The URL can be used to link to this page

2003 12-18Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 18, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, December 18, 2003 by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Michael Rohm, Leslie Mathes, and David Zaremba. Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Tara Green, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Craig Hood, Wendy Kirkpatrick, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba _______ ___O___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting for December 18th . Start with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of November 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Minutes: Borup: Okay. The first item is that of the minutes of November 19th . I mean November 20th . Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I have two comments, actually. The minutes of November 20th correctly state that we did not have the minutes of October 16th . For the record, I still have not seen those, so we still at some point need to deal with the records of October 16th . That's just a side note, but it is correctly stated. Then, I had one question. On Page 6, the subject is Maverick Subdivision and Mr. Brown said that there were likely to change the name because Maverick was already said. The minutes say Sage Crest here and the two times that I mentioned it on later pages. I though I heard Cedar Crest and also thought that was what I said. Does anybody remember which way that should have been? In that case, I would not change it, I leave it at Sage Crest, because whatever they rename it isn't going to be that much different. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 2 of 120 Borup: Yes. The technical part of the project is not -- Zaremba: Is accurate anyhow, so -- Borup: So, when it gets to City Council it should be correct, hopefully. Zaremba: Okay. I will say, then, that I have no changes to make. Borup: Okay. I think it was Cedar Crest. Zaremba: Cedar is what I thought I heard, but I don't think it -- Green: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe the applicant did say Cedar Crest, but is supposed to be Sage Crest. Borup: Oh. Okay. Green: But I believe the applicant did say that, though. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, we will leave it Sage Crest. In that case, having noted that we don't have the minutes of October 16th , Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of -- what was it? November 20, 2003. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Thank you. The two of you are going to be doing a lot both tonight. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 6, 2003: CUP 03-050 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new bank facility with drive up tellers in an OT zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by CSHQA – 703 North Main Street: Borup: The first item is a Continued Public Hearing from November 6th , CUP 03-050, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new bank facility with drive-up tellers in Old Town zone for Farmers and Merchants Bank. I would like to -- this was a continued hearing again from that day. We'd like to open the hearing at this point and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Farmers and Merchants Bank project. Since the continued date, you will remember that they requested a continuance at that time, so that they could work on a revised plan for the bank building. That has been submitted and I will show it to you here in just a second. The location of the property that they own is, actually, just behind City Hall. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 3 of 120 City Hall where we are right now sits on this property on Idaho right behind us. Facing Broadway Avenue is the property owned by Farmers and Merchants Bank. Their existing facility on Main Street is on this portion of the property right here. This is an existing zoning map. You can see the existing zoning of Old Town throughout this area and, then, other residential and industrial zones across Meridian Road. Here is an aerial photo from a couple of years ago. You can see City Hall right here. The existing bank building here. This is the old fire station that has since been demolished and is the site of the new bank structure. This is the proposed revised site plan. To get into that a little bit, I will start referencing the staff report. It is a -- the revised plan is for a 16,000 square foot full service bank building. The original application was for a -- just a building just over 7,000 square feet, roughly the same area in plan view, but the original one was more of an office park style building with a hip roof, single story, and they have since changed the building to be more in character with the historic buildings of downtown. They are doing a second story. They have taken design elements from other older buildings in downtown with parapets and they are incorporating those into the revised plan. Staff is quite pleased with the revision of the building. It's, actually, more historically accurate with the other buildings that we have and, like I say, we are pleased with those changes. The applicant is proposing to have the options of -- you can see a silhouette on this corner of where the existing big building sits, overlaid with their proposed plan to provide a plaza and parking in this location. The request is to have the option of removing the existing bank structure and replacing it with the facilities that are shown. They'd like that to be an approval that's not required and that they would have the option -- staff, actually, prefers that the bank building stay, which I will get into in just a minute in the additional considerations. In fact, let's just go there now. If you turn to Page 5 of the staff report, special consideration number one is the existing structure. The quote from the application says that Farmers and Merchants request that this portion of the development be approved as submitted, but not required if the bank desires to retain the existing building. The existing building -- let me go to -- here is a site photo of that existing building today. I don't know if I have -- okay. Staff's preference is to have that existing building remain, since it's on Main Street, helps to provide some of that continuous facade along Main Street, and could be used by another tenant when they move out. Our suggestion would be to have this building remain. That said I do want to point out some positive elements of the proposal, if the Commission and Council do find that it should be allowed to be demolished. They are - - what they are proposing is a plaza -- a small plaza in the front here along Main Street with pavers and trees in grates. If I switch to the landscape plan here, the circles are a bit difficult to pick out at this scale, but there are trees in grates. They have a landscaped area between the plaza and the parking area and along the back. They are also proposing three benches and a flagpole within this plaza. Another plus is the existing drive-thru that is between the Farmers and Merchants building and the bank to the north is completely abandoned in this option. That is special consideration number one. The second consideration has to do with parking on the site. The amount of parking that they are proposing did meet the required number of the original smaller building, but now that they are proposing a larger two-story building, the amount of parking is less than the ordinance would require and will require a Variance. Staff is in support of that Variance. We are not trying to encourage lots of surface parking Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 4 of 120 downtown and we would support a variance to that ordinance, because we are -- the reason for it is the change in the building and we are very much in support of the changes they have made to the building. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Steve? Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: May I interrupt for a second? Is your parking count including the optional change or not the optional change? Siddoway: The parking count that I have in here -- Zaremba: Are you counting the parking where the old building is or not counting that? Siddoway: In the numbers that I have in here it includes everything on there. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: I think I gave both numbers, actually, if it went away, because I think there are 11 spaces it is there. Zaremba: I did not see that. Siddoway: Let's see. I know it's in here. I will find it, but -- Zaremba: But the 59 includes -- Siddoway: Well, the 59 are what are there today. That's -- Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Siddoway: That is not what they are proposing. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: Page 2, the first finding is that the site is large enough to accommodate all yards, open spaces, parking, and landscaping. The finding that we -- that staff finds that it's large enough to require the open spaces and landscaping, but not parking. The site accommodated the required number of parking stalls for the original submittal, but the revised plan does not meet parking requirements based on the larger structure. As I said, we support that. The calculations are in the second paragraph. It's 16,000 square feet, which the bank would require one space per 200, for a total of 80 spaces. The proposed site plan has 46 spaces on it, eleven of which are on the existing site. In addition to that, there are 13 new diagonal parking spaces out along Broadway, for a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 5 of 120 total of 59 stalls for the project. If the existing structure were to remain, the total for the site would be 48. Zaremba: Thank you. Siddoway: The existing site today -- sorry to flip through these so fast. Let me go to the aerial photo. This is City Hall and this is the parking lot where probably most of us are parked tonight. Nine of those spaces that exist today are, actually, reserved for Farmers and Merchants tenants. The other 50 are pretty much used by the general public, many of whom deal with City Hall. These spaces will likely no longer be available upon development of this project. The city does own on a parking lot on the south side of Broadway just adjacent to the creamery and the proposed site plan does accommodate pedestrian access through the project with crosswalks through here and, then, also across the alley here to get to the back door of City Hall. They have thought about how to get people from the city owned parking lot to the existing City Hall. Any questions about that? The third item -- the third paragraph under parking has to do with the striping out in front and this is kind of a minor tweak, but a fairly important one. The striping that -- the diagonal striping here begins at this location and cars coming and making a left turn will have to swing out and around. If you look here, striping ends quite a bit from the edge of this curb and so this recommendation is just to take this whole bay of parking and shift it west about nine feet and it will work better for both drive -- driveway entrances. Item Number 3 has to do with signage for the project. The applicant's proposal is that they be allowed to keep the existing Farmers and Merchants pylon sign on Main Street. They also show a second new pylon sign out along Meridian Road and the current sign ordinance is actually silent on sign issues related to Old Town. The signage needs to be approved with the application tonight, it’s up to the Commission, and Council to determine what is appropriate signage for this site. Staff's suggestion is that only one freestanding sign should be approved for the project. I can go back to the photo of the existing sign on Main Street. In talking with the applicant right before the meeting, they -- the application does say that they would propose a second pylon sign similar to this on Meridian Road. They have given me an option that has a monument sign on Meridian Road, which I will let the applicant address with you. We can put that up for everyone to see. We did suggest that if the Meridian Road sign were the one freestanding sign, that it would be a monument as well. That's in there, too. For wall signs, if we go to the elevations, they are really difficult to see at this scale, but they have some on building signage on the south and on the west sides of their building. The second paragraph in there says that the applicant should verify the location and maximum size for all signs at the hearing and that if the building -- the multi-tenant structure, any future signs for future tenants would require Conditional Use approval, unless they are approved tonight, basically, and they are prepared to address that issue tonight. Item Number 4 deals with the drive-thru. The drive-thru is located on the west side of the project. When you look at the elevation, you can see that it is a covered drive-thru and has a second story over the top of it. Since the initial pre- application meetings on this project, staff has always encouraged them to look at a site layout that would allow them to access the drive-thru off the alley, instead of having it face Meridian Road. Staff just raises that for discussion tonight and would ask the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 6 of 120 applicant to address that and why it may not be feasible to do that, for frontage along Meridian Road, our hope had been to get the building up to Meridian Road with the access of the drive-thru off the alley. Item Number 5 deals with the streetscape and I will just -- staff is very pleased with what they are proposing with the streetscape. They worked with us very closely to get details of the existing construction of streetscape along Main Street and they are matching those details along both Broadway and Main Street. City Hall has a couple of street trees on Meridian Road. I guess I said Main Street. Sorry. On Meridian Road right over here. This would be continuing that. There are already existing trees on Main Street that come and turn this corner and, then, they would be continuing them down and making a continuous street scrape. They are also proposing the wider sidewalks, consistent with the other areas of downtown, and the parks department has submitted revised comments that deal with the design of those tree wells that should be incorporated into any conditions of approval. The last item and an item that's maybe not directly related to the applicant, but certainly for the project. The ACHD report for this project says that they will not allow any pavers to be placed in the right of way and, really, all of the pavers are in the right of way. Along the sidewalks, surrounding each of the tree wells, along the back of curb. There are pavers shown. The Parks Department prefers the pavers around the tree wells, because it allows for air and water infiltration to the root zone of the trees. It's something that we are going to have to workout with ACHD. I just put in here that I would report on the status of it. I have had conversations with ACHD staff. They said that to -- that their report stands per their policy and that any change to that will have to be worked out between the City Council and the ACHD commission. I will try and get that on their agenda as soon as possible, because we would sure like to have those pavers that are designed to patch the rest of downtown. I do have some photos of that as well. I would point out that this is the old style tree grate downtown. It's a very small tree well and it's surrounded, as you can see, by the pavers. The new standard, as you see here, these were kind of close to one another. The new standards for a six-foot tree gate and the parks department is slowly going through and retrofitting all existing downtown trees to be this design. This is the new standard for all downtown trees and that's what we would hope to get at this project. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Steve, while you're on the subject and have the picture there. I would guess that ACHD's objection to the pavers is what we see in that picture, that over time they become uneven and possible tripping -- inviting somebody to trip on them. I like the new well design for trees with a grate. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: My suggestion would be to explore with ACHD for the decorative treatment where pavers are proposed along the curb line -- Siddoway: Yes which is like this. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 7 of 120 Zaremba: -- that perhaps it be changed to stamped concrete, which could look like pavers, but not really be pavers and it may actually be cheaper than installing the pavers, but certainly a less maintenance problem over the time. Siddoway: Yes so, we will work that out with ACHD. One of the reasons why these do buckle is because the tree well is so small, it's just become a real problem, and these will resolve that issue. Well noted. Thank you. I guess that's all I have and I'll stand for any other questions. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Slocum: Good evening. Craig Slocum with CSHQA Architects representing Farmers and Merchants Bank this evening. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think I'll just follow the same sequence that Steve did and just walk through starting with the special conditions and maybe give you just a little more insight on a few of those items. The first item is regarding the existing structure and throughout the process, which has been about 11 months since we started working with Farmers and the city to look at what we were going to do on this site, the time frame and scheduling is part of the issue here. When they start construction of the new facility, the old facility is going to stay and operate, so it will be there at least through the point that the new facility is up and running. The bank is in the process of evaluating the possibility of using it for another tenant or selling it. It is a building that part of the reason they are going to build the new building is that it is not in the best of condition. It may appear so on the exterior, but it is -- uses a lot of energy. It has some poor mechanical and HVAC -- and just has some issues. That's the reason why, as we talked to staff, we have submitted plans, both site plan and landscape plan, for the option that it stays and for the option that it's gone. The owner simply is trying to not have to -- if a decision is made at a future date, once the new building is up, doesn't want to have to go through a long drawn-out process in order to get rid of that structure, if they determine that it financially doesn't make sense to keep it. That's what led us to the request to have approval of either option. The parking issue, which is item number two, we, actually, are in the process of and will probably have the variance package submitted next week. We don't think we have a problem with that. We recognize that Planning and Zoning is working on downtown design standards and part of those design standards are that there not be a lot of parking and that it's dwelt with in city-owned lots and parking garages in the future. So, I think that our proposal is in keeping with where we are going to be going in the future in Meridian. The sign -- the signage is -- the one issue that Steve brought up that we did have some conversation on today and I don't know if you want me to hand these out to you. Steve is going to put it up. Our original proposal was, as Steve mentioned, to keep the existing pylon sign that is on Main Street and provide a new pylon sign on Meridian. Not at the corner of Meridian and Broadway, but, basically, at the intersection of the alley and Meridian. As we received the staff report and had some further discussion, what we are proposing this evening is a compromise between where staff was, which was one or the other, we'd like to propose that we are able to keep that existing pylon sign that is out there today, as we may keep the building. On Meridian Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 8 of 120 Road, provide the monument sign that is on the screen and that we have presented to you this evening. It would allow for the possibility of some other tenants. As we went from the single story branch bank of 6,300 square feet to the 16,000 now, obviously, it's more square footage than the bank is going to take and there will be the possibility to lease some of that square footage on the second floor. That's -- the other plan that -- the elevation, originally, just had a Farmers and Merchants sign on the south and east elevations and in those same locations we would propose that, again, we have the ability, if we do get tenants, to have the tenant have a sign on that same facade as well. The fourth item, which is on -- discusses the staff desire to have the drive-thru on the alley side of the building, is really a function of the depth of the site and trying to get the diagonal on-street parking, a nice size sidewalk with street scape, the functional space we needed for the bank. What you're left with is not enough depth to get the kind of drive-thru that the bank needs to function adequately and, thus, we are left with the site plan we have today. Its presence, as you look at the elevations, I think is still esthetically pleasing for Meridian Road. It doesn't have the same up-against-the-street urban feel as Broadway will or what we would envision on Main Street in the future, but we have been through many reiterations on the site plan and we are happy with this and it functions well for the bank and I think it's still a good site plan for the city. I'm not going to address the streetscape. We have worked many hours with staff to make sure we are in keeping with where they are headed with the rest of the city. The pavers -- we would -- the client, actually, Tuesday, expressed that they prefer pavers, but we were kind of bow to whatever staff can work out with ACHD. ACHD did indicate we could do stamped concrete, which is cheaper, but it has a different look. We will go with whichever staff can work out with ACHD. The only other item that I wanted to just bring up this evening is the ACHD report that is included with your staff report has one standard condition in it that we are currently addressing with them. There is an aboveground irrigation box on the south side of the existing bank and right where Steve has the arrow. It currently exists in the ACHD right of way. Their standard condition is that any irrigation facilities be relocated outside of their right of way. Our civil engineers have discussed that with the irrigation agency that has jurisdiction over that box and it's an extremely expensive process to relocate that facility and they, in fact, have written a letter to ACHD indicating they don't want to have any part about moving it. It needs to stay where it is today. What we have proposed to ACHD is to face it with the same brick that we are using on the building and we have modified our site plan to provide concrete around it, so that it's not sticking out in between parking where we had originally had it when they did their staff report. I guess as we look for a motion as we end the evening, we would, I guess, just make sure that's in there, that we are currently working through that requirement that ACHD has and hope to, by City Council, have it worked out. I think that's all I wanted to cover this evening and would stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. Let me start with the existing structure, if I may. Slocum: You bet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 9 of 120 Zaremba: I'm with staff. I guess I could go either way. This is an attractive building from the outside, as you say, and it would be nice to have it remain and possibly could be used for another tenant. I'm also attracted to your proposal for the little plaza that would be on the front of it, kind of a park area. I understand your need to continue the use of it while the new building is being built. Would you be comfortable with having the option to keep it or remove it, but having the option to have a sunset, like one year after the new building is occupied, where you either have to fish or cut bait at that point, rather than just leaving it an open option forever. Slocum: Forever. I can't speak, specifically, for my client and -- although I'm not sure Terry, you want to either. Terry is the branch manager. I think that decision would probably be made within -- and maybe if there were maybe 18 months. I'm thinking a year it probably would be made, but I guess if that's the way the Commission wanted to make their motion, understanding we could have some time to discuss that with our client before we had final ruling for Council, but I believe the client would be open to something along those lines, yes. Borup: Commissioner -- I guess I'm wondering does it really make any difference if it happens, you know, one year or three years or -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: I mean -- because both options are acceptable, both option are compatible. Zaremba: Okay. I'm just trying to -- Borup: Yes. I just wondered what -- Zaremba: Staff, in their administration of this, there has to be a closing point at some time, I think. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, I'm not sure we can limit him. Part of the reason that we have suggested that he leave it is because, technically, it's on -- well, it's on the half of two legal lots from the original town site. This project site is comprised of 11 or 12 original town site lots, so I'm not sure we can take away his lot lines from him. I mean I think, technically, he could decide at a later date to take it down and we have been encouraging him to keep it, just because of that reason. He doesn't have to do a subdivision they could sell it right now if they wanted to. I'm not sure we could tell him, no, he can't take it down. We might be able to restrict putting accessory parking on it, but I don't think we could restrict him from tearing it down in the future and asking for accessory parking on it, but -- Borup: But if it is torn down in the future, the present design is what would be obligated to put in; is that correct or something very similar. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 10 of 120 Zaremba: Yes. My assumption is that these are the two choices and there is not an alternate. Borup: Okay. Does that kind of answer that? You were going to say something, commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Well, yes. That’s what I was to going to speak to, is if, in fact, the building is to be removed at a later date the second option for the plaza would be a requirement to fill that space. Can -- is that in keeping with the zoning department? Powell: Well, quite honestly, if they wanted to -- if they sold that lot and somebody wanted to tear it down, I think we would allow them to build another building in its place, if that's what they wanted to do. I mean the idea behind staff requesting that the building remain is to keep that urban fabric up on Main Street, to have those continuous store frontages, rather than having the open plaza. If they decided to put the plaza in, I guess it would be okay. We don't see much need for it right there at this time, but there could be need in the future. Borup: Okay. Rohm: So, what would be wrong with just excluding that existing structure from this application period and just say we are going to address the new building and parking spaces and all of the associated changes to the new structure and leave that out of this proposal altogether? Powell: We have asked them to do that, but they didn't want to, they wanted to come to you with these options, because their intent is to tear it down and put the parking in. It is on a separate lot or could be, you know, combined in a separate lot. You could consider that as an option. Borup: So, it sounds like, really, the applicant has some -- a lot of flexibility here and can kind of do whatever they want, but they would have to work real close with staff. Powell: Yes and you have some flexibility, too. I mean you could exclude it from their project if you wanted to, but I'm sure that that would prevent them from tearing it down and building a plaza if they wanted to, because -- Rohm: Well, I think when we get to the signage, it will raise its head again, I guess, and maybe we should just move to that, talk about the signage for a moment, and see what your thoughts are on that. Zaremba: I would go there and I guess my question is if it's a separate legal lot, they, actually, could have 11 signs, can't they? How can we prevent that? Borup: Well, because there are some conditions in the sign ordinance but the thought I had -- I mean this is a parcel that's on -- but it's on two -- actually, it's on -- this site is on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 11 of 120 three separate streets. I mean you have got -- you got frontage on Meridian and on Main Street. It seems logical to have a major sign on both streets. Zaremba: Well, particularly, if you have got another tenant in there, they would want signage of some sort for their business. Let me ask staff. Are you thinking that if this building remains and there were some other tenant in there, what would their signage be? Borup: That's incorporated on the same -- Siddoway: I would say that they could keep the existing sign if there is change out who the tenant is, but the existing sign would be grandfathered in with the existing structure. Zaremba: Okay and if they take the structure down, they are clearly going to take the sign down. Slocum: No. That's not our proposal. No. Zaremba: Oh. I'm sorry. I was thinking if you put the plaza there, this sign would go as part of that. Slocum: No. The plaza design has the sign remaining, as well a flag pole and the plaza with benches and trees and -- Zaremba: I missed that detail. Slocum: The signage request didn't change with the two alternative site plans. Borup: While we are on the signage, you have given us a design for a monument sign on Meridian. Is that -- is that your preference or is that something that's -- that's a big concern either way? Slocum: Our -- this evening what we are saying in lieu of the two pylon signs existing, plus the new the one on Meridian, would be to do a monument on -- Borup: Right. I understand. Is your preference still to have a pylon sign on Meridian? Slocum: Yes. Rohm: I guess my question, fundamentally, is why does the applicant want to keep this all as one application, the Meridian Road new development, along with that along Main Street? Is there -- what's the value to keeping it as one? Slocum: I would say that it stemmed from probably the 10-month process and many discussions with staff and with Farmers. Our original layout when we went into Planning and Zoning had the building being demolished. We had many discussions Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 12 of 120 about some desire to possibly keep that structure, which -- and staff is still indicating such. Farmers recognizes that desire and says maybe it's something we can do. We will look into it financially, if it makes sense to us, and, thus, we did a separate site plan that said here is how it would be if the building stayed. If we can find a way, that it makes sense to Farmers and Merchants to keep that building up in lieu of demolishing it, that's the alternative site plan. From day one Farmers, initial proposal was to take it down and that's why we continue to have that as a site plan that we request your approval on. Rohm: Well, I guess what my question is is we don't have to approve you tearing down that structure and so if that's the case, then, the development of the new property isn't contingent upon any changes to the existing period, in my mind. Borup: Other than they want to have a cohesive design and have it altogether. Rohm: Well -- and, yes, I guess you will tie together if, in fact, they choose to down the road, but the -- from -- from here -- Slocum: We can stop it right there. Rohm: -- everything is going to remain the same regardless of what you do with the existing -- with the existing bank; is that correct? If you don't change this at all, everything from here west will be just the same in any option. Slocum: Other than -- and I don't know if Steve has the alternative site, but you get a few more parking stalls abutting what is the existing bank, but very minor. Rohm: That's if you -- Slocum: If you kept the building there. Rohm: Oh, if you kept it and took the drive-thru out or something? Slocum: No. The existing bank structure would -- he's saying that -- well, you're talking about removing the drive-thru in that design, aren't you, there? Slocum: Steve, do you have the site plan that has -- Borup: That one has the existing building. Slocum: You would get some additional 90 degree parking right here, if this stays with the bank building in its place. That's very minor, but, yes, irregardless of what's west of that property line would stay the same. I guess from that standpoint, Commissioner Rohm, what we -- what we feel we have done is to provide the opportunity to be a more cohesive project. I think you're right Farmers could tear down if they so desired. What we are doing in front of you this evening is saying we have planned out the whole thing, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 13 of 120 approved that, and if we can't -- or if we can meet staff's desire to try to keep that building, we will do it. Rohm: So, you're agreeable to an either/or, you either leave the building as it currently is or the plaza as the -- as is the -- Slocum: That's what we have presented and it's probably truly better for the city to do that, than, to not even address the existing bank, I would think. Rohm: And that seems in keeping, because that's -- the staff would like to see something there, other than just open space. Slocum: They'd like a structure. Yes. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Let me ask a question to staff on that pylon sign. Are we -- what was the main concern there? I'm looking at -- you know, it's a two story structure where the sign is going to be muted by the building itself. Are you trying to establish a precedence for future development along Main Street -- on Meridian Road or -- Siddoway: Yes, sir. It's about -- whether we want to be encouraging pylon signs for each new building that comes in downtown or whether we are trying to do something different than that, when you go to most downtowns, pylon signs aren't part of them. Meridian Road may be more of through way and maybe more able to handle a free- standing sign, than, the future of Main Street as I see it, but the monument sign certainly is a less intrusive option than a really tall pylon sign that you would expect to see along Fairview or somewhere else. That was our thought. Borup: Are there any restrictions on the size of this signage on the building? Siddoway: We would just approve it as proposed tonight. I don't know if you know the dimensions those, do you? Borup: Well, they are not real large. That's why I -- Siddoway: No. Borup: Was that intentional to have it rather subdued and -- I mean I think you'd get more attention from a good signage on the building, rather than a pylon sign even. Slocum: I don't think the bank is not a retail or a big box retailer that, you know, wants the biggest sign they can get, so I think it's -- I think it's just well sized and we are not looking for -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 14 of 120 Borup: Well, maybe -- maybe rather than you addressing that, staff may go ahead on the next item, I think, which is the drive-thru. The only comment I have there is I understand what staff is trying to say on the proximity of Meridian Road, but in this situation, again, I think a two story really mutes the effect of that drive-thru. Looking at those elevations, it doesn't look like a standard drive-thru. It really does minimize that. I think it gives the effect of having the building out there, even though there is a drive- thru on there. Any comments from other Commissioners? Zaremba: I think in support of that, I had the same kind of feeling. If it had been -- Borup: Single story? Zaremba: -- what apparently was the original proposal where it was a single story building and this would have been totally out in the open, I would been very strongly in favor of staff's comment to use the drive-in -- drive-thru a little bit. The appearance of the new elevations where there is a second story which does come out pretty much to the end of the property or the available building area, I think changes the appearance of the drive-thru. It looks more like a building than a drive-thru. At least by the elevations that I'm looking at and I would be comfortable with a new design. I understand the constriction of, you know, what all would have to be reconfigured to move that drive-thru internally and externally would be extreme. I think adding the second story and bringing that out to cover the drive-thru satisfies me. Borup: Okay. Any of the Commissioners feel there is anything else that should be addressed? Zaremba: Yes. I want to go back to the signs. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I wouldn't have any problems with the sign in front of the old building staying if the old building stays. I wouldn't have any problem with that sign going away if the building goes away. I'm a little uncomfortable with leaving that sign if there is no building next to it. However, I understand if that current building is gone, the need to identify the business to the traffic that's on Main Street. Would you be willing to put a second monument sign there instead? It means removing the current sign and paying for a sign that doesn't exist, but to make two matching monument signs, one on Meridian where you propose it, and one where the current sign is? Part of the plaza. Slocum: I know that that is certainly not their preference and -- Zaremba: It's cheaper to leave the current sign. I know. Slocum: Well -- and I think Chairman Borup asked earlier and maybe I didn't answer. I think he asked of the monument on Meridian was preference and if he was asking if -- their preference would be to have a pylon sign on both streets. I think as I sat down Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 15 of 120 with the client on Tuesday and reviewed staff's report, we felt that we could try to come to some middle ground and do the monument sign on Meridian, because it's a new sign anyway, and if we can just keep the one that's on Main Street, that would certainly be the desire. Zaremba: Anybody else have an opinion about that? Rohm: Well, as long as that existing structure is there, I think it's a mute point. I think the existing signage with the existing building, is so unrelated to the new development that I don't even think we need to go there. That's -- Zaremba: I agree with you. If the existing building remains, I would make no change to the existing sign. My concern is that you have this big -- the building goes away, they are planning on leaving that exact sign there. Slocum: Right. Zaremba: And that would I don't think be attractive. Borup: Probably give them more reason to leave the building. Zaremba: They need to identify the business that's on the property. Borup: Maybe give them more reason to leave the building, if they'd lose their sign, but -- Zaremba: Does staff have an opinion? Siddoway: On the issue of whether to just ignore this site completely or include it, I would be in favor of including it. I do favor the option. I do like the idea of saying if the building stays the sign stays, if the building goes, then, the sign should go, I think, and the plaza and the other improvements should be put in as shown. Whether or not you want to allow it to be replaced with a monument sign doesn't conflict with the ordinance and would be up to -- up to the Commission. I think one of the best parts about including the entire property as part of the application, rather than considering chopping it off and not talking about it, is the fact that considering altogether you get the related street improvements as part of the -- part and parcel with this project along Broadway. It gives a finished edge to the entire Broadway Avenue, which I'm sure the applicant would want. I think the city would want as well. If we ended it -- ended the discussion here, you know, get improvements, but this would remain kind of unconnected and this way we get a continuous street scape from Main to Meridian. Zaremba: On that subject, have you read the parks department's new memo? Slocum: We have and, actually, have had two or three discussions between myself, our landscape architect, and understand where they are going and our fine with -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 16 of 120 Zaremba: Comfortable with it. Slocum: -- comfortable with that. I guess maybe addressing a little bit, as I maybe sense an end to our discussion coming, I guess I would ask the Commission to recognize the -- the type of financial effort being put into this by Farmers and Merchants to really be a catalyst to the development of downtown Meridian. We went through and did complete construction documents on a single story branch building and as an architect, maybe it wasn't my favorite design to have in downtown Meridian, but that's what our client felt they could financially put down here. I think in the staff report Steve mentions that about a month ago Tom Hudson, Hudson and Company, who has been hired to do a market study for the Urban Renewal Agency here, got wind of the Farmers and Merchant's submittal that was in, saw it, and had a meeting with Farmers and Merchants. Really, I guess called upon their sense of commitment to the City of Meridian and that's what led us to this drastic change and an additional 10,000 square feet that is going to cost a lot of money. I think they are committed to being in downtown Meridian, but I don't think as it regards signage and some of the things that -- while they aren't a big box retailer, if they are going to stay in downtown and be successful in downtown, the public needs to know where they are and signage is a big part of that. I guess I just ask that we maybe keep some of what's being proposed here in mind. I have no doubt that the single story suburban-looking bank property would have ultimately got approved. I don't think it would have been the right thing for Meridian. I'm happy to be in front of you tonight with what we have got and hope that -- that's why I say, I don't think Farmers and Merchants at all needed to do this as an overall project, but they want the overall project to be good. I think it's to the city's benefit that we are doing that. I don't think it's to Farmers and Merchants' benefit. I think that their effort to work with Steve and Anna and staff and -- I mean they are in downtown, they are in chamber, they are with all of you. They don't want to make a project here that isn't a high quality successful project and they are just looking for some balance to make sure that it can be that. I guess that's my plea. Borup: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Thank you. I think you have done an excellent job putting this proposal together. I'd like you to stay, but I have a question of staff. Have you reviewed the optional plaza with the inclusion of the existing signage as their option if the building were to go away? Have you taken a close look at that and -- to see if there is anyway that would work as far as your staff's opinion? Borup: Maybe just one comment I might have on that. The sign is at the intersection, it's at the corner of the two sidewalks, so it's not out in the middle of where the plaza would be, so it's nearer the sidewalk on the corner. Go ahead, Steve. Siddoway: I would say, yes, we definitely reviewed it and it would -- their site plan shows this sign remaining, so if you -- it's hard to see at the scale that we have this at, but if you want to point to it, Craig. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 17 of 120 Hood: Right there, Steve? Borup: Yes. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. I'd like to just try to summarize what we have discussed here, just so that -- before we move to the public testimony we have some continuity. It seems like this is the option that everyone would prefer is to include all the property, have an option on the building, and, then, the signage to remain as is from the existing structure, with a monument sign for the newly developed property and that would in keeping with the applicant's best wishes. That seems to encapsulate what we would like to move forward with at this point in time and -- Borup: So, it sounds like the staff conditions -- the only addition to the conditions that you're proposing to make is probably that on the signage, changing the pylon sign to a monument sign. Rohm: And I'm not sure that I'm even in support of changing it. I kind of concur with the applicant that the existing signage -- Borup: No. I'm talking about the new one. Rohm: Oh, yes. The monument sign. Borup: Is that what you meant? Rohm: Yes. Absolutely. Zaremba: So, we are talking about the new sign on Meridian Road. Rohm: The monument. Zaremba: The monument sign. Rohm: Right. Zaremba: And I think the presentation of it. Borup: And other than that would be -- Zaremba: But allowing the current sign to remain, even if the building goes away. Rohm: Exactly. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 18 of 120 Borup: But isn't that what we would be doing if we accept the staff conditions because all that other is already submitted on the plans? We are not making any modification to the plans, so -- Zaremba: Yes. Under conditions of approval, I don't see it to state to remove that sign. Slocum: Yes. Number 4 does. It recommends one freestanding sign, either the Pylon sign that's existing or a monument on the Meridian, and that is the one that the applicant would request it be both. Zaremba: I didn't read the -- Borup: Right. Slocum: And I would point out in regards to that item, as Steve and I talked, his recommended condition of approval indicates compliance with the L-O standards. Since there aren't any standards in Old Town, that's what staff has indicated to use as a guideline and the monument sign that we presented this evening falls within the guidelines. Borup: So, you would propose to change that sentence to two freestanding signs? Slocum: Correct. Borup: And say one pylon -- Slocum: One pylon -- Borup: -- and one monument on Meridian Road. Zaremba: Take out the word either. Borup: And change or to and. Zaremba: Change or to and is all we need to do. The wall signs are as shown on the new -- I'm comfortable with that. Okay and then, any additional signs. Sure. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Good job. Thank you. Slocum: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 19 of 120 Zaremba: Okay. I would only comment that I'm aware that Farmers and Merchants has been a strong supporter, advocate, and presence in our Old Town downtown area for a long time. They for many years have offered and permitted City Hall to use their property for parking and they have been cooperative in many ways. This is a group of people that have Meridian's interest in mind and I appreciate that. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to close the hearing? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 4. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, CUP 03-050, request for a Conditional Use Permit for new bank facility with drive-up tellers in an OT zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by CSHQA, 703 North Main Street. To include all staff comments of their memo of -- for the hearing date of December 18th , received by the Clerk December 12, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 7, conditions of approval, Paragraph 4, change the second sentence to read two freestanding signs will be allowed for the project. The existing Farmers and Merchant pylon sign and a monument sign on the Meridian Road located at least two feet behind the sidewalk and continuing on with the rest of the paragraph as previously stated. Ten, adding on Page 8 Condition 14, the planting of trees near streets shall comply with the parks department memo from Elroy Huff dated December 9, 2003. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Now, we didn't mention the pavers, but I think the discussion is clear enough and they will work it out with ACHD. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: And the motion is done anyhow. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 20 of 120 Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2003: PP 03-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 2.064 acres in a L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers – 2150 West Cherry Lane: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2003: CUP 03-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office use with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 2150 West Cherry Lane: Borup: Okay. Item Number 5 is a Continued Public Hearing, PP 03-029, request for preliminary plat approval of six building lots on 2.064 acres in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision and open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Just a quick refresher on the project that's before you now. This was -- at the November 6, 2003, meeting the Commission directed staff to modify the original recommendation to include revised findings for approval of the proposed development. Staff has revised the original findings and has included conditions for approval on the submitted Preliminary Plat. The applicant has requested Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use approval for a Planned Development on approximately two acres of land located on the north side of Cherry Lane, approximately a third of a mile west of Linder Road. The subject site lies within a public, quasi-public area, of the two -- on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The property is presently zoned L-O and is currently being utilized as a church and parking lot. The development proposal is for six office lots with landscaping, driveways, parking, and common areas to be within easements. The Conditional Use includes a request to allow the operation of a nursing home facility in an L-O zone. Since the original applications were submitted, the applicant has revised the site plan to move one of the office buildings on the north side where there are kind of the dual parking lots there together, kind of in the middle of the site there. In response to the applicant's revised site, plan and letter dated December 11th , staff recommends that the second sentence in Condition 3 on Page 13 of the staff report you have be modified to read. Except for the existing drain rock in the drainage swales, buffer materials, including evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and other ground cover, shall be installed in accordance with Meridian City Code. Then, to further address the applicant's rebuttal letter to the staff report, Condition 4 on Page 13, staff continues to recommend that the applicant retain the nine foot width on the existing parking stalls, rather than reducing the width to seven and a half feet and that parking is. Like I said, on the left-hand side of the site plan, looking at it there, there is existing parking there. There is not a turnaround currently for the remaining or the last stall furthest to the west there and staff recommended that the applicant lose that last stall and use that area as back up. Those stalls -- currently there is 21 feet of back up area from the back of the stalls to the curb or the berm that's out on Cherry Lane, so shorten those stalls and assign them for compact, so you still have a standard drive aisle of 25 feet. Then, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 21 of 120 applicant is proposing to even -- to make them standard compact stalls, which are seven and a half feet wide by 17 feet long, so -- or, excuse me, 15 feet long. Our code does allow the seven and a half foot width, but staff is usually not real supportive of that compact stall, just with a lot of the larger vehicles that are on the road these days, they are -- it is truly a compact stall. And, then, condition number five, I believe, is the only other one that the applicant had a response to and I want to acknowledge that the city's parking standards, I believe, may be below what the market demands are, but staff does not believe that compromising safety for a few parking stalls is the best solution. Rather, staff believes that the applicant should lose some more of the floor area to get the parking ratios closer to market standards if they don't believe our minimum requirements are accurate. If approved as submitted, there will be cars backing up into the throat of the main entrance. This can be problematic for cars maneuvering in the area. We are talking about the parking that's in this area here. They have got three parking stalls on this side and three parking stalls on this side of that driveway. They do have two entrances into the site, but this is a -- there is about 35 feet from the first parking stall to the edge of pavement on Cherry Lane and just the design of that I don't believe is very good. You get people that are trying to get into these parking stalls or backing over these when someone is coming in and get stacking into Cherry Lane and potential for accidents there, so staff is continuing to recommend that these parking areas go away. These three, actually, if you just rotate them to up over here and stripe them this way and you can get those three back on this north side. The applicant, I believe, is willing to do that. This side is the contentious side. Still, I believe that they don't want to lose these three parking stalls and, like I said, I just don't think that that's the best design to have parking right there near that entrance. I guess that's the end of my staff report. I will sit, as it is, for any questions you may have. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? It looks like you're thinking. Oh. Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Cross Timber, representing the applicant tonight. As I remember it, the last hearing was, actually, one major reason that we were continued to come back was to provide some additional elevations of some buildings for, so you could see what the south side of these buildings would look like and we have provided those elevations. I didn't see them -- there we go. There are some different types of elevations that you can see. These are, actually, buildings on Eagle Road that front onto Eagle Road and you have asked for some elevations that showed what they could look like, what doors that were on the south elevations or buildings with some sort of architectural feature, without having a pedestrian door or access off the road. We have provided those for you. If we can just address a couple of the comments that Craig just made, I'll start backwards starting with the parking. If you could go back to the parking, Craig. As Craig mentioned, we'd like to be able to keep some of the parking in this area on the site plan, these three parking stalls right here. These three parking stalls, as Craig said, and as I mentioned in my letter to you, we can shift these around and we can put the parking stalls north and south. We have no problem doing that. That will create some additional landscape area in this location. In addition to that, we can crimp this access Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 22 of 120 down to 25 feet from 41 feet and also increase the amount of landscaping that we can provide. These three spaces over here would be hard to replace if we were to remove those from the parking area. You know, Craig mentioned a little bit about how it's unsafe and he feels that it's unsafe. Just a couple of things I'd like to bring up in response to that. Number 1 is that this, actually, meets with the Meridian parking code. There is a provision in the Meridian parking standards to allow this type of parking. In addition to that, the building that we are all sitting in tonight has parking very similarly to this. Both sides of this building, on the right side and the left side of where I'm standing right now has parking that starts 90 degrees, 18 feet from the back of the curb. This is not a new style of parking or is it a parking style that is dangerous in the intent or the code itself. We are only asking for three parking spaces to be allowed there. Commissioner Rohm, you're shaking your head. Rohm: Well, I was just thinking this is not a main street out here, whereas Cherry Lane gets a lot more traffic than -- McKinnon: Right. You know, if that's something that we have to do, there are some things that we can do to provide some additional parking north-south like we can on the east side of the parking lot, but we will definitely lose at least one of those spaces. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, is this building footprint intended to stay that configuration? Is that a building that's already designed? McKinnon: It's not a building that is designed yet. Borup: Could the building design -- McKinnon: Accommodate additional parking? Yes. Borup: Well, no, I mean move the building over to here, shorten it up this way and do perhaps some angled parking in there and -- McKinnon: We have, actually, talked about that and -- Borup: You have looked at that? McKinnon: And in the letter I wrote to you, actually, we addressed that, saying that if parking becomes a major concern, we could slice this portion of the building off and, actually, add some additional parking in that area. Borup: Well, actually, not necessarily slice it off, just move it over here to the side. McKinnon: We could accommodate that. Borup: I mean so you could still keep your building size. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 23 of 120 Zaremba: Shift the building closer to the drive. McKinnon: We could be okay with that. Borup: Yes. Shift the building over and just change the building configuration and get your parking on the north. Rohm: Dave, is this opening there currently? McKinnon: No, it's not there currently. Currently it's in this location. Rohm: What do you think about just eliminating that ingress-egress? McKinnon: I'm not sure what the fire department would say about being able to pull in here and having to go all the way down to this end to do this building. Borup: We are kind of looking at two different uses here. These are the office buildings and this is the -- McKinnon: That's correct. Assisted living. Borup: -- assisted living. Zaremba: Just to throw in another opinion, I thoroughly agree with staff of the lack of safety for the park here and appreciate Dave and the applicant's willingness to move them up there. This being the in-bound side of the lane, I think that's an important thing to do. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: I'm not so sure that the ones on the out-bound side of the lane are that much of a safe issue. The traffic coming out of the parking lot is likely to be moving much slower, looking around for people backing out of parking spaces, much more -- I would be very concerned if you left it the way it is on the in-bound side, but your willingness to move it makes me comfortable with that. I'm not so heavily sure that the ones on the outbound side need to be moved, although if you shift the building right over to where the driveway is and put those three spaces on the other side, that could be another solution that would work. Borup: Other than you're restricted on those parking on north on the direction that you can pull in. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: They would only come from the one direction. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 24 of 120 McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: I'm assuming it was angled parking and maybe you can do -- McKinnon: We can do 90 degree parking. Borup: You can do 90 degree? Oh. That would get you more parking, then, wouldn't it? McKinnon: It's a wash, because of the handicapped space. You need to have that 16 feet wide and so if you lost the handicapped space you could fit three extra spaces up there. Borup: On the north side of the building? McKinnon: On the north side of the building if you cut it back and shifted it over like you were talking about earlier. Sliding the building -- Borup: Yes. If you could do 90 degree parking on the north side, you would gain parking. Rohm: I think he's saying take this off and, then, add it on here where these existing spaces are, you're building would be longer and -- Zaremba: Change the shape of it. McKinnon: One of the things that we have to worry about is marketing the building. If we create a building that's too narrow in size, we -- size is something that's of a concern, but if you're going to chop part of it and move some over, if you were to create one long hot dog shaped building it becomes less marketable. Borup: I think what Commissioner Zaremba said makes a lot of sense. I mean the concern is the -- pulling into the property. Zaremba: I could be comfortable with leaving the outbound side alone. I appreciate the change on the inbound side. McKinnon: We can make sure we do. I guess that would require a modification to the Page 13, Item Number 5. I guess I have got some language that would make that pretty simple, to reword that to state that -- Number 5 to read remove the three proposed parking stalls that are located on the east side of the eastern driveway entrance and that would make it simple to make that correction. The only other comment that I think needs to be addressed on the conditions for approval would be on Page 12 as well and that's Item Number 2. It's on the second line. We would recommend striking the pedestrian access being required on the south elevations of these two buildings and allowing the architectural design to limit that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 25 of 120 Rohm: Wasn't that something that -- Zaremba: I thought you had agreed to that in your memo. McKinnon: In the memo, yes. In hindsight, we really don't want to have to place pedestrian accesses as those pedestrian accesses are going to break up the building and require that we put doorways for people that may use those occasionally, rather than daily. Rohm: Wasn't there a setback issue along with the request to put a street side access? Wasn't there an issue on that as well? McKinnon: The issue was for staff. Staff felt that it was important to provide pedestrian access to the front side of those buildings, which would be the south elevation of those buildings, if they were to approve the reduced setbacks. Rohm: Right. Okay. Okay. McKinnon: So, we felt that the architectural standards would be something that could provide for that break in the landscape and streetscape. It was the long amount of discussion that we had at the last hearing where we talked about whether or not the new urbanism design had to include pedestrian access at the front of those buildings. That was the request from the Commission was to come up with those additional elevations and pictures of buildings that showed what some of those buildings -- if they did or did not have pedestrian accesses on the south elevations of those buildings. Rohm: Yes. From the buildings shown, I couldn't tell that it was on the street side that there was -- McKinnon: These are all actually taken from Eagle Road. This is on opposite sides of Eagle Road. Eagle Road is running north south along this building and, again, north south along this building. This building has no pedestrian access to the side that faces Eagle. Borup: Of the three, this is a better-looking building than the one that does have a door. McKinnon: And that's what we would contend as well, that the architectural features would be more attractive than a doorway. Borup: And I like -- I like this type of feature, but, you know, these are just pictures you have brought. What control is there that the design is going to be comparable? McKinnon: In the staff report itself it addresses that, that the architectural design features, windows, dormers, et cetera, are placed on the south elevation. That would be a requirement from the staff to approve that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 26 of 120 Borup: It would be on staff approval. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Is there a Conditional Use Permit for each building that will be brought in and constructed on these lots? McKinnon: It wouldn't be required for an additional Conditional Use Permit, Commissioner Rohm. However, there would be a requirement for a certificate of zoning compliance, which is a staff level approval. Borup: And they would review the architectural plans at that time. McKinnon: At that time. Rohm: I think it's safe to say that the thought process behind this was that if, in fact, there is a reduced setback along the roadway, that you make that side of the building look more accessible, I guess, whether it has a door or just windows and some sort of access, I guess. McKinnon: Architectural feature. Rohm: Right. Exactly. Borup: Okay. I'd like to see something like this. That does accomplish all that very well. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Some type of projection out from the building and the roofline gable change or something. Rohm: I'd like to hear staff's comments on that while we are on that issue. Powell: I didn't review the minutes, but I did want to just give my recollection of what happened. There was quite a bit of testimony about neo-traditional or new urban designs, that the applicant was -- had stated as the reason for justifying the reduced setback. I believe the reason that he was directed to provide some elevations or some typical building construction is so that you would have an idea of what he was proposing to meet those new urbanist standards and it seems like now he's just wanting to not do them at all. I'm a little concerned about that. The architectural features, although they come out -- I mean think of how much better it would be if there was a door in the middle of that architectural feature, rather than framing just a blank wall. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 27 of 120 That's my concerns is really if we are saying that this warrants a reduction in the landscape buffer that's been established for Cherry Lane, because we are welcoming people from the street to these buildings, then, it needs to welcome them. I mean there is -- these might look better from the street, but it was really the pedestrians were the consideration, not the cars going by. I mean that, as I recall, was the testimony from -- I believe Sharon McKibben got up and testified about new urbanism, neo-traditional stuff and, really, the idea was to see how the applicant was going to provide entrances on Cherry Lane with his buildings. I thought that's why he was coming back with elevations, is to show how he was going to do that, so that we could just -- so that -- it's kind of one of those things where it's a director's determination. Generally, I give it up to you on the -- when you're doing the Conditional Use Permits or the planned developments, but that the applicant show how he was going to accomplish that neo- traditional -- Borup: And I'm remembering basically the same thing. I think the concern was that we are going to have, you know, a normal back wall of a building and, you know, just a blank facade there. I don't -- I don't think that putting a door in necessarily makes it more inviting. I mean just -- and he probably purposely put those two pictures up there, I don't know, but, you know, that one has a door and the one without the door I think to me is more inviting than the one with the door. Powell: Exactly. That's, as I recall, why we asked him to bring it, because we were concerned that we would get this type, where it's not a main entrance, it's just a side door that probably is a staff door going in and out. Borup: But it's got the windows and we were concerned about having, you know, a blank wall with no other windows or anything in it, too, so -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have had a chance to review the minutes. At the last meeting we talked quite a bit about how we would make sure that the buildings that we presented on the south side of this project, that they would be attractive and they would be not just the back side of a building. However, at that meeting we also had a great deal of discussion about the fact there really aren't any buildings in the area that, actually, show the front end of a building facing away from where all the parking is. We have to look at this as a sense of utility as well. If people are going to be parking at the back of the building and they are going to be walking around to the front of the building, it would make sense. Typically, people are going to enter from where they park and we are going make this more attractive on the front side, people can address these buildings from the street. We have provided sidewalks from the street to the front of these buildings. I don't know why Anna says that we are not trying to meet these the requirements of the architectural features. We have presented these pictures just to show you what it would look like if you put a door on the street. The main entrances for these buildings are going to be towards where people are parking. People are not going to want to purchase a building and, then, not be able to enter through the back and require all the people that come via vehicles have to walk Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 28 of 120 around the front side of the building to access these buildings. The primary entrance will be on the inside of the parking lot. Rohm: Dave, I think it's kind of a Catch 22. The request is to have a reduced setback and -- McKinnon: That's correct. Rohm: -- in order to move towards a reduced setback, the staff would like to see access from that entrance or that side, if I understand the staff's position. Well, I -- if you want the reduced setback, that seems what they would like to see as a compromise, and -- McKinnon: Commission Rohm, the top picture on left, is that what you'd rather see facing the street? This is what staff is asking for, is to place a door facing to the street side. Borup: They probably want both. Zaremba: The perfect answer to all would be to have a facade like this with a door in it. McKinnon: If the door is not used very often and someone places a desk in front of the door -- Powell: See. McKinnon: -- what have you gained? Borup: I think a lot of it is going to depend on the design of the building and the use of building, which at this point is undetermined. McKinnon: That's correct. It may make sense. There may be a building that gets built there where they want to place a door there, but to have a requirement to place your major entrance on the south side -- Borup: Were they talking major entrance or just a second -- McKinnon: From what I gathered from what Anna said, she didn't want to see just a side entrance. Powell: Chairman Borup, they were requesting alternative compliance. As their alternative compliance they were saying that there were providing a neo-traditional street scape, where the buildings were brought up to the street scape. The major component of a neo-traditional design is having entrances on that side and now they are saying -- I mean they are basically saying they are not providing the alternative compliance that they were going to provide. I just want to make sure that that's clear, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 29 of 120 they are not providing alternative compliance for the reduced setback at this point. They are asking that that not occur. Regarding -- the reason that staff wanted to see elevations was to make sure we weren't getting this type of thing. I just want to make that clear. We do not want to see this. We want to see something like this, where this is the main door to the facility would be there. Dave makes -- Mr. McKinnon makes a good point that that wouldn't be really practical given the design and I suppose that's staff's point all along, is that the way this project is designed, it's clearly designed to be used from the parking lot and that the setback really isn't warranted. Rohm: Well, let's go back to the request for the reduced setback, then. What would happen to this development if, in fact, we said we are not going to allow a reduced setback, how much further would they have to move -- can we go back to the site layout? How much more room would there be along this north side of Cherry Lane that they would have to give up? Hood: The standard for Cherry Lane is a 25-foot wide street buffer and a 15 -- 10 additional feet that would have to be landscaped adjacent to Cherry Lane. Borup: Ten feet. Hood: Ten additional feet. Borup: So, it sounds like we are saying if they move back 10 feet, then, they could go back to a plain blank facade along there, with no windows, doors, or anything, a big flat wall. Powell: You certainly have the discretion as part of the CU to ask for architectural treatment. I suspect you would see a different site layout. They would probably move one of their buildings back to the north, but -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, two things would happen. If we put landscape buffer 25 feet back and create a landscape buffer that's not in existence anywhere on rest of the street and right now we have an eight foot buffer on each side of this project, so we put that landscape buffer 25 feet, which means these buildings would have to be moved back. This would no longer be a Conditional Use Permit. There is a project -- there is a line that runs right here. There is two pieces of property that we are dealing with on this site. One is through the assisted living and the other is for these five buildings in this location. If this came back to you, we could come back just with an office use for each one of these sites as a Preliminary Plat. The Conditional Use Permit would only be for this site, there wouldn't be any allowance from the Commission to determine what types of buildings went here. What you would end up with is your Plain Jane subdivision, where you would have buildings placed at the back, 25 feet of landscaping and parking and we are asking for you to allow us to do something different than what you see everywhere else. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 30 of 120 Rohm: Well, the one thing that you just said that I concur with completely is both east and west from that parcel of ground, the existing setback is not 25 feet, so you would have a nonconformity within a single block. McKinnon: New urbanism is a tough thing. If you look for it defined in the City Code, you're not going to find it. New urbanism is something that's mentioned in the landscape code as one of the things you can do through alternative compliance. One of the additional things that's not listed in the landscape code is, actually, listed in Title 12-6 under the planned developed is asking for reduced setbacks. If the reduced setbacks that are requested in the planned development make sense to the Planning and Zoning Commission, they can approve the reduced setbacks. It's not tied directly to the requirements of the landscape ordinance for the reduced landscape buffers. We could design this to have three large buildings in back with parking and landscaping out front, with no facades and no changes to the buildings. There is no design review in the City of Meridian and if the project met the requirements of the preliminary plat, you could end up with that. We are asking for something different, something, which you don’t see everyday, where the buildings are, actually, brought closer, and it softens the streetscape. That's one of the major things when you have to deal with the street, such as Cherry Lane, so it's a major traffic connector in the City of Meridian, approximately 15,000 vehicles drive passed this location each day. There is not nearly that many pedestrians that walk passed this location each day. The major impact that people are going to have from this is going to be from their cars. They will be viewing this from their cars. Rohm: Okay. Mr. McKinnon, we have discussed this building quite a bit. What about this over here? Are we talking basically the same thing? The access to the building is going to be from the west or the north side of the building and, therefore, you wouldn't want any street access to that building either? Is that -- McKinnon: Street access can be provided. I don't believe that you -- the people parking here -- you don't typically walk around to the front of a building if you park in the back of the building. My guess is that you would see an entrance either here or here. This building could be split in two in this manner with a good access at either site. We are dealing with approximately 40 feet that people would have to walk in order to access these buildings, if they addressed it from the pedestrian side or from the south side. People who are walking would have to walk an additional 40 feet to get to the front door. Rohm: And it seems to me in our last time this hearing was open, the discussion was -- is that this side of the building would have windows, so it would look more esthetically pleasing. Then, there is a sidewalk right here, which is just halfway down and, then, you could have your ingress on the east side of the building. McKinnon: Sure. Rohm: Okay. Just kind of the way I remembered it, too. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 31 of 120 McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Thank you, Dave. McKinnon: Yes. Thank you. I guess, Members of the Commission, it boils down just to basically two things. One is your approval of this project to allow some of the parking to remain on the -- I guess the west side of the east entrance, the out bound as Commissioner Zaremba has called it. Those three parking spaces to remain. We will shift the parking on the drive aisle on the east side to accommodate the parking to run north south, rather than east west. We will move those three parking stalls. The other item that we would ask for a change from the staff report would to be rid of the requirement for the major access to be on the south side of these buildings. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Rohm: Not at this time. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: Thank you, Mr. McKinnon: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? We have the same people as last time. Okay. Commissioners, how would we like to proceed? Rohm: Well, I think we may, as well close the Public Hearing seeings how there is no additional testimony. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 03-029, request for preliminary plat approval of six building lots on 2.064 acres in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, 2150 Cherry Lane. Zaremba: Do you want to close both public hearings? We have two open. Rohm: Oh, yes. Excuse me and the CUP 03-048. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. What do we see as the issues we need to discuss? Zaremba: Let me throw a new subject in here. One thing we didn't discuss that was discussed last time is the former designation of this property as quasi-public, because it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 32 of 120 was being used as a church. My instinct on that, not property formed last time, is that the designation, as quasi public should be attached to the use, and not attached to the land. The zoning designation is L-O and we were discussing whether we could even have office buildings there in a quasi public. My instinct is that if the use as a church does away, then, the quasi-public designation goes away. Borup: And the quasi public -- Zaremba: It may reappear again, because a nursing home is quasi public, but that has nothing to do with the former use, which means I'm comfortable with the L-O portion of this without having to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: And the quasi public is strictly a comp plan -- a comp plan designation, not a zoning designation. Zaremba: Right. That's what I'm saying. It's not a zone. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: So, if we are in agreement on that -- Borup: I think so. Zaremba: -- that does allow an office in L-O zone, which it is. As for the other details -- Borup: Well, are we comfortable on everything -- are we -- well, what issues are we down to? The south facade? Zaremba: The south facade. Yes. Borup: And, then, is there any other discussion on the parking beyond your earlier comments? Zaremba: I'm comfortable with resolving only the three spaces on the east side of that east entrance and leaving the three on the west side alone. I personally don't have a problem with those. Borup: Have we changed the size of that entrance? Rohm: I don't think we need to change the size of the entrance, as long as we have eliminated the parking on the east side of that entrance. Borup: Because they are talking about going to a 25 foot entrance. I think that probably -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 33 of 120 Rohm: That was just an option that they were looking at, but if you eliminate those on the east side, I don't think you need to reduce the size of the entrance. Borup: Okay. Are we down to just the one issue? Setback from Cherry Lane and the building facade? Zaremba: I don't have a problem with the reduced setback, precisely because what is adjoining it is a small setback with fences. I think the 25-foot setback, actually, would look funny, in conjunction with the other. I'm not that concerned about the reduced setback. I would like to certainly support having a more attractive facade than just a blank wall on the south side, which I think the applicant has agreed to. I was supportive of actually having the doors there, because at some time, we hope to have mass transit along Cherry Lane and there may be people arriving who are not using cars. I am not absolutely stuck to that last part, however. Rohm: Well, I think the applicant addressed that somewhat in that the sidewalk coming off of Cherry Lane parallels the side of the building that the primary entrance would be on. There would almost be a redundancy there to have ingress to the building off of Cherry Lane as well as off from the parking lot and it just -- as long as there is access to the building off of Cherry Lane, it seems in keeping to allow the reduced setback and have the primary entrance within the development itself. Borup: My two thoughts are if this is a retail building, retail use, I have a different feeling and I thing that would be appropriate and desirable. I'm more interested in the architectural design and the facade of that building. I more interested in that, than having another door there. Having an attractive looking building from the street. For an office building, I'm not sure what you gain by having another entrance, other than someone coming from a bus, but they are already walking, you know -- you know, a good -- you know, another 40 feet. Somebody that's already walked a half a mile, it shouldn't make any difference. Rohm: Yes. Borup: If they are walking to it, it's the destination point, not a -- they are not trying to capture walk-by traffic. Rohm: Yes. I think the issue is that staff just doesn't want to see a blank wall -- Borup: I agree with that. Rohm: -- all the way along the south line of any buildings parallel to the street and so from an architectural perspective, if they bring a proposed building into the -- for a permit that doesn't have some sort of windows or a facade that is acceptable, probably won't get approved. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 34 of 120 Borup: Well, I hope so. I mean in my mind it would be a facade with windows and projections, roofline gables or changes, to some extent, not a straight wall. Zaremba: Look at Page 12 of the staff notes for a second and Item 2. I think we may be going this direction, so let me just suggest what I would do. Item 2 read building setbacks for Lots 2 and 5 of Block 1, may be reduced to 15 feet measured from the face of the building to the property line, if -- and, then, I would delete the next three words -- pedestrian access and -- and go on with architectural design features, windows, dormers, et cetera, are placed on the south elevations. Period. Connect the main entrance, instead of Cherry Lane entrance, of the buildings with existing sidewalk on Cherry Lane, with a north-south oriented pedestrian pathway, which is what I believe the applicant has offered to do already. Then, the rest of it doesn't change. Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, can you speak up a little bit. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. I was not near the -- okay. Paragraph 2 in the second -- the second printed line, I'm deleting the words pedestrian access and -- those three words. The second sentence I deleted the words Cherry Lane and changed it to main -- connect the main entrance. That's the only change I was making. I'm giving up the Cherry Lane entrances, but still requiring the architectural features in order to get the 15-foot setback and requiring sidewalk connectivity to whatever the main entrance is. Powell: I believe the last sentence you need to modify that to be consistent. Second to last. Borup: It starts with if pedestrian access? Powell: Correct. Borup: I think Commissioner Zaremba's definition of pedestrian access would just be a sidewalk from Cherry Lane to the main entrance. Is that what you intended, Commissioner? Zaremba: Well -- okay. Let's change pedestrian access to pedestrian connectivity. Well, yeah, pedestrian access can come out. If architectural design features -- no? Yes. If connecting access and architectural design features are not included. We want both to be included. Borup: And the site plan proposal we have now does show sidewalks -- looks like three of them connecting to Cherry Lane. Zaremba: I'm comfortable with that. Borup: Okay. Any other issues? Item number 5? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 35 of 120 Zaremba: Okay. Five I would suggest rewording it. Instead of remove, I would say move the three proposed parking stalls that are located on the east side of the eastern driveway's entrance to next to the parking spaces -- next to the other parking spaces for the same building. Then, I would delete or reduce the eastern driveway from 41-foot width proposed. Then, I would leave said impervious areas and change it to three parking stalls shall be incorporated into common -- et cetera. Borup: Okay. Does that do it? Zaremba: It does it for me. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could interrupt real quickly. Just for clarification, I don't know if you're going to include in your motion or not, but the other two issues that I had brought up first with the -- on the same Page 13, the drain rock -- existing drain rock, could you just address that -- Zaremba: I got that. Hood: As well as the nine and the seven and a half foot width on the compact, quote, unquote, stalls, versus the nine-foot wide compact stalls. Zaremba: That's in Paragraph 4. Hood: That's Condition 4 on Page 13 and the previous one, Condition 3. Zaremba: Yes. Paragraph 3 I got. Tell me again the change you're suggesting for four. Hood: Staff is recommending no change for Condition 4. The applicant wants to see the seven and a half foot width on those parking stalls. Zaremba: Oh. I'm sorry. I'm with staff on that one. Okay. You were suggesting -- Borup: Okay. That was my understanding from the motion, is that all of the other staff recommendations would stand as written. Zaremba: I'm with that. Okay. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, PP 03- 029, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of six building lots on 2.064 acres in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, 2150 West Cherry Lane. To include all stuff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 20, 2003, received by the Clerk November 13, 2003. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 36 of 120 MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council Item 6 on our agenda. The first element of this motion is to recommend approval of CUP 03-048, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office use with reduced setbacks and landscape requirements in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 2150 West Cherry Lane. To include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 20, received by the Clerk November 13, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 12, Site Specific Condition Number 2, on the second line of Paragraph 2, delete the three words pedestrian access and. On third line of Paragraph 2, delete the words Cherry Lane and replace it with the word main, so it reads main entrance. On the fifth line, this is the beginning of the third sentence, delete the word pedestrian, and insert the word connecting. On Page 13, Paragraph 3, at the beginning of the second sentence, add the words except for the existing rock in the existing drainage swale, comma. Paragraph 4 stands as is. Paragraph 5. Change the first sentence to read: Move the three proposed parking stalls that are located on the east side of the eastern driveway entrance to -- next to the other parking stalls for the same building. Delete the second sentence. What was the third sentence now reads: Said impervious areas, parenthesis, three parking stalls, closed parenthesis, and the rest of the paragraph reads the same. Borup: No. Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. They would be incorporated into the plaza area. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That's the end of the first element of the motion. The second element of this motion is to state that this action, knowingly and intentionally, established the precedent for Meridian that the designation of quasi public attaches solely to the current use and is, therefore, unlike a zoning designation, which more permanently attaches to the land. End of the motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Anything, staff that needs to be added? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 37 of 120 Item 14. Public Hearing: AZ 03-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 25.13 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc. – north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Item 15. Public Hearing: PP 03-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 46 single-family residential building lots and 15 common lots on 13.995 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc. – north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 03-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced requirements for lot size, street frontage, setbacks, minimum house size and permission to exceed the maximum block length in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by Douglas Campbell – north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. Commissioners, before we proceed, I have received a note here concerning Sheridan Place Subdivision, which was on our agenda, Items 14 through 16, and they have asked to be continued and I thought it would be appropriate to address that. Is there anyone from the public here for Sheridan Place? Okay. The applicant is requesting a continuation with the intention of trying to -- my understanding, to acquire an additional piece of property that's adjoining this. I think it may be -- and I don't know, it may be the acre and a half that was addressed in Mr. Bunderson's letter of -- is that the -- Powell: If that's the case, it would need to be renoticed. I would prefer not to do that until we have had some direction from City Council on what you want to do with illegal parcels. It's an illegal split. Borup: Okay. Well, then -- and I may have misspoke, because I don't know that that's the case, other than the message that came to me, it was some additional property -- additional adjoining property. Would that need to be renoticed also, if there is additional property added? Powell: Unless they want to remove -- I mean we don't list the acreage, I believe, in our project descriptions, but we do list the number of lots. If they want to develop that property at all with something other than a landscape lot, then, it would need to be renoticed. Zaremba: Well, changing the boundary of the property of the applicant might change the distance from which other people need to noticed also, I think. Right 300 feet from the boundary. If we move the boundary, we may have a notice problem. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 38 of 120 Powell: It would definitely have to be renoticed if they add property. If that's the intent. Again, I -- if you'd like me to, I'll give you a little bit of the history. They have included -- at one point asked to include it and because it was an illegal split, I told them we wouldn't accept it, so they did pull it back and resubmit. There are other issues associated with it. We had also asked for connectivity associated with it and I think that was part of the reason that they withdrew it also, is because they didn't want to connect the way we had wanted them to. There was more than one issue going on. Staff would definitely want to re-review the whole thing and have ACHD re-review the entire thing, if they are adding that acre and a half property. I don't know if that affects the applicant's decision to resubmit or not, but -- Borup: Well, some of that is going to be determined by what we do here tonight isn't it? Powell: Yes. It would -- it would seem -- Borup: It sounds like this illegal split thing is before us again and -- Zaremba: Is the Chairman's direction that we would not open the hearing and it would need to be renoticed or are you thinking we would open the hearing and -- Borup: Well, originally, I was thinking we would open the hearing, but I just wanted to make that known to the public, that we would not be taking testimony. I mean in order to continue it, we need to open the hearing. If it's going to have to be renoticed, it's a mute point. Rohm: Well, I think it needs to be renoticed, but the second thing that I would say is with the number of people that want to speak to this issue, it might be in keeping to have a community meeting and they can get some of these issues out on the table. Well, if they are making changes and not opening the public hearing, but it seems as if there is still issues that need to be resolved and maybe that needs to be taken care of before it's brought back before this Commission. Zaremba: Is the applicant withdrawing the application or what is -- Borup: The request -- the note I have got says they request to be continued, which is the other point. They had mentioned January 15th . We have 16 items on our agenda, four of them are subdivisions. There are four subdivisions and two other projects. It's probably a pretty full agenda. The only way I feel comfortable even continuing it to that point is with the understanding that we may not get to it. Zaremba: Or we calendar it for February 5th intentionally. Borup: Right and there is -- and we are fine for February 5th at this point. Powell: Chairman Borup? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 39 of 120 Borup: Yes. Powell: If the applicant's intent is to resubmit the application, you probably either need to move it forward in the agenda and open up the Public Hearing, so that they can testify to that, in which case you would not be continuing it, it would just be renoticed. Borup: And they should make a formal request to withdraw is what you're saying? Since at this point, we don't have -- Powell: Asking that they just have it renoticed and that they'd resubmit new drawings. We did let Sageland resubmit a revised plat with two additional lots and we just renoticed, we didn't make them go through another -- a new application, but they weren't adding property, they were just revising -- Borup: Right. I would be comfortable with that, to move this up on the agenda with the intention that we would not be taking public testimony or a presentation. If that was the case, we would still keep it on the agenda at the appropriate time, but in fairness to the public that are here, I think that would be appropriate, so they are not having to wait. We would like to go ahead and do that. We'd like to open public hearing AZ 03-029, PP 03-035, and CUP 03-060, dispense with the staff report, and ask the applicant if they'd like to come forward. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the issue that we have with this property is there is an adjoining remnant parcel that was not part of this parcel that you guys are reviewing this evening in this application. As Anna indicated, we had intended on cleaning that parcel up by including it in the plat and the application, which would have also facilitated a permanent cul-de-sac being built where there is a temporary cul- de-sac right now in Edinburgh Place. It was staff's determination that because of the illegal status, that we should not include it and that we go to the property in which it was split from and try to get this other owner to consent to annexing and platting to legalize it and that gentleman will not consent. Then, we come back, we have a remnant parcel, and how do we fix it. We would like an opportunity to meet with your staff again and see if we can come up with some other options, because this -- I just hate to leave that remnant acre and a half there and a weed patch. It was one of the comments we received at our neighborhood meeting that the parcel is an eye sore, it brings down their values and they'd like to see something done, other than its current condition. January 15th would be acceptable. We understand that if you have too many things on the agenda and we are last, we may be tabled. If the Commission wants to play it safe, February 5th . I don't know if staff -- you know, it's staff determination on how much time they are going to need to consider our options. Borup: But your understanding is you'd like to see it continued, rather than renoticed. McKay: Yes, sir. Well, renoticed, yes. If we make any changes we would, obviously, have to renotice. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 40 of 120 Borup: Right. If you could do something with that parcel. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: So, it may not on -- even if we continued it, it may not be on the agenda that night. McKay: Correct. Borup: Unless it was renoticed in time. Powell: That's all I have going to state, that right now if you add property, it is a renotice. McKay: Yes. Understood. Powell: So, you're asking to leave the option open for continuance. McKay: Yes. Borup: And, then, after they meet with staff it would be determined which direction to go; is that correct? McKay: Correct. Borup: Does that sound acceptable? Will that work? Zaremba: How will the general public learn which way the decision went? Borup: Well, we will continue it to a date certain. McKay: A date specific. Powell: I can tell you how it's going to go. I'm not thrilled about it, but I think that they have the right to push the issue. I had a discussion with the property owner and he brought up some good points that I hadn't considered before. He does have the right to push the issue, I feel, so if they want to do it now, I would say that -- I would rather see them just withdraw it from the agenda -- ask to have it withdrawn from the agenda. They would have to get us new drawings and some new fees and we will send it through the process and it will just -- in the course of events it will get renoticed and all the folks that got notice tonight would get notice again. Borup: And, plus, maybe a few more. Zaremba: So, the process would be -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 41 of 120 McKay: So, Anna, February 5th you think would be more appropriate? Powell: No. McKay: I just want to make sure that -- Powell: I think you're missing it. We can't continue it. It just drops off the agenda. McKay: Okay. That's fine. Powell: It just completely drops off the agenda. Borup: That's if they try to incorporate the other piece. Powell: Which they are going to do. I'm saying I'll accept it if they bring it in. Borup: Oh, I see what you're saying. Zaremba: And, then, it will get recalendared whenever it's appropriate and be renoticed. Powell: Right. McKay: Okay. Borup: It sounds like that's acceptable to you, too? Powell: You can come in tomorrow and talk about the stub street there if you'd like. McKay: Yes. Will be in in the morning. Borup: So, you'd like to withdraw? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Is that all we need to -- I guess that's it. Zaremba: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings on these three items. Rohm: Second. Borup: Second. Motion to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 42 of 120 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, there is one more motion. I move we accept the applicant's withdrawal of these three items. Powell: Well, they are asking that it be dropped from the agenda. I don't think it's, actually -- they are not withdrawing them, unless we want to just give them credit for the -- this is the money thing. Typically, the city is more lenient toward the applicant, so we would be looking for some additional fees -- Borup: So, we are looking at dropping it from the agenda to a date uncertain and it will be renoticed. Powell: Right. It's just -- you don't take action on it, because it will just be renoticed. It is good to have the applicant's statement that they wanted that to happen. Usually, we have some other factor involved, like it's being renoticed failure to -- because it -- Borup: Right. I just wanted the public to understand that they will receive notification again. Did we get -- Zaremba: At the moment, we have a closed hearing and we need to do something with these three items, either -- Borup: Table it? Can't we just table them? Zaremba: Well, if they are going to be renoticed, the whole process starts again. I agree we are trying to preserve the applicant's fee, because they are, really, only making a change, but -- Green: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my concern with dropping it off of the agenda is that previous -- in previous times they have gotten forgotten about and I don't know what to recommend, but I'd like to do something with them, so they are not just hanging out there. Borup: I don't think the applicant is going to let it drop, are they? Powell: Chris or Tara, what -- when we have an improper posting, what action does the Commission take on those items? Do they take any auction? Do they just -- they don't open a Public Hearing -- Zaremba: As is 11, 12 and 13 mentioned, it comes to us with a renotice already -- Green: Right. You don't open the Public Hearing, you just renotice the Public Hearing so I can put renotice the Public Hearing -- Powell: That's what's going to need to happen is that you're going to need to renotice the Public Hearing. Do they keep the Public Hearing open for a date uncertain, Chris? Are they allowed to table it to a date uncertain? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 43 of 120 Zaremba: I would just move that it be renoticed and not say -- I would withdraw my -- the motion that's hanging at the moment unseconded. Gabbert: Again, with the tabling versus continuing discussion, once it's open, then, you can continue it, I think, is what we decided, to a date certain. If you're going to table it, then, we decided that it will be renoticed. Powell: Okay. They are going to leave the -- do they leave the Public Hearing open? Gabbert: No. Green: No. Powell: They close it and, then, it's -- by renoticing they can reopen? Green: Correct. Powell: Okay. Borup: And it will stay tabled until it's renoticed. Zaremba: So, my motion is that we now table these three items, with the intent that they be renoticed. Period. Rohm: Second. Borup: Did you have something to add, Chris? Gabbert: And a partridge in a pear tree. Borup: Appropriate for the season. We have a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Thank you. We will move on with our next item. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, can we take a short break? Borup: You want to do a short break at this time? We will try to make it shorter than usual. Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 44 of 120 Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 03-032 Request for annexation and zoning of 1.17 acres from R1 to L-O zones for Victorious Faith Church by Kartchner Engineering – 2075 West Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to continue our hearing this evening. Is that okay? Start with the Public Hearing AZ 03-032, a request for annexation and zoning of 1.17 acres from R-1 to L-O for Victorious Faith Church by Kartchner Engineering. Start with the staff report. Did I say I open the hearing? If not, I just did. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are actually going to have this application put on an indefinite hold and I will kind of explain the situation behind this. The applicant was approved for a CUP in Ada County, after they received the CUP approval, they received an agreement from our City Council to extend sewer and water to the site, and when they went to City Council, the general impression was that the building was going to be constructed quickly. They have not pulled a permit for the building yet and I have talked to the applicant and they have agreed that it's probably best for the county and for the city to go ahead and put the application on hold with the City of Meridian for the annexation until the church has been constructed. That way we are not dealing with the issues of it being constructed and the permits being issued in the county while it's in the city. It's cleaner. We still will extend sewer and water as agreed, but we won't do the annexation until the building has been constructed and filed. Borup: So, I don't understand how that's cleaner. That looks like that's messier. Powell: Let me try. It is a little bit confusing. They got their conditional use approval in the county, so they are only vested with that in the county. If we were to annex it before they actually got it done, then, that approval, essentially, goes away. The intent was always that they be allowed to do the conditional -- or get their building permit in the county, but that they would annex and use our sewer and water. It's just kind of a timing issue and we have got another application like this, so what we have done is we have asked them to submit the annexation application, so we have the fees, we have everything there ready to go. As soon as they finish the building permit, they come to us, and they say, okay, we are ready. Borup: So, they have already -- they have already picked up their building permit from the county? Kirkpatrick: No, they have not. Borup: But they don't want to wait to go through approval through the city? Powell: Correct. The request to get the services was a result of a requirement of the conditional use process of Ada County. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 45 of 120 Borup: Okay but do you know what their time frame is on construction? Have they stated that? Kirkpatrick: No. Borup: What I'm wondering, would it -- I mean if they are not going to start right away, it may not delay things to go ahead and annex and do the process through the city. Powell: Well, I suppose we could hold up the final ordinance, rather than holding up the application. Borup: Well -- Powell: We would have to hold it up at some point. Borup: So, you're saying this has been withdrawn or are we tabling it? Kirkpatrick: We would be tabling it to an indefinite date and I don't know if we have the applicant here or representative. They also wanted to table this to an indefinite date. Borup: I don't know if we can table it to an indefinite date. Don't we need -- Kirkpatrick: Well, if we want to table it for two months out and, then, we will revisit it and then -- Borup: Yes. I mean we would want to do it long enough that we are not redoing it every little bit. Kirkpatrick: It would be tabling for renoticing. Borup: Oh. Okay. That would be okay. Zaremba: What is the soonest in their process that we would deal with it? As soon as they break ground or does their building have to be completed? Kirkpatrick: We would want the building to be complete and, actually, final in Ada county before we'd annex it in. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Now, if we are tabling it for a renotification, it can be -- are we okay for an indefinite -- Zaremba: Do we want to close it first or table it while it's open? Gabbert: Has the Public Hearing been opened? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 46 of 120 Borup: It has. Gabbert: Okay. Borup: Do we have anyone from the public to testify on this? Looks like we do not have anyone here. Gabbert: Then, I would suggest doing the same action, I guess, tabling to be renoticed to a later date. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Say that again. Borup: He said table it to be renoticed at a later date. Zaremba: Without closing it. Green: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe you have to close it before you can table it. Zaremba: I would think so. Green: Otherwise, you're just continuing. Zaremba: You can only continue it if it's open. Green: Correct. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing for Item 7, AZ 03-032. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table for renoticing AZ 03-032, the request for annexation and zoning of 1.17 acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Victorious Faith Church by Kartchner Engineering, 2075 West Franklin Road. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 47 of 120 MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT 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 Conditional 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 like 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 for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 48 of 120 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 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, Block 2, is located in the flood way and will be undevelopable. All developments 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 developments provide 100 square feet of usable open space deviation 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. e 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 49 of 120 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? 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 50 of 120 Kirkpatrick: So, we will go ahead and make that modification from where it said site- specific comments to site-specific conditions on page six. 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 51 of 120 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 on the difference in acreage. The entire property 12.74 acres. The Conditional Use Permit and rezone is 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, we feel that these modifications -- and they 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 a vast 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 not sure what date they have targeted for completion. Pine is 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, whether they be commercial or residential, you need to back into the 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 52 of 120 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 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 or just 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 up front, 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 a very -- 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, and 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 53 of 120 Borup: Well -- 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 to seed in a 100-degree plus weather, so we did have some problems with 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 or just -- 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 54 of 120 proposal, so we'd like to clean that up. We will certainly meet the minimum requirements of the City of Meridian for landscaping. 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 code currently requires, Bruce. I think what we have done in the past is pay at building permit and so the Commission understands, our concern is that with this condition you're required to make a large payment to the city prior to having a recorded plat. There are a number of things that could go wrong in between and it's prior to 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 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 55 of 120 Freckleton: The latecomer’s agreement that affects this property is one that's been in place for two or three years. 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 56 of 120 Beecham: And I don't know what that language should be, but that's what I guess is targeted. 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 conditions specific to the Preliminary Plat that relate to this. I think this 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? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 57 of 120 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 units has been the challenge in the other project and we were trying to address that. Bruce has some idea about a non-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 I talk 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 situation here, where we have got to raise that finish floor elevation up 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 58 of 120 development ordinance that requires 100 square feet of private usable open space. On this project, as I mentioned earlier, we have got 30 percent of the site dedicated as common open space and that's, again, nearly three acres of land. It's inclusive of a 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 59 of 120 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 end result is we want to 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: And I did want to say that the problem with needing the specificity was 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 or just 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 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 60 of 120 Borup: Okay. 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 61 of 120 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. 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: They said that they would provide one hundred square feet of usable open 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 a four-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 a built-in barbecue pit or anything like that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 62 of 120 Beecham: Yes, sir. We have identified the -- within the park area, active and passive recreational opportunities, including a barbecue, picnic table, type amenities. 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. You 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? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 63 of 120 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 -- 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 64 of 120 Borup: But the neighbors were there before your business went in. 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 65 of 120 Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. 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 and 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 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 66 of 120 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. 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 you like me to look up the noise ordinance? I can do it while other people are testifying. Borup: Well, that would be fine, but the noise ordinance is going to be in place 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 67 of 120 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 honking and the business that's just west -- or just 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 6:30 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 Grove 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 68 of 120 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 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. If he's talking about them in my conversation with him, they are not 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? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 69 of 120 Buckley: Whatever. 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 -- a long 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, people are only going to -- and this is maybe a negative assumption, but, you 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 70 of 120 Buckley: Well, we hope so. 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 you. Did you have a question, Commissioner? Do we have anyone else? Uriona: I'm John Uriona and I don'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 slow down, 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 71 of 120 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 voice heard, because those people don't vote, most of them don't, and they don't pay taxes for 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 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 72 of 120 Borup: Okay. 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 developer developed, and I'm intending to build out this subdivision in the same 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 buildings opened up. There might be sound channels, as best he could, buried them with earth, so we had to make earthern berms, and, then, concentrate the landscaping as best possible on those berms. In addition to that, we thought that was a -- as far as landscaping goes, that's pretty much the extent that we could do, we did. In addition to that, we made a commitment to him that we would use sound reduction windows on the -- on those units that face east or the east -- I'm sorry, the east side of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 73 of 120 those units. We made a commitment to him -- and these folks didn't know of that commitment, but I also made that same commitment to this gentleman over here, who 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 listening 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 sod at my place. By the time they got to where they could see, it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 74 of 120 was in August and it was very hot, but it was late in August, and they did a great job on seeding it. As seeding occurs, you have your first phase of growth and you get weeds come up about as fast or faster than seed do originally and, 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 on 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 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 75 of 120 Borup: Okay. All the other area around the perimeter and all this you're saying? Collister: Right. Yes. So -- 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 after 11:00 or before 6:00. That's the City of Meridian's policy. It's not mine. Borup: Are you positive on that? Collister: Well, I -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 76 of 120 Borup: I'm not, so -- Collister: I just read it and he's got a copy of it, so -- Borup: I'm not. That's why I was -- 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: And I thought there was and what I was getting to is you just decrease the 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 77 of 120 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. 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 go 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 78 of 120 social gatherings, but that's certainly open for interpretation. Those were the key ones that the applicant had highlighted. Sorry. 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, but it is a different housing alternative. It's not home ownership, it is more 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 ACHD. 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 79 of 120 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, they will see the industrial property to the east of us. These people are looking for 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 notation 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 80 of 120 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? 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 all these issues, really, and if you look at it very hard and I think you're going to find that the applicant Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 81 of 120 has done a pretty good job of attempting to mitigate some of these natural conflicts that we have when we have transitions between uses. That's all I wanted to point out. Anybody have any questions for me? 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 an ordinance, 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: But if what Bradbury says is true, that this applies to all areas, then, I have 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 82 of 120 Zaremba: Well -- and if they are there at 3:00, they are probably making noise themselves, so -- Rohm: Probably. Back to your statement of transition, though, Commissioner Borup. I think 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 a decision-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 following noises are determined to be, quote, unquote, public disturbance noises. Then, it lists out a number of things that are defined 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 83 of 120 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 -- 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 property with 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 good 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 84 of 120 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. 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 -- I mean 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 I don'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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 85 of 120 Beecham: Absolutely. Yes. Borup: Okay. Thank you 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 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 86 of 120 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 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 87 of 120 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 88 of 120 Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Either hydro seeding or drilled seeding is the common -- 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 89 of 120 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. 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 90 of 120 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? 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 to be sound mitigating and these windows have to be sound mitigating. Is that 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 the site plan and we didn't catch it, because it doesn't come back to us. That would be a good condition of approval, that they need to get a CZC prior to submitted Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 91 of 120 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. 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 say that east-facing walls have -- east and south facing walls, actually. 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 92 of 120 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. 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 93 of 120 Rohm: Okay and where does that go? Zaremba: I forgot where we decided that was going to go. Borup: Probably under the CUP. 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 do you want to put that as -- the Conditional Use 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 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 94 of 120 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 -- 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 more, 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? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 95 of 120 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 a multi- 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 -- 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 who develops it or even if it's not developed. I mean, if, in fact, there is existing 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 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 96 of 120 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. 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 -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 97 of 120 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. 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? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 98 of 120 MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council for approval CUP 03- 057. Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 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, including all staff comments received November 14th , with the following 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 99 of 120 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. 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 100 of 120 Borup: Yes. Kirkpatrick: Do you want to have that minimum square footage? Borup: On the balconies? Kirkpatrick: On the balconies. I think they -- 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 Borup, just to get the -- because you're basically -- this is all not 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. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 101 of 120 Borup: Forty square feet for the back? Zaremba: Sorry. Borup: We are ready for a motion. Or at least some discussion. 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 north 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 for 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 102 of 120 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 interest pursuant to that code provision is sufficient. It's a matter that you -- you will decide if it influences your opinion or -- as long as you have no financial interest in the stake of any decision making or partaking in any of this part here, then, that disclosure should be suffice to nullify any conflict of interest that you might have. I think you're all right. Zaremba: I will state that I have no other financial interest gain or loss in the outcome of this. Borup: Okay. I think that's the major consideration there. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the applicant has applied for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat for 66 building lots and two other lots on 15 acres of land located near the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Linder. To the north of this site is the approved Watersong Subdivision. To the west is Bridgetower, Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. Directly to the south is a future ACHD pond site. There is an existing residence on -- I believe both of these. I was out to the site this last week and I believe there is a home on this and some out buildings, as well as a home on the corner there. This site is designated as medium density residential. On the City of Meridian's future land use, map the requested zoning designation for the property is R-8. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 4.4 dwelling units per acre. The net density of the subdivision is 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The single-family buildable lots in this subdivision are -- range from 6,500 square feet to 11,745 square feet. All of the lots will contain detached single-family homes. The applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement to cover, tile, or pipe the Creason Lateral abutting the southern boundary of the site, which is in support of and detailed in the staff report that you have in front of you. I have discussed the staff report with the applicant and I believe it is pretty clean, but I will let him tell you himself and I'll stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I had one question. On Page 9, site-specific condition for the Preliminary Plat Number 1, you're requiring that -- that two of the stub streets that are existing in other subdivisions, in fact, be built before this starts. I understand there needs to be access to this otherwise landlocked thing, but also it was mentioned that they do have an easement to the east over another piece of property. What I'm wondering is at the time they begin the heavy kind of construction, digging the sewers, building the roads, where they are using real heavy equipment, would you rather have them come over that easement than go through a residential subdivision? I don't have any problem later Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 103 of 120 with framers and roofers and stuff coming through the subdivisions, but I'm wondering whether we might want to require that heavy equipment to do the initial infrastructure use the easement to the east. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commission Zaremba, I guess right now I can kind of give you a little more history on what's going on with Watersong. They have not -- there is no foundations even in Watersong today, so depending on timing with this subdivision, it's ideal right now that they use that northerly access that is currently a street, it's actually constructed right now, and there is a chain link fence. That would be ideal, if you ask me, for construction traffic, because you're not disturbing anyone, there are not residents in Watersong to the north today. Borup: But the street is paved? Hood: The street is paved. Yes. I was out there -- I believe it was last Friday I was out there and the street's paved. I drove up and down it and they did have some of the manholes that, you know, were uncovered, but most of the improvements are in. Again, depending on timing -- I don't know when they would be pulling building permits, but -- and I don't know the status of that easement. I don't believe you want probably construction traffic going over that. It's not going to have the weight bearing loads and that type of stuff. I mean it's just -- it's been for -- the site has been historically used for agricultural purposes and, you know, not a lot of traffic, even residential traffic, using that easement. I -- if you want to put a condition on it, I guess I would just envision that easement going away, more than anything, and, then, having to use for both construction and future residents of the subdivision, the access to the north probably before the one through Bridgetower to the west, so -- but the applicant may be able to -- Zaremba: I'm comfortable with that. I would not add that condition. Borup: Is that existing easement a gravel road or nothing? Hood: Again, the applicant may be able to -- what I saw was just a dirt gravel road, it wasn't paved or anything, just -- Borup: Well, no, I wasn't -- I knew it wasn't paved. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Boyle: Commission Members, good morning. Clint Boyle with Landmark Engineering and Planning. Business address of 104 9th Ave South in Nampa, Idaho. It's a pleasure to be in front of you at this last Public Hearing for the year. It seems like last year I was in front of City Council at their last Public Hearing, so I assume that it's a privilege to get in front of the Council or Planning Commission where I live and be the last item of the year. This particular project we have worked with staff on and I appreciate their efforts Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 104 of 120 in this in putting together the report. They have been working with us on this project. As far as the staff report, we believe that it's clean as well. We agree with the conditions that have been placed on the project and, really, the only -- the only item even came up, which is a fairly minor item, was there was some discussion about perimeter fencing on page nine under general Conditions Number 5. The item there said that it would be required to have six foot high solid fence around the perimeter of the subdivision and this developer would like the option of either doing a solid or semi- private fence around the development, similar to what maybe Bridgetower has done with the semi-private vinyl fencing on theirs. Also with regards to that, Watersong was somehow allowed to place a six-foot high chain link fence along -- along their boundaries. If we look back at the pictures that Craig had, if he wants to put those back up, you will see their chain link fence that they placed along their boundaries, so, obviously, there was some leniency there. Borup: Was that just the boundary along the irrigation easement? Boyle: It is. Essentially, what you have right here is -- the back of the residential lots have the chain link fence and, then, they have a 22 foot wide common slash easement area for the Coleman Lateral, which has been tiled. The gravel roadway you see runs right over the top of the tiled Coleman Lateral. Then, they basically have nothing on their boundary as far as fencing within Watersong. Again, as far as any safety issues, the safety issues of have been pretty much mitigated, because of the tiling of the Coleman, you're not necessarily worrying about -- Borup: I think the chain link fence was for weed burning, was, -- is usually why -- isn't that why that came up to start with? For the other project? Hood: I believe it was probably open at the time that that chain link was put up, so the noncombustible fence was put up and, then, they probably went in and tiled it, so that is just a guess, but that seems to be -- Borup: Well, whether it was tiled or not should have been determined prior to the subdivision approval, so -- they were probably anticipating weeds along there or something for the irrigation company, but -- Boyle: And, Commissioner Borup, I mean I don't want to belabor the point, it was just the developer would like the flexibility of doing either a solid or a semi-private and I don't believe -- Borup: And what height on the semi-private -- Boyle: Six foot. Borup: Okay. Boyle: Six foot was acceptable on that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 105 of 120 Borup: Was that on Page 9? Zaremba: I think your Page 11, Number 5. Borup: Okay. Boyle: I don't know. It's my Page 9. Maybe I have got different numbers here. Borup: That helps. That is correct. Zaremba: Yes. I didn't find it on Page 9. Boyle: It's general condition Number 5 in my report. Zaremba: It's right here. It starts: Detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. A six-foot solid fence shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision. What you're saying is you would like the option of doing a non-solid fence? Boyle: Right. Zaremba: Still six feet high? Boyle: Correct. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, if you could just either ask the applicant to explain what kind of fence he really -- that he wants. I mean are we talking chain link, are we talking wrought iron, or are we talking a four-foot solid with a two-foot lattice? Just so, staff knows what we are looking for. Borup: Yes. Boyle: The developer in the discussions that I have had with, what he's proposing from my understanding to do a six foot high solid fence along the south boundary of the project, if we can flip back to the plat, which would be along the side that is adjacent to the Creason Lateral. Again, the discussion that I have had with him as he's looking at doing some sort of vinyl fencing, it's a solid fence. The reason for that is, as staff indicated, ACHD has a future storm drain site immediately south of this that, eventually, will be used for their storm drainage facilities. Beyond that is Ustick Road. He wants to have a nice look from Ustick Road as you're looking at the project. On the other side of the project on the east-west side, he discussed semi-private vinyl fencing, again, was the discussion that I had with him, but I think what he was looking at was something similar to what Bridgetower had done with the semi-private, where it's got this -- Borup: What did they do? I think that's what staff was asking clarification on. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 106 of 120 Boyle: I don't remember how much of a spacing, but there is like a two-inch space between the vinyl slats. Borup: And they have vertical slats. Boyle: Correct. Borup: And, then, above four feet or all the way, the full six foot? Boyle: Full six-foot vertical slats. Borup: Okay. Say six-foot vertical slats with spacing between. Boyle: Right. Borup: All right. Does that clarify -- is that enough? Powell: Yes. I guess we would be looking for a maximum of two inches or a maximum of six -- we are getting so many details on fences and I hate for it to be a major issue, but it seems to be later, so -- Borup: Would it help to say similar to Bridgetower? Powell: Sure. Boyle: Yes. Commission Members, I don't know what the standard spacing is, you know, for a fence company on the semi private, so I would hate to -- Borup: But the spacing wouldn't be any wider than what Bridgetower has. Boyle: Similar to Bridgetower. Borup: Okay. Powell: And I think we measured Bridgetower and it was 5/8ths of an inch, so that's I wanted to clarify, because it is a little different. I just -- Borup: Okay. Powell: As long as it's not a foot I think we are okay. Borup: Similar to Bridgetower. Powell: I wouldn't use 5/8th, but just put similar to Bridgetower. Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 107 of 120 Boyle: And I guess the option, again, would -- the request would be, you know, either a solid or the semi private fencing. Zaremba: Either/or. Borup: Okay. That was it? It was just that? Boyle: That wraps up my comments for the evening, unless I need to -- Borup: And you're in agreement with all other staff comments as far as -- Zaremba: Did we resolve the tiling of the southern most ditch that it does not feed to be tiled? Boyle: Commission Members, that's resolved on my end, as long as you agree with the staff report. Zaremba: I was just trying to remember whether they had made it as a requirement or not and I agree with not tiling it for the reasons -- Borup: They said tile the Coleman, not tile the Creason. Zaremba: Right. Okay. There is not a condition that requires that. Okay. Boyle: And that's it. Borup: Okay. That's the kind we wanted at this hour. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Come forward, ma'am. Rath: Good morning. Borup: Good morning. Rath: My name is Joan Rath and I am the personal representative of my father's estate, which is the estate of Warren A. Watson, Senior, deceased, which is located at 1680 West Ustick Road on the corner of Ustick and Linder. The estate owns a parcel in excess of five acres, which is called the estate's parcel, which is located immediately east of the proposed Windsong Subdivision, between the proposed Windsong Subdivision and North Linder Road. Borup: The map's up on the wall there so, you're talking this parcel right here? Rath: Exactly. The small tip just below it. We also owned the parcel that was just sold to the county, but we have retained that small tip of the property. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 108 of 120 Rath: Several weeks ago a number of survey stakes were observed on the estate's parcel located approximately five to seven feet east of the fence, which we understand to be located upon the Westerly boundary of the estate's parcel. The stakes are basically located on what we understand to be our property. These stakes are roughly parallel to the common property line between the estates parcel and the developer's parcel, which is the subject of this meeting. On Monday of this week, my attorney spoke with Mr. Stubblefield, who I understand is a principal and a developer entity. Mr. Stubblefield advised my attorney that the developer claims that these stakes represent the actual boundary between the estate's parcel and the proposed development parcel. At this time, the estate of Warren A. Watson, Senior, disagrees with this conclusion. The estate has previously scheduled a survey of the estate's parcel. In light of Mr. Stubblefield's statements, we have expanded the scope of this survey and the estate will attempt to get to the bottom of this potential boundary dispute. However, until this boundary discrepancy has been resolved, the estate objects to any annexation, rezoning, or preliminary plat approval for any portion of what may ultimately be determined to be the estate's parcel, even if it might be presently claimed by the developer of the Windsong Subdivision. I also have a copy of the estate's deed for this parcel and a letter that basically reiterates what I have said here this evening, if you would like to have a copy of that. Thank you for your time. Oh, one other thing. Could you point out the easement that they are talking about possibly using? Borup: I don't know if we -- we don't have a plat that shows the easement, it just said it was through the property. Rath: And where through the property did they say that it might be? Could somebody show that? Borup: Mr. Boyle, do you have some information on that? I'm sure that's on the deed that Stubblefield has as part of his contract. Hood: Ma'am, what was name again? Rath: Joan Rath. Borup: Why don't you stay here for a couple other questions and, then, maybe Mr. Boyle can point out that while you're still here. Boyle: Again, Clint Boyle with Landmark. The location of the access easement to this property, essentially, follows the Creason Lateral, roughly, and it's in this location here and it extends from Ustick Road into the site along the Creason on the north side of the Creason. Borup: Okay. The access is from the south. I think we -- didn't we state earlier that it was from the east? I think that's part of the confusion, is I think the staff report said from the east. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 109 of 120 Rath: Okay. Then, I would have a comment on that. The easement that they are referring to is a 10-foot wide access and it is simply a come-and-go-type easement. You will not get large equipment or anything else down through there. Borup: That was our understanding was mainly an agricultural access. Rath: And I would object to them suggesting that they might use it. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: But I proposed that idea and I gave it up, so don't worry about it. Rath: Thank you. Borup: Ma'am, then -- so your statement was that -- Zaremba: The property line is in question. Borup: You said five feet -- the stakes are five feet -- Rath: Five feet. Borup: Five to seven feet. Okay. When is your surveyor going to have their survey done? Rath: I can't give you an exact date. The flu bug has been going around, so they are all kind of down right now, but I'm assuming it's going to be in the next couple of weeks. Borup: They haven't given you a date when they will be there? I mean have you contracted with a surveyor? Rath: Yes. Borup: And I'm sure you understand this is probably not the first time that a fence line has been different from a property line. Rath: Oh, I understand that, but I would think that we would need to clarify where that boundary is. Rohm: To clarify where a boundary is doesn't change the legal description and so even if they have misstaked it, the property line would still be as described on both your property description and theirs, as my understanding of the property descriptions. They may have misstaked it, which your surveyor will either prove out that it's misstaked or that it is properly staked. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 110 of 120 Rath: And that's very possible. Rohm: But the property line itself hasn't moved any, would be my understanding. The property line is -- your east line would be their west line and it's the same description for that line. Now, where they staked it may be wrong and your surveyor will prove out one way or the other. Rath: Exactly. Rohm: But as far as this application, the application uses the legal description, so the only thing that would be in error is the staking, not the legal description itself. Zaremba: I agree with that, but I would suggest that any plat that they make might include five feet on the back of some lots that shouldn't be there and, therefore, lot sizes and stuff -- Borup: That's assuming that their deed is incorrect. It's going to state a distance. Rohm: The distance is going to remain the same, it's just -- Rath: If I might interject something. We have found that there are some interesting things in some of the older deeds. As a matter of fact, we did find that there was a little bit of discrepancy in the deed of the parcel that we just sold, so I wouldn't assume that any of some of these older deeds are absolutely accurate. Borup: That's a correct statement. Rohm: Good point. To that it's probably best that it be resurveyed by your -- Rath: Exactly. Borup: Who had -- Powell: I did, sir. The layout of the subdivision -- we are looking at the lot dimensions. They have got -- most of the lots have about 1,000 square feet before they fall below their minimum, so there is plenty of room to accommodate a five foot discrepancy in the lot line -- or in the -- Borup: That's what I was looking at. Especially the lots along that eastern boundary. Powell: Right. The one at the north they might have to squeeze around the corner and do some -- some adjusting there, but nothing -- it didn't look like it would be anything that would substantially change the preliminary plat as it goes forward. This is a civil matter and there are -- there can be differences in where the line is actually stated on the deeds, but that is -- there are mechanisms set up for resolving that. The last step is the court system, but, you know, there is adjudication and there are all sorts of other Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 111 of 120 steps before that, so the civil side of things is set up to handle that. It doesn't look like it will impact the design, so I think you could forward it tonight, knowing that that issue was unresolved. Borup: Do you understand what she's saying? If that five feet -- if their stakes did have to move over, it wouldn't affect the design of the subdivision. The roads would still stay where they are at and they would just lose five feet along the eastern portion of their lot boundary. Rath: They would lose. Yes. Borup: If that's what -- Rath: Assuming that that is correct. Borup: Right. Yes. If that was, what it came down to. Rath: But if I'm understanding you correctly, if you go ahead and forward this for approval, then, what you're saying is that there is five to seven feet of the estate's property -- Borup: No. Rath: -- that you are -- Borup: Because that's not proven. We are saying that's not our -- Zaremba: What we would say is we like this project in concept, but that particular thing needs to be resolved before the City Council would approve it. Rath: And that would be my point. As long as that is resolved prior to. Zaremba: We can recommend approval, but I don't think it can be finally annexed until that is resolved. Rath: No, it can't. Zaremba: And that would just mean we don't have any problem with the other aspects of it, but that needs to be resolved before the City Council. Powell: Chairman Borup, this is really a civil matter. We would accept the annexation, unless there was -- they need to resolve it themselves. It's not something that the city is going to step in and look to see if one way or the other -- we will annex what's been requested. It's up to them -- it's a civil matter for them to resolve. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 112 of 120 Zaremba: If the line is in dispute would we move forward with that? I can see forwarding it on to City Council, but you mean they would make a final action while the line was still in dispute? Powell: They might wait and put that on a final phase, but I think that they could. I mean it would just mean that that property would be deannexed or would just -- Rath: I don't believe that anybody has the power to take someone's title and annex it. Borup: They don't. Rath: You cannot take title. Borup: But Mr. Stubblefield would have the same contention. He's got title to his property, too. Rath: Well, I have a fence that sat there for a number of years and there have been a lot of issues that have been settled on fence lines. One just across the road from us. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, I believe that what would happen is if the county surveyor knew that there was a boundary line dispute, he would not allow it to be entered into county record until the issue was resolved, but I -- right. That's the Final Plat. That's the actual Final Plat for the project. That's quite a ways down the road from where we are tonight. Rath: Are we in that big of a hurry? Borup: Well, that's what we are saying, this is months down the road before it's going to get to final plat stage and if you can get the survey done in four months, then -- Rath: Well, but I guess that would be my question. If this is going to take some time, why are we in such a hurry to push it off for approval? Wouldn't we want to make sure that we are legal first? Gabbert: Commissioner Borup? Borup: Yes. Gabbert: May I interject briefly? I just wanted to state this Commission and the Board has certain considerations, of which you aren't expected to determine everyone's legal status and resolve all the problems. If that was the case, then, anyone that ever run an application it could say, hey, there is a dispute here, you guys can't make a decision tonight and it would kind of stall the process. I'm not saying that's what will happen in this case, but this is, really, something that isn't necessarily before this Commission to decide. I mean, obviously, it's good to bring up and whatnot, but if the conditions for approval are otherwise met, I would have -- I have a little difficulty saying hold off until Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 113 of 120 this legal matter is resolved, because that kind of sets a precedent for a lot of bad actions in the future. Borup: I think what we are saying, ma'am, is the applicant has submitted a deed and a legal description and until it's shown otherwise, we have to assume that that's accurate. Rath: Well, I have a deed right here and it shows that that belongs to me, so who is right and who is wrong? Borup: You got a survey accompanying your deed? Rath: Well, I have a deed right here. Borup: And have you measured your property and you're five feet short when you went out and measured it? Rath: I have not personally measured it. I am not a surveyor. Borup: Okay. Rath: I don't survey. Borup: I think that's what we are saying. Rath: Well, I still don't understand how if somebody brings you this information, they say this is what my property is, but I’m standing before you, and saying, no, this is what the estate's property is as the personal representative, I have a fiduciary duty to make certain -- Borup: Right. You have done the right thing and you're proceeding ahead to protect your -- Rath: Exactly. Borup: But I have seen a lot of fences go in on properties that have a stake right there and people ignore it and I'm talking five, ten feet, sometimes. Rath: Well -- Borup: So, a fence doesn't necessarily mean anything. Rath: No, but there have been courts that do rule on the fence lines, because they did just across the road. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 114 of 120 Rohm: Well, I think the bottom line is this is just a Preliminary Plat anyway and before the Final Plat is recorded, this issue that you speak to will be resolved and to move forward with the subdivision won't change that one bit. You will still have every opportunity to show your position as far as that lot line and that won't -- our action tonight won't preclude you from any of your rights and I think that's the thing that we want to convey to you. You're not losing anything by us moving forward. Rath: Okay. That's fine, but I get a littler nervous when somebody starts talking about taking title and annexing property and -- Borup: But they already have title. Rath: You can't do that. Who has title? Borup: Mr. Stubblefield has title to his property already. Rath: To his property. Borup: Right. Rath: And I'm entitled to mine. Borup: Right. No. Exactly. That's all we have been saying. Rohm: Yes. Rath: Any further questions? Zaremba: If we move this action forward, it doesn't establish whether either one of you is right or wrong about the property line. Rath: I understand that. Zaremba: It really doesn't have any impact -- Rath: I do understand that. Zaremba: -- on the legality of the property line. If you were saying it was 500 feet wrong, then, we would say, well, their plat probably can't possibly accommodate what they are trying to do, but I think the five feet can be resolved and whether it's in your favor or their favor it doesn't change the merits of their project, I don't think. Rath: And I understand that. Zaremba: And our decision would not have any impact on that legal decision. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 115 of 120 Rath: Okay. I understand that. You know what? It's like 1:00 in the morning and so you will have to excuse me if I'm just a little -- Rohm: Oh, no. You're fine. Rath: And, of course, I expect the same respect back. Zaremba: No. Well, you're right to bring this up, because we did not know there was such a dispute and we will make that comment when we -- Rath: I appreciate that. Would you like a copy of the letter that the attorney drew up and a copy of the deed? Zaremba: It wouldn't hurt for the clerk to have it. Borup: Yes. That would be good to have on the record for the clerk. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the applicant has agreed to the condition that the lots on the southeastern boundary, that the -- that this dispute would need to be resolved before the city engineer signed on the final plat. Borup: Okay. You say that applicant has already agreed to that. Powell: Yes. Borup: So, we can make that condition. Okay. Zaremba: And that happens before recording, of course. Borup: Do we -- do we have anyone else that would like to -- come on up, sir. Urkey: Good morning. It is getting late. Martin Urkey. I own the property east of this Stubblefield property and my concern is -- Borup: You own this parcel here, sir? Urkey: Yes. Yes. When I irrigate, all the water comes down to the middle and there is a waste ditch that goes through and, then, dumps into the Five Mile drain. I want to know what their plan is to address that. Then, another issue is my property is a little higher on the east side where the fence is and I have a barbed wire fence. If they are going to build, you know, their fence next to it, because I like to keep the barbed wire to keep from destroying their fence. I will have cattle running on the property. Rohm: It happens a lot. Urkey: Yes. Okay. That's all. Is that -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 116 of 120 Zaremba: That applicant, of course, will address those, but the standard procedure is they must continue whatever water delivery or drains. They can't affect what you have had and the fence they would build would probably be on their side, which means both fences could be there. The applicant will give the final answer to that. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else? Thank you. Commissioners? Zaremba: I think we are ready for the -- unless staff has comments. I have asked the only questions I found. Borup: Okay. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I was ready to make a motion. Mr. Boyle, final comments. Boyle: Clint Boyle again. Just to address a couple of items. We were made aware of the boundary issue a few days ago, that that was a concern to those property owners immediately east of the site. We will certainly try to get that resolved in a timely manner. I have had personal discussions with the surveyor on the property. He's gone through, rechecked his work, believes that it is accurate, and certainly welcomes these property owners to hire their own surveyor to survey the site and be able to, I guess, compare notes on it, and see how things lay out there. Borup: Do you know whether -- did they find any existing pins? Boyle: They did not find existing pins on -- Borup: Because the deed makes reference to an existing pin at this corner about 390 feet from the center of the road. Boyle: The existing pin that they found was in this location here. Borup: Okay. They didn't find this one? Boyle: They did not find the pin there or there. They found a pin here and I don't recall on the others. I would have to look, but I know they found this pin and I'm not sure on the other -- other sides, but they did not find the pin in this location or the other location there. Borup: Okay. Their deed makes reference to a pin here and 10 feet of the canal easement. Boyle: Right. Borup: So, you're not aware of them finding those pins, then? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 117 of 120 Boyle: No. They did indicate that they had utilized the deeds in preparing the surveys, so that was the information that they used, so as far as the area concern with this subdivision, the area should be the same size. I guess there were questions as to whether or not it was staked out correctly in the field and maybe that will change after another surveyor. They are fairly competent with their survey and where they have staked that, so I certainly don't have a problem working with these owners to get that resolved in a timely manner. As Anna indicated, the condition that prior to the city engineers signing a Final Plat that has those particular lots abutting their property, that that matter would need to be resolved and I think that's a fair condition. Borup: Does the survey start from the section line? Is that what it normally -- so, it's part of that section line right there? Boyle: Correct. Yes. It started -- and I don't recall the section corner. I'd have to look at the plat, but that's -- Borup: Southeast corner of Section 35. Boyle: Thirty-five. Right. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: Commission Members, the other comments I heard tonight from the other property owner was with regards to the waste ditch from his site and also fencing. With regards to the waste ditch, yes, we will have to accommodate his water off the site. That will be piped through out site to discharge that wastewater that he has coming off of his existing field and in accordance with state code we will accommodate that wastewater that's coming off of his fields and has historically. With regards to the fencing -- and his comment was on the barbed wire fencing and we are certainly willing to work with him on that, as far as locating the fence, so that he can still have his barbed wire or coming up with something acceptable to him as far as the fencing right on the boundary line. I don't see that there is a big issue there. We can certainly work with them and accommodate what he wants, whether, you know, our fence is located just inside of his barbed wire fence or we come up with some other solution with him, we can certainly do that. If he wants to have us put up a semi private or solid fence on the boundary and, then, run a couple of strands of electric fencing on his side, you know, I mean there is different options that we can certainly look at or we could do the double fence. Borup: But you will work that out with him? Boyle: Yes. We can certainly work with him on that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: As long as he lets the residents feed the horses and cows. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 118 of 120 Borup: He's probably not that interested. Boyle: If lawn clippings are beneficial to cattle, hey, we could probably come to a real good agreement. Zaremba: There will be plenty. Boyle: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearings 17 and 18 be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Okay. Good. Well, I will do the easy ones. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 17 on our agenda 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 and Planning, Inc., west of North Linder Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of -- Rohm: Is that West Ustick or East Ustick? Borup: West. Zaremba: I meant to say West Ustick. If I said something different, the correct is West Ustick. This is to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of December 18th , received by the Clerk December 15, 2003. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 18 on our agenda, PP 03-037, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 66 single family building lots and two common lots on 15.04 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. West of North Linder Road and north of West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 119 of 120 of their memo for the hearing date December 18th , received by the Clerk December 15, 2003, with the following changes. Under site-specific comments on Page 10, we will add a Condition Number 10 that says the boundary dispute between this property and the neighboring property to the east on the south portion of this property shall be resolved before signature on the Final Plat. On Page 11, general Condition Number 5 should be changed as follows. The first sentence remains and the second sentence is modified to read: A six foot fence, delete the word solid, shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision, which will be either solid or match the perimeter fence of Bridgetower Subdivision and, then, continues, unless the city agrees in writing. Then, we will add a new sentence to the end of paragraph five that says the applicant will work out with the neighbor to the east on the northern portion of this applicant's property where and how that fence will be built. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you and thank you people for staying. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we adjourn. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:05 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 120 of 120 ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK