Loading...
2010 08-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 5, 2010 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 15, 2010, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Tom O'Brien and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Members Absent: Commissioner Scott Freeman. Others Present: Jacy Jones, Bill Nary, Pete Friedman, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good Evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with the roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I do not have any changes, so could I get a motion to accept the agenda as proposed? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of July 15, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 2 of 32 10-003 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of an 80 foot tall wireless communication (internet) facility in an L-O zoning district for Clearwire Meridian Charter High School by Clearwire US, LLC - 1855 E. Leigh Field Drive: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 10-005 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a duplex in an R-4 zoning district for Walker Duplex by Cortland Walker -1251 W. Crestwood Drive (Lot 2, Block 1 of Woodward Estates Subdivision): Rohm: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have three items on it. Item No. A is the approval of the minutes from July 15th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Item B is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 10-003 for Clearwater Meridian Charter High School. And the third item is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 10-005, for the Walker duplex. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Moving right along. Okay. Before we open up any of the hearings before us, basically, there is just a format that we go through. We will open up an item for discussion and we will begin with the staff report. Once the staff has given their assessment of a given application, then, we, then, give the applicant an opportunity to speak and that's where they give us all the nuances of the project as they see it and once the applicant's finished his testimony, then, there will be open forum for anyone else from the public to speak as well. And once that's completed, then, we will give the applicant an opportunity to respond to any queries from the public. Once that's completed, then, we will close the public hearing and if, in fact, we have got enough information to move forward, we will endeavor to conclude each one of these projects this evening. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from July 15, 2010: CUP 10-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Assisted Living Facility on approximately 2.3 acres in an existing L-O zoning district for Spring Creek Ustick Assisted Living Facility by Doug Clegg - SWC of N. Meridian Road and W. Ustick Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 3 of 32 Rohm: So, with that being said, at this time I would like to open the continued public hearing from July 15th, 2010, for project CUP 10-004 related to the Spring Creek Ustick assisted living facility and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The site before you is located at 3165 North Meridian Road on the southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Ustick Road. The site consists of 2.3 acres and is zoned L-O, limited office. Surrounding area consists of a city park to the north across Ustick, which is Settlers Park, zoned L-O. A church to the west, zoned L-O. And residential uses, zoned R-4 and R-8, to the east across Meridian Road. And residential uses to the south, zoned RUT in Ada County. The zoning map and aerial of the property. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit, approval of 28,100 square foot, 46 bed, single story residential care assisted living facility in an L-O district. One point of access to and from the site is proposed via North Meridian Road at the south end of the site. No access is proposed or approved via West Ustick Road. The cross-access ingress-egress easement is required to be provided to the church property to the west here at the northwest corner of the property. Agate with a knox box padlock is required to be installed across the drive aisle until such time as the driveway from the church property is paved. Cross-access is not required to be provided to the residential property to the south. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is medium density residential. A portion of it is medium density residential and the rest of it is public/quasi-public, which staff feels is consistent with the proposed use. History of previous actions on this site. The site was annexed in 2006 with requirement of a development agreement under the name of Ashton Park. A development agreement modification was approved by Council on July 6th of this year, which allows for the construction of an assisted living facility, instead of an office park as previously proposed. The building elevations submitted for this site are consistent with those approved with the development agreement modification. Building materials consist of cottage lap siding, with stucco and cultured stone veneer accents and architectural shingles. My elevations aren't wanting to come up here. Give me a minute. There we go. There are no outstanding issues for the Commission. Staff has received written testimony from the applicant Doug Clegg in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit with conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. O'Brien: Not at this time. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 4 of 32 Clegg: Okay. My name is Douglas Clegg and I reside at 1342 East Covey Run Court in Eagle, Idaho. I don't really have any comments, other than we are excited to do this project. It's a good location for one. We have done a lot of mapping studies in this area. We -- this facility that was shown to you by staff is one we just opened in March in the city of Boise on Overland and we currently have a facility in the City of Meridian off of Calderwood, which is the back entrance into Meridian Greens there that we built in 2005. So, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, but we feel pretty good about the project. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: I don't have any right now. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Okay. Thanks very much. Wow, this is moving along very smoothly. Any discussion amongst the Commission before we move to close the hearing? Marshall: Any testimony from anyone? Rohm: Ah. There is -- there is nobody that's signed up for testimony, but at this time if anyone would like to come forward this is the time to be heard. And there is none. Marshall: Okay. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I just had a comment here on the egress portion. It seems like it's -- with just that one entrance and exit and it's -- obviously, it's going to be temporary, I guess, once they get the -- that section paved on the Ustick side. It just seems like it's lacking of -- for all the vehicles that are going in and out, just that's one spot and, then, I don't see where the fire department would have ready access to the other side of the building or how does that -- how does that work or how is that going to happen? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, the fire department has reviewed this prior to issuance of the staff report, so they are confident that they can get in there and get around the building if they have to with their hoses. As far as the point of access goes, as you correctly pointed out and as Sonya pointed out in the staff report, the plans ultimately are to have cross-access to the west through the church property at such time as the church grows to the point where they can pave their parking lot and so that you can get cross-access both ways. We do have a provision for an emergency access gate to be accessed by the fire department and I think the other point is having the single point of access onto Meridian is this is a fairly low traffic generating type of use. You know, sadly -- I mean Mr. Clegg can probably correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a limited number of staff there. Most of your residents don't drive. Typically in these situations if they do drive they usually give up their vehicles after about a year in one of these residences and, you know, you do have Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 5 of 32 visitors coming and going, but I think operationally they are fairly low traffic generating types of facilities. O'Brien: Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Thanks. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Friedman. Any other discussion? Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have read through the application and I think it looks great. I think this is a great use for this corner and I know it's been a long time coming, so -- Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 10-004. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 10-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'm for it and having said such, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 10-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 15th, 2010, with no modifications. I further direct staff to prepare appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on August -- what's the next one? O'Brien: 19th. Marshall: I'm sorry? 19th? Rohm: I believe we going to go ahead and do that tonight. Marshall: Oh. That's right. Rohm: Later as the last item on the agenda. Marshall: So, I'd move that we -- I believe we already have Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law already prepared and that I'd like to move that we consider that this evening at the end of the agenda. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 10-004 with no modifications to the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 6 of 32 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 10-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.58 acres from R1 (Ada County) to C-C (Community Business) zoning district for Ada County Paramedics Linder Station by Ada County -Southwest corner of N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Road: Rohm: Okay. Next item on the agenda is AZ 10-001, related to Ada County Paramedics Linder Station and I'd like to open that at this time and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next project before you is situated on the southwest corner of Linder and Ustick Road. Surrounding properties include residential -- city and rural residences to the west and east and south. To the north is commercially annexed property, undeveloped, zoned C-G -- or C-C. Excuse me. That was part of the JJA land annexation that was before your last year. The applicant is proposing annexation of 2.58 acres from R-1 in Ada County to a C-C zoning designation in the city. Currently the Comprehensive Plan map proposed for this project shows it as mixed use community. Therefore, the proposed zoning is consistent with that land use designation. The applicant has provided a concept plan and sample elevations for you to review tonight. These are for illustrative purposes only, because of the proposed use of an Ada County Paramedic, planned for the property. That is a permitted -- principally permitted use in the UDC. So, upon annexation the applicant would have to submit for a CZC and design review approval to move forward with development on the property. Here is the concept plan that the applicant is proposing. Typically, when we have a mixed use designation we are looking for a mix of uses on the site. This property is encumbered with several easements and flood plain, which makes this a pretty viable use for what the applicant is proposing as far as a paramedic station. Basically, where you see the footprint of the building is the only developable portion of the site that can move forward. Here are some of the sample elevations. Again, staff has not totally evaluated these elevations. Looking at this rendering, it appears that it -- the modulation and articulation of the building would meet design review. However, building materials were not disclosed with the application. Staff has not received any written testimony on the application. There are no outstandings before you -- outstanding issues before you this evening. And, again, staff is recommending approval of the subject application. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Parsons. Any questions of staff? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Cooper: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Cooper, I'm with McKibben and Cooper Architects, 515 West Hays Street in Boise. We are the architects for the project, representing Ada County Emergency Medical Services and the Ada County operations, which will be managing the facility. As Bill mentioned, this site has many encumbrances which really dictate the layout for the design of the project. The intersection was improved by ACRD when they did their project there and Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 7 of 32 they installed the two curb cuts at either end of this site and we are required to use those. So, that's our ingress and egress already set for us. There is a required 25 foot landscape easement on both street frontages, but also on the rear, since it's abutting a residential development and also as Bill mentioned, we have arequired -- for Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District, their normal requirement is 50 feet from the center line of their facility or, at minimum, 18 feet of usable space from the top of the bank, which we are showing on this drawing, because we really -- we just don't have room to give the entire 50 feet and they are in agreement with that. But what you see also happens -- oh. The dashed lines across the upper corner of the project there are -- that's the easement for the Creason Lateral, which is -- we have just -- our surveyor has discovered the instrument for that easement, which is from 1917. It's an existing 20 foot easement and so, really, the entire development has to fit between that and the Five Mile drain setback on the other side. An issue that I'd like to address, which is where we -- because of the layout of the site we are not able to exactly meet the requirements of the ordinances for the 25 foot landscape buffer on the back side. On our plan there the hatched area represents where we are able to do the landscape buffer, because of the Nampa-Meridian's requirement for access at the edge of the canal we are not able to put it right at the back of our property line there, we have to do Nampa-Meridian's service requirements and, then, our development and so -- and, then, we have also coordinated with the Joe Silva, the fire chief, for his emergency access. The EMS requires this drive-thru function. The bay at the north part of the project and, then, the future bay, which is dashed above that, the idea is that during a call the ambulance would leave the front of the facility and head to the south or loop around and come out to the north if they need to go in that direction. That's the reason, really, for this loop drive that we have and, then, of course, Chief Silva needs his access behind the building, which really dictates our minimum widths and because of those issues we are not able to get the 25 foot buffer continuously and I believe Bill's -- Bill Parsons is satisfied that we have done it as well as we can, so -- but I do understand that this requires a waiver from Council for this interruption of the easement and so I'd like to ask your approval for that. Rohm: It appears as if -- even though you're not getting the full 25 feet, the right of way of the irrigation district, if you were to add that to that which you have, you're way in excess of the 25 feet that is kind of a buffer in total, wouldn't you agree with that? Cooper: In total we are -- including that easement and the buffer, we are 75 feet from the rear property line, which is from the center of drive. Rohm: Yeah. And I think that that gives a pretty good buffer to that residential area to the -- to the west. Cooper: I would agree with that. Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 8 of 32 Marshall: Mr. Chair? I have a question of staff with the applicant here, because I want to ask for a response based on how they respond to this. Looking at the ACHD response, item one, driveways need to be signed for right-in, right-out with future development application. Are they saying both those -- because both those driveways are fairly close to the intersection, are they saying they must be right-in, right-out? Parsons: Chairman, Councilman Marshall -- or Commissioner Marshall, speaking with ACHD I did speak with Mindy on this application and she told me officially they are right-in, right-out, but due to the nature of the use on the site they wouldn't make Ada County Highway District put in any medians or anything that would restrict that. So, technically, yes, they are right-in, right-out. Marshall: But it would be used as a full access -- Parsons: They would still -- right. There is nothing -- I mean those are their requirements, if they require them to stripe it as such, but Mindy said they wouldn't -- and ACHD said they would not require any medians. I think they are concerned -- I think the reason why they have that in the staff report was their concern for cut through traffic. Obviously, that's a busy intersection. We have access on both streets. Certainly you can see people cutting through the site wanting to beat the light. I'll let Ada County dictate -- coordinate with ACHD on that to see how they want that done appropriately. Marshall: Thank you, Bill. I appreciate that. So, based on that, I assume you're going to put some kind of striping there so people stopping for the intersection don't stop and block the driveway? And is there some idea of putting up emergency lights so that when they have got to come out, like the fire departments are using and some paramedics are using, lights on the street that when they have got to come out it stops the traffic? Cooper: I will do my best to answer, then, I might ask if our representative from EMS wants to chime in, but we did meet with ACHD on this issue and have agreed to stripe both accesses as they have asked us to, right-in and right-out. We also did discuss with them during an emergency call that the ambulances could -- they would not require median blocking them from going in the other direction. Now, Idon't -- I don't recall discussion of emergency lighting. I don't know if -- Weston: Good evening, I'm Darby Weston, deputy director with Ada County Paramedics. At this point we have not had any conversations with ACHD regarding installation of emergency lights. We have at several of our facilities seen that that's a good safety feature. The determining thing in that will be the proximity to the intersection and the blocked traffic of the light, so what we will do is work with ACHD to figure out what their traffic engineers see as the safest alternative. The other thing that we have done -- you can see in our Glenwood station, is the drive that we use for our ambulance traffic is marked very clearly with no access. And so we just simply put do Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 9 of 32 not enter, emergency vehicles only, and block all traffic in and out of there, so that we don't have any issues with the operation of the emergency vehicles out of the station. Marshall: Thank you. Weston: Thank you. Cooper: And we, of course, will be making construction permit application with ACHD, and work out all those issues. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: None. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: No. He answered my same concern. Rohm: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Cooper: Thank you. Rohm: There is not anybody that has signed up for this project, but at this time if there is anyone that would like to come forward and offer testimony, this is that time. And nobody is coming forward, so I think we are finished with taking public testimony. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on AZ 10-001. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: Second? O'Brien: Yeah. Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 10-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Do you want to make a motion. to -- Marshall: Well, a quick discussion. I was just going to make the comment that I -- this is a difficult piece of property to utilize and I think it's -- there is a need over there for a paramedic station and I'm not sure it's that close to that intersection, because I think it's going to be a little more difficult on the paramedics themselves trying to get in and out of there, but with the striping and whatnot that should help. I think they need full access to Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 10 of 32 be able to blow in and out of there with sirens running. That being said, any other comments? Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add. O'Brien: I have nothing. Rohm: Joe, you're doing a good job. You're on a roll. Marshall: Well, Mr. Chair -- go back here. Just a second. Make sure I get everything. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 10-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 5th, 2010, with no modifications. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval to City Council of AZ 10- 001 for Ada County Paramedics Linder Station, to include the staff report with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from July 15, 2010: ZOA 10-001 Request to amend and add to the current provisions of the Unified Development Code (Title 11 of Meridian City Code) related to the portable classroom standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-14 Education Institution by City of Meridian Planning Department: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing from July 15th, 2010, of ZOA 10-001, request to amend and add to a current provision of the Unified Development Code by the City of Meridian and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application is citywide this time, so it affects the placement of portable classrooms on education institution sites. The specific changes -- currently the UDC doesn't adequately -- adequately address the temporary or permanent status of portable classrooms. From the direction of City Council, planning department has proposed the amendment that outlines the process and standard for establishing the use of portable classrooms on either a temporary or permanent bases and the necessity for design review. To staffs knowledge or based on last year, to give you some history and background of why staff would be initiating these changes, last year the school district had proposed a portable classroom for the Paramount school district -- elementary school site and upon review of that application, CZC application, it was determined by the director that that structure did not meet design review standards and the school district was informed of staffs determination and they appealed that decision to City Council. During that hearing Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 11 of 32 Council had determined -- giving staff direction to come up with some language on how to address the temporary -- or the portable classrooms on either a temporary basis or a permanent basis, so that the school district or any other educational facility wouldn't have to continually come back and be subject to Council review for these types of structures. Before you is some of the language that staff has worked with in conjunction with the school district, based on some of their recommendations and that's what you see before you tonight. So, really, the main issue here or the main gist of this text amendment -- zoning text amendment is -- one is to either classify this as a temporary or a permanent structure. If it is classified as a temporary structure, it would go through normal CZC process, be subject to placement standards. So, how it is situated on the lot determines whether or not it requires a CZC or a Conditional Use Permit. After the end of that four year time period if the school district wanted it on a permanent basis they would have to come back, amend that CZC or that approval and make that structure -- either remove that structure and build a structure that complies with design standards or make the temporary structure comply with design review standards. This was a compromise between staff and the school district. Staff has received several letters from two concerned citizens that should be included in your packet. Their testimony addresses, basically, building materials and lighting for the proposed structures. You should have those in your packet. I think their concern is they would like to see those structures be somewhat compatible with the surrounding residential -- residential homes, either in color and materials, so I will leave that up to you for decision. The school district has informed me -- they are here in the audience tonight to address any concerns that -- or any questions that you may have regarding the application and so staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions Commission may have. Rohm: Thanks, Mr. Parsons. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Yeah. I just have a comment. Does this in any way have to do with the article in this morning's Statesman? Is this the same issue that we are talking about? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, there is a relationship there. We noted in this morning's article that there wasn't any mention of tonight's hearing. This has actually been something that has been in the works for a few months now. So, as Bill had mentioned, it has come to the Council on a review of city staff denial of a certificate of zoning compliance and design review some months ago and at that point Council said, you know, we really don't want to set up a situation where we are setting up a denial automatically -- try to come up with some text amendment to the UDC that at least allows the portable classrooms there on a temporary basis, if you will, and, then, after a period of time -- and, again, repeating what Bill said, after a period of time if it appears that they are going to be permanent fixtures, then, it will need to come back, they will need to comply with the design review Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 12 of 32 requirements. So, the relationship in the paper this morning -- I can't tell you whether that was coincidental or not. O'Brien: I thought it may. One further thing. In the text it mentions the placement not to be placed in the -- like a yard and so I guess I'm looking for what do you define as yard, play ground, a parking lot or what? Friedman: The standards -- the current standards are that they are not to be placed in the front yard areas. Typically, the front yard is defined as the area between the street and the main front building line of the main structure. And, actually, if you delve back into the UDC a little bit, we define rear yard, side yard, but, then, we define street yard as opposed to a front yard. We don't necessarily have a front yard, we have a front yard setback, which is the distance any structure or building needs to be set back from the front property line. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Friedman: You're welcome. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Okay. At this time, if there is public testimony, we are certainly open to take that testimony. Newton-Huckabay: How about the applicant? Rohm: The city is the applicant. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's -- sorry. Watson: Okay. Chairman Rohm and Members of the Commission, good evening. My name is Keith Watson, this is my wife Marva Watson, and we live at 762 West Cagney in Meridian, which backs up to the Paramount Elementary School. I have submitted and in your packet a written testimony as to why we feel that the standards under subsection four of this text write isn't sufficient enough to protect our neighborhood. Clearly there is no mention in here as to compatibility of color or of building material. I have submitted some pictures for you that I apologize to you I couldn't put it on a flash drive, but I have been out of town until today and you can see by those pictures that if we had to deal with these issues for up to four years before they determine if these were permanent buildings or not, it, really, is offensive to the neighborhood, because it's totally out of character. Now, the -- excuse me -- the City Council meeting that Bill referred to on appeal went back and ordered the school district to paint, actually, the portable classroom number one to meet and be complimentary with our community standards and they did that and as you can see number two has gone in there now and the color's been painted -- I mean it's been adapted to our standards, but now it's got a metal roof. So, we are trying to get some language into this standards number four that will protect our neighborhood, because -- for property value, esthetic values, we don't Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 13 of 32 feel -- feel that there is enough protection into this text write up that will protect our community. M.Watson: An additional note on that is -- Rohm: You will need to state your name and address as well. M.Watson: My name is Marva Watson. I live at 762 West Cagney, which backs up to the Paramount -- in the Paramount Subdivision that backs up to the elementary school. And the only other thing I wanted to mention is if we don't get anything adapted in here into the color, who is to say that this second building that came in, that was kind of a pinky beige with blue trim. Building number one, is brown with green trim and, you know, if you start looking, all the roofs are consistent. The way that they have painted this is acceptable. We don't like the buildings there, but we do realize that they are necessary. We have never tried to fight that, but they need to be consistent, because if we don't get any language in here as to consistency, who is to say that's not going to turn out like the one that was in the paper when I talked to the gentleman that's pink and purple. You know, we just need -- we can't be having pink and blue, pink and purple. The original white was kind of a dark white with the green trim. You know, it starts kind of looking alittle -- well, not acceptable. Watson: One thing that we would like you take into consideration is the world's changed, the developers now they build and they donate the land to the school district and it's completely embedded in the middle of the community. In years past they would be out on the edge of the community, they would be different zonings and everything, but now, because they want to sell these lots and build these homes around these schools, they are embedded right in the middle of our neighborhood and so it really does impact our property values and our esthetic values and quiet enjoyment of our property if they are allowed to do whatever they want to do and put stuff in there, because we find -- and I think you all recognize that these things don't tend to be temporary, they are usually there for 20 years or so. So -- but the fact is that -- that the planning and zoning is establishing a four year time line -- I don't want to have to look at this stuff for four years before they decide what they are going to do with it. I think that's -- that's asking a lot of the neighborhood to -- to put up with that. If you want to take some questions. Rohm: I understand your concerns and, you know, I think that -- Watson: I believe the Council did as well, because they ordered the school district to paint this and bring it into community standards last fall on appeal to the City Council. So, I would hope that going forward now as this goes to the City Council that Planning and Zoning could bring this into -- to incorporate these standards into their -- into their recommendations. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 14 of 32 M.Watson: You know, if you go out there with the sun beating down on this, not only is it a glare to the neighborhood to where we cannot sit outside and look out that direction, because it is like having a flood light shining back in your eyes. But we live on a corner to what is a round about and those people are going screaming around there anyway with school buses, the children are walking, are crossing the street, you know, if you have got any kind of a distraction with any kind of a roof like this where it doesn't match, you know, it -- we are looking at a potential hazard there. And like I said, you know, we can't even sit outside without the -- without it just shining in our eyes. There goes our standard of living. And we realize that there is shortage of funds in the school district. What the school district needs to also understand is we are also affected by the economy and every homeowner in that subdivision are -- it's just like anywhere else, our values are going down and if we have to continue to live with something like that, our standard of living is also going down and we have never thought the placement of those -- we know that there is room for about four more of them. Don't like it. We have accepted it. But at least let it be consistent with everything else that's in there. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your input. At this time is there anybody else that would want to testify? Okay. Please come forward. Exline: Members of Commission, my name is Eric Exline, I'm the public information officer for the Meridian School District, so I'm here to testify in favor of the amendments to the UDC. I would like to start by answering Commissioner O'Brien's question regarding the article in the Statesman. Although the issue is somewhat related, the fact that it was in the paper is really completely coincidental. We happen to have gone through the process of placing a portable. It raised an issue with a neighbor about what it looked like. I would like to talk to you a little bit about the history of the district's use of portables, what they do for us, what they do now for us is just a little different than in the past. I would have to say that I don't quite agree with the notion that the world has changed in terms of the placement of elementary schools. It has been the goal of the district for a long time and you guys know the placement of a lot of our elementary schools, in particular that we try and put them in neighborhoods. And what that does for you is it puts them around housing, which allows kids to walk, which allows you to get attendance areas that are small enough that you don't cross arterials, thus, creating all the safety issues, et cetera, et cetera, and if you look around our district, Meridian Elementary is placed in the middle of a subdivision. Linder Elementary is the middle of a subdivision. Chief Joseph is in the middle of a subdivision. These are schools that are dating back as far as 1959, through the '70s, through the '80s and we have continued that trend. Developers like us to do that. They do on occasion donate school sites, so elementaries -- it's a little different at the secondary. Partly economics. It's a little harder for a developer to give you 40 or 60 acres. Ten is a little more doable. But .they also know the value a having them in their subdivisions. The owner of Brighton Corporation is a very savvy man who understands his business well and if you drive down McMillan you will see a series of signs and one says great builders are Paramount. It's Paramount Subdivision. And one says -- I believe it's recreation is Paramount. And one says great schools are Paramount. He sells his subdivision on the fact that it has an elementary school based in it and it also adds a great deal of Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 15 of 32 economic value and the only data that I can give you on that has to do with Pepper Hills, which I think is actually in Boise, but the developer there gave the district a school site back in the mid '90s and the day after we passed the bond to build the school, which was about six or seven years later we -- you know, we donated it well in advance -- he raised the lot prices across his subdivision by ten thousand dollars, because he knew of the marketing value and the home enhancement value of having the elementary school there. I think it's a valuable thing. I think it's a good think for our community. I think it creates neighborhoods. I think it creates neighborhood schools. think it allows more kids to walk. I think it has all of those benefits. Okay? Now, the hard side for us is we are always building schools where the growth is. Right? Well, just because you open a new school doesn't mean the growth ended. So, you build a new school and low and behold a year later another 300 people -- and that's actually a statement in this -- one of the two square miles -- within a year of the construction of Paramount 300 people moved into Lochsa Falls Subdivision. 1 should say families with 300 kids. So, all of a sudden you have a school built for 650 and you have 800 kids in it. We have a couple tools in our kit bag, okay, to deal with that. We can cap enrollment and bus them elsewhere. We did that at Paramount for a year. I have to tell you that was objectionable to the developer and I understand why, because now he's not getting the value of out his donation, because he can't even tell the people that are moving that their kids get to go to that school. We do it sometimes, though. That's one thing we have in the kit bag. You can change attendance areas. We do that a lot in Meridian. I don't know how many of you have had kids that have gone through our system, but it's not hard to find families who will tell you stories like my kid went to two elementary schools, two middle schools and two high schools and we never moved. Right? You've probably heard this story. So, we try not to do that. So, the last thing we have in our tool bag is portable buildings. Okay? Now, there is about -- what would you say -- 70 -- sorry -- 74 portables out around in the Meridian School District being used to reduce overcrowding in various places. I got to tell you about all of but 16 of them. The majority of those came from long ago when Meridian Middle School burnt and for awhile that school was run out of a sea of portables that sat on its site. This is back in the early '90s. After that the district started using those portables. I'm going to say four or five years ago the state passed a new law that said unless it has a tag on it you can't move it anymore. And so when someone says they have become kind of permanent, well, they are in the sense that we are not allowed to move them. I'll tell you what I believe the future for those is and it's happening already, someone comes along and says, you know what, that old portable, the floor is giving out and it needs a new roof, it's going to cost 5,000 dollars, at which point we are going to remove it and it's going to become salvage. They will have no value. Okay. Now, what you do is you go buy a standard portable for about a hundred thousand dollars that has a state tag. Okay? It comes the way it comes. It has one roof line. It's a rectangular box. You can paint it different colors. If you select different materials you're, essentially, building a custom building. It's not a portable modular building that's intended to be moved. Okay. This all issue came to a head when the design standards were changed and it didn't really address portable building and the way the district used them and for us if we have to go in and make significant changes that are expensive. One of those -- a standard one costs about a hundred thousand dollars, plus installation. We will simply begin to take Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 16 of 32 that out of our kit bag. All right? We are just going to stop using them. If they become so that we have to go in and add five thousand, ten thousand, 15 thousand dollars every time you move them -- the ones that we have now, the 16 that are state tagged that we own, it was at Hunter for one year. Okay? So if you would have painted it for the color or the Hunter Subdivision and moved it somewhere else, we have ended up painting it a new color. Okay? That's why we asked for a revision to this code. We also understand it's not fair to say that we get to leave them there forever, which is why I explained the history of those that are kind of stuck there. The ones we have now are not intended to sit there forever more, they are intended to move as we run into problems with growth. And as was testified -- and, I agree, we have a -- we have limited resources with which to do this. If it had not been for the four billion dollar drop in the market value of our district, we would have opened a new elementary school and we would not have needed these portables at all and Lochsa Falls Subdivision, which is half of the attendance zone of Paramount. We couldn't do that without raising everybody's taxes. We had voter authority to raise 20 million dollars in our plant facility levy. This year we will only levy seven, because if we levy a penny more than that everybody's levy rate goes up and our board has made a promise not to do that. Okay? Those are the resources we have to buy portables, those are the resources we have to move them, that's the resource we have to buy buses, computers, all kinds of other needs for the district. So, if we can't have a way that we can economically use portable buildings, what we are going to start to do is pull elementary schools out to arterials and collectors, so you don't have the issue of community members being concerned when you place one and that to us does not seem like a good long term plan. Now, it is also true that we need to be good neighbors. We really didn't object to painting the portable at Paramount. We came to the City Council, because we needed to raise the issue of why this particular problem in the code was going to be a long-term problem, which triggered staff to help work with us to come up with a solution where we can still be good neighbors. You know, for someone who has aconcern -- and it goes back to the article in the paper. They had a concern about the placement of that portable and it is true when we first got it it was gold and something. The reason for that is we bought that state tagged portable from the Middleton School District, because they used it when their high school burned down. Okay? We moved it in, we painted it, we repainted it, so it didn't have those colors. We placed it where it was, because in the original design plan for the building you install the electrical, right, to save you from having to tear up your concrete that's all around the school later. That's why it was placed where it was. But we are also willing to be good neighbors, which as you read in the paper we've already had people come forth and volunteer to donate the trees to help try and mask its impact on the neighborhood. We understand that. We are not here to try and, you know, make people's situations worse. And if they have those concerns all they need to do is call the school district and say we have these concerns. Now, am I going to spend 50,000 dollars to rerun the electrical? I don't think they would. But if they really have a concern and the staff doesn't address, you do the same thing, you ask to be on the school board and they will address whether or not -- the amount of the expense. But the point is this is a reasonable compromise. What staff has come up with is a reasonable compromise in our cycle of building new schools that we don't expect these portables to be sitting at Paramount four years from now. And if they are we have a Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 17 of 32 bigger problem, which is we have really gotten behind on the number of new schools we need to build. Rohm: So, do you think that the school district would be objectionable to when you make application to place a temporary structure that your communication with staff at the staff level just say, well, okay, here is where we are going to place this and the staff say, well, whatever you bring in needs to -- from a color perspective -- I don't think you want three different colored modular structures side by side and as long as it's esthetically pleasing or takes into consideration it surroundings, I will just leave it at that. Do you think the district would be agreeable to that? So, that that discussion is at the staff level. I don't want it to come before Planning and Zoning to decide what the structure is going to be painted. Exline: No. Generally, Idon't -- I don't have an objection to that. In the case of Paramount -- and I guess in some ways this illustrates something -- it's, actually, painted the color -- and there is no objection in that neighborhood about the color of it, don't like the location of it, but they don't care about the color now that it's been repainted. Actually, in my conversations they thanked me for repainting it. Coincidentally, it's the same color that the Paramount portable was prior to repainting as the City Council asked us to. We don't have a problem with being good neighbors. Okay? We do have a concern about putting a lot of additional resources into portable buildings -- Rohm: I agree completely. Exline: -- that we really don't have and we don't have many other tricks to use to deal with growth when it's explosive and the only other thing I'll add in terms of that, we are still expecting 900 new kids this year. You would think in a down economy that's changed and it's not 1,500 like we have sometimes gotten, but we still expect 900. But at the staff level, sure. The other thing that I think is actually important at the staff level when we are submitting plans for new elementaries, they indicate where the electrical boxes are, where the vaults are that you're going to need to power these things in the future, which they had at Paramount, which they have at Prospect. I also think at that time there needs to be a good review of that and an agreement amongst all parties that that was the right place to put it. And I do think that happens at the staff level. I had figured out why they placed that on that site particularly where they will and a lot of it had to do with drainage and ground water and runoff. They didn't have a whole lot of other choices. Am I answering your question? Rohm: No. No. You have done a good job. I have been on this Commission for a good number of years and the one statement that I would have to make is the school district has been a very valued partner with the City of Meridian throughout the development of additional schools, be it elementary, high school, or otherwise and think that that relationship has been good and I don't think it's sad that this discussion is taking place tonight, but I'm fairly certain that the school district will continue to be a good neighbor as we go down the road. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 18 of 32 Exline: And t would have to mention to the couple, we will have to look at in some way to mitigate the effect of that. That's also aMiddleton -- that particular one was also bought in Middleton and so that's the roof. Sorry. Now I'm addressing them. I'll talk to you afterwards. Rohm: Anyway, thank you. Any questions of this individual? O'Brien: Yes, I do. So, what I hear you saying is that there is no common manufacturer that you obtain these classrooms from, the temporary ones? Exline: No. Actually, it is. Nary: You have to come up and testify or he's got to repeat what you said. Hanners: I'm Wayne Hanners. I'm the supervisor of operations, Meridian School District. Home address is 12003 West Albany Drive, Boise. And how these are purchased new, we go through an architect, the architect has a standard design. The manufacturer has a standard design and that design is public bid. I mean we have to bid it. At 25,000 dollars we have to bid it. So, it could be one manufacturer or another one. Depends on who gives us the best price. Marshall: But to quickly clarify, there is a single set design that you -- that's followed, no matter who the manufacturer is? Hanners: That's pretty much basic and what you can really select is the length. The width is pretty much standard. And that's so they can transport them. When they are split, you know, and they move those things to a site, they are usually split in half and, then, when they bring them together, you know, of course they are quite a bit wider, but the length is the one thing that you can deviate on. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have one other question if it's okay, sir? Mr. O'Brien. My question is the portables that are the old middle school portables from the '90s that are, shall we say permanent and can't be moved, when do you anticipate those degrading to a point that you remove them? Hanners: When they are empty. That's a valid question. We don't know that. I think that we have a couple at this point in time that the floors are warped and as that happens and it costs more money to fix them up than the value of the building, it's time to get rid of them. The problem we have with those, according to the state, we can't sell those at auction to any other public agency or state agency. They, basically, would have to go to someone like a farm entity or the public using that for his private use. But most likely it would cost them more to move the value of that building than it would cost to build it. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 19 of 32 Exline: And it's a little hard to answer, because it just depends on the rate at which their maintenance become more than they are actually worth. There are still -- I mean there is some of them we still need for space purposes, mostly at the secondary level, but -- Marshall: My question, then, is how many of those are we using at this time? Exline: There is 74 portables in total. Sixteen of them are tagged and truly movable, the remainder are not. Marshall: So, 58? Exline: Yeah. Marshall: So, quick question for staff. Do those nonmovable portables that are now permanent, fall under these guidelines, so that in four years they will have to come -- either become permanent or go through design review? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, Members of the Commission, I believe that those are existing structures The regulations that are being proposed will apply to any future installations. It's not retroactive. We don't -- as you know, we don't retroactively. apply new zoning regulations to other uses or other structures either, so -- Marshall: So, my question, then, is are these new regulations going to apply to the 16 portable tagged ones that say Paramount Subdivision has two now, would the four year they have got to move or meet design guidelines within four years apply to those? Friedman: Again, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, it would not apply to those two. If they were to move another one or two into Paramount, it would apply to those two or to any new ones. Again, we are retroactively not going to go back and apply -- we can't retroactively go back and apply the regulations to the ones that exist. Marshall: So, can I ask what rules and guidelines are applying to those now? I mean what -- Friedman: They are subject to the current standards that are contained in the specific use standards of the UDC to address portable structures and talking about -- well, they are down here at number standard, so that it's not going to be located in the front yard of the principal school structure, it shall not be located in a required yard and shall not reduce the number of parking spaces and comply with the building code. So, the ones that presently are in play are in play and subject to the regulations that were in effect at the time that they were placed on the property. Whatever is promulgated by the city after the Council receives the recommendation from this body, will, then, apply to the placement of all new structures -- portable structures. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 20 of 32 Marshall: So, those -- again, a little more clarification for me, just learning a little bit here. Those can -- never have to come back for design review, they could actually stay there forever? Friedman: They could. Or if, as the applicant has just indicated -- not the applicant, but the public has just indicated, that, you know, if one of them degrades to the point where they need to salvage it, get rid of it, and they have to bring another one in, the one that they bring in will be subject to whatever new regulations are put in place. Marshall: I also understand, though, that they don't want them there, because we did approve the Willow Creek Elementary, I understand that they would really like to have that built as soon as they can get some -- Friedman: Sure. Marshall: I understand that. And those portables would go away at that time. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any additional discussion here? Thank you, gentlemen. Exline: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. At this time -- is there anybody else that would like to testify? I think that pretty much concludes that. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on -- Newton-Huckabay: ZOA. Marshall: Yeah. ZOA 10-001. Thank you. Appreciate that. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on ZOA 10-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Just have one comment. I don't think that at anytime a stainless steel metal roof in a residential area is appropriate. I think that looks awful and I don't blame -- I think that the -- I'm surprised more of the Watsons' neighbors aren't here in -- other than you don't want to bad mouth the school district, I guess, but I don't have anything against a metal roof, but I think there is lots of different textures, finishes, you can put on a metal roof to make it a lot less invasive and Ithink -- I think it's reasonable to expect the building to be compatible with -- you know, with the neighborhood. Even if it is only there for a year. I don't think it's -- at least have it blend in to some extent. You Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 21 of 32 certainly wouldn't let a cell phone tower go into a -- I mean we have had half an hour debates on what color a cell phone tower should be, so that it blends in. So, I think that -- I think it's only appropriate that a temporary building should blend in and a metal roof, galvanized roof, does not blend in. So, I would think there does need some address to that in the text amendment. Rohm: Well -- and, again, that's why I was recommending that at the time that the application's made that the communication between staff- and the applicant, whether the Meridian School District or any other applicant, they cover that in that application process and provide some assurance that there is some continuity between the neighboring public and the application. So, I think that that's -- that's where that should be addressed at the time that they make the proposal and, then, we won't be -- this won't be an issue. That's just my thought on it. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- and I think you're both right on the money. I think for the stafFs direction you want to make sure that your direction is to give staff the ability to create standard -- or create the standards that are compatible with the neighborhood, but not necessarily tied to the CC&Rs of the neighborhood. The school district and school district property is not part of the subdivision for that aspect and so trying to tie it to the rules and regulations of the subdivision that can be changed by the homeowners association through their own board, because they are not a party to, is probably not the direction you want, but the compatibility like we would in a CUP type of application is probably really where the staff wants to be able to -- be able to come down and make those decisions on color and whether it's compatible with the neighborhood regarding like the roof and those types of things, but not have to have singled roofs and those kinds of things that are required for the rest of the homes in the sub. Rohm: Thank you. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we appreciate your trust in us and your confidence in us. However, what we are proposing tonight before you in what is the current practice, as the structures come in for review it would require a certificate of zoning compliance, but it would not necessarily require design review approval. Therefore, if you want to vest in us the authority to have some level of requirement for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, if it comes down to color or a reduction of glare, as we heard, or something like that, then, I recommend we still put something back in the specific standards, because, otherwise, you know, we may get a fully cooperative applicant, but if we get one that's not cooperative and, rightly so, they could challenge us and say what's the basis of your authority on that. So, I would be much more comfortable having some language in the specific standards that, you know, as Mr. Nary has indicated, we won't go so far as to say, you know, have asphalt shingle roofs and, you know, shingled siding, and things like that. But we could look at something to the effect of, you know, colors should be compatible with the surrounding residences, roof should be either of a material or a painted color that -- or somehow Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 22 of 32 finished to the point that glare is reduced or something like that. So, you know, we -- yes. Newton-Huckabay: If we were to put in a statement such as color of the building and roof should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, would that be sufficient? Friedman: I would -- Commissioner Huckabay -- Newton-Huckabay, Members of the Commission, Icould -- you know, I could see colors of the body of the building being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As far as the roofing goes, I -- if it said compatible I would be uncomfortable, because if all the surrounding homes had the roofs or architectural asphalt shingles, what's to be compatible with those, the roofs or architectural compatible shingles. I think if we are really trying to mitigate the glare issue, as has been evident tonight, then, I would rather see a standard that says that the roofing material shall be of -- or that such roofing finish will be of such that it does not produce unwanted -- or produce glare. O'Brien: Mr. Friedman -- if it's okay to ask -- Rohm: Absolutely. O'Brien: It was mentioned about the age of these buildings when we acquire them and the concern I would have is like if you get a building from Middleton, like we did, we don't know how old that -- at least I don't know how old that building was and if it is a candidate for a permanent structure, are all these things taken into consideration when we obtain these and for how long we expect to have them, you know? I -- I don't know what the longevity is on a classroom. It was mentioned that some the floors are being warped and the roofs need to be replaced and values, et cetera. So, what -- what can be or should there be anything in the guidelines to say something about the age of a unit or the integrity? Friedman: Sure. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien, Members of the Commission. Actually, we don't -- really, that's a procurement decision on the part of the school district, so it really doesn't get involved in the age, the vendor, or so forth, but we do have a condition right now in our standards that requires them to comply with the building codes in effect at the time. So, I -- if I'm hearing you correctly, if we tend to get an older structure -- or they tend to get an older structure, they still need to comply with the building codes that are in effect today or when they do it, so I believe that gets to your concern on those more aging structures. O'Brien: Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall:. Shall I share some thoughts here? Rohm: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 23 of 32 Marshall: To be honest, I live in Paramount Subdivision and I have to admit I'm not overly found of portables, but I also fully understand the need for them. I understand that the -- financially there is a huge need for them right now and I wish that could change and I hope it does soon. That being said, I do believe that the school district has been a very good neighbor and tried to appease our needs whenever possible. I understand also that the -- the coloring can be disturbing, especially if you have got a roof shining back into your -- the back of your house and, then, if there is anything that can be done to that I -- that won't follow under these codes, obviously, but I would appreciate it if the school district could step forward and paint the roof or something. Yeah. Have to admit. And beyond that I did move to that subdivision because the school was in the middle of the neighborhood, because my kids don't have to cross major arterials, because they can walk right to the school and because it was good rated schools and I studied that before I ever decided on an area to move to. I do like the idea of having some -- the school district seems very responsive in being able to paint them. I don't think we should throw the cost of changing materials and going so far as some -- some kind of comprehensive design review, I think that's too much. Cost effectively it becomes inappropriate. To throw some paint on it I know gets expensive, even paint by the gallon, I've got to buy some myself. It is expensive, but seeing how the school district seems -- seems to be willing to paint them to meet the surrounding neighborhoods, I think that's appropriate to request, not because of the administration that's in place, but because some day the administration may change and I have dealt with that before, where things have worked out very very well and suddenly we have a change at the top and we are no longer meeting the needs that we used to. So, I would like to see that in the writing to say that there is some minor discussion of meeting the neighborhood on a staff level discussion with the school district to make sure they meet the colors and the needs and that we don't have bright shiny metal roofs and that the colors actually meet in -- but I don't think that changing textures or siding or anything like that to meet more of a permanent position would be appropriate. It would just be cost ineffective and the fact that I like the idea that they are portable for four years, then, after which, if they are going to remain, they've now got to go through design review, which means these portables will move out, they are not going to meet design review. That's I think the impetus for this whole thing and that's what I have to -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to propose that number E -- or letter E be added under number four, if that's the appropriate place for it, that states the portable structures will be compatible with the neighborhood -- well, how do I have this? The portable structures, the color of the body of the building, and roof -- roofing finishes should not produce ambient impact, such as glare from a reflective surface and should be compatible with the neighborhood. It didn't sound as good when I said it out loud as it did when I wrote it down. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 24 of 32 Marshall: But it sounds pretty good. Rohm: Mr. Friedman, will that cover your concern over providing text to live by? Friedman: Well, we will live with whatever the Commission and Council ultimately adopt and -- but it does help, because if we are going to have a conversation with any property owner on anything, we really need to have our basis in the UDC. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you care to make a motion to incorporate your previous statement into that to be inclusive? Newton-Huckabay: If you will give me just a moment to wordsmith it I will be happy to. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Since writing UDC code is not my strength. Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number ZOA 10-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 5th, 2010, with the following modification. Under Section 4, Bullet E, a sentence to the effect of the portable structures will be compatible will the surrounding neighborhood, with coordination of building color and roofing finishes. Roofing should not have ambient impact, such as glare, on surrounding neighbors. Rohm: End of motion? Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of ZOA 10-001, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you very much, Commission Newton- Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: You're welcome. Rohm: Good job. Thank you for your testimony and we appreciate you coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: CPAT 10-002 Request to amend the text of the Meridian Design Manual to edit clerical errors, remove repetitious text, address the treatment of residential building facades adjacent to roadways AND clarify the use of vinyl siding as an appropriate building material by the City of Meridian Planning Department: Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 25 of 32 Rohm: At this time I would like to open the public hearing on the CPAT 10-002 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject application before you is a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to amend residential guidelines containing Section E of the Meridian Design Manual. Again, this is a citywide application. It affects development citywide I should say. The purpose of the amendment or the text amendment is to, one, address clerical errors, remove redundant, guidelines already expressed in the document. Clarify the use of the vinyl siding as an appropriate building material and add new language to address the treatment of residential facades in relation to adjacent roadways. Staff believes the proposed CPA text amendment reduces ambiguities in the manual and clearly establishes design principals and elements for use in future residential building designs adjacent to roadways and public spaces. Really, the one issue -- the main emphasis on this text amendment before you this evening is really to address vinyl siding as an appropriate building material and, two, to address the fenestration or the architectural details of residential structures adjacent to roadways. Right now the way the design manual is written it is addressed that all the sites adjacent to roadways should be compatible and use the same design elements throughout the building. In the past the city's always seen the emphasis on the front facade as it faced the street and so staff wanted to go ahead and look to the manual, at least the residential section and look out and try to further define those criteria, so that future development and future subdivisions or residential developers that come in have a clear vision of what staff is looking for as far as housing -- proposed housing in those developments. If you drive throughout the city there are some instances where there are homes out there that are - - that abut residential streets, collectors, arterials, that don't have any accent materials or design elements on them and so we felt by adding that and making that clearer and suggesting -- or providing guidelines that suggest certain elements to use would help provide a better guide to developers and landowners. So, some of the ideas we came up with -- or expressed were to introduce the same fenestration patterns, meaning windows and all facades, use the same trim, the same glazing features, use a mix of materials, not just do stone, three types of building materials on the front facade and the rear and the side, they are just your standard lap siding or plywood siding. So, we encourage that to wrap around. We also encourage that they use some exposed trusses, roof brackets, some arches and corners and even modulate -- or articulate the facade with those details and that's where we were kind of heading with that. As far as the vinyl siding, currently the way it's expressed in the design manual, it expresses using that material as an accent only. Also in the UDC it's restricted to an accent material only. After meeting with several local representatives in the community and speaking with representatives from the vinyl siding institute back in Washington, they have provided documentation and some pretty sound evidence that vinyl siding can be a decorative material and be an appropriate material on homes provided you break up, as expressed in the manuals, and provided that you provide a mix of materials or patterns, break up the facade with colors and so that's what we have tried take into account before you this evening is introduce some of those changes, introduce a mix of varieties, a mix of textures, a mix of colors, so that way that vinyl siding is appropriate Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 26 of 32 and it does express the look of a high quality structure. We have received written testimony from Nick Capezza from the Vinyl Siding Institute. his written testimony had provided some additional changes that he has proposed to what staff has proposed before you tonight and I have attached that to your hearing outline. It is on the backside of your hearing outline. It is highlighted in red font. Staff has discussed this internally and feels his recommended changes are appropriate and does set well in the design manual. And so we are proposing those changes as well tonight to be added to what staff has already presented to you. Other than that, there are no outstanding issues before you and staff is recommending approval of the subject text amendment. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would -- Jim Smith, would you like to speak? Please come forward. Smith: My name is Jim Smith. I am the managing partner of Exterior Building Supply at 301 East 5th in Meridian, Idaho. And I am one of the largest vinyl distributors in the state, along with another one that is in the City of Meridian. So, we have a concern. The verbiage that was in the code is currently in the code. We have discussed with the staff and they have been very helpful. One of the things that we have found is that the perception of many people is vinyl siding is inexpensive, narrow boards slapped on a house. It's not. Vinyl siding is the number one exterior cladding product in the United States and Canada. Its largest market is on homes over 300,000 dollars. Now, all the developments that have been made in exterior cladding products in about the last ten to 15 years have been made by the vinyl institute. They currently offer insulated vinyl siding, adds up to an R-4 to the outside of the wall. It's a very green product. When walked in here today I noticed that you had the Green Building Council emblem in your lobby. A LEED program. They actually endorse vinyl siding. Specifically insulated vinyl siding. And all we are really asking for, you know -- and Pete has been very helpful and Bill -- is to be held to the same guidelines as any other material. We are the number one building material for exterior. We are not listed as an exterior building material in Meridian's code and we are specifically -- it specifically says it can only be used as accents. In being a local business person here, I can tell you that in some CC&Rs where they say no vinyl, I have put -- I have sold a whole lot of polypropylene hand split shakes that are in gables of those and they, obviously, are very acceptable, so we are here endorsing what they are saying, saying we would -- all we want is a -- is a shot at the business and in this economy we need it and we are local businesses. So, if you have any questions we will certainly -- Rohm: No. No. I think that you have done a good job working with the staff to incorporate the necessary verbiage to clarify the uses of vinyl siding right along with other products and I'm sure that staff would echo that appreciation. So, thank you. Appreciate your input. Thank you, sir. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Any discussion? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 27 of 32 Marshall: Quick question for Bill. Mr. Parsons, I believe the letter received here, number two -- recommendation number two was incorporated in red strike out in that latest version; is that correct? Or is this an amendment to -- Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, you are correct. That is a slightly different version, but staff has incorporated that into the version that's before you this evening. Marshall: Thank you. I am very very familiar with the insulated products and they can -- personally Ifeel they are a very fine product. Rohm: Could I get a motion to close the public hearing on CPAT 10-002? O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I move that we are close public hearing CPAT 10-002. Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPAT 10-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: I think for this particular item all we need is a vote of confidence to -- or recommendation to the City Council supporting this text amendment and a motion to that effect I think would be appropriate. Marshall: Mr. Chair? After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPAT 10-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 5th, 2010, to incorporate the changes made into tonight's outline. Correct? O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of the changes in the design manual via CPAT 10-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from July 15, 2010: ZOA 10-001 Request to amend and add to the current provisions of the Unified Development Code (Title 11 of Meridian City Code) related to the portable classroom standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-14 Education Institution by City of Meridian Planning Department: Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 28 of 32 Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, in thinking over your motion and your discussion regarding the school and the portables, I spoke with Mr. Friedman briefly, because I think one of the concerns that staff expressed that I still think is out there for concern is the discretionary decision making and what's compatible with the neighborhood. One of the discussions with the Paramount issue and the Paramount portable was that originally it was white and one of the initial responses from the school district was that there are other houses in Paramount that are white. So, why can't white be an acceptable color. Well, it's brighter and it didn't really blend. My suggestion would be if you would like to reconsider that and bring that back up, is that instead of it being compatible with the neighborhood, that building -- the portables on the property need to be compatible with the school, so that the roof texture would be similar to the school and the building colors would be similar to the school. They are not going to be building a lot of purple and pink schools I think in the immediate future, so I think a majority of the buildings would end up being brown or tan or black and things like that. That's the general school treatments they have. But that's a standard to make it easier for staff to apply no matter who the school district superintendent is or what the school district's personnel are, they can look at the school, look at whether it's compatible with the school design and, then, they can approve that. So, it might be easier from a consistent standard if you want to leave it at the staff level to apply, then, if we make it to the neighborhood, because you're going to have neighborhoods that have bright colors, dark colors, muted colors, different colors, you're going to have a more -- a larger variety for the staff to try to apply a discretionary standard to. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nary. And with that being said I think I will reopen the continued public hearing to modify the motion. So, at this time I'd like to reopen the continued public hearing from July 15th, 2010, of ZOA 10-001, specifically to modify the motion. Nary: And, Mr. Chairman, I did mention that to the folks in the audience and invited them to return in case they had a comment, as well as to Mr. Exline from the school district if they had any comment or concerns about that recommendation, since it's a little different than where we had been. Rohm: Okay. At this time then -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? I -- before we ask for more public testimony, maybe I will propose the wordsmith, again, statement and, then, we can comment on that as wel l Marshall: I would also make a comment also. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: I kind of like the idea of aligning with the school, as opposed to the neighborhood for two reasons. One, it's on the school property and that's the nearest structure, but also that school itself has had to go through design review and fit into the neighborhood already. So, it's design, textures, everything, color, everything have to Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 29 of 32 already fit within the neighborhood and if portables are matching with the school or at least close to and fitting with the school appropriately, then, I think that would make it easier and I would be interested in hearing Mr. Ecline's thoughts on that as well at some point in time. O'Brien: Did we get a second on your motion to open -- continue the hearing? Do we need that? Rohm: No. No. I just reopened it. O'Brien: Okay. Okay. Rohm: We don't need a motion to open. Nary: What you need a motion to is to reconsider your prior decision and make whatever changes or amendments you make. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you share with us your rewrite? Newton-Huckabay: I have simplified to say the portable structure will be compatible with the finish -- the exterior finishes of the existing school structure. Rohm: Were you going to try and address the reflective surface of the roofing or is that -- Newton-Huckabay: You don't think that the exterior finishes would cover that? Marshall: Unfortunately, I don't think finishes is a good -- I think colors -- both roofing and siding colors, but you could -- if you have got a metal trailer -- I mean if you're asking them to put a whole new roof on it, that's going to be a problem. If you got a brick finish -- now, does wood -- wood finish match the brick finish, which, again, would be I think a -- too much of a cost burden for the school district. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That said I have made three attempts to wordsmith this section four -- 4-E and I give up and advice anyone else to take a stab at it. Rohm: And, you know, just to kind of lend support, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the staff has spent a significant amount of time writing this change that we are considering tonight and to ask the Commission to rewrite a portion of it in a 30 minute open hearing is a bit cumbersome. So, I applaud Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's attempt at rewrite and -- and I support her efforts completely. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: So, Commissioner Marshall, are you -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 30 of 32 Nary: Mr. Chairman, I could make a suggestion and, then, if the Commission wanted to sort of edit from there. There is two issues that you have raised. The roof -- I could suggest that the roof shall be of a finish that emits a minimal amount of glare, is really the issue of concern. However that finish is done doesn't really make any difference, as long as it doesn't emit glare. We don't want it to be of the same material. It doesn't have to be same materials as the school building, but that's appeared to be the concern. Another bullet could say exterior colors of the portable structure shall be compatible with the color of the primary school building, because sometimes there may be more than one building on the site, but the primary school building is generally the largest, so if it's consistent with that, that's probably adequate. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we adopt the wordsmithing of Mr. Nary as he did capture the intent of my statement. Amen. Marshall: It's on the record. Yeah. Rohm: I think his -- his words are part of this process and I think we can incorporate without it being so stated again in the motion, so let's take another stab at the motion and, then, incorporate Mr. Nary's comments. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Chair. I just don't know if you want to -- since you did open the public hearing, you may want to take at least a comment from the folks, if they had any other -- Rohm: At this time I'd like to open for public testimony and if you have additional comments, please, step forward. Watson: Chairman Rohm and Members of the Commission -- Rohm: Please state your name and address again. Watson: I'm sorry. Keith Watson. 762 West Cagney Street in Meridian. I think that Mr. Nary is exactly got that right, because -- and Commissioner Marshall is spot on when he says that that school already has been vetted and so you -- it's going to meet the sort of standards that we want in these communities and more important I think from -- from a resident standpoint is that when you see the school you're going to know what's going to happen there, so if -- you know, if there is going to be portables come in there, you know they are going to be compatible with that existing school, so there is no -- if you don't understand that when you buy in there, that's your problem. But now, you know, we had no understanding of that. So, I think this is really a -- really a good suggestion. I think it's good verbiage. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you for you testimony. Any other additional testimony? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 31 of 32 Exline: Again, I'm Eric Exline, spokesman for the Meridian School District. I'm actually fine with that, although being one who is always kind of keen on simplicity, I can probably just live with the line that says that the colors be compatible with the primary building, because that's going to eliminate the issue of glare, because none of the buildings emit glare. So, if by buildings -- if the colors of the portable are compatible with the school building, you are not going to have a roof that is glaring, because the school buildings don't have roofs that are glaring. I actually think you could live with just the one statement, but as written is fine, too. Nary: We get paid extra by the word, so -- Exline: Being a spokesman I wish that was true, because I'd make more money, but anyway -- Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate all additional testimony. Okay. Commissioner Newton- Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Am I closing the public hearing? Okay. Rohm: Yeah. I -- yeah, I think we should close the public hearing before we -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I recommend we close the public hearing. Marshall: Second. Rohm: All those in favor of closure signify by saying aye. Opposed? Public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number ZOA 10-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 5th, 2010, with the following modifications. Under Section 4, Bullet E, exterior colors of the portable structures shall be compatible with the color of the primary school building. Bullet F. The roofing material shall be of a finish that emits a minimal amount of glare. End of motion. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of ZOA 10-001, to include the staff report with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2010 Page 32 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Oh. Never mind. Item 8: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 10-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Assisted Living Facility on approximately 2.3 acres in an existing L-O zoning district for Spring Creek Ustick Assisted Living Facility by Doug Clegg - SWC of N. Meridian Road and W. Ustick Road: Rohm: We have one more item on the agenda and this is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for CUP 10-004 for the Spring Creek Ustick Assisted Living Facility. Could I get a motion to accept that or -- Marshall: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 10-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: One more motion. Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Meeting is over. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. (AUDIO RECD I ON FIL OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPRQI/ED ~~ I ~~ MICHAEL ROHM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: '~''~ .~i(. ~ ~'`~ t~-t l~;Xir- 0 r JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLER ~ OpPOpq ~,r V ~~~' w~ TFp * > SE~~. o ~, ~- ~, ~ a ''sr is~• ~o ~ ~~bWTY , 00