Loading...
PZ PH Minutes 7-19Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 39 of 64 standards. The parking issue has been acknowledged, it's been recognized, but we cannot place the existing parking issues squarely on the shoulders of one applicant who wishes to park 72 cars in an area that can be legitimately developed in this way. The issues will have to be addressed in other ways. I will say on behalf of the applicant they are providing parking for the additional cars in this area. A lot of the evidence we heard I share some of Commissioner Marshall's concern. Some of the evidence is just based on inaccurate stereotypes and popular prejudices regarding those who rent apartments. And, again, those are not reasons that we can use to deny an application. Those have nothing to do with the UDC or the Comprehensive Plan and are largely unjustified. So, I would have to say I think that the applicant, in fairness, has actually done a commendable job in understanding the context in which they wish to develop this project. They have paid attention to the views and maintaining them. They have paid attention to the architecture and that it fits the context of the surrounding area. They have maintained a sense of transition of open space, of exceeding the requirements of open space in their park and I think that the project is going to be a good project and I hope that you will find that it's actually a nice project that does remain well maintained and is a nice addition to the neighborhood. So, you know, asked if I would favor this project, I would say yes. With that, unless there is further discussion, I think we need a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 12-010 and CUP 12-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th, 2012, with the following modification: That the maintenance agreement be a recorded document. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of PP 12-010 and CUP 12-006, Mulberry, with the following modification: That a maintenance agreement be recorded with this. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you all for coming. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: I think we probably -- although it's late, we probably ought to take another five minute recess. We have been at it for more than an hour. I don't anticipate any more technical difficulties, so let's take a five minute break. We will reconvene here at 9:30. (Recess: 9:25 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.) D. Public Hearing: MCU 12-002 Accolade Apartments by Perry Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 40 of 64 Homes Located south of Overland Road and West of S. Bonito Way Between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh Canal Request: Modify the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Building Elevations and Certain Conditions of the Conditional Use Permit Approved for the Accolade Apartment Project. Freeman: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached that -- I will put my microphone on, so it sounds like I'm yelling. We have reached that time I want to call our meeting back to order. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on MCU 12- 002, Accolade Apartments and let's start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next project before you is the Accolade Apartments. It is a 17 acre parcel within the Gramercy Subdivision. Right now the aerial on the right-hand depicts the location of where the multi-family development is to occur. I would remind Council -- or Commission that this property has not been subdivided to create this parcel yet, but back in 2011 you did act on the preliminary plat that basically got them on their way to subdividing the property. Surrounding this property is C-G zoned commercial property to the north and to the east. This particular property that we are going to discuss tonight is zoned R-40 and, then, around it is R-4 to the south and to the west is R-15. So, 2011, about six months ago, the applicant came before you, received a rezone and conditional use, a preliminary plat and a development agreement modification to construct a 264 unit multi-family development. This was the site plan that was approved with that -- with that project. A total of 12 buildings, all three stories, roughly 30 feet in height. With a contemporary design. The applicant provided a pool, clubhouse, some interconnected pathways. All of the site complied with the requirements of the UDC. Also with the landscape plan the applicant and the developer at the time made concessions to the adjacent homeowners that there would be denser landscaping along the southwest and the southern boundary and a six foot wrought iron fence. So, here is the approved landscape plan as well. As you can see it's in two pieces. The one on the left is the northern half. This section on the right is the southern half. You can definitely see along that southern boundary the amount of trees that were proposed for that buffer and certainly don't see anything but covered parking along that boundary. So, here is the new site plan that the applicant is proposing this evening. The unit count has increased slightly from 264 to 276. The density has increased for aslightly -- from 23.6 to 24.7 dwelling units to the acre. If you recall, this property is a mixed use regional designation. That anticipates densities between six and 40 units to the acre. So, a light increase in density is consistent -- still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally conforms to the approval that you acted on six month ago. The number of buildings have decreased from 12 to ten, but the footprints have increased. So, you're looking at three story apartment buildings, traditional style, pitched roofs, one building, seven of them will contain 24 units and three will contain 35 units. So, definitely a larger footprint, but less buildings. You will also notice that the applicant has reoriented the open space in the building and the parking to, basically, get a larger central open space between the buildings, to basically create that park feel for the residents that may live there in the future. The other I think significant change with the plan is that the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 41 of 64 applicant's also provided three connection points to the commercial subdivision to the east, which is EI Dorado Subdivision. There is a five foot pathway along that boundary and they are providing some pedestrian connection to that. The other change is there is more garages added than the previous plan. It has 36 garages -- garage spaces. This plan has 138. So, it's increased quite a bit more and less carports, which I think enhances the design. And, then, the other thing that you should pay attention to is the fact that the applicant has taken into count and, basically, relocated this parking a little more strategically and linked it better with the open space with the apartment complex over the previous plan. The previous plan was more of an urban style density or slight type complex. This one is a little bit more suburban, garden style apartments, that overall is still generally consistent with the multi-family standards. Really, the only issue -- the amenities planned for this subdivision will still be a pavilion and a sitting area, a clubhouse, a pool. It will have the interconnected pathways. The only thing this is lacking from the previous plan is the tot lots. But you do gain the central plaza area, the central park area in between the larger units. So, as far as amenities go, it's -- it's an even swap. They are pretty consistent and they are consistent with the ordinance. Staff finds it generally complies with the multi-family standards. The one other note that I wanted to point out to you is the third access point. When you acted on it before there was two access points off of Blue Horizon along the north boundary and police and fire had commented that they needed a third emergency access point here in the southwest corner to connect to this street and that was to be gated and just temporary. If you also recall, staff placed a condition on the project that they provide a private street that ran through the center of the development and stubbed to the property to the south. If you recall, there is a five acre remnant parcel that's to remain after the subdivision process is completed. The applicant is also requesting that this become the third access point. So, the one along the southwest boundary is no longer needed and given the reconfiguration of the site plan it really makes no sense to provide it there, it could adequately serve the development. Both fire and police are okay with the proposed change and being the third access point. Elevations, again, have changed pretty dramatically. The previous buildings on the left-hand side of their contemporary design, again, all three stories, but flat roof design, so overall height was 30 feet. The new design on the right is more of a traditional design and has a mix of wains -- or cement board siding with board and batten, cedar shakes -- or vertical -- sorry -- horizontal siding and, then, brick wainscoting. You also notice that the pitch of the roof is a 4/12. To the midpoint of the roof is 33 feet, seven inches. In the recorded development agreement the height of these buildings are restricted to 35 feet. So, under the requirements of the DA the height of the new -- the proposed elevations comply with the DA requirements. And so staff is supportive of, basically, changing the elevations for the site. We don't have a clear design for the carports -- I mean for the clubhouse or the garages, but staff has conditioned in the staff report that those structures be compatible in design and building materials with the proposed elevations before you this evening. I'd also let you know -- if you look at the rendering on the left-hand side you can see there is flat roofed carports. Staff is also recommending that those carports remain as that design, but we have conditioned them to have powder coat -- have a powder coated carport, rather than just your standard galvanized metal look. I think that would blend in and kind of phase back into the background. I wanted to let you know that in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 42 of 64 moving forward I did not receive any written testimony from the applicant in agreement with the staff report, but I did speak with the applicant over the phone this evening and -- or this afternoon and there appears to be a discrepancy in the amount of covered parking that's provided on the site. The site plan that's before you this evening only depicts 390 covered parking stalls. The ordinance requires 414. So, we are 24 -- deficient 24 covered stalls. So, I'm asking Commission to add acondition -- or add a condition of approval to the project that, basically, says they will comply with the parking requirements in Table 1136-6 in the UDC. And, then, also in your pack you should have some written testimony from the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Larry Kovarik submitted some testimony. It looks like he still wants to discuss with you some comments regarding the landscaping, the fencing provided along the southwest and south boundary. A gated -- provide a gated third access point and, of course, the height of the buildings. One thing that I did fail to mention to you is that the previous plan that was approved with this project and the landscape plan that's before you this evening, is quite -- quite a difference in design and quality. So, right now the site -- combo site landscape land that's before you this evening does not comply with the ordinance and so staff has conditioned the applicant to bring forth a plan that equals the quality of what's approved with the original project. Other than the public testimony from the adjacent neighbors, there aren't any other outstanding issues for you and I stand for any questions you may have. Freeman: Thank you. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Bill, could you explain that discrepancy a little more clearly for me, the parking lot is going to be shy 24 parking stalls or shy 24 units. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, the site complies with the minimum parking requirements, it's just deficient in the required covered parking stalls. O'Brien: Okay. Parsons: So, it's only down 24 covered stalls. But it does meet the parking standards. It exceeds the parking standards of the UDC. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Freeman: Any other questions? Yearsley: I have one. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 43 of 64 Yearsley: Bill, looking at this, I struggle to figure out where are the garages at? Parsons: Commissioner Yearsley, if you -- I wish I had a better site plan for you, but they are dispersed throughout the development. So, basically, you have some up here to serve this building here and, then, as you go down here is a garage over here going south. Garages along the south boundary have increased. Before it was just carports. So, the applicant is requesting garages there and that's one of the reasons why they want to reduce the landscaping along there, is because -- and the fencing. They want to have an interconnected development and so they feel by having fencing and that dense landscaping and the fact that you may have another building between them and the adjacent residences that that may be a condition that just isn't warranted in their observation. And, then, of course, there will be garages along -- going north along the south side -- or, excuse me, the west side of that drive aisle there will be additional garages. Yearsley: And they haven't provided any renderings of what the garages would look like? Parsons: No. At this time they have not. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: My understanding is they have photos of some other developments they have done to kind of present to you the flavor of the development. Yearsley: Okay. Freeman: Well, okay, would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record and you have 15 minutes. Perry: Thank you. My name is Bob Perry. Don't need an address? Freeman: Yes. Perry: 10839 South High Ridge Lane, Sandy, Utah. I represent Perry Homes and I just wanted to give a brief overview of who Perry Homes is so you kind of have a feel for who we are and where we are coming from. Perry Homes has been in business for nearly 40 years. We are a primary home builder out of Salt Lake City. We have built in that period of time nearly 7,000 homes, so we are considered a large home builder in the state of Utah and over the years we have kind of branched out and gotten into some other types of real estate and have developed office buildings and shopping centers and office warehouse buildings and we have gotten into apartment communities as well. Today we have built over 1,600 apartments. Several of those are in the Boise area or in Idaho, 672 of those are in Boise itself. So, we are one of the larger apartment owners and developers in the Boise area and we are excited for the opportunity to be doing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 44 of 64 another project here, hopefully in Meridian. I wanted to go through some pictures of some of the projects that we have done quickly, just to kind of give you a flavor and a taste of the quality of projects that we do. So, this first picture that we are looking at is a project called The Meadows. It's in Idaho Falls. It's 120 units and -- okay, Bill. This is also The Meadows. Again, this building is incorporating brick. It also has a stucco component to it and it's vinyl siding. Three story buildings, similar to what we are planning on building and walk up types of apartments. These are one and two bedroom apartments, similar to what we would be building in this community. Here is a picture of -- with the apartments with the garage and you will notice the garage matches the buildings in its design and materials. This is a project here in Boise, the Carriage Crossing Apartments. It's located down off of Park Center Boulevard, 264 apartments. This is also vinyl siding and brick community. This is the entry sign there at that property. This is Highland Springs Apartments. This is located in north Boise, 120 units, located on Bogus Basin Road just at the mouth of the canyon as you're heading up the canyon there. This project was built in 1991 and that's -- this is a shot of the inside of the clubhouse there and the exercise weight room there at Highland Springs Apartments. This is the pool at Highland Springs Apartments. Another view of the clubhouse and the entry into the property. Another project that we are in the process of building down in Taylorsville, Utah. This is a seniors project, 55 and older. It's 186 units. Another view. This was just us putting the landscape in November of last year, so this picture was taken after that, so -- Bill. And this is a view from the inside of that clubhouse. This is the Springs of Royal Oaks. This is another Boise property, 288 units, located on Cole Road just off of Fairview. This was built in 1987. Here is a picture of the pool at the Springs of Royal Oaks. This is a project in Layton, Utah. It's 320 units. Again, three story walk up. This is vinyl siding. A picture of the clubhouse and the pool there. This is called Sterling Point Apartments. It's located in Layton. Another view of that property. That's it. So, that kind of gives you a little bit of sense of the type of property that we are talking about building and the quality of property that we are talking about building. We haven't gotten too far down the road with some of the elements, like the landscaping plan and finishing up the design of the exterior of the buildings, deciding for sure what product we want, what colors we want, and those types of things. But we are fully intending to make it a very high quality, high end residential property that will be a great asset to the Meridian area and I think it will blend in very very nicely with the Gramercy Apartments that are already existing next door to us and the residential to the south of us. I'm going to turn the time over to Matt Swain. Freeman: Need your name and address for the record as well. Swain: My name is Matt Swain. I'm also with Perry Homes. I live at 219 Abrams Way in Fruit Heights Utah. If we could, Bill, thank you. Just to make a few points. In comparing the plan before you to what was approved a number of months ago, we have -- as the driving forces of site planning we have used a central park component to this project to really determine what the project is looking like. So, we have spent a lot of time focusing on the green space and opening this project up to be compatible with the existing and the future land uses surrounding the property. Gramercy, as you know, was developed initially as a -- as a master planned mixed use development with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 45 of 64 components geared toward mixed use integration, residential, commercial uses and having that connectivity be somewhat organic throughout the project. We have taken those as guiding principles in the site planning. As Bill pointed out, we were very aware of the value of the park system, as well as the trail system within the close proximity to the property and have tried to use to trail systems to maximize the utility of that to -- with the residents of this project. We have actually increased the total open space within the project from the previous project by 14 percent and we have also downsized the total footprint of the structures on the site plan by 18 percent. We have done that by doing no three bedroom apartments within the project. We have solely two and -- a single and two bedroom apartments and we feel like that better relates to the current market and the market into the future based upon our experience with the other units that we own and manage. We are a management company, as well as a developer. So, we will develop this in a single phase. We will own and manage it long term. The projects that you have seen were all developed originally by us, designed by us, and are managed by us today and have been ever since they were developed. So, we bring quite a bit of background in both development, as well as management. We have gone to the extent also on the elevations -- Bill, if you could flip to that -- to integrate some of these components of the Gramercy Apartments, as well as components that you might find existing in neighboring neighborhoods, using concrete board, brick, wainscoting, and asphalt shingles. We have also implemented a new feature that we are pretty excited about. It's a chimney feature on our roof line. As you will notice, there are no utilities exposed in the roof. We have gone to the effort of planning the interior of these structures to centralize those utilities in those chimney features and tried to hide those. Due to the input of the neighbors through our neighborhood meeting, we diminished the pitch of the roof to the extent that was possible and still have it work properly and have still complied with what was approved as a height limitation on the -- on the existing development. That, hopefully, gives some -- gives some clarity on the perspective that we have on this project, the quality that we are hoping to pursue and the driving points of the site planning and elevation design that you see before you. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. I do have one question. The roof pitch, you changed it from what to what? Swain: We changed it from -- down to a 4/12: And, John, you may need to answer what it was before that. A 6/12. So, we have 4/12 on the primary roof structure and the 6/12 is still on the gable features over the main entrance points. But the 4/12 pitch limited the height of the structure that -- to the degree was possible. Freeman: Thank you. Any other questions? Marshall: I do. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick question. The garages -- and when I'm talking about the backside of the garages. Is there articulation or are those just going to be -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 46 of 64 you have mentioned concrete board -- a hardy board product or something like that. Swain: That's correct. Marshall: Is that just simply going to be painted hardy board, then, on the back side of those garages -- Swain: That is correct. Marshall: -- with no gables or anything on the back side? I saw gables on the front side, so I assume -- Swain: Gables on the front side. Marshall: I saw a photograph of the front side of the garages, but nothing on the back. Swain: That's right. The photograph is a picture of the project we have in Taylorsville would be quite consistent with that. Marshall: But the backside would be simply be without gables, it would simply be facing and hardy blank siding. Swain: Yes. Marshall: Thank you. Swain: Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you. Freeman: Okay. I think that's all for now. Okay. I will start taking public testimony now. I just want to remind everybody -- I know it's been awhile -- when you get to the microphone, please, state your name and address for the record. You will be given three minutes, unless you tell us that you're -- you are speaking for a group and, then, we will take a show of hands and, then, you will be given ten minutes. I will start with this list. Let me know if you still wish to testify or not. Harvard Hanks. Hanks: Commissioner and Members of the Commission, my name is Harvard Hanks. I live at 2592 East Green Canyon Drive, Meridian, which is across the canal south of this project. I have lived in the Meridian area since mid '70s. I have seen growth exponentially everywhere and I realize that we do need growth -- or this is the type of project that some people are looking for and some people are not. I have benefitted personally from some of the growth in the area, so I am not against everything completely, except the changes that have been made on the south side of this project, which we overlook, has been of some concern and why this other developer sold or whatever is kind of a moot point. The R-40 is a moot point. That's a done deal. This change of whatever -- I kind of make a relative comparison to an old carnival game called bait and switch. They have -- you propose one thing and now you're coming Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 47 of 64 back and you're making some changes and we don't see exactly what he's doing yet. So, I think there needs to be some more definite things in the south side of that project particularly. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Again I can't read all these. I will do my best. Lyman Holyoak? Holyoak: Holyoak. Freeman: We will give you a chance to pronounce that for us when you get up here. Holyoak: Good evening -- I mean good night. Hello. My name is Lyman Holyoak. live at 2581 East Griffin Street. I am the closest in proximity neighbor homeowner to this project. As a next door neighbor to this project we in the neighborhood made an agreement just months ago with the developer in regards to landscaping, lighting, whether it be downward, including the patios. There is some fencing in that agreement, too. Just stuff like that. An agreement which is currently the standard and I'm here to just -- again, I'm here again just to say to please uphold this agreement, at least parts of it. In the Mulberry Settlers Park Apartments we just heard about we -- from the outside you could still see, you know, the rose gardens, the tot lot, the little water feature and that's great. From across the street I can hardly wait to see a magnificent row of garages. And we just heard they lack any great awesome design on road side and that's my concern. So, I believe there is going to be apartments here. I'm okay with that. I have accepted that. And I have appreciated the comradery I have had in talking to the developers in the past and currently and just please uphold some landscaping conditions on that backside, on that south side, in regards to our previous agreement at the bare minimum here. Given the lack of rear garage design, as much as I like grassland, I prefer jungle. Thanks. Freeman: Thank you. Next on the list is Tom Callison. No? Lisa Banda. Christina Denning. Or Denning. I'm sorry. I prefer the right way. Denning: Denning: Christina Denning. 3702 East Green Canyon Drive. I live in the Thousand Springs Subdivision right across from the canal. My first concern question is -- the last three meetings, including this one, I have never -- I have not received an invitation. Should I have? To either of those meetings or this one? Freeman: Anybody within 300 feet is noticed. Denning: Three hundred of the current apartments? Freeman: Of the property. Denning: Or of the whole property itself? Freeman: The property. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 48 of 64 Denning: Well, I have been excluded from receiving an invitation to this meeting and the last two neighborhood meetings. Marshall: I'm pleased to see you here tonight. Denning: Thank you. I hope I will be included in future ones, Taylor. Anyway, the bait and switch -- I mean you can't put it any better than that. I mean who can top that? That's exactly where -- where we are at and what we feel. Do we have to go through this again in another couple of months? I don't know. It's up to you guys. We are looking at R-40 to start with. On the lighting I don't know if that's been addressed or not or if I just missed that. On the map I saw I didn't see where the dumpsters were going to be. So, maybe I just had a bad map -- Freeman: When the applicant comes back up maybe they can point those out for us. Denning: Point that out. That would be nice. The reduction of the fencing or elimination of the fencing, I don't think that's appropriate. We need that fencing around the southern part and where Lyman was talking, the south -- southwest part. And increase the landscaping. A jungle is much more preferable for a homeowner to look at than a desolation. I have some other things to say, but, frankly, I think we are all kind of tired and I'm pooped. Let me see if -- let me check my notes. No. It would be nice, though, if we had a rose garden, artwork, and a water feature over there. That sure would be a nice treat. But, yeah, that's about it for me. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Next on the list is Doug Richards. No? Ralph Engle? Engle: My name is Ralph Engle. I live at 2638 East Green Canyon Drive. My home backs up against the Ridenbaugh Canal and I'm here tonight in support of my neighbors who live on either side of me and my -- all I want to say is I would like to see you gentlemen decide to keep the original plan. I'm kind of with Doug, it seems to be these developers put something up, it's approved and, then, they come back, and they want to change it and change it and change it and it seems to be it doesn't change for the better. And that's just my opinion. So, thanks for your time. Yearsley: Can I ask you a quick question? Engle: Yeah. Yearsley: What -- what changes don't you like about this? Engle: Well, the original plan, what I was told, had more landscaping and more of a barrier to the homes to the south and tonight I was hoping to see what the changes were and I didn't see anything. I heard some words, but I didn't see anything. Freeman: If I could just answer that a little bit. Staffs report does acknowledge the fact that the landscape is less and, actually, one of the conditions for approval that they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 49 of 64 have listed is that it be brought up to par with that former landscape development. Just want to make sure everybody heard that. Engle: Okay. Freeman: So, that's before us tonight. Engle: Okay. My opinion is just to keep it the same. Yearsley: I guess the other question is the buildings themselves -- I understand you want it the same, but do you have issues with the building differences or -- Engle: No. Yearsley: Okay. Engle: No. The building differences -- I don't really see how they are going to affect me -- Yearsley: Okay. Engle: -- personally. I'd just like to see some more green between myself and them. That's all. Marshall: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: There are considerably more garages now in the proposal here. Engle: Uh-huh. Marshall: Which to me does one of two things. One, it drives up rents, because that means rent's going to cost a little bit more and that's typically a good thing. Engle: Yeah. I agree. I agree. Marshall: It brings a higher quality of renter and -- but also it may help to serve as a little bit of a buffer as a single story building between you and the bigger buildings and the apartments. Engle: Right. Marshall: Do you have any problems with the garages? Engle: No, I don't have any problems with the garages. Again, I don't have a visual in Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 50 of 64 my mind what I'm going to be looking at when I look out my back door for my patio, which I spend a lot of time at, and I have no problems with the building, the garages, I would just like to see green between me and them. That's all. Freeman: Thank you very much. Engle: Thank you. Freeman: Michael Farrer. Farrer: My name is Michael Farrer. I live at 2528 East Copper Point Street. Just wanted to do a little clarification on the whole crime thing that everyone says. I do believe there is a little bit more crime, not because of the people who necessarily live in the apartments, but because you get all that density with cars being outside of garages, easier access to people that want to come in come and create crime. Just wanted to clarify that for some people. That's my thoughts on that. It just brings more people into the area that want to be -- sorry. Really nervous right now. Freeman: That's all right. Farrer: It just brings the crime into the area. Not necessarily the people that live there. Okay? Another concern I have is I would like to see the original plan upheld. I think that modern look would actually bring more money in just the garages that you guys like. I love the garages, maybe add the garages into the original design. But the modern look I think is the key thing here. I actually love that. I love the landscaping. After we have had several meetings I came to terms with it. I'm good with it. And now the changes, it just seems like a giant house sitting down the street. So, there is my concerns on that. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Larry -- and I know I have the correct spelling of your name in the letter, but here in front of me -- Larry -- it looks like Larry Kovarik and I think that's incorrect. Kovarik. Kovarik: I'd like to finish up for the homeowners. Gloria Fern was not on the list. She would like to speak right now if that would be okay. Freeman: That's fine. I don't care about the order. Gloria. And go ahead and statement name and address when you get up here. Fern: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Gloria Fern. I live at 2660 East Green Canyon Drive in Thousand Springs and I'm south of the project. So, I'm like right there. I would like to start by saying that I would like Perry Homes to be our new neighbor. I do have some concerns on their modifications to the development agreement and conditional use approval from Meridian city, dated April 2nd of 2012. One concern is that elevation change. It went from an approval of 30 feet to a proposed of 34 feet midpoint, plus three to four feet for the pitch of the roof. So, a total of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 51 of 64 approximately 38 feet. Theirs is 30 feet, which is a difference of approximately eight feet. That's a big concern. My next concern is the fencing. Full fencing has been approved to no fencing on the proposal. I would like to see fencing between the garages on the south side and also on the southwest side with a temporary gate. This eliminates the free flow access to the vacant lot and walkability could be from the north and east sides. Another concern is landscaping and I did bring a handout, if I could just give you a handout quickly. The approved plan has a landscape barrier and you can see that on that first page on the south side and lush landscaping on the west. It's so nice to see greenery instead of structures. You know, it's -- it would just be really wonderful to just have the original plan that's already been approved. I would ask -- I would like to ask that you continue with the lush landscaped barrier to the south and west and keep the eight foot conifers and the three inch caliper deciduous trees that have already been approved and I would like to reinforce that the landscaping be planted at the beginning of the project, like they were going to do on the approved development agreement. This project directly impacts my property and I just want to thank you for listening to me. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Was there anybody else not on the list that wanted to offer public testimony besides the gentleman that I recognized before? Okay. I think we are ready for -- oh, one more? Johnson: My name is Greg Johnson and I live at 2837 East Pienza in Meridian and I'm probably the cause of all this problem. I decided not to build the apartments that I had designed and decided to sell this parcel and take the capital and -- Freeman: Oh, are you the applicant? Johnson: No. Freeman: You're not the applicant. You sold this. Johnson: Yes. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Continue. My mind's getting a little fuzzy. Johnson: I have -- I still retain the parcels to the north of this property and to the south of this property and I fully support staffs recommendation that with the solid walls of the garage and the landscaping that's being proposed there is very adequate screening between the lots. The lot that I retained to the south is 600 feet in depth from north to south. The people living in Thousand Springs well over 700 away from that boundary. That's an eighth of a mile. That's a -- you know, there are going to be buildings between them and this landscape also and I think staffs recommendation is very appropriate for that. Perry Homes has done a lot of work. I think the two different site plans illustrate different personality, different architecture. One of the beauties of Boise is Boise isn't monotonous. Boise, Meridian, this whole community, the whole valley has a lot of different architectures in it. I happen to prefer fairly modern contemporary looks. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 52 of 64 The Perrys prefer a more traditional. I think they have done a great job laying out the site. I think they actually improved the common space within the project, making a much larger common area that's more usable. That's a very important function in an apartment project. I think they also improved the parking arrangement in the parcel by going to larger buildings, have been able to rearrange the parking and, actually, most of the parking stalls are closer to the units that will be using them and that's very important in an apartment project that you can park fairly close to your access into the apartment. I think they have done a great job with it and I fully support it as an adjoining neighbor and appreciate your time. Freeman: Thank you. And Larry Kovarik. Pardon me. Kovarik: My name is Larry Kovarik and I live at 2686 East Green Canyon Drive, Meridian. I live directly south of the area. First of all, I'm a little confused here tonight as who the applicant is and -- and -- or whatever. I was told at one time Gramercy still owned this. They were in the process of selling this to Perry Homes and these were contingencies for the sale of property. I guess if I'm -- if that's not the case, then, I have been misled. Second of all, last October we -- we were given a neighborhood meeting notice from Gramercy, LLC, to sit down and discuss rezone, replat, and conditional use of this property. Tonight we are not here -- and I respect what the staff has to say to you. I respect everybody on the Commission. We are not here to discuss any of that. We are not here to discuss a new application. But we are here to discuss a modification to an application. We -- when we were notified we got together with Gramercy, we sat down and -- and, quite frankly, the neighbors, residents, they went ballistic with the proposal. They went ballistic over specific issues. They went ballistic over height. They went ballistic over traffic, both auto and foot. They went ballistic with how this is going to look and they went ballistic with the fact it was going to be apartments. They at one time thought maybe more residential, maybe some -- some patio homes, things along that line. With that Gramercy agreed to sit down with several of us to discuss some of the issues that we had and we did -- we did that and we met several times and we came to some agreements and those agreements were, number one, the -- the contemporary style with the 30 foot high buildings. Number two, landscape -- dense landscaping on the southern border and on the southwestern border where it will permit, because there is an ACHD easement there, so we talked about grasses and things of that nature. We also talked about an iron fence to run the entire distance of the southern border and the entire distance of the southwestern border up to I believe -- I think that's Blue Tick, if I'm not mistaken. It would have been along the easement. We talked about lighting. There is no change here for lighting. Anyway, tonight now we want -- five and a half months later you gentlemen, the planning department, everybody agreed to everything that we sat down before and talked about. Tonight now we want to make a change and, quite frankly, I guess what I'm asking the Commission and I'm asking the planning department here if this is possible. Because the application has not been complete with regard to the new proposed landscaping, the backs of the garages, some other miscellaneous things, I guess I'd like to ask tonight that this modification be put on hold until those are submitted by the applicant, whoever that applicant is. Like said, I'm not quite certain I know who that applicant is. And until either Gramercy, LLC, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 53 of 64 if they are, in fact, the current owners, or Bob Perry, if he is now the current owner, sits down with several of the people from neighborhood and resolves some of the issues that they are asking to change. I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't think -- if all you gentlemen got my letter here, I think we have -- I think we are in agreement from the homeowners to a considerable amount of changes they want to make. We just have a few issues that need to be worked out and those issues were key issues a year ago -- or almost a year ago -- nine months ago and those were the issues that we sat down and resolved and now -- so, I guess what I'm saying is we reached a compromise and now we are going to -- we want to compromise the compromise and I guess I don't think that's right. So, one more time, I'd like to ask the Commission to put this on hold until -- until we can meet with the applicant and also resolve some of these issues and, then, at that time come back to the Commission and, hopefully, have our blessing going forward before this goes to City Council. And in closing I'm going to quote a famous lawyer: If it don't fit resubmit. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Any others wishing to offer testimony this evening? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up? We have ten minutes for you this time. There might be some questions from Commissioners. Swain: Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. I just -- Freeman: Please restate your name and address, too. Swain: Matt Swain. I'm with Perry Homes. I live at 219 Abrams Way in Fruit Heights, Utah. If I could just go through a number of the comments that have been made and, hopefully, address those and do the best I can to clarify. We, obviously, had gone through the process and have met with the neighbors through to due process at the neighborhood meeting level -- actually twice. The first time there was some discrepancy on where that property line was, because as you know in your code it establishes a 300 foot radius from the property line. Now, as to time and currently, if can clarify this first, Gramercy is still currently the record owner of the property. They had signed the affidavit to allow us to go through this process and we are in contractual agreement with Gramercy to purchase the property, contingent upon these entitlements. So, if Gramercy was not the property owner of the five acre parcel to the south, then, that radius would have only reached out 300 feet from this property line, would not have included the neighborhood to the south. Now, that being said, we did meet with the neighbors and involved them with their comments and I'd like to address some of those at this time. The running theme, obviously, is the south side landscaping issue that is a significant issue to the neighbors to the south. We understand in staffs report that there are certain portions of this site -- the landscaping plan that are not per code and that is our mistake and we will remedy that mistake. We certainly desire to comply with city code in every way possible in every way. And we will make the modifications necessary to comply, particularly on the landscaping. On the southern edge, as Greg had noted in his comments, there was a five acre parcel separating this project from the adjoining -- or, excuse me, the neighborhood to the south, which is where I believe the majority of the comments of the landscaping on that southern boundary are coming from. So, as Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 54 of 64 we view it from the long-term perspective, there will be structures of some nature buffering us from that neighborhood and, essentially, hiding any landscaping or any -- most likely single story structures from their view out of their back yards. That distance is approximately 700 feet, which is a significant distance for a view corridor and, again, we don't want to diminish their concerns, but I do want to outline that they are temporary and they will be covered up in the future by future development. We would like to propose, as is outlined in the staff report on the ACHD easement on the southwest corner of the property, we cannot plant any deep rooted vegetation and it calls out the need for eight additional trees to be planted elsewhere within the project to compensate for that deficiency. What we would like to propose is to transplant those eight trees along the southern boundary, so we would include that on top of what would be calculated per code, which I believe was a tree every 32 or 35 feet along that frontage. We would also like to -- well, let me go back to some of these comments quickly. The dumpster enclosures, locations on the site plan, they are outlined on the site plan. Bill, if you could pull that up. And if you could just go through the site plan, Bill, and point to these. We did try to strategically place those so they would be very accommodating as close as possible to the residents. And reduce the amount of debris or nuisance to any adjoining neighbors. The fencing on the southern boundary, that was agreed to in the prior modification, again, referring back to the initial intent of Gramercy in its design elements, we have focused great -- to a great degree on the organic and capacity for the residents of this community to flow freely to the adjoining parks, to the adjoining walkways, to the adjoining commercial uses throughout Gramercy and I believe that that is in keeping with the initial intent of Gramercy as a master planned mixed use development. So, that is the reason behind proposing the removal of those fences, so that the park and the open space may function as was initially designed. The modern look of the buildings was another point that was brought up. We -- we believe that long term the longevity and the marketability of the project depends to a high degree of the exterior of the project. The first concern we had with the modern design was the flat roof feature. We own, as Bob outlined, quite a bit of commercial property, much of which has a vinyl EPDM roof system that's flat and we get calls on a very regular basis of leaking and that particularly with a residential use would be compounded dramatically and create all sorts of problems from a managerial and long-term ownership perspective. That was the first issue we had with the modern design. This second was we felt like a more traditional design is more -- the longevity of it is longer. We feel like the modern look may incorporate things that may be trendy or a fad at this particular time and may be very interesting to look at now, but in 15 to 20 years may age or date the project to a certain period. The pitched roof -- we have gone through, for the reasons I just outlined, and we did conform with the existing height limitations within the -- both the zone and the existing development agreement and conditional use amendment. We are, obviously, dramatically lower than the 60 feet of height allowed within the R-40 zone and are within compliance of the 35 feet that was agreed to by the city, the neighbors, and the developer initially. Landscaping at the beginning of the project is, as Gloria outlined, in our development in construction expertise we are also a construction company and would likely be very heavily involved, if not directly involved with the construction of this project. We have found that any improvements outside of those necessarily being built within the sequence of the natural construction process Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 55 of 64 would be damaged and to a degree would have to be replaced at the completion of the project. And so landscaping for that reason is typically the last thing we do on the project. The impact of the project to the neighbors was another point that was made. Again, we feel like due to the distance of this project, particularly to the neighborhood to the south of us, and the likelihood of future development in the near future, it would act as a buffer between us and that neighborhood. We really feel like we want to be good neighbors, we want to, obviously, take their input and use it, because I think that input is valuable and can improve the project actual impact, but we also believe that long term the actual impact of this project, particularly to that neighborhood, was very limited visually from a traffic impact and even from a pedestrian impact, that would be very limited due to the barriers with the canal and the green space, the multiple fences that separate our property from their property. On the landscaping we -- we would propose in reference to Bill's comments -- landscaping, I believe, is the primary concern of the residents, as well as that is outlined in the staff report. We would propose, as we mentioned, to comply fully to the city code. We would like to continue the street lined boulevard aspects within Gramercy and plant more trees along the street fronts, along ACRD on that southwest easement, we propose that we simply match what was already planted and agreed to be planted by the -- excuse me -- the Gramercy apartment project. And, then, along the southern boundary we could comply with code, obviously, and, then, we would go beyond that and plant those eight trees that would have been planted along the ACRD easement along that southern boundary in a way to the best of our abilities screen those garages during the time that there is no development to the south of us. Freeman: Okay. Swain: I believe that covers the majority of the comments. Thank you. Freeman: All right. Thank you very much. Okay. We have heard again from the applicant. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Rohm: I think the public wants to -- Freeman: Is there somebody else? Well, we have already given that opportunity. I'm afraid I want to continue in order. Mr. Nary. Nary: I was just going to say, Mr. Chair, if you have him testify, then, we are going to have to have the applicant testify again. Freeman: Right. Right. Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing on MCU 12-002. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on MCU 12-002, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 56 of 64 Accolade Apartments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. The public hearing is now closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Deliberations? Comments? Who would like to -- Rohm: I'd like to -- Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Okay. I -- one of the comments or more than once was made this bait and switch. I personally think that the developer -- that's not the intent, but, nevertheless, without having specified what the landscaping is going to be and other attributes to the project that are going to be different from what the previous negotiated outcome was, there is a reluctance on the neighbors to just cart blanche accept that it's going to all be in compliance with what was previously worked out and, in my opinion, I think that they have got a very good point. I don't think that there is any intent to provide a project that is deficient, but I do believe that the people that have worked so hard with the previous project, all they want to be able to do is sit down and say, okay, now I see exactly what you're going to do before they move forward and if, in fact, that was a component of the previous approval if, in fact, we are going to approve this again, I can't see any reason why it would not be a component of the reapproval. That's my comments. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I agree with Mike. I -- I'm almost tempted to say, yeah, we could continue this, but I don't think it's necessary. I think that the applicant is doing everything they possibly can to make sure that they comply with what the neighborhood area would like to see. I would recommend that they sit down with them, make sure if there is any problems or issues, but I don't know if that has to be a component of the approval or not. So, I'm not quite sure where we really stand with that. That's all I have. Freeman: Okay. Somebody else might address that. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Thank you. I have to admit, tactually -- when I first moved to Boise 16 years ago I lived at the Springs of Royal Oaks and they were very nice apartments and -- and they were very nice. I do agree with the homeowners, I think all they wanted -- they just want to see what the landscaping plan is going to be. Saying that it will comply with city ordinance is -- might be enough, but I think giving them the opportunity to see it before we approve it I think is something that we -- you know, we will at least is -- I don't know if we owe them, but at least give them that opportunity to see it before it's approved and just saying to meet city ordinances I think is not appropriate at this time, given the issue that we have had with it, with the previous one, so at this point I don't know if I would be ready to recommend moving it forward. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 57 of 64 Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Well, yes, I like some of the changes that were made. I kind of like the architecture better. I like the fact that you got more common space and some of the layout I think is better. I like the fact there is more garages. But, again, I, too -- this was a contentious project and I was really pleased with the way it eventually came to an agreed upon -- and so I am very reticent to approve any changes to that landscape plan or the fencing or anything like that, because those are really highly negotiated items there. The rest of it -- and, again, the written comments and certainly the vocal -- the verbal comments were that there weren't a lot of problems with -- in most cases there weren't a lot of problems with some of the changes to the architecture. A couple people disagree. But to be honest, I think the architecture -- my personal opinion is that it's an improvement. But that's neither here nor there. That's just taste. Again, you know, agree it's eight foot difference in height, up to -- maximum to the peak you're talking eight foot or so. But at a distance of 700 foot. Other than the couple of houses real close by in that same area, most of those are almost two and a half football fields away to the closest building, which will be a one story garage. And, to be honest, lap board -- Ilove the hardy board, it's going to hold up well, it's probably going to look nice, but a big expanse of hardy board is not pretty. Broken up with landscaping looks much nicer and I -- I have a tendency to say hold onto those agreements with the fencing and the landscaping. I'm okay with the architecture and layout changes. Freeman: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. I have a -- I want to start with a question in my comments to staff. Well, it's not actually a question, because I already know the answer. The applicant has reiterated their commitment to provide landscaping that is up to code. What you have stated -- stipulated in the requirements is that it go beyond code and actually be landscape equivalent to what was provided for; is that correct? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is correct. What -- when we were developing the recommendation one of the things we looked at was the landscaping plan that was approved through the conditional use permit and the development agreement. Essentially -- but the bar -- and as we discussed in the previous hearing the whole purpose of the conditional use permit is not to question whether the underlying use in this case, multi-family residential, is appropriate or not appropriate in a specific location, it's more to tailor the specific conditions to make it more appropriate in that location. It's not questioning the use. So, by the previous approval the bar was set with a specific landscaping plan. Now, we have a new plan before you. The previous plan did not propose any structures that close to that property line, so now the structure is proposed to the property line and so we are saying we are not going to design the landscape plan for you, because, obviously, that's going to be a professional plan to take into account so the quality of what was approved before and, then, how you can achieve that same quality and still use the appropriate planting materials, recognizing the proximity -- potential proximity of the structure that intends to use that. So, what we are saying is maintain the level of quality and exceed the minimum. But we are not going to tell you how to do that. You have some Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 58 of 64 professionals that can tell you how to do that. Freeman: Exactly. Okay. Thank you. My other question is for -- well, staff and perhaps Mr. Nary. I have heard a couple of the Commissioners allude to possibly continuing this item and if that becomes part of the motion I just want to make sure we could do that correctly. I don't know that it will become part of the motion, but just in case. If we continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting for the purpose of letting the applicant show us what they intend with the garages and the landscaping and perhaps answering any of these stipulations that we put on them to provide equivalent landscaping, can we do that for the next regularly scheduled meeting? Are we crossing any lines by offering up such a -- such a motion? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. No. My recommendation would be is if you're going to set it over for a specific purpose that you identify what that is, so that the record is clear what the next hearing would be for. You would probably want to, then, reopen the public hearing for the limited purpose of accepting that information and allowing limited testimony only on that specific reason. Freeman: Those questions. And we have done that in the past. Nary: Yes. Freeman: Okay. I wanted to get those two things straight before I offered my own comment. As far as the new application goes, tactually -- I like the fact that you have opened up the plan. I think that's a good thing. I might have my opinions on one architecture versus the other, but, frankly, it's not my place to dictate what that architecture is, as long as it meets the requirements of the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan and I don't have any qualms about that being proposed, either former or -- or current. The height does comply with the UDC, although it is somewhat higher than the initially proposed project. It seems to me that the primary issue here is that south boundary. And I hate to say this and I want to say it without offending anybody. It seems like initially the developer did an outstanding job of involving the neighbors and you guys actually -- and the neighbors demonstrated their willingness to cooperate and if you came up with a good plan to please them, that they probably would not have had any qualms with. It seems like perhaps that cooperation -- spirit of cooperation may have slipped a little bit on this one and I am concerned about the comment of bait and switch. I will agree that that's not -- it doesn't appear to be the intention, but with the change of owners and maybe not the involvement with the -- with the neighbors that we had previously, I can see that being a concern with the neighbors. You know, we -- we got to participate last time and offer you our input and we were heard. Why not this time? Why don't we get to see the landscape? Why don't we get to see the garages. And because there is kind of a precedence set there with cooperation with the neighbors and the fact that this is a proposed modification to a previously approved project, I would not be opposed to a continuance. I won't be making a motion, but I wouldn't be opposed to that. So, that the applicant has a chance to sit with the neighbors, talk about what we had, what we have, and how can we still Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 59 of 64 provide the landscaping that staff still -- still requires, up to that level and how can we at least make an attempt to address the concerns that have now arisen which weren't concerns before. I'd like to give the applicant and the neighbors a chance to cooperatively come together and address those issues. That's just my opinion. Rather than just -- rather than just approving this and I have every confidence that staff would require that the landscape be up to snuff according to their requirements. I have all the confidence in the world of them doing that. But I hate to leave the neighbors out of this process that was started initially. I'd like to see the neighbors involved in that again. So, that's where I'm at. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: What I propose is that we reopen the public hearing to validate the continuance to the next meeting -- is sufficient to give the applicant and the homeowners an opportunity to sit down and collaborate and if, in fact, the next meeting isn't sufficient or won't work for one or the other, there is no sense in a continuance to just one meeting, we could continue it to the -- to the following. Freeman: I hear implied in there that there might be a willingness to propose a continuance. Rohm: Well, there you go, that's -- but we would have to reopen the public hearing in order to get the input from the -- from the public and from the applicant to see if that's -- they agree with the way to go. Freeman: Do other Commissioners agree that we need to reopen the public hearing in order to do that or do we just want to continue it, stipulating the requirement? O'Brien: Whatever the process is. I still don't understand why. Freeman: Mr. Nary, do we need to reopen the public hearing to continue this? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, what I would suggest -- just from a procedural standpoint, you can move to continue the hearing and, then, move to open the hearing for the purposes of whatever the limited testimony, because then you will have on the record your motion of what you want and, then, your motion would, then, be to allow the testimony and the admission of whatever evidence or whatever documentation you want for the landscaping, fencing, or whatever it is you're asking for. So, I would move to continue it for the specific purposes of what you would like and, then, I would move to open the hearing for the -- for that date certain to accept testimony, as well as the information requested. Freeman: That would be the date pretty much Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 60 of 64 Nary: Yes. Yearsley: But I think what Commissioner Rohm is asking is is the next commission meeting too close to get all that accomplished I think is the big concern. Rohm: That's the only reason why I wanted to open the -- open the hearing to -- Yearsley: Or at least ask the applicant if -- what date would work best for him I guess. Freeman: And I think we need a motion to do so. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the public hearing to get input from the applicant as to a date certain for a continuance. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing for the purpose stated to hear from the applicant regarding a possible continuation date. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Okay. The public hearing has been reopened. Would the applicant like to come forward. You may have questions about where we are headed with this and, honestly, I don't know exactly, because we don't have a motion on the table. Swain: Okay. Freeman: But it does sound like there is some sentiment among the Commissioners that they would like to continue this in order to give you and the neighbors a chance to sort through of the issues regarding the south boundary, landscape and the garages and the fences. So, if that does end up being a decision of the Commissioners, is there a date that you feel would be more appropriate than the next regularly scheduled hearing? Swain: Time is, obviously, of the essence. As we outlined we are the applicant through an affidavit and are contractually bound with the owner of the property and that contract is bound by certain dates. So, timing is definitely of the essence. We had planned and the contract is, basically, determined by being able to meet with the City Council on the 22nd of August. If we can still maintain that date and that deadline and beyond the August 22nd, we would be willing to revise the landscaping plan and we would propose to submit it to staff for their review and, obviously, submit that to neighbors, although on more than an information basis. We feel like we have gone through the process -- the legal process of notifying the neighbors within the radius. In fact, we have done it twice as I mentioned. And I have received phone calls from the neighbors. We have talked to the neighbors, so although there are some discrepancies or some differences of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 61 of 64 opinion, I don't want that to come across as us not following the process and not involving the neighbors as we are bound by code to do, which -- which we have done. Freeman: We are not suggesting that you renotice. The neighbors were just suggesting that you do involve them in reconsidering some of the designs that have been expressed. Swain: We would be happy to do that, to involve them, particularly on the south end. Keeping in mind the concerns that we have and their concerns, I'm sure that there is a compromise there between the two parties. We would be happy to go through that process, so long as it can be formatted as an informal process and they can speak to staff and the commissioners to inform you whether that process is occurring or not. We are fine with that open communication with them. But we would propose to submit the updated landscaping plan and as I take it design for garages and carports as primary issues directly to staff for their recommendation for an expedited process toward us being able to appear on the 22nd -- Freeman: Okay. So, what I'm hearing is you'd like to appear for the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is August -- Friedman: August 2nd. Freeman: August 2nd. You believe you will have time to change landscapes, talk with the neighbors. Procedurally are we eliminating our ability to be heard by City Council on August 22nd? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have been consulting with Machelle. I was concerned about the ability to meet on the 2nd, have a final action by the Commission and a recommendation ready to forward to City Council. Machelle informs me that if -- it's possible. I mean if everything is tied up in a neat little bow that night, then, we can get it to City Council on August the 22nd. Freeman: Possible, but not a guarantee. Hill: Mr. Chair, if we have a decision that night I can notice it the next day for the 21st. Freeman: If we have a decision on -- Hill: It has to be on the 2nd. Freeman: Okay. Hill: That night we have to have a decision. Yearsley: So, we would have to have a decision and also the findings of -- approve the findings of fact or -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 62 of 64 Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Yearsley, your action tonight or your action on this application in this case is a recommendation, because there was other issues involved initially. The Council is making the final decision, so, you just -- Yearsley: Just make the recommendation. Friedman: Just make the recommendation before. Yearsley: Okay. Swain: And I would suppose that being a second option. There is certainly public input at the City Council level as well. Freeman: Sure. Swain: And we would certainly have a few other things that need to be squared away before we get to City Council outside of what we are talking about here with the landscaping being updated and so the second option we would propose would be to approve it with conditions of this happening, us working with the neighbors, getting their input and, they, obviously, can show up at the City Council hearing as well and voice their opinion there and hopefully we will have more parties on our side at that point than we do now. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. Freeman: Thank you. Can we now close the public hearing, Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I propose that we close the public hearing on file number MCU 12-002. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on MCU 12-002, Accolade Apartments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Public hearing has been reclosed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 63 of 64 Rohm: I move to continue five number MCU 12-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 2nd for the sole purpose of discussing landscape and fencing and the garage, specifically the southern boundary of this project. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue MCU 12-002 to the August 2nd regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the sole purpose of discussing again issues concerning landscape, garages, and fencing on the south and southwest ends of this property. Got that? Rohm: Got it. Freeman: Okay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. That item will be continued. MOTION CARRIED ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we adjourn. Yearsley: Second. Nary: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Mr. Nary. Nary: Remember you need to open -- remember you need to reopen the hearing for your date certain, so that you can accept the information that you have asked for. You closed it simply for tonight because you reopened it just to check the dates, but you need to reopen it for the purpose of receiving that information. Freeman: Oh. Thank you, Mr. Nary. We need to keep this open. Rohm: Oh. Freeman: We are going to do this a lot on this project and specially since it being almost 11:00 o'clock. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 64 of 64 Marshall: I move that we reopen MCU 12-002 for the sole purpose of receiving information on the date of August 2nd for further consideration. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing for the sole purpose of receiving that information on the continuance date. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Now, Commissioner Rohm, you had another motion? Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Yearsley: Second. Freeman: Motion and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:52 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED SCOTT FREEMAN -CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ~ ~ DATE APPROVED JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK