't get in the middle of a nice residential area, we get net to freeways. We get text to railroads. These are the kind of places that are available for high-density housing. They are considered buffer housing and this is an area where it's really a very difficult area, because you have industrial property all the way around of medium density residential property. Those neighborhoods that are sitting right there have on at least two sides industrial zoned property and so it's begging for solution and the Comprehensive Plan, when it looked for a solution, it contemplated some sort of a buffer and this project fits within the definitions of that contemplation. It doesn't fit the current zoning, but it fits the comprehensive -- one of the elements in the comprehensive plan is that it does provide a buffer. It's not the best of all worlds, but it may be one of the best solutions to remove this industrial from the other side, which is residential. That's just another option for it. Now, just because I'm very familiar with a situation I heard over here about sod and seeding and I did build out and participate in the elements over on the last complex. I had a real concern when it was brought up that we want sod because of the problems we have had at the other complex. Just I just to share you some idea of what happened at the other complex, but I don't think there is any problems over there. What happened there was there was a bond made so that building could occur in advance of the completion of the subdivision and so the first four-plex I own, it's a model and I kept it and retained it myself. We got our occupancy permit the end of July. At that time, no sod or seeding had occurred yet, but we had bonded for it, it was completely within compliance. By the time they were able to get to the point where they -- so I put in my own sad at my place. By the time they got to where they could see, it was in August and it was very hot, but it was late in August, and they d id a g rest j ob o n s eeding i t. A s s eeding o ccurs, you have y our f first phase of growth and you get weeds come up about as fast or faster than seed do originally and, Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 74 of 119 then, you have to wait until your -- your over watering has to subside enough that you can do your first mowing. That has to occur and, then, you can do your weed and seed after that point, which all those things occur, but we are getting occupancy permits, because of bonded, away from them, and, then, winter occurs and the kinds of things we ran into is we have some areas of grass that haven't fully matured. that's natural, and it would be taken care of, it's a maintenance item. We had. a few golfers -- a few golfers that came up and we dealt with those, they were a concern at the time. We had a couple of areas when you water seed you do sometimes in the berm area -- or the swale areas where we were catching basin water, sometimes that water travels too quickly and it moves that seed. We had to reseed those areas and we have one area that we are simply going to have to make a rock feature, because it grew so deeply and it seems to -- it ends to do that. We are going to have to -- we have to deal with those. Those are the kinds of things you deal with when you put in vegetation. Given enough time, these things will mature properly and they will all match up, but if you judge it too early, then, it seems inadequate. Right now, we have finished it, we have got a final plat, and the developers put up a bond for just the landscaping to insure that when spring comes that things get finalized out. I don't see a problem with any of those things. I think those are fine. The only conflict that I saw, frankly, is -- and I did witness this. When the city came out to inspect it, they put out a punch list, when the contracting entities dealt with the punch list, come out for another prospective and a new different punch list would be generated. Well, that's just. a frustrating activity, because they assumed that the punch list was a comprehensive punch list and that creates some conflict, because they just want to communicate that when -- what means getting done is getting done. That's the only thing I say oh the relationship to landscaping and the difference between sod and seed. Now, in my opinion we use sod sometimes on the -- on the lots themselves, because buyers want a -- if they want a completed lot and they want to buy it right, then. We want to get it in the loan, they want to get all their landscaping in the loan, if we do it, and that's what we did in the last complex. I think it worked successfully. On the other hand, if you have to sod these other entire acres, which I think the development is being very generous in their open space, which I want, and I think will sell this project. You make them solve that, that just means every lot goes that much up in price and I don't think there is any -- given a year, a year out, give it time to mature, there is no added value. Borup: So, what's the intention on this project around the building lots? Collister: Sod. Just like last project. Borup: So, all the building lots -- so the only area you're talking about seeding is the large open area in the middle? Collister: No. You're talking about three acres of open space. You have -- Borup: Okay. All the other area around the perimeter and all this you're saying? Collister: Right. Yes. So -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 75 of 119 Borup: But each individual building lot is intended to be sodded? Collister: Absolutely. Borup: Okay. Collister: So, all they are asking is -- Borup: Yes. That's what I was asking earlier for clarification on that. Collister: So, all they are asking is, you know, on -- and that's -- because they provided so much and were so generous in the open space, you know, if we go and, then, say, gee, thanks for the open space, now we are going to make you have that open space cost you a lot more money -- Borup: Yes. I think we understand -- Collister: Okay. Borup: -- the process there. Collister: But those are the only comments I have. If there are any questions that I could provide. Borup: I have got one and that -- are you either working with -- with renting the apartments or maybe there is some of those that are? Have you -- are you dealing directly with that or is that selling to someone else and they are doing to the leasing? Collister: Well, both. Borup: Okay. Have you got a solution to handle tenant complaints, if there are any of noise or 24-hour operation from adjoining businesses? What would be your solution to handle the tenants? Collister: Let me clarify a couple things. One is -- excuse me. In the City of Meridian, according to the noise ordinance, even people in industrial areas are not allowed to make noise a fter 1 1:00 o r b efore 6:00. That's t he C ity o f M eridian's p olicy. I is n of mine. Borup: Are you positive on that? Collister: Well, I -- Borup: I'm not, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 76 of 119 Collister: I just read it and he's got a copy of it, so -- Borup: I'm not. That's why Iwas -- Collister: That's all I know. He did instruct me that that copy was several months old and I don't know if there has been a change since then. Borup: No, I don't believe so. Collister: So, there is -- you know, no one -- no one in -- at least the City of Meridian has the option, even in an industrial area, to make unlimited noise in any manner at anytime they want. I don't know how we protect a person's right to do something that's not legal. I don't think that should be considered by the Commission. Borup: But the noise is determined by decibels, isn't it? Collister: No. I think -- I'm not a law expert, but I think it was determined by nuisance and activity. Borup: There is no decibel level? Collister: I didn't see one in the ordinance. Borup: Okay. Collister: But the other point, Commissioner, is -- Borup: A nd I t hought t here w as a nd w hat Iwas getting t o ff s you j ust d ecrease t he distance by 450 some feet. Collister: From the back you mean? Borup: From the other industrial properties. Collister: Oh. Yes. Borup: So, that would raise the decibel level to the nearest residential. Collister: I'm not following you. Borup: Well, right now -- right now noise generated from this property would -- the nearest residential area would be down here. You have reduced -- you have reduced that distance by 450 some feet. Collister: Well, that's true and it's not true, because if you don't do -- if you don't put in this project, then, this remains industrial, so all you do is move this activity to here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 77 of 119 Borup: Right. For any new businesses, but not for these businesses that are here now Collister: Right. This is -- you have to also consider -- the issue is the same on both sides. Do we simply move the problem from here to here and that would be the decision we would be making. This is zoned R-1. This is an excellent buffer from here to here, as I mentioned before. These kind of projects typically g o in difficult areas. That's typical of this kind of thing. You do not have -- you won't have a land owner occupying this, you will have his tenants, and they have -- they do have an option to move and it's an option that's a lot easier than if they were to reside there themselves and own the property. They know, as was mentioned before, they know going in it's obvious what is next to us, it's not a mystery, and it's in plain view. When they go in there, they know full well what it is they are getting. Borup: Any questions from any other Commissioners? Collister: Thank you. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will go ahead and put up -- Steve Bradbury lent me his copy of the part of the city code addressing noises creating public disturbance and Anna and I looked at it. It seems to be addressing residential properties, rather than commercial industrial, but I will put it up, so you all can make your own interpretation of it. Borup: Okay. That was my previous understanding, that it was applied more to residential. Zaremba: Well -- and I just looked at it and it talks about radios and public address systems and -- do we know the date that this was adopted? Powell: The date down at the bottom says September 5, 2000. Zaremba: Well, certainly, Basolite, and probably some of the other businesses were there long before this right? Powell: Item Number 2 does specifically reference within a residential district. Borup: That's what I was going to ask. It makes reference -- okay. There it is. That was residential. I couldn't see it earlier. Powell: Item Number 4 doesn't specifically reference a residential district, but it does say -- well, building structure, apartment, or condominium and, then, it typically lists things from a residence, audio equipment, musical instruments, band sessions, or social gatherings, but that's certainly open for interpretation. Those were the key ones that the applicant had highlighted. Sorry. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 78 of 119 Borup: Well, I remember when this -- at the time and it was in a little bit of the news and I think at the time it was because of residential construction. Framers starting out there with their nail guns and stuff at 6:00 in the morning and things like that. I mean that's how it got notice at that time. Have there ever been -- it doesn't look like it's been addressed for commercial residential properties. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Beecham. Beecham: I'm not sure I can add anything to the discussion on what the ordinance says or does not say. Clearly, I think every property owner and/or tenant has a responsibility to be a good neighbor and I think that's what one of the things that Mr. Collister pointed out is we have made tremendous efforts to be a good neighbor and to mitigate the impact of noises that will be generated. Again, we have no intention or running business out of Meridian. We do intend to put residential units in close proximity to the downtown, in close proximity to employment. I maybe erroneously used the word affordable housing or at least beyond the intent that I used it. This is not low-income housing, b ut i t i s a d ifferent housing a Iternative. I is n of h ome o wnership, i t i s m ore affordable than home ownership. The City of Meridian needs this. I think there was a recent study that addresses it. From what I understand, it specified that high-density housing projects are appropriate in close proximity to the urban center. They are appropriate in close proximity to railroad corridors and public amenities. They are two pathways that intersect the southwest corner of our property and that's the railroad, the mass transit concept and, also, the Five Mile Creek pathway. I think there are ample opportunities for employment for these residents, as well as recreational and, hopefully, that will, in effect, reduce the trips generated from this project. Granted, traffic today would be an issue. These do not build out overnight. They would probably build out faster than a single family residential subdivision would, but these roadway improvements are planned, they are on the books, and they will occur and I think that is what was reflected in ACHD's report. By the way, I will point out that there was a Public Hearing on -- with ACRD. It was on the original application. When the application was resubmitted, they handled it at a staff level and the conditions did not change. Borup: Okay. Beecham: Even with the change. Borup: And that was probably because the amount of residential units decreased; is that correct? Beecham: I'm sorry. Ask that question again. Borup: Number of units decreased on the second application, so they didn't feel another hearing was necessary. Beecham: That's correct. The noise ordinance aside, I think there is an opportunity for the owners, the developers, as well as the owners, to educate the future tenants and I think it is their responsibility to do so. It, obviously -- it will be apparent when people approach this project. They will see the train tracks and they will see the Basolite plant, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 1 S, 2003 Page 79 of 119 they will see the industrial property to the a ast of us. These people are looking f or housing in the appropriate location and they are moving there by choice, so I think we are a little bit different from an ownership product in that -- in the fact that these uses are existing. It will be known. If it's appropriate, the Commission made choose to put some sort of an easement or a note on the plat that I identifies this and requires leases to notify people. That's been done in the past. I don't know if that's appropriate in this situation. Borup: Yes. A note on the plat is not going to notify the tenant, but Beecham: A note on the plat requiring them to do certain things. In other words, put some sort of a deed restriction on the property owner that puts the requirements in place and I don't know that that's the answer, but -- Borup: Well, we discussed the natation on a lease before and I'm not so sure if we decided that, we could really do that or not. Can you remember, Commissioners? Zaremba: Well, we never clarified the mechanism to really, one, require it and, two, enforce it and, three, and follow up. Beecham: The city does review the CC&Rs, the builders correctly pointed out. The city reviews the CC&Rs. We would be happy to include in the CC&Rs and that would be a mechanism to require leases to disclose that. It's what we tend to call facts you need to know when moving into a project and we often do that anyway, just for property owners -- not necessarily the tenants, but property owners, but we could extend that to tenants. Again, I'm throwing out suggestions that may be helpful. I think the bottom line is we have proposed a good product and a good project and with the noise mitigation, the extensive buffering, the nice open space amenities, I think this is a good -- this project is a good asset to the City of Meridian. We cannot solve all the issues, but I think we have shown a good faith effort to solve as many as possible. Again, we do not want to -- this project to be detrimental to the adjacent property owners, so we have tried to address those issues on our own property and, again, we can provide a nice transition to the road and to the residential uses to the north and west of us. There are a couple of other issues that -- one in particular that I wanted to point out in regards irrigation. It was John that raised the issue. We are required by law to continue to transmit water downstream and we will do that. We will not interrupt his irrigation water. We can't. Another issue in terms of buffer that I wanted to address. We are required to provide perimeter fencing and that is six foot solid fencing, so there will be a fence in addition to the landscape buffering. With that, I would ask the Commission to -- respectfully request that the Commission recommend approval of these applications, with staff comments, as well as the changes that we have talked about tonight. Again, I think we have met the intent of the comp plan, we provided a good project, I think it's better in the second round, because we have addressed some of these things concerns. With that, I will stand for any further questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 80 of 119 Beecham: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Bradbury: My name is Steve Bradbury. My office address is 225 North 9th in Boise and I'm representing -- the attorney representing the applicant. I pulled that noise ordinance off the website last time this thing was coming before the Commission, because, obviously, the same issues were raised at the time and this is the only noise ordinance that I could find that the city had passed. Now, there may be some other regulations somewhere, but I couldn't find anymore, so that was all I could find. The one thing that I wanted to point out to you is that -- well, you know, this, the city has got very competent legal counsel, you got a very good law firm to give you legal advice and so you don't really need it from me, but -- Borup: But you're here in front of us right now. Bradbury: -- I'm here to talk to you for just a minute. You know, I don't happen to know Mr. Gabbert, but I'm sure before too long I will. I certainly know a number of the members in his law firm. One of the things that Anna has asked you to do is to interpret the ordinance and try to figure out what it means. Well, let me give you some -- let me tell you a little bit about what a court is going to do. A court is going to read it and it's going to read the words and it's not going to add any words that aren't there and it's not going to leave out any words that are. It's simply going to read the words. I don't find anything in that ordinance and we probably need to put down just a little bit to get to the beginning of it, that says these -- I don't see anything in that first paragraph that say these are prohibited acts in some parts of the city and not in others. Now, then, there is a laundry list of things that are -- that the city at the time -- Borup: So, you're saying that would apply to all parts of the city? Bradbury: Well, I can't see anything that suggests that it doesn't. Now, there are some portions in there where they have carved it out, but as a whole I think that the ordinance applies -- you know, it's intended to apply to the city as a whole. It's intended to protect existing property owners and new property owners alike, so everybody enjoys the same protections. That's -- you probably have heard from time to time this notion of equal protection of the laws. Well, yes, that's because everybody is supposed to get the same kind of protection going both ways and I think Mr. Collister's point is probably well taken. I'm having a hard time understanding why we should be -- why we should be protecting somebody in order to permit him or her to do something that is arguably illegal. All that aside, I think the project's been designed to minimize al! these issues, really, and if you look at it very hard and I think you're going to find that the applicant has done a pretty good job of attempting to mitigate some of these natural conflicts that we have when we have t ransitions b etween uses. That's a II I w anted t o p oint out. A nybody h ave a ny questions for me? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 81 of 119 Rohm: Now, but thank you. You did a good job there. I appreciate that Bradbury: Thank you. Borup: Any additional comments from staff? Okay. Commissioners? You know, I think there needs to be some type of transition buffer between uses. One of my big concerns here is affecting the existing businesses. I think they went into their business with an expectation to be able to operate their business as they have and to continue to do that. So, my concern now -- Zaremba: Well, I tend to agree. If they were not doing anything that was illegal when they started doing it, we have made new activities like that subject to a n o rdinance, but -- Borup: Well, so far the ordinance has applied to residential, I mean as far as being enforced and -- Zaremba: But even if we applied it to commercial, these people would be grandfathered in on the noise that they are creating, in my opinion. Borup: B ut i f w hat B radbury s ays i s t rue,that this a pplies to all areas, then, I h ave some concern. Zaremba: Well, my concern is they are going to use this ordinance as a bludgeon to frustrate the businesses that were already there -- Rohm: Whether it's this developer or any other developer, the ordinance is equally applied, though. Whether you put an apartment complex in or you put another commercial development in, that would be objectionable to any noise that's being created, it's still what's on the books. The fact that this is an apartment complex doesn't change the ordinance any and so from my perspective if you have got an apartment complex that's going in adjacent to an industrial park. If you have got noise that exceeds or is in conflict with ordinance, if that person brings that point out, isn't any different than an additional commercial development being adjacent to it that would point out the same thing. Borup: A little bit, because you don't have -- Rohm: The numbers? Borup: -- people there at 3:00 in the morning in the commercial projects that are going to be concerned about noise. Zaremba: Well -- and if they are there at 3:00, they are probably making noise themselves, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng December 18, 2003 Page 82 of 119 Rohm: Probably. Back to your statement of transition, though, Commissioner Borup. I thihk that this offers a good transition. One of the individuals that testified was speaking of the existing commercial development is 450 feet away from the R-1 zone currently. If this development doesn't go in, then, there could be additional commercial development that would be right across the street from the R-1 development and, you know, so on your -- all that would be happening is that issue would just be put off until that, quote, unquote commercial development came to pass. This apartment complex seems to address that issue. It does offer that transition from the commercial, industrial, light industrial, to the R-1, which is the intent within the Comprehensive Plan. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, if a key concern of yours is whether or not that this would apply -- this noise ordinance should apply to the existing industrial uses. I would suggest that we could table and let Mr. Nichols come up with an opinion as to that, because we do have good legal counsel and it's not always as black and white as was portrayed earlier, perhaps. Borup: And I wasn't concerned about that until Mr. Bradbury's testimony and I became concerned. Gabbert: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Gabbert: I appreciate the opinions that were given. I really would be cautious about taking this ordinance and using it as adecision-making tool as to whether or not, oh, we might be in violation of these --these businesses might be in violation. If you look at the ordinance and the way it's defined, the fallowing noises are determined to be, quote, unquote, public disturbance noises. Then, it lists out a number of things that are defiried to be public disturbances. If some of the existing businesses fall into any one of these categories, then, it's possible they may or may not be a public disturbance noise. So far, I haven't anything that I can see in just looking at the screen where any of the businesses are in violation of this. Borup: Starting motor vehicles. Gabbert: Where is that? Within a residential district Borup: Okay. Gabbert: Yelling or shouting. Okay. Noise from buildings, .which unreasonably interfere with the peace, comfort, and repose of owners or possessors of real property. I haven't seen any violations of that yet either, because we are in an industrial district. I would not take too much backseat lawyering at this point. My only other comment was I think that when you have people moving into these kind of areas, you're going to have complaints no matter what, whether they are informed or not -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 83 of 119 Borup: And I understand that and I don't have -- I mean if that's going to happen, it's going to happen, but I would not want to see them have a legal basis for their complaints. You can't stop people from complaining. Zaremba: Well, I agree with that and when you have commercial properties that moved there specifically with the expectation that their neighbor would be commercial, because they know they generate sound and they have been doing so since before this ordinance was passed, I -- frankly, there are elements of this proposal that I like very much. I wish they were someplace else than here, because I'm having difficulty changing my mind from my previous feeling that this was I-L and should remain I-L. I think there are a number of people who bought propertywith the understanding that that's what this was. Borup: But this wasn't part of the same parcel that the other industrial complex was. I think -- and I wasn't around when it happened. I suspect it probably piggybacked on the other property when the zoning took place. You had a comment, Mr. Beecham? Beecham: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Zaremba -- actually, all the Commissioners, I appreciate the discussion. I want to make it clear, I guess, we don't have a problem with the commercial users. We don't have a problem with the noise they are making. Borup: Well, I understand. How about your tenants? Beecham: If I could continue. The big risk that's being taken here is the developer that's buying this land, subdividing it, building properties on here that he has to sell and lease, if -- and I think, again, speaking for the development entity, they have taken this into consideration. What we have done is we have looked at it from the other side. We said how can we mitigate that, how can we make it an appropriate transitional use and I appreciate the comment, Commissioner Zaremba, we may great efforts to make this a nice community that turns inward and I think it could be a goad asset -- I think it will be a good asset for the City of Meridian. The developer is just adding we had similar issues at Cooper Canyon. We have yet -- we are immediately west of two industrial users. One is a contractor yard, the other is a manufacturing facility. We have residents living in there and we have yet to have a complaint. Not to say there will never be one, but I think it's important to note that any development that occurs on this property. If we are looking at transition and if we are looking to go into commercial or we are looking to go into office, they are going to be there during the daytime hours and 24-7 mean this noise is occurring all the time. At some point, somebody is going to be disturbed. I would guess that the majority of the disturbing activities in the evening are great -- I didn't say that right. The disturbances during the evening hours will be greatly reduced from what happens in the daytime. I'm sure of that. I think any one of us could go out there and see that. Will we hear the occasional car being loaded on? I think we will. One of the neighbors that testified tonight was that they like those commercial users. They hear the noises, but they know what's going on and they are okay with that. They hear the train rumbling on the tracks, but they are okay with that. They understand that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page B4 of 119 They moved there knowing that that's stuff existed. That's what our tenants will be doing as well. I think it's not an issue some much about the noise ordinance, although -- Imean there is some technicalities there, but if not this, what else is going to occur here that won't be disturbed? I mean in order not to get a disturbance you have to continue with the same land use on and on and you're just pushing that further downstream. We have tried to accommodate a good transitional use and we have volunteered additional buffers, volunteered additional landscaping. We changed building materials at a significant cost. I think these are the things you need to ask people that are locating in these areas and, as Mr. Collister said, this is what we get to choose from, the economics of the cost of the land dictate that these are the areas we end up in. If this project is not approved as we have proposed it, I think you're going to see a whole different group of people up here that are opposed to whatever project that may be. I hate to boil it down to that, but it's kind of choose your evil. We have got a good project here that we put in front of you that's tried very hard to mitigate those issues. We think we have done a good job and I guess I just wanted to reiterate that point and I hope you guys can see that as well, that we have made great efforts towards it. Borup: And you have. You have gone to a lot of effort. Your statement that the developer is the one that's everything on the line and the only one that's got anything to lose, I don't know if that completely applies if -- I mean if there is a legal basis to stop a business from operating at night, then, those existing businesses have something to lose. Beecham: Maybe I don't understand that issue completely. If they are there currently, then, there is no legal basis. The neighbors can complain and it becomes an inconvenience. Borup: And as was pointed out, we -- that's not maybe what we should be doing, but I'm basing what I'm saying on Mr. Bradbury's comments, that it would apply to this area. The noise ordinance. Beecham: And I'm not -- I don't want to speak for Mr. Bradbury, but I'm not sure he -- talked about grandfather rights and that sort of thing and Idon't -- I guess my point is -- without getting into that -- Borup: And we are not going to settle that tonight, but -- Beecham: Absolutely. Borup: He was a representative of this application. Beecham: Absolutely. Yes. Borup: Okay. Thank you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 85 of 119 Zaremba: Let me see. Before we even began, several staff said they would ask for a continuance, because there are issues they wish to study that were new tonight and there is -- Borup: Well, maybe let's -- Borup: -- a couple other pieces of it that need to be filled in. Borup: Let's ask -- maybe let's handle that part first. As he went through on public testimony, did you still have any concerns on the written statements that he presented, along with his verbal comments? .Kirkpatrick: Let's see. A couple issues. We haven't received ACHD comments concerning this project. That would be first. They haven't had a chance to look at the revised landscaping plan or any of their revisions that they are proposing. Borup: Which they have not done yet. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Borup: Is my understanding. Yes. Kirkpatrick: So, I think those would be -- Borup: That landscaping. Kirkpatrick: -- the primary things I still want to have addressed Zaremba: Bruce, did you still have any issues? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the only issue that I was really going to look into was the latecomers agreement issue. Just maybe a little bit of a clarification on the ACHD report. We have in our files the report on the original plan, but we don't have the updated report and I believe Scott possibly does. Maybe we can get that this evening but that's all. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: You would want time to look at that and consider it? Borup: Did staff rewrite that at all or they just -- or they, you think, referenced -- Beecham: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. This report that I have in front of me was after we revised the plan to include the industrial lots and it should have been -- the city was -- the Highway District received a transmittal from the city and should have responded to that. I guess I'd ask the question if you don't have that current plan, why? I've had it for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing December 18, 2003 Page 86 of 179 a couple of months. We were supposed to be heard last month and I have had it for two months. I don't know where the -- where that breakdown occurred, but -- Freckleton: That's a good question. I don't think it's one that we can answer. I checked with the City Clerk during the hearing and she doesn't have it and she would have been the central point of that -- those comments coming in, so -- breakdown. Beecham: Yes. I guess with that, we are subject to the requirements of the Ada County Highway District for the staff report and we are fine with that. I don't think there is an issue with that. Wendy, what was the other issue that you -- Borup: The landscaping plan. Beecham: Oh, the landscaping plan. Borup: Is all it really comes down to. Beecham: The landscaping plan that I showed you is the current landscaping plan. What I asked in that modification was that we could work with staff -- Borup: That's what she was referring to was the modified one with the additional buffer to the south. Beecham: And our request would be with the staff approval of that landscape plan. I think we are in good shape on that as well. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners? It's probably time to move along. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting we go ahead and close the Public Hearing, then? I think we have heard everything we are going to hear. With that being said -- Borup: Yes. Yes. Depending on what the motion may be, but -- Rohm: Well, we can close the Public Hearing, and then, we can -- Borup: Reopen it if we need to. Rohm: Yes. Okay. Okay. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that close the Public Hearing on RZ 03-011, Public Hearing PP 03-031, and Public Hearing CUP 03- 057. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 1B, 2003 Page 87 of 119 Rohm: Now the more difficult portion of this. Borup: Let's maybe discuss any concerns. First, I think we have got probably enough notes any modification to the staff report that we would need to do. Rohm: Yes. The only changes to the staff report that I have was changing from comments to conditions, but that's the only changes that I have. Are there others that -- Wendy had mentioned one and I didn't catch it, on general conditions, comment one, and she mentions a change there and I -- Zaremba: What page are you on? Rohm: Page 8. I can't remember exactly what -- Borup: Oh, she added 10-6-6. Zaremba: 10-6-6. Borup: To the 10-6-5. Rohm: 10-6-6 and 10-6-5? Borup: Right. 10-6-5 is already there and added 10-6-6 to that -- that code number. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Okay. The only other thing I noticed on staff report was Item 12, wasn't it? Zaremba: Yes. I have two, actually. I'm looking on page seven. Borup: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner. Zaremba: Item 12 would be that sod would be required in lawn areas, with the exception of -- Borup: Common lots? Zaremba: -- common lots and major open spaces, which could be hydro, seeded. Borup: I just put seeded. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Either hydro seeding or drilled seeding is the common -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 88 of 119 Zaremba: But seeded, then? Rohm: With the exception of the common areas and large open areas? Borup: Well, I think that the -- Mr. Collister testified that the intention would be to -- the individual building lots would be roll sodded. Zaremba: And that's what I meant. Borup: Yes and all the common area lots would be seeded. Zaremba: And at the top of Page 7, what is the end of the site specific condition Number 1, the last sentence would be changed from payment of latecomers fees shall be required prior to signature on the Final Plat. That would be changed to payment of latecomers fees shall be required in accordance with prior agreement. Do we need to date that agreement or -- Borup: I don't know if we know a date. Zaremba: We don't know. You know there is an agreement that exists and you can find it. Freckleton: I do. If you just want to say the agreement affecting the earlier -- Zaremba: Some prior agreement. Borup: That's what I was going to say, affecting this area, because there is a lot of different agreements. Zaremba: Do we want to say agreement between whom? Borup: No. Just an agreement affecting this area. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. I think those were the only -- Borup: Okay. That would take care of staff comments. Now -- Zaremba: Those are it. Borup: Do we have some other -- any other concerns that we need to discuss? We discussed the noise issue and I don't know if we reached any conclusions there. That's probably in my mind what it comes down to. Zaremba: Well, the other piece would be -- the two things. They have mentioned the extra noise abatement measures they plan to take on the eastern side. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 89 of 119 Borup: And the lease disclosure? You're talking about adding those in? Zaremba: Yes and the lease disclosure. Rohm: That would be special considerations? Zaremba: Does that go under the CUP? If we want to add building requirements, does that go under the CUP? To require the sound mitigating walls and windows and that the berming and landscaping be extra sound proofing and -- is that CUP stuff? Okay. How about a note on the plat that they must notify both owners and tenants that they are moving into a noisy area? Borup: I think the best way to do that is a disclosure in the lease. Zaremba: But where do we require that they do that? Borup: Oh. I don't know see -- Zaremba: I'm not keeping up with the notes. Borup: Well, probably the CC&Rs. I don't know. Is that proper on a plat? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would strongly recommend that we don't have it on the face of the plat. I think the more appropriate place for that would be in the CC&Rs. Zaremba: So, we would require that in the CUP, probably? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Or, since it's a rezone, can we require it on the zoning? Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, it could be a condition of zoning, it could be a continuing condition of approval on the CUP. We don't have any enforcement power in the CC&Rs as a city, but if it were a continuing condition of approval, it would live with the life of the project. Zaremba: Yes. I think if we can assure those protections for the neighbors, I could be swayed that this could be a good transition project, but I definitely want to make sure the neighbors are protected. Rohm: Yes. I agree. I was writing this sixth condition, site specific, and what was the next thing you were -- Zaremba: Which condition did you have? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 90 of 119 Rohm: I added the sound-dampening requirement handled through -- at the staff level. Just when they bring their final plat or their building plans in, it has to include that sound dampening, whether it be the stucco or the windows or anything of the appropriate changes. Zaremba: Sound dampening building materials. Rohm: Right. Sound dampening required and just handled through staff, rather than list each specific item. Anyway, that's the way I was going to do it, but would that work for you, staff? Kirkpatrick: Now, what exactly would you want to have? This would be taken care of or -- between P&Z and Council? Alternatively, would it be a continuing communication with staff? How exactly do you want to deal with it? Zaremba: I guess my question is if we make it a condition -- Borup: Who enforces it? Zaremba: -- who -- at what point does it get enforced? When they go for a building permit and they look at the building plans, they say you have the condition that this wall has t o b e s ound m itigating a nd t hese w indows h ave t o b e s ound m itigating. I s t hat where it happens? Borup: Well, normally, the building department is the only one that's going to inspect the plans, as far as -- Zaremba: Well, the construction -- what I'm saying is how do we get the message to them. Is it the condition on the CUP? If the applicant was working it out with our staff, I wouldn't question that everybody understands it, but I think the application is going to go for their building permit to the Building Department, not planning and zoning. Rohm: So, then -- Zaremba: We need to be more specific. That's, really, what my question is. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, this is part of -- I talked about the difficulty of apartment complexes and this did come up the last time, too, in that they submitted their building plans. On their building plans, they showed something different from t he s ite plan a nd w e d idn't c atch i t, b ecause i t d oesn't c ome b ack t o u s. That would be a good condition of approval, that they need to get a CZC prior to submitted their plans to the building department and, then, we can catch it there. They will need to maybe show us their building plans at the same time and, then, we could catch it there. Zaremba: Show them to the Planning and Zoning Department. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 91 of 119 Powell: Yes. They need to get the certificate of zoning compliance prior to submitting for their building permit, which happens on commercial projects all the time, but this is one of those kind of weird projects where it acts like commercial, but it's -- it's tagged as residential, so it processed differently. That would take care of it. Zaremba: Okay. Do we need to mention the landscaping part of it or you will look at all of that? Powell: We can look at all of it. Zaremba: Okay Powell: Yes. Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, as long as you tell us what we are looking for. I mean that's -- you need to tell us specifically -- very specifically what we are to evaluate. Zaremba: So, we need to list it -- in the condition, we need to list what we are looking for. I would s ay that a ast-facing w alts h ave -- a ast a nd s outh facing walls, a ctually. They didn't offer that, but I think we need to require that. They need to be of sound dampening materials, including windows. Borup: He mentioned windows and an extra insulated sheeting in the walls Zaremba: Yes. Rohm: Walls and windows. Zaremba: East facing and south facing. Borup: And what reference did you make to the lease? Zaremba: We haven't got there yet. Rohm: Let me just read what I have written here, just to make sure that it's -- sound dampening requirement shall be handled through a certificate of zoning compliance, to include sound dampening walls and windows on the east and south walls. Is that sufficient? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if we might weigh in on that. Zaremba: Did you have the prior to the certificate of zoning compliance? Did you say that? Rohm: Oh, I just -- I said through -- received through the certificate of zoning compliance. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 92 of 119 Zaremba: All right. Rohm: Prior to. Borup: Mr. Freckleton? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I -- we are assuming that you intend for that only to apply to the buildings that are on east and southern perimeter. Borup: Yes. That is correct. Freckleton: Not all east and -- Zaremba: South interior, because of the four-plexes. I would say -- Borup: Yes. That's a good clarification. That could apply to every building. Zaremba: Not the inside east wall, but the outside east wall and the outside south wall. Freckleton: The buildings on the outside perimeter. Zaremba: Yes. Freckleton: The east and south perimeters. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Was that your intention? Just those buildings? Zaremba: I think so. Because those buildings will buffer the other buildings. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Maybe not from vibrations and stuff, but there is no way to buffer that. Just from the ambient noise. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: So, then, the remaining issue is getting it mentioned in leases and CC&R's and stuff. Rohm: Okay and where does that go? Zaremba: I forgot where we decided that was going to go. Borup: Probably under the CUP. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 1B, 2003 Page 93 of 719 Zaremba: Okay. That noise conditions exist sometimes 24-7. Borup: I don't think -- now, I think it should be more specific than that. Tenant should be aware that there are adjoining that businesses that operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and generate noise that could be considered excessive. Zaremba: I would say noise and vibrations. Rohm: And, again, where d o you want to put that as -- the C onditional U se Permit area? Zaremba: This is a condition of the conditional use. Borup: Does that mean if they don't comply with that, if it's not in their lease, the Conditional Use Permit can be -- Zaremba: Withdrawn? Borup: -- withdrawn? Zaremba: Yes. They would be violating the conditional use. I think they have expressed a willingness to do that, though, so I'm not sure that's an issue. Borup: Well, there is some -- I mean -- Zaremba: If you are thinking 20 years from now when somebody is -- Borup: Yes. Mrs. Powell brought up if we are -- have any additional concern on the ordinance, the noise ordinance, and whether it would apply to this area or not, she suggested if there is some concern, we may want to get a legal opinion from the city. I would not want to have any legal recourse for any of these tenants. Rohm: What I wrote is include disclosure in the CC&R's to the possibility of neighboring noise 24-7. Borup: I wouldn't say possibly. Zaremba: To the existing -- to the existence of -- Rohm: Got it. Zaremba: No. To the existence of neighboring commercial properties that create noise and vibration. I think both of those should be in there. Neighboring commercial properties that create noise or vibrations -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 94 of 119 Borup: And I would like to see that -- I'd like to see the apartment owners expand on that, really. I mean we just put the minimum there. I think we would do well to expand on that a little bit mare, but I don't know if we need to write the whole thing. Rohm: Okay. Include disclosure in the CC&R's to the existence of neighboring properties that create noise and/or vibrations 24-7. Zaremba: This information will be given to owners and tenants alike. Rohm: I'm running out of room here. Borup: Do you want a piece of paper? Did you mention it would be a part of their lease? Zaremba: Do we want to specify the mechanism. They said it would be CC&R's and lease and -- Borup: Yes. I was thinking -- I mean -- Zaremba: Notification of -- Borup: Notification can be a sheet of paper or a sign in the office. You know, part of the lease that they sign is better notification. Rohm: This information will be made available to owners and tenants alike, as -- first, it's included in the CC&R's and, then, this information will be made available to the owners and tenants. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: I like -- yes. As part of their lease. Zaremba: Okay. The tenants. Borup: As part of their lease or rental agreement. Chris, do you feel -- I'm still -- I still have some concern here. Would there by any legal basis for residential tenants to enforce the noise ordinance? Gabbert: Well, to reiterate, I think that either there is a violation or there isn't. Again, any neighbor could bring it. You could have a 7-Eleven in there you could have amulti- housing complex. Borup: Right. Gabbert: So, if there is a violation -- and I'm not saying there is or isn't, I'm just saying that the provision isn't so clear and I would recommend that we re-looked at it, but -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 95 of 119 Borup: Can we -- well that may be a way to do that, have it researched prior to the City Council. I have got a lot of reservation if there is a real legal basis for someone to shut down a business. Zaremba: Instead of us making up the wording, you want legal counsel to make the wording, so -- Borup: No, not to that. No. I think notification we are fine and that needs to be clarified. I just wondered if -- you know, a tenant calls up and says I -- and complains about noise in the middle of the night and the city says, hey, you were notified they were an existing business, that's too bad. Is there any legitimate reason they could go to court? Gabbert: And, Chairman, my feeling on that is notification, again, won't preclude -- Borup: Right. Well, anybody can sue for anything. It doesn't have to be legitimate. I realize that but is it defendable? Zaremba: Yes. Rohm: That issue exists currently whether the property is developed or not, regardless of w ho d evelops i t or e ven i f i is not developed. I mean, i f, i n fact, t here i s e xisting conditions that are out there that aren't legal, anybody could bring a suit. It doesn't -- that part of it doesn't have anything to do with this application, in my opinion. Zaremba: Well, they'd also have the burden to prove that it's illegal and my feeling is the grandfather -- Rohm: Yes. Don't get me wrong. I'm in support of all of the existing commercial uses and industrial that are there currently. I don't think there is anybody that's against that at all. Zaremba: I'm comfortable that they are there legally and have the right to make noise that they were making before the ordinance occurred and what I'm trying to avoid with the notice to the tenants is the midnight phone calls. Rohm: And I think midnight phone calls occur -- Zaremba: Anyhow. Rohm: Anyhow. Borup: Well, that's the time we would like them to call the city is at midnight, isn't it? Zaremba: We'll put Keith's phone number in here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 96 of 119 Borup: No. I said the city. Rohm: Okay. All right. Are we -- I'll do the very best that I can with this. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to the city RZ 03-011, request for rezone of 9.34 acres from I-L to R-15 zones for the proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC., 1125 East Pine Street, including all staff comments, with the following changes. On page five, change zoning comments to zoning conditions. Page 6, change site-specific comments to site-specific conditions. Page 7, the very first sentence or, actually, it's the second sentence, it should be reworded: Payment of latecomers fee shall be required in accordance with prior agreement. Item 12 should read sod will be required for all areas indicated as lawn on the landscaping plan, with the exception of common areas and open spaces. Individual building lots to be sodded. Page 8. Zaremba: May I interrupt to ask a question? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: I think you were reading conditions that apply to the Preliminary Plat. Borup: Oh, yes. Zaremba: And may or may not be necessary for the -- Borup: They would not be --that would be correct. Thank you: Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: I guess, though, the only reason why I was going through them is because if you make reference to the staff comments and these staff comments are reworded, you would end up with a completely different set of -- Borup: Yes. I think those staff comments were pertaining to the -- to the CUP and the plat. Zaremba: You will read those, but read the preliminary plat once when we are doing the -- Rohm: Okay. Okay. All right. If that's -- end of motion. Zaremba: Okay. I would ask if you move that we forward this to the City Council, with a recommendation of approval? Rohm: Yes. Excuse me. Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2D03 Page 97 of 119 Zaremba: Subject to the staff. Rohm: Yes. Yes. Zaremba: In that case I will second it. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE ABSENT Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council with our recommendation for approval PP 03-031. Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 38 building lots and 17 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, including all staff comments dated -- or received November 14, 2003, with the following changes -- and here -- do we go through each of them or -- Zaremba: Now start on Page 6 and do the -- Rohm: Okay. On Page 6, down at the bottom, change site-specific comments to site- specific conditions. On the top of Page 7 strike prior to signature on the Final Plat map and insert in accordance with prior agreement, Do we need to go through any of the rest of them? Okay. On item 12, sod will be required for all areas indicated as lawn on the landscaping plan, with the exception of common areas and open spaces. Individual building lots to be sodded. Correct? Zaremba: The exception areas can be seeded. Rohm: Right. Zaremba: And -- yes. Okay. Rohm: Page 8 general comments should be changed to general conditions in Item Number 1, add Section 10-6-6. Okay. End of motion. Zaremba: I will second it. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council for approval CUP 03- 057. Requestfor a Conditional Use Permit for amulti-family residential subdivision, requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC, 1125 East P ine, i ncluding a II staff comments received November Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 98 of 119 ' 14th, with the fallowing changes. Page 5, zoning comments, change to zoning conditions. Page 6, site specific comments to site-specific conditions. Do we need to go through all these again? Zaremba: Not the Preliminary Plat ones. I'd skip to -- Rohm: Just the site-specific conditions? Zaremba: Page 12. Rohm: And on Page 12, site specific comments to site specific conditions, with the addition of the following Number 6, sound dampening required and handled through the receipt of a certificate of zoning compliance, which will include east and south walls dampening -- sound dampening on the walls and windows. This is for the perimeter buildings only and shall be included in the CC&R's. Number 7. Include a disclosure in the CC&R's to the existence of neighboring properties that create noise and vibrations 24-7. This information will be also made available to the owners and tenants as part of their lease agreements. That's all I have. End of motion. Zaremba: I think that's it. Second. Borup: Discussion? Zaremba: Anything we missed? Borup: No. This is something new. Chris, maybe you need to tell me if this would even be appropriate. I'm just still concerned about existing businesses. I don't know if this is an appropriate condition or not, something along the lines if there was a legal ruling, because of an action brought any tenants or owners of this project, that would require an existing business to cease any part of their current business activities. That would constitute a noncompliance with the Conditional Use Permit and the Conditional Use Permit would be withdrawn. Pretty -- is that a little too strong? I didn't say a complaint I said a legal ruling. In other words, if someone took it to court and a judge said, you know, that business has to quit operating from -- from, you know, 11:00 at night until 6:00 in the morning. That action was brought by any of the tenants of this property, that would constitute a noncompliance with the -- I mean there would be a lot of incentive for the owners to make sure that didn't happen, I would think. Zaremba: Well, could we say that the -- well, if the applicant sells off the properties, they are eventually out of it. What I was going to say, the applicant indemnifies neighboring businesses against such suits. Borup: Well, see, that can change. You had a comment? Gabbert: Chairman Borup, I would have a little bit of difficulty agreeing to such a provision, just by holding the owner ultimately liable for all the actions of the tenants. Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing December 18, 2003 Page 99 of 119 You have got some problems of procedure and whatnot in there. I realize you can condition these approvals how you see fit, but to include a clause, I would need to look at that a little more closely. Powell: Chairman Borup, there also could be a legitimate complaint by the homeowners -- or by the apartment dwellers regarding the businesses next door, if they were -- I mean if it were just noise, that would be one thing. They might have a legitimate safety concern or they released toxic fumes -- not that I'm suggesting that any of them would do that I'm just trying to present a scenario. I mean there might be a case where there was a legitimate claim and to penalize the use -- and the likelihood of the city revoking a Conditional User Permit after all the buildings have gone up, I'm not sure if that would happen, but -- Borup: Yes. I realize that. Powell: -- it was an intriguing idea I have to admit. Borup: Okay. We have a motion and -- Rohm: End of motion. Zaremba: I believe I seconded it, but if I didn't -- Borup: Yes, you did. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Thank you. I think that concludes Mayfair Commons for this Commission. I don't know if any of the adjoining landowners are still here, but that will go to City Council. Zaremba: The one we missed is on Page 12, Number 3, requiring the 100 square feet for every dwelling unit. I think among us we have agreed they have satisfied the intent with their own open space and the amenities in their open space and that they are -- Borup: My thought would be the ground floor apartments would have that -- Zaremba: And the balconies don't have to. Borup: Yes. Kirkpatrick: Do you want to have that minimum square footage? Borup: On the balconies? Kirkpatrick: On the balconies. I think they -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 100 of 119 Borup: Well, they said they are going to be 50 to 75, so -- Kirkpatrick: The plat shows 40. Sorry. It's late. Borup: The public testimony was 50 to 75, so if we take that -- Kirkpatrick: We will have to modify it before Council. Borup: Fifty feet is not true? Kirkpatrick: It showed as 40. Borup: We are just trying to decide how much square feet minimum. It sounds like we would be okay with 50, I think. We are okay with 50? A total of 50. Fifty square feet we are safe. Powell: Chairman B orup, j ust to g et t he -- because you're b asically -- t his i s a II n of getting recorded -- Borup: Right. Powell: -- because we are not speaking into the microphones, so -- Borup: We are intending to get all that in a motion. Powell: Okay. If the landings -- is that what we are counting as the -- I don't know if they -- is that usable open space? Borup: Front door landings? Powell: And are they shared landings in the front there? The covered porch? It was private usable open space. Borup: It doesn't do it for me. What are the back patio sizes? Back balcony size? Oh, we don't have -- Kirkpatrick: It's 40 square feet. Borup: Fogy square feet for the back? Zaremba: Sorry. Borup: We are ready for a motion. Or at least some discussion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 101 of 119 Zaremba: I move that we amend the motion regarding CUP 03-057, to include all of the elements that were previously stated in that motion and add one more. The addition is that on Page 12 of the staff comments, Item 3, under site specific conditions, can be changed to read that usable open space for each dwelling unit may be as submitted on the latest plan. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 17. Public Hearing: AZ 03-031 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.04 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. -west of North Linder Road and north of West Ustick Road: Item 18. Public Hearing: PP 03-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 66 single-family building lots and 2 common lots on .15.04 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - west of North Linder Road and n orth of West Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. Are we ready to hit the last one? Staff, are we -- is this a fairly clean -- have we got a clean application here? Powell: We have been assured by the applicant. Rohm: I have got to be somewhere by 7:00 Borup: Okay. We'd like to -- it looks like most of the issues were limited to -- like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-031. Request for annexation and zoning 15.44 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and also like to open PP 03-037, request far Preliminary Plat approval of 66 single family building lots, two commons lots on the same 15.04 acres and like to begin with the staff report. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, I would like to ask for a ruling from our legal counsel. I personally recently ran for City Council in this city and the owner of this property in question, who is Mr. Stubblefield, made a monetary contribution to my campaign. I believe that I am able to judge this fairly on its merits and to be impartial. However, I would like a ruling regarding Idaho Code 67-6506 relating to conflict of interest as to whether I should excuse myself. Gabbert: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Commissioner Zaremba, I think that your disclosure of any potential conflict of i nterest pursuant to that code p rovision is