Loading...
2012 07-19Meridian Plannina and Zoning Meeting Julv 19, 2012 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 19, 2012, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman. Present: Chairman Scott Freeman and Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Joe Marshall. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Bruce Chatterton, Pete Friedman, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline Jamie Leslie and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Steven Yearsley X Tom O'Brien Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Scott Freeman -Chairman Freeman: 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 for this date of July 19th, 2012. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda. Freeman: Thank you. First order of business is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to the agenda that I'm aware of, so could I get a motion? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We have adopted the agenda. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: First item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we only have one item on the Consent Agenda this evening and that's the approval of the minutes of June 21st, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Are there any corrections that need to be made to those minutes? Could I get a motion then? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I move that we adopt the Consent Agenda. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 2 of 64 Rohm: Second. Freeman: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of June 21, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commissioner Meeting Freeman: Okay. We have a few items on the agenda this evening, other than what we have already covered. Before we open the public hearing on our first item I just want to go over the process so everybody is aware how this is going to work as we open every -- every item on our agenda tonight. We will open each agenda item individually and, then, we will hear the staff report on how the application adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code. At that time the application will come forward and the applicant has 15 minutes to present their case for their application and, then, we will take public testimony. There are sign-up sheets in the back if you wish to offer public testimony this evening. I will go to the sign-up sheets first and call your name. You don't necessarily have to be on that list, so if you decide you want to testify I will ask for others willing to do so -- wanting to do so when I get through that list. Each person giving public testimony has three minutes to do so. So, you will need to be concise and to the point. If -- if you have somebody that's coming up to speak for a group of you, like a homeowners association representative or something, what I will do -- come up and identify the fact that you are that individual, I will look for a show of hands for those that you're representing and, then, try to take notes. Do understand, though, if you choose to have somebody represent you that person will be given ten minutes to testify. If you do you're relinquishing your own opportunity to give your own public testimony, because you have designated somebody to do that for you. After we take all public testimony the applicant, then, will be given another ten minutes to address anything further that they would like to address and, then, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will deliberate here before you and, hopefully, we will be able to come up with a recommendation for City Council on each item. Okay? Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: CUP 12-004 Sawtooth Middle School Wireless Communication Facility by Don Shiveley, General Dynamics Located at 3730 N. Linder Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Construct and Operate a Wireless Communication facility in an R-4 Zoning District. Freeman: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing for the first item on the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 3 of 64 agenda, which is CUP 12-005, Sawtooth Middle School wireless communications facility, beginning with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. First application before you this evening is the Sawtooth Middle School wireless communication facility conditional use permit. The applicant is looking to place that wireless communication facility on the Sawtooth Middle School property. This property is currently zoned R-4 and it's surrounded by residential property that is zoned R-8 and there is also to the southern boundary is county property zoned RUT in the county. On the aerial here that's on the right-hand side in the graphic here I have shown the approximate location of that proposed facility. The facility will include a 125 foot tall pole, provision for two other providers to co-locate on that. A 12-by-20 shelter and, then, of course, it will be enclosed by a six foot solid vinyl fence. Let you know that the applicant has been conditioned to comply with the specific use standards in the UDC for the wireless communication facility. I have received written testimony from the applicant. He is in general agreement with the staff report and those conditions in the staff report. I do have one modification that staff is recommending before you this evening and that, basically, states under Condition 1.1, Bullet No. 2, staff is asking that Commission add language that, basically, states: Or seek alternative compliance to waive the landscape requirements along the perimeter of the facility. Given the fact that this is located in the rear of the building from the -- in speaking with the applicant it appears that the school district is a little hesitant on allowing some of that land -- additional landscaping on the site given the safety constraints, the students, and vandalism and such, that would be there for reference, not to have that -- that landscaping around the facility. So, at this point staff could handle it at staff level with a certificate of zoning compliance and so that's why we are recommending that condition to you. Other than that, I have not received any other written testimony or any -- have no knowledge of any outstanding issues before you this evening and with that I would stand for any questions you have. Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Are there any questions of staff? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Bill, quick question. I may have missed it somewhere in the application in the staff report somewhere. Is it specific -- I see a general location saying generally it's going to be right behind the building and to the west of the track, approximately, but if the school district decided to put it clear out to the edge of the boundary, could that happened within this conditional use permit? Is it tied to that specific piece of ground? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, what I have depicted on the site is where that needs to be placed and it's been conditioned as such in the staff report that it could be placed there. If it was on the boundary of the site more than likely it wouldn't comply with the setback of the wireless -- of the wireless -- of the -- meet the setback of the building ordinance. So, where they have it placed now -- or at least where I have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 4 of 64 depicted it right here and, then, discussions with the applicant, this does currently meet the standards and the setback requirement. So, it would have to be placed there. Marshall: Thank you. Parsons: If it is moved they would have to come back and modify the conditional use permit. Marshall: Thank you. Freeman: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? And this will go for everybody. I will remind you, but as you reach the microphone would you, please, state your name and address for the record. Shiveley: Hi, my name is Don Shiveley. The address is 10256 South Sage Springs Circle, South Jordan, Utah. I am the applicant representing AT&T Wireless. We are here to say that we are in agreement with the staff report and would be happy to answer any questions that you might have at this time. Freeman: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: I have a question -- Freeman: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: -- Mr. Chair. Is it Don? Shiveley: Don. O'Brien: Okay. So, regarding the request for removal -- or not put in the plant material around the base, so I assume, then, you have had problems with this kind of issue in the past with some other facility. What was that problem, if there were one? Shiveley: Well, it's -- the problem is at schools,. in which they want to have a clear line of sight so they can see any -- any type of activity that's out there and shrubs tend to disguise, hide things and so we are looking for a clean line of sight with the school district. Their preference is -- one is for maintenance. The second one is for security and safety of the children and that's why we are asking for this -- this variance on it. O'Brien: So, would a fence have any security, barbed wire on top? Shiveley: It will not. It will be the vinyl fence -- six foot high vinyl fence on it. It's -- again, it's meant to keep those that might think about jumping over it out of it, but it won't keep those that are determined out of it. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 5 of 64 Freeman: Any other questions? Yearsley: I have none. Freeman: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Looking at the sign-up sheets, I don't have anybody on here that was wanting to offer testimony on this item. Is there anybody that wishes to offer testimony on this application? Okay. We have already heard from the applicant. So, could I get a motion to close the public hearing on this item? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 12-006. Rohm: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on CUP 12-005 I believe you meant. Sawtooth Middle School. Typo. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Freeman: Any discussion, Commissioners? Rohm: The only comment that I would make is as long as the applicant is in agreement with the staff report and the additional condition requested by the school district, I don't see any reason why we can't move forward with this with a motion to approve. Freeman: Okay. And this did include the modification suggested by staff for the alternative compliance for the landscaping when we make our motion. So, could I get a motion on the item? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 12-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th, 2012, with the aforementioned modification and further move to direct staff to prepare appropriate findings documents to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of August 2nd, 2012. End of motion. Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to approve CUP 12-005 as modified. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 6 of 64 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Public Hearing: PP 12-101 Mulberry Subdivision by Settlers Park, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W. Ashby Drive Request: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of Five (5) Building Lots on 2.4 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District. C. Public Hearing: CUP 12-006 Mulberry Subdivision by Settlers Park, LLC Located at Southwest Corner of N. Meridian Road and W. Ashby Drive Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of aMulti-Family Development in an R-15 Zoning District Consisting of Thirty-six (36) Residential Units on 2.4 Acres of Land. Freeman: Okay. The next item on the agenda -- I'm going to open both PP 12-010, Mulberry Subdivision, and CUP 12-006, Mulberry Subdivision, beginning with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item before you is the Mulberry Subdivision. It does include a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for amulti-family development. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Ashby Way and North Meridian Road. The property is approximately 2.4 acres in size and is primarily surrounded by the Settlers Park, which is zoned L-O, and, then, residential to the north and east, zoned R-4 and R-8. I'd let you know that this property -- history on this property. It was originally annexed in 2002 with the Cedar Springs Subdivision, which is the subdivision to the north of this site. When that collector street went in as Ashby it kind of -- that bisected this parcel from -- from the other properties. It was originally platted as single family lots -- preliminary platted as single family lots and back in 2004 the owner-developer at the time had a different vision for the project and, then, they came forward to the city and got approval of a rezone application and a conditional use permit application to potentially develop the site with an assisted living facility. Now that -- those approvals have expired. Even the plat and the conditional use permit. The one thing I did want to mention to Commission was the fact that typically the city -- the way we operate now staff recommends a development agreement with the rezone of a property. In this particular case in 2004 staff did not make that recommendation when the city acted on the conditional use permit. It appears that they were going to let the CU drive the development of the site and those conditions attached that would run with the land and suffice for the development of that site. Well, now we are here in 2012 and everything is expired and what we have in place is R-15 zoning. Tonight we are not really discussing rezoning of the property. It really is already zoned R-15. That process has been completed and the zoning is appropriate on the property as found in 2004. And the ordinance is recorded. So, moving forward tonight, the conditional use permit is basically -- as defined in the ordinance is, basically, a use that requires approval from you guys and it really is the intent to determine whether or not this site is appropriate for multi-family development Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 7 of 64 and if it's compatible with residential development in the area and that's really what I want to focus on tonight. The medium -- or the Comprehensive Plan designates this property a medium density residential. On the Comprehensive Plan densities range in size between three and eight dwelling units to the acre. As I mentioned to you earlier, this property is zoned, so in this particular case the zoning does govern the property, not the land use. So, that's what we are basing our recommendation on, too. The other thing I would point out to you is if you look at the aerial before you you can see that the site doesn't really abut any residential. If you look -- you have the park surrounding it. There is some common lots that were platted with Cedar Springs back in the day that also separate this site from the adjacent residential. The nearest four-plex on the site plan is approximately 130 feet from the nearest residence. I mean these are all factors that we use in determining whether or not this is a compatible development and based on those findings staff finds that it is -- it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and that medium density residential designation. So, the proposed preliminary plat consists of five buildable lots that will house the nine four-plex structures. Although the lots do conform to the R-15 dimensional standards, the applicant has been conditioned to provide across-access -- a blanket cross-access and shared access -- or shared parking agreement for the subdivision. The way they have it depicted before you this evening it doesn't adequately provide access to those lots as they show you this evening, so I wanted to make sure and have that covered. The site plan here you can see how they are complying with the ordinance. I would say overall the vast majority of the site does comply with the specific use standards for the multi-family development, as well as the landscape requirements in the site development requirements. Most of the buildings are separated by 20 feet or more along the perimeter of the site plan. The nearest building is 12 feet from property edge. If you look at the open space the only thing that -- because this doesn't front on an adjacent street and those landscape buffers are already developed with Cedar Springs, the subdivision ordinance does not require additional landscaping. So, that -- that buffer -- those buffers that are constructed actually meet the intent of the ordinance. I would point out that the applicant is also providing some connection points to the park, which provides that connectivity to the pathway system. At some future point to the west of the site there is a school -- a future school planned -- elementary school planned. This connectivity to the existing sidewalks and the park provides additional connectivity to get kids to and from this development to the school property. This property is adjacent to Meridian Road, so it's on the outskirts of the subdivision near a major arterial and a collector street, which Ashby Drive is, so the additional trips that are generated by this development more than likely will turn onto Ashby and go onto Meridian Road and not funnel through the subdivision. I did want to point that out to you as well. As far as porches, amenities, the applicant is proposing a tot lot, two rose gardens, some public art in the center landscape island that they are proposing. All of the parking requirements -- majority of the parking will be covered parking, except for three stalls, which complies with the ordinance. As far as the -- the ordinance only requires them to provide 9,000 square feet of open space. The submitted site plan they are showing here provides an acre of open space, so that -- that is far above and beyond what code requires and, of course, all the trees and shrubs that they are proposing along the buildings exceeds code requirements as well. Now, moving onto the elevations. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 8 of 64 applicant has tried to design these elevations to comply with the adjacent residential as well. Mix of building materials complimentary to the existing residences, you will have your lap board siding and cedar shake siding, decorative corbels. They are also providing two story elevations. The overall height of the structure will be 29 feet, which is less than what the zoning ordinance allows, which is 40 feet maximum height. The building footprint itself is roughly 2,000 square feet on the bottom and 2,000 square feet on the top. So, that floor area ratio is consistent with the homes in the area. Average -- the homes in the area range between 15,000 -- or, excuse me, 1,500 square feet and 3,000 square feet. So, this does fit within the context of the existing homes in the area as well. And, then, of course, staff has conditioned them to provide three different color schemes on the elevations as proposed with the application. Also, if you notice that the covered porches and the covered patio -- if you look the columns are a little skinny. I mean they don't fit with the form of the building. So, staff has actually conditioned the applicant to provide some stone base columns around there to kind of define those columns to add to the architectural detail consistent with the single family homes as well. Staff has received written testimony from the applicant. In general, again, they are -- they comply with the conditions or willing to comply with the conditions of approval. There is one issue that the applicant would like to discuss with you and that has to do with the requirement of a maintenance building on the site. The way the specific use standards are written any development over 20 acres in size has to provide a property owner management office and maintenance storage building. In this particular case the applicant is going -- the property management area will be one of the units on site. We can support that. But there really is no storage being provided on site. So, staff is recommending that they, basically, just expand one of the footprints of the building and attach a storage to one of the apartment complexes. I believe the property management unit is going to be here. They are providing bike storage on the site as one of their amenities and so I thought maybe they could just bump that out and throw a little storage area for whatever they may need to store on the site and that way they meet the intent of the ordinance. We just can't -- the way the ordinance is written it says they shall provide that and we just can't waive that requirement under this purview, so they have to do something, either provide that and come up with a solution. But think it is a minor issue that we can work at staff level certainly moving forward. I did also want to point out that we have gotten a petition from the adjacent neighborhood in opposition on the project and most of the opposition is stemmed from increased traffic from the proposed development. It looks like lack of a development agreement required during the rezone of the property and the fact that during the time that this was going through the rezone the developer controlled -- was actually developing the subdivision to the north and so he was really the only one that was getting notice for the project, because all the other surrounding residential developments were under construction. Also they were concerned with noticing requirements under the UDC and, then, it looks like some of the neighbors feel like the previous developer dooped them and didn't disclose the rezone application to them. But I did want to point that out. I believe you should have that in your packet this evening. Other than the public testimony or at least the written testimony, I have no other outstanding issues before you this evening. In summary, I would say that the staff finds that the project does comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance and with that I would stand for any Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 9 of 64 questions you may have. Freeman: Thank you, Bill. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Yearsley: I have something. Freeman: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Bill, the parcel right now is broken into five lots; is that correct? Is what you were saying? Are they planning to keep the five separate lots or are they trying to put it into one lot? Do you know? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, currently the parcel is one parcel, 2.4 acre parcel. They are trying to subdivide it into five individual lots. Yearsley: Into five individual lots. Okay. So, if they -- if they broke it into the five individual lots they could sell pieces of the property off into individual owners; is that correct? Parsons: Technically, yes, they could. Yearsley: Okay. Parsons: If I may? Yearsley: Yes. Parsons: However, under the specific standards of the multi-family development requirements there has to be one property management or one organization entity that oversees that whole maintenance of that development and the applicant is not proposing to condo the buildings. It is amulti-family development. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Freeman: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. Business address. I'm here representing Mr. Alexander, which is Settlers Park, LLC, on this particular application. As Bill indicated, this is an unplatted remnant parcel that originally was part of the preliminary plat for Cedar Springs Subdivision back in 2002. I was around in 2002 and I do remember this development and the -- the configuration of the collector roadway along the north boundary of the park was intentional. Initially the developer had a concept where he had loop streets and they had lots that backed up into Settlers Park. It was the city staff and the Council's desire that the park be exposed to the subdivision Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 10 of 64 and not creating a wall of homes along that northern boundary. They thought for safety purposes, to incorporate the neighborhood into the 56 acre regional park, so they did require that developer to change his site plan. So, as you can see, then, what they ended up doing is they put in this noncontinuous collector, which is Ashby that ran along the park. As Bill indicated, they came back through with an R-15 rezone. At the time they were thinking that they might do some assisted living, with some senior units, and there was no development agreement required. Obviously, that last -- the R-15 zone is what is intact on the site. It's kind of a strange situation where due to the site plan revisions that were required with the subdivision, it kind of segregated off this 2.4 acres. So, obviously, it sat for all these years, you know, obviously, waiting for some type of a purchaser or a developer to come along and find a particular use. As far as the R-15 zoning, obviously, it makes sense that R-15 adjoin public open space. We -- we try as planners to have a little bit of diversity in our residential development to have single family, to have some multi-family, and when we do have an open space opportunity, especially public open space, it's always good planning to try to locate the multi-family next to it, so they -- obviously, the density is offset by that open space. This shows you -- this is kind of a vicinity map that shows you the entire mile section. You can see all the arterials, McMillan, Meridian Road, Ustick and Linder are shown in green. As you can see you have a lot of single family development within the interior of this section and so it was intentionally designed. You see the yellow streets, Summit, Monument, Ash -- ah, dang it. This thing always wants to squirrel around. Ashton and Venable. There are what I would consider four primary collectors. Obviously, north, west, south and east. Ashton is the primary collector. They are feeding all of that local -- all the residential traffic out to the arterials. Ashby kind of functions, since it terminates, at this point and transitions into a northbound local street, it is what we call a noncontinuous collector and it's kind of secondary type collector. Ada County Highway District has estimated, based on their traffic counts, that there is about -- between 586, 368 vehicle trips per day. As you well know, acollector -- anything over a local street we try to keep under a thousand and, then, collectors can go anywhere above a thousand, even sometimes up to six or eight thousand vehicle trips per day. This is our site plan. As you can see we are located next to Ashby. We have a 20 foot common lot between us and Ashby Drive that is already landscaped and owned and maintained by the homeowners association for Cedar Springs. We also have a landscape lot that separates us from Meridian Road, which, as Bill indicated, is a minor arterial. One of the things that we looked at and we met with the staff on multiple occasions was to talk about what type of multi-family buildings were appropriate for this site. We did have two different types of buildings. We had alarger -- more like a 16 unit two story building that was more traditional multi-family and, then, we had this big house concept where we just have four units per building. They are two story. Their -- like bedrooms are upstairs, the living space is downstairs. These have an entrance on all sides. We call it, like I said, a big house concept, because they look so similar to a single family dwelling. It was the stafFs recommendation, obviously, the desire of my client, that we try to maintain that residential look, minimize bulk, minimize height, try to blend it in. Obviously, to interconnect with the existing multi-use pathway that wraps around the park right now -- or wraps around the site. Excuse me. This is a multi-use pathway that's existing. We are proposing two pedestrian connections. We will be coordinating Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 11 of 64 with the parks department. We will install wrought iron fencing along the west and south boundary, so it will be open vision with some wrought iron gates that will enter and exit, so you can define the private space from the public space. One of the things that I was concerned with -- this is an existing approach here and no direct access is allowed to Meridian Road. So, we wanted to, obviously, maintain a view corridor into the park. We thought that was important. Internalize the parking, maintain a nice view corridor, so that it appears to be open as much as possible. So, we came up with this particular T design and, then, we have a -- kind of a rotary in the middle. We will have hardscape, possibly a few flowers and, then, we will have -- it's going to be like a water sculpture in the middle, so that you have some visual interest within the site. We have a tot lot here where we will have play equipment. We have the trash enclosures located just off the rotary, so they are easy for Sanitary Services to get to. This does meet the fire department for the inside and outside radius of 28 and 48. We also have an amenity of two rose gardens that -- that are located -- ah, darn it. Every time I touch it. Here and, then, to the north. We tried to kind of spread the amenities out a little bit, so that everybody kind of benefited from them. As Bill indicated, we have quite a bit of open space. I think there is like 44 percent landscaped park -- you know, parkways and so forth internally in the site. We proposed nine buildings. There are about 41, 20 each. They will have, like I said, four units each. We have a Unit A that's about 1,100 square feet that will be a two bedroom den and two and three quarter bath. Then we have a two bedroom, two bath, that's around 900 square feet. This kind of gives you an idea of the elevations. Like Bill indicated, we tried to have a lot of articulation in the roof lines, using similar colors -- neutral type colors and materials similar to single family residential. So, this is -- this is one particular color scheme and we do propose three different color schemes, so it is not identical, you know, you get a little variation in the look where each one will have stone. Bill recommended that -- that we put stone bases on the covered patios, which the application has agreed to. This gives you the second color scheme, so, you know, with the different variations, like I said, it would be very similar to -- to a single family dwelling and, then, the third one is this kind of off green. This is a tough little site. These small ones are always achallenge -- a challenge to make them look good so you don't have this overwhelming massive sea of parking. think -- we had probably five different variations of this and this by far gave us -- maximized the open space within the site, minimized the paving, and provided the best number of parking and split that parking up inside, so we don't have this huge parking lot that's just an overwhelming, you know, character in this particular area. We have gone through all the conditions of approval as Bill indicated. The only one that we were concerned about was we intend to have an onsite manager at this location in that unit there. My client, since, you know, it's a small project of 36 units, he will be contracting with a maintenance company and they will be doing like the landscaping maintenance and any, you know, plumbing, electrical, anything that needs to be done. Painting, et cetera, that would take place. We have a plat before you this evening because it is an unplatted parcel, it is a remnant, we have to plat it because it was part of a larger parcel initially. We are proposing five lots and then -- so that we have a couple of buildings per -- you know, per lot and that was financing purposes. The banks are extremely particular about us just putting all the buildings on one lot and so the client in talking with his bank that was their recommendation. We are not putting each individual Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 12 of 64 building on a lot, just, you know, two minimum and, then, we will have that one lot that's the stray one. As far as the height, these are 29 feet. We are well under the 35 foot maximum height for a single family in your R-15 type zones. We think this is a good project. ACHD has reviewed it. The only comment they had was to bring the existing pedestrian ramps up to current ADA standards that were constructed at the existing curb cut on Ashby. As far as the impact of this project in this area, with 36 units it will be extremely minimal. You know, we have got amajor -- major arterial here between Ustick and, then, a minor arterial at Meridian Road. This is always on your corridor for future public transportation. Hold on just a second. Forgot my notes. Your Valley Regional Transit map shows Meridian Road and Ustick as a major corridor that eventually there will be some type of public transportation. So, hopefully, in the future, you know, there may be a bus stop here at the park area that his particular project could take advantage of. Parking was a big issue. We had two neighborhood meetings. There was a lot of concern out in the neighborhood when they have events at Settlers Park they have parking problems. Especially any major events. Ada County Highway District and your transportation committee I was told here about a month ago have been working together. They are going to put some signage out on Meridian Road at the park approach, between it and the Ustick intersection will be signed as no parking, because people were parking along the arterials. One of the other problems was the ball fields that are located at the northwest corner of the park over here, they were parking within the single family residential subdivision and according to the Parks Director Steve Siddoway, the city has an agreement with the Meridian School District, since the site of -- the school site located on the west boundary of Settlers Park is not developed, that they will allow the city to construct a temporary parking lot, which will accommodate between 60 and 80 additional vehicles. So, it is the desire of the parks department and transportation committee that this will help alleviate some of the parking issues that currently exist out there. Do you have any of questions? Freeman: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? Not at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. At this time we will begin taking public testimony and what I will do is I will begin at the top of the list. When you come forward -- well, when I call your name, please, confirm that you do still wish to give public testimony, come forward and state your name and address for the record into the microphone. And you will be given that three minutes to do so. If you are speaking for a group and you wish to have the ten minutes to do so, please, let us know when you come forward and we will take a show of hands to indicate who you are speaking for. With that I have -- I think it's Earlene Coffey first on the list. Coffey: I'm Earlene Coffey and I'm going to be speaking for -- Freeman: We need your address, too. Coffey: -- just neighbors. Freeman: We need your address, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 13 of 64 Coffey: It's 3883 North Barron Place, Meridian, Idaho. I live in the Cedar Springs development and I will be speaking on behalf of Martin and Margo Comorosky. They weren't able to be here tonight. They have also submitted this previously to the board earlier and I will just read what they have written. We are against the proposed conditional use permit, PP 12-010, Settlers Park, LLC, for the following reason. We signed legal document slash contract with the development owner H. Bruce Murdock on July 31st, 2003. Subdivision CCRs written by Hal Murdock Development Corporation and signed by Kevin A. Hal, president, dated and notarized 12/10/2002. In this contract, page two, section 1.3, states that phase four and possible phase five are intended to be developed by the declarant or development owner and may be developed as some form of commercial, office, retail or other business-related uses. A portion may or may not also be developed as a school site. Also in the event that the school site or the business phases are not developed for school and business uses and are developed for a single family resident use, then, the lots therein shall be subject to these CCRs and when and if annexed into the CCRs, the section site, Exhibit C, as referenced, which is a plot plan and specifically as phase four identified as six lots and written as possible business lots. We signed off on this contract with the understanding there would possibly be business-related use, if not more single family residential use. Under no circumstance would we have signed this contract as a homeowner if, instead, the intent stated by the declarant included multi-family residential use. Therefore, when the City of Meridian granted the zoning change from R-4 to R-15 during the 2.004-2005, the City of Meridian failed to complete the legal land use rezoning process by not reviewing all legal documents, contracts in place with owners in Cedar Springs Subdivision and the development owner and by not requiring an updated development agreement in line with the legal CCR documents. It is the responsibility of the City of Meridian to serve its citizens with all legal due diligence. If the City of Meridian does not reverse the rezoning of this particular property back to R-4 required in legal contract, legal recourse by hundreds of homeowners could result. Also lack of action by the City of Meridian and the developer may be construed as fraudulent. Property owners throughout the subdivision were not informed of this rezoning change and did not receive any updated contractual information from the developer regarding the change from R-4 to R-15. Respectfully submitted, Martin J. Comorosky and Margo E. Comorosky. And, then, just add that there is a two lane road, actually, for Meridian and the traffic is pretty heavy there at lunchtime and at 5:00 o'clock and in the morning when people go to work and we are looking at approximately 72 more cars hitting that road at those times of day. don't feel apartments would be of benefit to the people using the park, the people in the homes next to it, but businesses that would serve the community using the park would be more beneficial. Thank you for your time. Freeman: Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I am not a lawyer, but I have read through this -- I have read a lot of legal Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 14 of 64 documents in the past and I read through this pretty carefully and I'm going to ask for Mr. Nary's interpretation here. He can correct me if I'm wrong. As I read through this, did not see a single condition placed on the developer. This actually seemed to -- this seemed to actually place an onus on the homeowners association to accept any single family residence should they have happen to develop, which probably they wouldn't, into the homeowners association and, therefore, extend all services and all amenities there included. Other than that, I saw no indication that required or suggested that it would absolutely develop in any of those formats, simply that it could, and what's -- it did appear to me, actually, a nice warning by the developer saying, hey, it's probably not going to be single family residential. That's the only way I took this. Am I wrong in this? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you're not wrong in this. The permissive language that's listed in those CC&Rs really only puts the property owners -- the future property owners on notice that something would be there that is not likely to be single family residential, but it could have been anything. It doesn't necessarily require any specific type of development. So, you're not incorrect. Marshall: Thank you. So, that kind of dismisses that argument that an awful lot of people are writing in about. That's totally a moot point. The rezone was proper and that all that was okay. So, I guess all we are looking for, then, is -- is this appropriate given the conditions that exist now. Nary: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Freeman: Mr. Nary. Nary: Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, to add maybe one more point. The point that's brought up in this particular written testimony as part of your record indicates that a -- as a revised development agreement it should be required and a development agreement is never required. A development agreement is a contractual relationship between the city and the developer and is only allowed in Idaho Code either at the time of annexation or at the time of rezone. The city does not always require a development agreement in every annexation case, it doesn't require a development agreement in every rezone. So, the -- the argument that was proffered by some of the written testimony that it should be required -- again, it's not a legal requirement, so that also is not something that's mandatory or required by Idaho Code. Freeman: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Anyone else? We will move on with public testimony. Next on my list is Mylie Hurley. Mylie Herling? I don't -- no? Chuck Herling. Don't wish to testify at this time? Janice Harkins. Okay. Terry Harsh or Michael Harsh. Don't wish to testify? Barbara Yates. Don't wish to testify? Tom Callison. Please state your name and address for the record when you approach the microphone. Callison: Yes. I'm Tom Callison. I live at 3631 North Alexis Way Meridian, Idaho. Cedar Springs. As already discussed the traffic issue as you adding another 72 automobiles probably coming into Ashby and the engineer lady there discussing in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 15 of 64 regards to the collector roads of being Ashton and Ashby, you have to remember Ashby has two entrances to that Cedar Springs. Those two. Ashton has a great deal lot of cars, but also Ashby does as well, because it goes -- annexes into Alexis. It's a curve. So, you see a number of cars coming in every day, coming and going. There is no stop signs, they divert the other -- Ashton, because there is a stop sign on Ashton. So, they come around there. So, that's a constant flow. So, they have an issue with the parking and people coming into that Ashton already and we already have an issue which there has been many meetings and this lawyer here has -- attorney is well aware of it -- of the problem we have of the parking because of Settlers Park. It is -- you go there now -- go this week with the baseball -- and I'll number the streets -- there is three specifically that are bad. It will be that Stanford, Greenwich, and Ashton. You can't even get on both sides of it and after understanding what the engineers did -- the planning commission did there regards to changing the homes backing up to that park, they created a monster, because if they would have left that Ashby out of there this wouldn't have been an issue. People couldn't have parked along the adjacent streets. It is really bad. And anybody that lives in there it's a pain in the neck. You can't even enjoy yourself from March to October. That's how many months out of the year we have a problem. Parking temporary at the school elementary is not going to solve the problem, because you're going to have numerous people, because the shortest avenue -- mostly coaches -- park all along every one of those streets. Number two is safety. We have an issue here again with 72 more automobiles coming. As already been mentioned, they want to put no parking signs on Meridian. Do you know what that's going to do to the development if they do that? They are going to inundate every one of those streets if they put no parking on Meridian Road. And you're going to add more than 72. So, you have a safety issue. We already have near misses of people when they come across those streets almost get hit by automobiles. I have seen two instances myself. Devaluation of homes. We are going to have an issue here, even though everybody says there won't be a devaluation of homes, yes, there is. There will be -- historically it does happen in time. This developer may maintain that development, but he may not -- he may sell it. Pretty soon you have a situation of individual people that -- well, I guess is my time up? Freeman: Yeah. I will give you ten seconds to summarize. Callison: Okay. Well, again, we have a litter complex -- we have a litter problem issue. We have a domestic problem that will eventually happen there. And so all these issues -- just the magnitude, they probably already exist in that facility. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Ryan Brumfield. Please state your name and address for the record. Brumfield: Ryan Brumfield. I live at 3916 North Greenwich Way in Cedar Springs Subdivision. I have lived at Cedar Springs since 2004 and when I did move in from the discussions when it was originally zoned for an assisted living center and so I was pleased with that and didn't have any problems with that. And with these issues with the infrastructure that's in place right now, as the other neighbors have stated, Meridian- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 16 of 64 Ustick is busy all the time now. If you will look at the map here, like we are talking about, the proposed -- down on Ustick, there is a parking lot down by the baseball diamonds. If you go there on a Saturday you will find that that parking lot is not generally full. They are parking there right now. They are going up to Ashby and parking. I, actually, took aSaturday -- and Idon't -- probably don't have enough time to show you, but I took photos along Meridian Road and cars were all the way down Meridian Road, all the way up to the proposed zoning area for the apartment complex and, then, down Ashby all the way until it turns up to Alexis, cars on both sides of the street. There were cars actually at the intersections, pulled out, about six feet past where the stop signs were. And this is happening on a regular basis. One thing is they failed to talk about on this plot -- 36 units, up to 72 cars. Most people have one to two vehicles. The one thing that this doesn't take into account is parking for people that are coming to visit. These people that don't live in the apartment complex. So, you know, that is going to push out onto Ashby as well. Right now we have traffic up north for that on Ashton, the second entrance. I live on the corner of Ashton and Greenwich and there is times when there is traffic on all four corners of that road and if you notice there is a bend right within that area -- turn and it's nearly impossible to get out of. And so we are just going to keep increasing the traffic, increasing cars up further north into the subdivision. A temporary parking lot isn't going to make that much difference, because right now we have a parking lot that people aren't even using completely on Ustick. They are going to continue -- continue with that and it's just -- I'm concerned about property value, what happens. I have seen a lot of apartment complexes over the course of time. They don't start keeping them up. One thing that we have in our subdivision are CC&Rs to make sure that our property values stay up and that's one thing that won't happen. There is no guarantee that they will have any CC&Rs to insure that those apartments complexes stay up. And so when I made this investment in my house, my investment was to stay here for a long period of time. Now, I'm questioning that. And so I just hope that a decision can be made here that will make me and my neighbors satisfied. Thank you. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Rob and Kathy Edgar? Don't wish to testify. Patrick and Janet Handley. I assume Patrick is approaching. So, please, give your name and address for the record. Handley: Patrick Handley. I live at 3654 North Alexis Way, Meridian. Cedar Springs. My major concern, as well is the property values. I think initially, you know, this facility that they show looks pretty nice, but it is in five different plots and they can be, at some point in time, sold independently. What happens in five, ten, 15 years from now? That's a major concern I think to pretty much everybody who lives in the Cedar Springs Subdivision. Over time is it going to erode the property values of the homeowners in Cedar Spring. That's a major concern. Another major issue is the safety for the traffic and children on Ashby. What they did is they -- the city placed a stop sign on Ashton and Price Way about two years ago. What this did to the traffic that is going to go southbound on Meridian Road, they do turn on Alexis Way and use that as the connector to Meridian Road, which turns into Ashby. That is a steady state of traffic on Alexis Way and Ashby going to Meridian Road. For six months. out of the year, as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 17 of 64 stated earlier you can hardly get down Ashby, because of traffic between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. Vehicles parked on both sides of the road. And that definitely needs to be taken into consideration, the amount of traffic flow in and out on Ashby. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Yes. Rohm: Before we take any additional testimony, I would just like to see if I can summarize this properly. The City of Meridian has been notified by the people living in the vicinity, not necessarily any one subdivision over another, that the traffic congestion both on Meridian Road and Ustick has been compromised by people that use Settlers Park. So, the City of Meridian has taken upon themselves to make that a no parking zone along those two arterial and that will force people that use the park to actually use the parking that was already being provided. All of that seems to be working in the favor of all of you folks that live out there in the subdivisions as they currently exist. It may not be a hundred percent answer, but it's at least a step in the right direction and the -- and the school district also making their properties available for additional parking, all of those things taken in concert seem to be working to help alleviate the concerns that you folks have out there and the -- from -- just from my perspective this application tonight doesn't have any anything to do with the concerns that you folks globally have for the vicinity of as a whole. The parking within this -- the spaces within the applicant itself are adequate to supply two -- two parking spaces for each living unit and I would presume that there is going to be some additional spaces over and above that and I'm sure the applicant will address that when she comes back up. But for the most part all of the testimony that we have heard so far seems to be directed towards conditions that already exist that there are steps being taken to clear it up. So, in my mind the two are separate and aside. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. I think that's who it was. No. Oh, Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I could give you a little bit more insight on the parking issue in regards to Ustick and to Meridian Road. First ACHD is the entity that makes the decision on whether no parking is going to be required, not the city. The city has the ability to recommend that. At the traffic safety commission we have had -- we have had a number of citizen concerns about the parking along both the east and west side of Meridian Road adjacent to the park, as well as the north and south side of Ustick adjacent to Settlers Park. Concerns about near misses, people crossing the roadways, those types of things. But one of the bigger concerns that's been brought to the traffic safety commission and to Ada County Highway District is the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 18 of 64 vision triangle and the ability to clear the driveways of Settlers Park on both Meridian and Ustick. That was the reason ACRD chose to eliminate the parking along those is to allow for clearer vision, so people can see exiting the park and that there isn't going to be parking against the driveway. So, that was the reason for it. So, it wasn't -- I would agree with Commission Rohm that there was a lot discussion at traffic safety on whether or not that would change the tenor where the parking would go. Many times there is adequate within the park. People have a tendency to choose where they want to park based on where they want to go, whether or not there is parking available or not. But the purpose of removing the parking along Meridian Road was for the safety of the entering and exiting out of the park. There was a lot of complaints that cars could not see along Meridian Road or couldn't see pedestrians along Meridian Road. So, I don't believe the parking has been limited at this point, but that was the recommendation that travel safety made to ACHD and ACRD is considering, so -- if that helps answer why that was, that was my intent. Freeman: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: If I could, I just want everybody to know that I'm hearing something a little bit different, that, yes, Ustick and Meridian were a problem. They still are and that is being taken care of. But Ashton is what I'm hearing people are saying and I have seen this as well, using the park, I have used the park many times and I see those residential streets, people are parking along there. I see that. And right now I believe that's the concern that I'm hearing. Just letting you know that. Freeman: Thank you. I need to remind everyone, too, that this is a public hearing and in order to get on the record we have people speak one at a time and they address the chair. So, if there are comments from the audience those aren't being recorded and that's really not the proper way to go about it. If you have something to say please come up and testify like everyone else and let's maintain the property decorum of a public hearing. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Next on the list Andy Roman. Please state your name and address for the record.. Roman: My name is Andy Roman. I live at 446 North Brice Canyon Avenue in Baldwin Park in Meridian and have to say that this development is incompatible with the neighborhood. We in Baldwin Park often have to use Ashton and Ashby to get onto Meridian and to get onto Ustick, because it's impossible for us to get out using Venable by Fast Eddy's to make a left turn at -- more in traffic. It's dangerous. With the new units going in there on the corner also, you're going to double the number of cars on Ustick. Number two. These are rental units. I don't know how they are going to rent for -- what they are going to rent for, but the property management company -- don't know who they are -- but it is adjacent to a park. What is going to be in place to prevent predators from moving into those apartments alongside the park? With access to a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 19 of 64 park. That's a concern I just want to get on the record. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Marshall: Sir? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Can I ask you a quick question? Roman: Yes. Marshall: What prevents sexual predators from buying any one of the houses along the park? Roman: There is a road, but this is really inside the park, so you -- Marshall: So, are you saying that all sexual predators rent? Roman: I'm not -- Marshall: My point is that there is no difference -- you can't say that because these are going to be rentals -- because people rent doesn't mean you're going to have sexual predators there any more than --asexual predator can live in any one of the houses there. Roman: Well, would not the property manager have the responsibility to check the background of people renting? Marshall: Who checks the background of the people buying the houses? Yes, you're going to get probably better vetting through a property management company than you are from people buying a house. Roman: Well, people buying a house usually are -- they don't normally have -- renters are the people who normally, you know, are those -- are of that persuasion. Marshall: Like me. Roman: Like you? I don't know. Are you? Marshall: No. But I have been arenter -- a lot of my life I have been a renter. Roman: Okay. Marshall: Does that make me a bad person? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 20 of 64 Roman: No, it does not. Marshall: Does that make -- because you own a house does make you a good person? Roman: I'm just saying that there needs to be controls put in to protect the people at the park. Freeman: And I think you both made your point at this time on that issue, so that's -- Roman: Thank you and lappreciate -- Freeman: Let's stop it there. Roman: Thank you. Freeman: And we will take further public testimony. Thank you. Leslie Steele? No? Pat Arnold? Is there a Pat Arnold that wises to testify? No? Tracy Brown? Joy Smith? Eric Smith? Please state your name and address for the record. Smith: Hi. My name is Eric Smith. I live at -- Freeman: Into the microphone, please, because he can't pick it up. Smith: Oh. Okay. Hi. Good evening. My name is Eric Smith. I live at 3635 North Staunton Place in Meridian. Thank you for hearing my -- my tidbits this evening. I'd like to almost make reference to the first lady speaker -- our neighbor lady speaker who spoke in regards to the CC&Rs. In regards to what we were under the understanding was going to take place when we moved here and I'm sure if any of you got a chance to read that or not. Have you? There is one in particular item which refers to what she was making reference to and that is businesses -- businesses, possible school, maybe not necessarily in that order, office, businesses, that sort of thing, possibly even single family dwellings. These -- this is none of those things. And this isn't one of the things that we were counting on in moving here five years ago, that we thought would even take place. We looked at 25 different homes before we made the choice of purchasing this home. This is what we were told that's all explained in the CC&Rs, which to us we signed -- had to sign it to be able to live there. We abide by it. We pay our dues. I'm to understand they don't have one, nor are they planning on having one. And, in fact, the -- the person who wrote these CC&Rs, I believe, is the owner or president at that time who wrote these CCRs, has some investment in this property and the rezoning of this property and that sort of thing and I'm just kind of wondering -- I never knew this was -- knew this was going to take place. I was never confirmed of the zoning, only by what read on the CC&Rs, that's what I was planning on. I see one other thing that seems to be a bit of a problem and that's as I look at this plan -- and I'm not sure exactly how to use this Ratmus computer, but as I look at this plan which I -- oh, here we go. If we are looking at the south border, which would be the fence running east and west -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 21 of 64 Nary: Sir, if you push the color. Smith: I'm sorry. Nary: At the top of the -- ~t the top of that screen there is a color button. Smith: Oh. Okay. Nary: If you push that, that will actually write on the screen. Smith: I know brick, trowel -- Nary: At the top there it looks like a pencil with different colors. If you push one of those that will actually write on the screen. Smith: Oh, this guy here? Freeman: And not to make it more complex, but I also need you to speak into the microphone while you're doing that. Smith: Oh. Okay. Very good. Freeman: We are going to see how talented you are. Smith: Actually, I would like to make reference to this border here. Oh. Okay. Yeah. guess we want to make reference to -- Freeman: That was our time, so I need you to summarize in ten or 15 seconds here. Smith: This isn't working too good. If I write lines will that go away? Oh, I see. Well, anyway -- along here we got a fence that we are proposing to be four feet in height, wrought iron, that you can see through and there is also here, here, and here they are proposing two walkways with gates that I would assume are not going to be locked, which enter in and out of -- from the complex to the park and vice-versa. I would think that that someday may promote some sort of problem with the -- in telling liabilities, possible injuries -- in other words -- and I'm not making reference to predators, I'm making reference to -- so, if a family lives in say any of these homes and mom's blow drying her hair and junior is watching TV and decides to go out in his diaper -- Freeman: Mr. Smith, I have to remind you our time has elapsed and I have given you an extra 15, 20 seconds to -- Smith: Well, I -- Freeman: If you could wrap it up, I need to have you do that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 22 of 64 Smith: You guys already have a copy of what I submitted on the -- and I'm not sure -- didn't make reference to the title on that -- thank goodness for these guys, uh? Freeman: Thank you. Smith: I will practice. Freeman: Next on the list is Wendy Barber. Do not wish to testify? I think I heard a no. Sally Landberg? And, please, state your name and address for the record when you reach the microphone. Landberg: Sally Landberg. 8911 North Barron Place. I hadn't planned on talking, but -- my main concern is the fact that an apartment complex really is really transient lot of times. You don't get the same thing as you get with homeownership. I know you have been really condescending, Mr. Marshall, in your tone with us, which I don't appreciate, because this is really legitimate concerns for us and everybody else has seemed to be very professional about it and maybe that you're just being friendly, but I don't appreciate it. It is a concern to us as property owners. We do have a sense of permanency where we live. You don't always find that in apartments. It is a lot more transient. It could bring down our property values if it's not maintained properly by -- my understanding this is an out-of-state owner using a property management company to hopefully maintain it. He can, according to what you're all saying, have the possibility of selling off parcels, which means we don't have any guarantees and this is not governed by any kind of homeowners, any kind of CCRs that it has to maintain any kind of standard. It is always part of, enclosed in one of Meridian's -- in fact, Meridian's first, biggest, best park, with a universal playground. We have so many children with disabilities that go there. So many kids that play soccer and baseball there. I was part of the board for those baseball fields, not knowing -- sorry, guys -- that they were all going to park there. Sorry. Love the fact that our kids are utilizing that park. All kids are utilizing that park. Not -- and, again, not saying you're a predator and just because you live in an apartment it makes you a predator. It does increase danger for our children that are going in there. It does take away the view of our kids as they are going into the park. It is very close to the pond, which every -- so many people fish out there and take part of the pond. It takes away of the beauty of our -- of our park also. Not just our homes, our park and, you know, a lot of the parking that everybody is talking about could have been solved -- or could have been helped tremendously had Meridian decided that they would have purchased that portion. I know it was slightly higher in price than they wanted to pay. But purchase that for additional parking, because I hate to think that now that we have got another park, that we are not going to take care of this one and service it the way we want to and everything. It's such a beautiful park and so many people utilize it. But, again, our -- you know, we are coming to you as homeowners. We live there, you don't. So, it is concerning to us. Freeman: Thank you. Landberg: Thank you so much. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 23 of 64 Freeman: It's come up a couple of times and (thought -- and I'm going to address to staff. I thought I heard in your report that there is a requirement for this to maintain a unified maintenance agreement as a subdivision. Is that correct, Bill, or -- straighten me out if I'm -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you stated that correctly. The way multi-family standards are written the applicant will have to provide us written documentation of who is to maintain and how it's to be maintained for the -- not only the parking lot, the building, the landscaping and overall general maintenance of that facility, they have to provide that recorded document with their certificate of zoning compliance. Freeman: And even if the parcels are under separate ownership, it sounded to me like that still is going to have to be the case. Parsons: That is correct. It would still be binding with the property. Freeman: Thank you. Okay. Next on the list -- what time is it? We have been going for a while, so let's recess for about five minutes, let people use the restroom that need to use the restroom and we will be back here at 8:20 and continue. (Recess: 8:15 p.m. to 8:25 p.m.) Freeman: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to go ahead and continue our regularly scheduled meeting. We had some IT issues there during the break. We are trying to get the computers back up and running, that's why extended it, so if I could get everybody to stop the conversations we will continue again with public testimony. The next person on my mist I can't read it all, but it appears to be D. Bore -- something. And will give you an opportunity later on if I am butchering that, which I'm sure I am. Jake Gerard. Please state your name and address for the record. Gerard: Jake Gerard. I live at 3641 North Stanford Avenue and I just want to make some comments about Commissioner Rohm's comment about the parking. I believe just because you put signs on Meridian and Ustick doesn't mean that they are going to park in the parking lot. My house is one of the ones where the cars are constantly all around my house. I have four children and if any of you have kids you know what a concern that is and I believe putting in the four-plex or the apartments or whatever is going in, I believe that will cause an issue, a greater issue than what's already there. It will make the traffic even worse than it is. There has been times where I fear for my kids' life, because of the way people drive through that. Meridian -- City of Meridian's put up no parking signs around our houses in that area on Stanford and Ashby and those areas and people park right in front of the signs. They have no regard for those signs. They, basically, do whatever they want and they take the shortest route and the shortest route is parking in front of my house and walking to the closest baseball field. So, in response I just think that, you know, along with property values possibly going Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 24 of 64 down because of these, the traffic will be worse and that's a concern for me, especially because they park right next to my house and so -- Freeman: Thank you. Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair. Did you say they have already placed no parking signs along the side of your house? Gerard: There are some people who have asked for some portable signs that they can put up and it says no baseball parking and it has the City of Meridian logo on it and people will put those signs out in front of their houses right along Ashby and people don't care, they park right in front of them. Sometimes they bump them and they fall over. So, it's a big issue. I know that's -- it's a little bit of a separate issue than the four- plexes, but I still think it is part of the issue, because of the increased traffic that these four-plexes will bring in and so I think it will compound that and along with the signs going up no parking on Meridian and Ustick, it's going to make it even that much more worse. So, I would recommend instead of four-plexes to put a parking lot in right there. I think that would solve some problems. Freeman: Thank you. I think this says Mr. Hadley, as best I can tell. Gary Neal? Oh, Mr. Hadley? Hadley: Yeah. My name is Neil Hadley. I live at 706 West Ashby Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Cedar Springs, of course. I just have a question to ask of you and that is if it was inappropriate to have single family housing put right up against the park, why is it suddenly appropriate to have multi-family right up against the park? And that's all I want to know. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. J.R. Johnson. No? Robert Wilson. Please state your name and address for the record when you reach the microphone. Wilson: Robert Wilson. 3826 North Greenwich Way, Meridian, Idaho. I just have a question. Why would the City of Meridian want to put an apartment complex in the center of Settlers Park? Freeman: Oh, you want your answer right now. Wilson: Yes. Freeman: I will try and make this brief. It's not in the center of Settlers Park. It is a piece of property zoned R-15, which does allow for multi-family residential. And I might ask another question. I don't understand why it's so inappropriate about multi-family housing against the park. It seems to imply to me that only homeowners and those renting houses are good enough to have direct access to parks and people who rent apartments are not. So, I'm not sure there is a good answer for that either. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 25 of 64 Wilson: Okay. What is to keep that apartment complex from becoming low income housing in the City of Meridian. Freeman: The market, I suppose. Wilson: In the center of one of the most beautiful parks in Meridian? Freeman: I suppose the market dictates that. Same way it will dictate the values of all the homes and apartments in Meridian. Wilson: And how does Meridian feel about that in the center of Settlers Park? Freeman: Again, we have a recommendation from staff recommending that this is a suitable use for that particular piece of property and that's what we are here to hear tonight is from the residents before we make any sort of recommendation to City Council. None of us up here at the moment have stated our opinion on that matter. Wilson: Okay. Please think about it, though. Settlers Park. Apartment complex. One of the, you know, beautiful parks in -- if you go on Meridian's website you see Settlers Park. Freeman: Yes, Mr. Wilson, I have read all the testimony and I'm well aware of everything involved. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Before we go on, the City of Meridian did not make this application. The application was from a developer and we are hearing the application just as you folks are and we don't have a vested interest in this in terms of the city in terms of an application, we are just reacting to the application just as you folks out there have an opportunity to voice your opinion. We are taking testimony from both sides of the equation and a decision will be made or a recommendation to the City Council from the testimony being heard. But this isn't our application, this is an application by the developer. So, they have just as much right to make an application as you do to voice opposition. So, that's the way this process works. So, it's not our application, it's the applicant. So, hopefully, that clears some of it up at least. Freeman: Thanks, Commissioner Rohm. I have six more people on the list that wish to offer possibly public testimony and would just ask -- I think we have heard several of the arguments, repetitively at this point, and we understand that. If you have something new or something of substance to add we would be happy to hear from you. Otherwise, when I call your name if you are just in agreement with what's been said before you can designate that as well and we have taken notes. Douglas Carlton. Patricia -- I can't read the last name. Jennifer Anderson. Okay. And I can't read that one, but I will give Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 26 of 64 you an opportunity. Mark Stibrany? Stibrany. Excuse me. Please state your name and address correctly, as I did not, for the record. Stibrany: That's okay. My name is Mark Stibrany and I live at 3650 North Staunton Place and that's -- looking at the map here, about two houses away from the proposed site that they are doing. I wanted to say that I think that the lady who speaks for the developer is extremely articulate and she leaves some of the -- the facts out as if she's going to have a political career. Thank you. I think you have a career in politics. When she was talking about things like the traffic issues on the street there, I live in that neighborhood, I have been there for eight years and I can tell you, as a matter of fact, not just guessing, that people, including myself, have to go up to the northern exit of the neighborhood, because the traffic is so heavy on Meridian Road. So when you add those 72 cars, which she referred to as minimal. I'm glad she didn't put the 72 in there, because I guess that's just a wild guess -- they are going to be going down Barron Way, because that's the direction I have to go to get out sometimes. If you look at the -- the map you can see in the neighborhood that's to the east of us they had kind of an offset intersection from us. It's extremely dangerous when I go home and I try to make aleft- hand turn there or they are coming southbound and they are going to try to go into their neighborhood. So, I know you guys are busy and you want, you know, new and interesting things that are facts. f find it interesting that every time there is a development in this city, including other cities across the country, they put the apartments complexes in after they put the homes in. They don't do that before. So, whether this has happened where you live or not, I'm telling you that all political correctness aside, that the crime rate is higher in neighborhoods that have apartment complexes, regardless of whether you rent, regardless of whether it's an attack on Section 8 housing or not. I'm retired from law enforcement, so I can you tell from my experience the majority of my calls were in apartment complexes. You can talk to the lieutenant here and ask him about some of the apartment complexes here that are Section 8 and ask him off the record, because he's not allowed to say, because it's not allowed for him to do that -- where their calls go to in the city. It isn't to the places that are high end and I don't want to attack people that are pedophiles and stuff, because that's not an issue. But I also joked -- and I guess it's finally come -- you know, my dreams have come true. I always said parks are for people that don't have backyards. And so here we have got this beautiful park that a lot of the ladies in the neighborhood I see walking and stuff. Well, where do you think the people with the children are going to be going when they are not in their apartments? They are going to be going to the park. Well, when they are not in the park where are they going to be vandalizing things that we are already paying for that they have already been shooting holes through the fences that come out of our pockets. I'm glad that I live two houses away, so they can hop in my backyard when I'm not at home. So, I think it's an interesting -- a sneaky way of saying things. Minimal traffic. Very interesting. Doing the parking on the street, when you say that it will force them to go inside, they are already parking in our neighborhood. It's where ever you go where you want to park where it's convenient for you to go and so they are parking inside the neighborhood right now and so you're going to be adding the additional 72 cars onto the street through our neighborhood. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 27 of 64 Freeman: Thank you. Stibrany: And I hope I didn't insult anybody, because I know you guys are the ones voting on it. Freeman: There is one more name on here again that I cannot read, so I'm just going to ask is there anybody out there that was wishing to offer public testimony? You can come on up. We will have this gentleman first and, then, we will hear from you. Please state your name and address for the record. Bujarski: Marcel Bujarski. 522 West Welch. I'd just like you to consider the possibility -- not possibility -- probability that there will be a school built right next to that park. So, if you're talking bad traffic now, you're going to have it a lot worse. So, take that in consideration. The temporary parking will become a school. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. Okay. We have one more? And please state your name and address for the record. Neal: Thank you. My name is Gary Neal. My business address is 216 West Jefferson, Boise. My home address is in Eagle. I do represent the Cedar Springs Subdivision. I did provide earlier a letter last week that I think was incorporated within the materials. Some of -- most of what I had to talk about has already been discussed by the homeowners who are very passionate about the fact that they are going to be living there. The rest of us aren't living there. I don't live there. However, I will say that it's seldom that I see such passion from so many people on an issue like this and I do think they deserve to be heard. With that being said, I understand that you look at what the regulations require and you make certain findings and, then, you act within the confines of the regulations. So, specifically, I'd ask you to look at 11-6B-6B, which allows you to exercise your discretion in determining whether public health, safety, or general welfare will be at issue with this project and I think it's clear that the issue of general welfare is front and center here. I haven't heard a single real person talk in favor of this project. The applicant gets to talk in favor of it, but, typically, I see other citizens come forward and talk in favor of a project. The property values right now have been something of concern for everybody and I think that that has magnified people's perception of what could happen here. There is also the issue of the reference to irrigation water in the applicant's application. I'm uncertain what impact that has with the staffs recommendation that -- that that be addressed. That would be an 11-6B-6B issue if it's applicable, because Cedar Springs HOA will resist efforts to allow their water system to be utilized by this development, because they feel that the developer wasn't honest with them when he sold them the lots and my review of the record and how everything went down supports that position and I agree with Mr. Marshall, when you read it -- it was very well done. I think it does give the developer a way out. But that's not an absolute way out. But you're generally correct that those issues are issues of contract that the homeowners would have with the developer and the developer's successors and they may choose to sue and they may try to block it contractually, but that probably is, as Mr. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 28 of 64 Nary said, outside the confines of what you have to do. I did have one -- Freeman: Just a moment. I think that was our three minute marker and I believe we are going to give him ten minutes. He is speaking on behalf of the homeowners association, so let's give him seven more minutes. Neil: Thank you. It appears as if the developer wants to rely on certain aspects of the covenants and not others. I had a homeowner approach me and ask a question about the 20 foot setback and it looks like they are trying to set it back from -- or utilize the Cedar Springs common lot as part of that setback and I haven't looked at that issue, it was just recently brought up to me, so I'd ask the staff to look at that issue, whether they can actually -- whether it has to be set back 20 feet from Cedar Springs property or whether they can actually use that property as part of the setback. Did I hear the city was committing to building a parking lot or is that just something that they think might happen? Freeman: I'm not sure who addressed that. Mr. Nary? Nary: Certainly, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I can address that. The city has received easement approval from the school district to construct a temporary parking lot on the school district parcel, which is adjacent to Venable Lane. The approximate cost of that is about 60,000 dollars, which we don't currently have. They are looking to partner with the other entities that use the Meridian's baseball, PAL football, and some other entities to help provide some of the cost of building. But that's probably -- best case scenario it's a parking lot that might be able to get built this calendar year. So, we have authority -- or approval to build it, but the funds aren't available currently. So, they are looking to partner to do that. But that would be on the school district parcel to be adjacent to Venable, right immediately adjacent to the MIB baseball complex. Neal: So, would that be outside, then, the condition of approval? Nary: Yeah. I don't believe that's a condition of approval. That's a completely separate circumstance. Neal: The last issue I'd like to address is the concept of dividing this into five separate lots so as to allow the developer to sell those or have those financed with five separate loans. I have a lot of experience in regards to projects that are managed by a single entity, but owned by multiple owners and it's ugly and without seeing what the -- what the ultimate agreement is going to be it's difficult to determine whether that's a workable scenario or not. I understand it will be recorded. The primary problem being not every owner is equal. Some will have a lot of money to maintain their property, some will have little amounts of money to maintain their property and there is this struggle and as we have seen recently, you know, when the owner gives up on a property are we going to require the other four lot owners to put more money in to maintain that building? That might be fair. But to simply allow, you know, one owner to allow his property to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 29 of 64 deteriorate with no remedy for the association or other neighbors I think is unfair. When I see things like this one of the things that I think would be helpful is if the developer could attempt to liaison with some of the homeowners to alleviate some of these issues and I don't think there has been any serious communication between the developer and the homeowners or the homeowners association. You know, part of every contract is a good faith requirement and I really feel that having looked at all these issues that there is an absence of good faith here. We would ask that you address some of the concerns and as I stated earlier in my letter, we understand this lot is going to be developed and, in fact, I think you would find support from many of my clients for some development, it's just not this development as it's currently configured and I think that you could do better than this project. Thank you. Freeman: Was there anyone else wishing to offer public testimony this evening? Okay. I'm going to give the applicant their ten minutes to come up and respond. And please restate your name and address for the record. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commission, Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. I will try and address some of the issues. First of all, concerning the condition about expanding one of these -- by storage area to include some additional maintenance area. My client has agreed that he will work with staff to work to accommodate him and to comply with the UDC. I think that was the only issue that we had as far as the conditions were concerned, other than some clarification and cleanup work. I was provided a copy of the covenants and conditions for Cedar Springs. I talked to the engineer that handled the project originally and they were prepared by an attorney Mr. Kaiser. It was quite clear that -- the covenants stated that until such time as the parcels or phases are annexed into the CC&Rs they are not subject to the CC&Rs and they made that quite clear. They also -- it was apparent that they weren't aware of exactly what they were going to do with this 2.4 acre parcel and they said notice is hereby given to all owners that this configuration is subject to change and they were talking about the original preliminary plat. That future portions of the subdivision as developed may be developed differently. The declarant, which was the developer at the time, is under no obligation to develop later phases of this subdivision or develop any later phases in any particular manner or order and it said in the event that it does develop as single family, then, they shall adopt these covenants. So, as far as the CC&Rs are concerned, I was pretty satisfied reading, you know, the exclusions and how they were set up that it's not applicable. This was never final platted, it was never annexed into the CC&Rs. As far as Ashby. Ashby is a collector. It is signed no parking. How do you get people to comply with the no parking. I mean that -- you know, that's an issue. People park in handicapped spaces that are not handicapped. I mean we see people violating parking rules all the time. I don't have a solution for that. But that -- I guess that problem is bigger than this project and I can't solve it and whether this project is constructed or not, that problem will exist. So, I think it takes a joint effort between the city, the parks department, the police department, the homeowners association to work to solve these issues and come up with maybe some creative solutions. The temporary parking on the west, the intent of that was, obviously, because of the ball field location. What the parks department determined is a lot of the people, if their kids were in the further northwest Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 30 of 64 ball field, then, they were inclined to park within Cedar Springs. So, the reasoning behind the temporary parking in elementary site to the west is it will provide a convenient spot for them so they do not have to go into Cedar Springs and that's the whole point and purpose behind that effort that's taking place and according to the parks department, you know, they are going to find the money. It is a priority to them and believe that is the case with the Council. As far as Meridian Road, Ustick, and the intersection, ACHD said they are on the capital improvement plan, so they are not -- obviously not funded, but in the five year capital improvement plan. One of the questions was parking. The ordinance requires 72 spaces, two spaces per unit. We provided 76. And one of the comments was, well, where will the guests park. Well, your standards have incorporated some of that guest parking. If we look at Boise's parking standards, they require 1.5 spaces per unit, plus one additional space per ten parking spaces for guests. So, if this particular project were in the city of Boise the requirement for parking would be 60 spaces. So, this project, the way your standards are written, incorporates guest parking and it has 21 percent more parking than it would if it were a project within the city of Boise. Comment was made to Mr. Alexander is out of state. That is not correct. Mr. Alexander has been a resident of the state of Idaho for almost 20 years. He resided in Sun Valley for most of that time. He is now currently a resident of the City of Meridian. So, that is not correct information. Mr. Alexander intends to build these and own them. This is -- this is his retirement plan. This is what he's spending his retirement money on. He wanted a particular piece of property that was attractive, that would -- that would bring higher rents because of its location, the quality of the buildings, the quality of the amenities that are in the interior of the buildings and it is his intent that -- these units will bring in that upper echelon rent. That's the type of project he wants. We think the location is excellent for that. I think -- where should we put multi-family but next to parks. I have a five story multi-family project in the city of Boise. Where are we located? On the greenbelt next to Ann Morrison Park on Royal Boulevard. They were so excited -- we have the park. Put the density there. Put the multi-family where the multi-use pathway, the greenbelt, is located. You know, promote walking. Promote exercise. That's where planning is trying to take these communities to think of the big picture. At the time Cedar Springs was done the planning perspective was more segregation. Let's do single family here. Let's put multi-family way over here. Let's put a little bit of neighborhood commercial, but get the commercial away now. We are talking about more integrated type planning principles, so that we mix types of uses, so that we are not so dependent on cars. The transit corridors are important. If you don't get the density along the transit corridors, then, public transit never takes place. One of the one things that I have been told from Smart Growth, if you can't get at least eight dwelling units per acre you can't afford to provide public transportation, whether it be bus service or alternative. So, I think, you know, we are looking at things from a different perspective in this valley. As far as the school parking lot, yes, that's temporary, but when the school is constructed you will have a permanent parking lot that, obviously, the peak hours of the park are not going to coincide with the peak hours of the elementary. So, if -- I have lived in subdivisions that had elementary schools, people park there when their kids used the open space for soccer or T Ball or whatever. I mean it's very common that you share that. So, that doesn't mean that that parking will go away. The other thing is when that school goes in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 31 of 64 Venable Lane is a half mile collector. It is currently not a signalized intersection. But when elementaries go in they can generate significant amount of traffic and peak traffic and most generally with the schools we will see a traffic signal installed and it is at the half mile, that does meet ACHD policy manual and -- last two items and I will finish. As far as the pressurized irrigation system, the pressurized irrigation system is owned and maintained by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. If you look at Note 16 on Cedar Springs No. 2 plat, it specifies that they are subject to an urban irrigation contract that is recorded that has turned the system over to Nampa-Meridian and they provided a bill of sale. So, Nampa-Meridian owns the pump station, the wet well, the mainlines that serve this area. I did talk with Ted and Greg over at Nampa-Meridian, they have -- the pump stations adjoin this 2.4 acres. It's right there at our southeast corner. They do have capacity. It's up to them who hooks on and who does not. But they said it was sized to accommodate this particular 2.4 acres. Lastly, as far as the setbacks are concerned, our perimeter setbacks are based on the boundary. They are not based on the right of way, they do not take into consideration the 20 foot landscape lot that's owned by the HOA on Ashby or the one adjacent to Meridian Road. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. Freeman: Any questions of the applicant? Okay. McKay: Thank you. Freeman: Thank you. I might point out -- and it's been a long night already, so if repeat something somebody said I apologize. The City of Meridian -- we have no jurisdiction over writing or enforcing CC&Rs and I know some of these questions have to do with the CC&Rs and the language therein. I have read it, I have my own opinions, it's really irrelevant, because we can't make judgments based on the CC&Rs, we can't enforcement them. That's really not one of the matters that the Commission is going to be -- going to be dealing with this evening. Just want to make that clear to everyone. With that I think I need a motion to close the public hearing, so we can deliberate on this issue. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on this application. Marshall: Second. Freeman: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on PP 12-010 and CUP 12-006. Mulberry. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 32 of 64 Freeman: I'd like to give each of the Commissioners an opportunity to comment and we can discuss any of that as we go. Who wants to begin? Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Yeah, Mr. Chair. Freeman: I saw his hand first. O'Brien: Thank you. I really listened intently on all the issues regarding this project and -- and I have to agree that there is problems that exist already and I'm not so sure that adding this particular project to that area is going to cause more or alleviate issues that currently exist. There are plans for the future to address Meridian Road and however long it's -- that's out there I think eventually it's going to be built and it's going to increase the load. Increase the availability for more vehicles to pass through. Anyway, the problems that I heard about, renters versus homeowners, is really unfounded, unless somebody comes up with some very strong statistics on the other hand. You have to look at percentage of population. The homeowners -- the area is much larger and the percentage of say issues with domestic disputes or whatever, is probably really close to what you would find in the condensed area of an apartment complex. So, percentage wise of population, I think you will find they are going to have problems no matter where, it's just a matter of the density. So, again, I also first thought that this is not a -- very compatible for the area, because it just seems like it's out of place. But in -- in looking at it further, especially after Becky's comments, I have to really think about the opportunity that would give other people who aren't homeowners the availability and close proximity to a park like Settlers Park. I have used it and my grandkids have used it and I think it's a wonderful attribute for the city and I hate to take away that -- that availability to people that are fortunate or otherwise or unfortunate, that can't afford a home in that subdivision, but offers them a way of life that they choose and I do expect that the people would purchase or rent in that complex would benefit greatly. I think it's just their lifestyle, whether -- especially I think that the -- 1 think it's going to be not a high end, but certainly middle income type people that would be moving in there. Just based on the proximity of a project, as well as the look and feel of the project itself. So, I -- I think I'm swaying towards the approval part of it for those reasons and that's all I have, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: First off, I wanted to personally address a couple issues. I have to admit came in a little defensive today after reading -- I read all of the written testimony that was submitted. I do every time before I come in. And having spent a good majority of my life as an apartment dweller, I find it a little offensive that homeowners are better than apartment people. That apartment people bring crime and drugs and those accusations were in writing and got a little defensive with that. What brings crime and drugs is poverty. Yes. And you have low end homes, you have low end apartments, you have high end homes, you have high end apartments and I think personally I have a lot of positives about .apartment living. When I was younger I liked to travel a lot and, my gosh, it was very difficult to take care of the yard and with an apartment I didn't have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 33 of 64 to do any of that and I did a lot of traveling out of an apartment and I had great neighbors and a lot of my neighbors had families and kids and, guess what, I had kids and my kids played with their kids and, eventually, I bought a house. I tried to settle down, change jobs, I now teach and I'm a teacher and my kids still associate with kids that live in apartments. They are good kids. Now, I do have problems with property -- those are separate issues and there are apartment complexes that are low end and do attract some real problems and those type of things would bring your -- your property value down. Absolutely. That is a concern. The question is is this one of those projects. It is also an accusation that we were not one of you. Well, I am. I actually live fairly close. I'm not in this subdivision. I'm only a couple miles away. Igo to Settlers Park all the time and, man, I see the parking issues. You're absolutely right. I have them. They are bad. I agree. And I'm no different -- I don't get paid for any of this. I'm one of you. I came and complained about a project near my house and I got to talking to people and eventually I ended up up here. How I did that I don't know. But I ended up up here, because, hey, you start making the decisions. Okay. Well, I'm doing the best I can and I'm listening to you and I hear you. I do. But I'm also weighing that against the fact that I have a background in civil design and I teach land planning, civil design, things like that. We do need high density in areas close to traffic corridors. Ustick is a designated high traffic corridor by COMPASS. It is going to become a major five lane road whether you like it or not. That's going to happen. It's going to be. Yes, there will probably be a light at Venable and Ustick and Ustick we are right now trying to get a bus system through Ustick. It's going to be high capacity and you want your high density -- I teach land planning. You want high densities so we don't keep on driving our cars everywhere so we are not polluting the air. High density decreases that. I'm a little worried that we have so many people against it. That concerns me. But some of the concerns that I heard over and over again -- things that kind of really rubbed me wrong with the fact that this was going to bring crime and drugs and we were going to have people jumping into our backyards and stealing our stuff. If this is a high enough quality project, if it's done properly, you get people -- I like to think like me as your neighbor. I'd like to think I could be your neighbor. And a lot of people like me live in apartments. In fact, I'm kind of wishing I had been since 2006. I would have saved a lot of money, but -- and financially, you know, when home values are going down it's financially well worthwhile to live in an apartment, as opposed to homeownership, as opposed to who can move in and buy a house? You never know. And just like anybody else down the street that could buy the house and if they don't keep it up and they run it down and they have got kids that are vandals and tearing things up, so, too, can an apartment. Apartments, houses, it doesn't -- I can't differentiate between the people. I'm sorry. I refuse to do that. And it's us against them and yet these are the neighbors that lost the house last month and now have to move into an apartment or because their kids just moved out decided that they don't want to take care of the yard and they are moving into an apartment, but still want to be by the park. We still have to offer these things to people and the valid concerns I see are traffic and, then, parking, those are very valid. Do these buildings fit in with the surroundings and is it high enough quality to match in with the surrounding neighborhood? And I think that's a sincere concern. Having looked at it -- personally, I like the approach of the four-plexes, as opposed to a couple great big large 16 or 32 apartment complexes. I think these four-plexes fit into Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 34 of 64 the surroundings significantly better than some large apartment complex and the fact that it's zoned R-15 is not at issue, that's a done deal. It is R-15. I can't change that and the person who owns the land can do what they want within the R-15 and they are coming and asking and saying, hey, we have got something we think fits within R-15. Now, does it fit within the area around it? I tend to think yes. I think it does. I am concerned about the traffic, but, again, most of that parking issue has nothing to do with this and these people have their own stalls much like the people in the neighborhood have their driveways. These people have their parking stalls as well and so I have a tendency to say I -- I fall towards approving it, to be honest, because I believe it's what the city has designed for a high density towards high traffic corridors. I am concerned that so many people are against it. I really am. But at the same time I am just not hearing an argument that sets me against it. Freeman: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. Where should we go next? Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: Sure. If you don't mind. I'm glad that everyone came out and expressed their concern, because it helps us to make a better decision and, again, I will agree that parking is an issue and I actually had a question from legal. Those temporary signs that they put up for no parking, are they enforceable to ticket them if they park there? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, they are not. The only things that are legally enforceable from a no parking perspective is signs that are actually placed there by the highway district. Those -- the signs are a courtesy that they have asked MYB to place there to discourage their patrons from parking in those areas, but they are -- it's a public roadway, it's legal to park there. If somebody places a no parking sign in the street it's legal to move it, because you're, again, legally allowed to park there. These are public streets paid from public funds, they are maintained by the same people that are parking there, as well as the homeowners. All of us paid for those streets. So, no, they are not citable for parking, those type of signs. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. I, actually, am concerned that they are breaking this property into five lots. Even with a development agreement I believe their attorney did have valid concerns and I know we are going to have a development agreement with this -- not a development agreement, but a -- help me out -- maintenance agreement. But if someone doesn't have the money to pay for it that is an issue in my opinion. Yes, he said that he plans to own all five lots. Do we have any recourse to not allow him to subdivide into the five lots or can we request that they leave it as one lot? Freeman: Staff, would you like to tackle that one? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I may need to rely on some assistance from the city attorney on this one, but typically you got -- you have got the two applications before you tonight, one is a conditional use permit and that is to address the actual use of the property and standards upon which could be applied to that to make it at least as closely compatible as possible to the existing neighborhood. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 35 of 64 The preliminary plat as you know is merely a mechanism to divide property and if this were bare property with no conditional use permit, anything -- our subdivision code is really -- it's a checklist of things you need to do to divide property into parcels -- into lots, make sure that it has adequate facilities to serve it, make sure that the lots comply with the minimum lot sizes, whatever the particular zoning district is and all the rest of the city standards and so forth. So, the subdivision really is a mechanism to divide it. To link the two -- and it's a very legitimate concern. Obviously we share that concern, which is why we have language in our code and if we can even strengthen that is I would be reticent to say that you would have grounds to deny the plat based on concerns over the use, because they could separate the use from the plat, they could come forward -- you know, they could have come forward without the conditional use permit and proposed a plat for the property. So, unless I have an error in my logic that the city attorney will identify, which I have no problem with that happening, I think it would be difficult to make a finding for denial of the preliminary plat. I think if you want us to pursue some more aggressive or stronger language to address the concern on the ongoing and overall maintenance of the site, I think that's something that certainly we would be happy to do and certainly understand the concern for that and, in fact, share those concerns. Yearsley: You know, I -- I actually think given the location of the property and the size and the constraints that are with it, I think this is a good use for an apartment complex. But I do share your concerns and I hope that they are high end, you know, and I do encourage that we put very strong restrictions and make sure that the maintenance agreement is -- has some pretty good language that we can enforce to make sure that they stay nice. And -- you know. So, would I hope that that happens. Because it's apartments I think you have issues with that, with -- you know, potential maintenance, but you can have a neighborhood not maintain their yard either, even if you don't have -- even if you have CC&Rs, they still cannot water their lawn. They could still do this. mean you could still have a neighbor that within your residence it will have the same issues. So, I do -- with that recommendation to staff I am in support of this project. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Yearsley. Commissioner Rohm. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Oh, sorry. Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't know if this will provide any assistance to you, but Mr. Friedman is correct, the -- the preliminary plat that's in front of you doesn't give the Commission or even the City Council the authority to determine ownership. So, the -- we have a number of complexes around town -- the one I can think of offhand is the one that's adjacent to Mountain View that a number of those buildings are owned some by one person, some by multiple people. At Ridge Crest. And so it's not an uncommon business model for these types of complexes. But, again, it goes back to the maintenance that's required under the city requirements. So, having that as part of your conditions is one way to assure that. Additionally, as part of your Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 36 of 64 conditional use, of the requirements in conditional use is compatibility. So, you as the Commission have the ability to set conditions to maintain that compatibility with the neighborhood and that can be -- in the normal commercial setting many times you're asked to address business hours of operation. Obviously that's not really relevant in an apartment setting, but the design, the roof -- the roof lines, the sidings, the maintenance of the facility are all relevant to the conditions that you can place onto this property to maintain the maintenance concerns that you have. The one I always like to cite -- and it isn't necessarily still not controversial to people, but the Selway Apartments that were built along McMillan adjacent to the Kelly Creek Subdivision and the Lochsa Falls Subdivision, have numerous requirements in regards to their look, so that they maintain a similar look and compatibility to the surrounding homes in that neighborhood and most of the Commission back when it came through, as well as the City Council, made sure that they would maintain that compatibility and, then, our enforcement tool at that point, then, is the conditional use permit itself. If they were to come out of compliance there is a process in our code to enforce conditional use requirements on the property owner that can go up to the point of revocation. That's a significant remedy and it's rarely used in whether our city or any other city, but it's a tool that exists that can be used as an enforcement mechanism to maintain the look, the feel, the character of this -- this particular project, so that it will maintain its compatibility with the surrounding neighbors, which is -- obviously, is part of the concerns you have heard tonight. So, there is a method and the CUP is the tool in which to protect that for the neighbors, that I think you might be looking for. So, hopefully, that helps and, again, some of those things that you -- if you don't think there is enough conditions on this project, you can certainly raise those. If there is a concern by the applicant you can reopen your public hearing so they have an opportunity to comment on whether those are something they consider to be reasonable or practical or, you know, logical for this type of development, but those are your means in which to maintain the maintenance and concerns that you have raised, so -- Freeman: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, you have that quizitive look. Marshall: Mr. Chair, just real quick. I was going to mention -- because this is right next to one of the jewels of the city. I do think it does -- we do want to make absolutely certain that this is well maintained and even though the developer is saying that they want to hire out the maintenance and things like that, I think that staffs recommendation for a separate maintenance area, enclosure, for some basic maintenance tools, if they can't get ahold of the maintenance company or if it is sold off to -- and somebody else takes over the maintenance, as long as it's maintained to that high quality, maybe they take it in house, but there needs to be some type of material on site so that they can take care of maintenance items. So, I think that staffs requirement for a maintenance facility is appropriate and I -- 1 think we want to make absolutely certain that this is a well-maintained site, because it is on the edge of one of the jewels of the city in my opinion. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 37 of 64 Freeman: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Wow. Boy, a lot of testimony tonight. I just have one question of staff. The development agreement that goes along with this application, does it specify that the structures being built have to maintain the same appearance of the neighboring structures in the adjacent subdivision? It stated -- said something about different products. Is that part of the development agreement that they have to use multiple -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you're stating that correctly. With the applicant -- and you saw that in the applicant's presentation tonight. They showed you three renderings -- I mean all the building forms will be the same. They showed you three different color schemes. That's all tied into the conditional use permit as part of the conditions of approval. Staff has recommended that they provide three color -- distinct color schemes. That they provide two body colors and a trim color, so you get three different colors on the -- three different colors on the building as well. Again, we are asking for defined columns to kind of define the entryways and the outdoor space, so that's enhancing the quality of the homes as well. And, like I mentioned to you, this wood siding that they are proposing and the wainscoting, that is consistent to what's currently built in there. So, as long -- and also under that agreement they will have to address the maintenance of those structures in that agreement. So, I think a lot of things are in place that tie them to this development -- or at least this proposal that you're seeing before you. If you feel like you want more teeth in that -- in the conditions of approval I'm sure we can recommend something to you. But I -- based on what's in -- in the CUP I think we have addressed those concerns for you. But I -- based on what's in the CUP t think we have addressed those concerns for you. Rohm: Okay. Freeman: Just to be clear, the vehicle being used is the CUP, not a DA on this project. Parsons: That would be correct. The DA -- there is no DA required with -- Freeman: Commissioner Rohm, go ahead. Sorry to interrupt. Rohm: Okay. So, I wanted to just get that on the record a little bit. I knew that that was the answer he was going to give, but I think that to have faith in the system. We have -- we have a great staff that has done a marvelous job working with the developer on this project and other projects as well and the City of Meridian -- maybe because I have been on the Planning and Zoning Commission for a good number of years, I think it has taken great steps to insure the safety, the well-planned development of our community as a whole and I think that this application, even though it has issues with parking that pre-existed this development itself, is incongruent with good development within the City of Meridian and I think that our staff and the developers should be commended for putting together a project that meets the criteria that we want set for our community and with that being said I'm in full support of the development as proposed and as staff has Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 19, 2012 Page 38 of 64 prepared a staff report to insurance the community as a whole is protected. End of comment. Freeman: Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, one more comment. Freeman: Mr. Yearsley. Yearsley: Bill, one more question. That maintenance agreement that will become a public record; is that not correct? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, that would be -- that is correct. When they submit for -- want to take it to the hearing process and if everything goes -- gets through Council, they are able to submit what we call a certificate of zoning compliance, which is, basically, the next step in seeing whether or not the applicant complies with all the conditions of approval, they will have to provide that recorded document and that will be scanned in by the city clerk and be part of the public record. Yearsley: And so it can be requested as a public document? Parsons: Yes, sir. Yearsley: Okay. As I recommend to all you to make sure that this development stays on its toes is to request that document and to make sure that what is being said or what is being recommended or stated will be done does happen, you know, if it is not being done you can bring that complaint to the city, if I remember -- if I'm not correct and request that those items be kept up and be maintained as -- as to your liking. So, that would be my recommendation. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Where did that come from? Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, one recommendation you could make. don't see any reason you couldn't -- is that the maintenance agreement be recorded and so that it runs with the land, so that any future property owner would also know what's required. It certainly would be part of the public record anyway, but that's another tool that we can use that's certainly allowed -- I don't see any reason we couldn't do that, though. You can make that a recommendation if you wish. Freeman: Thank you, Mr. Nary. I guess that leaves me and I think everything that needs to be said has been said, so I'll just be brief, even if I reiterate some things. What we judge based upon are the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan and those standards and I think staff has done an excellent job of vetting through all of the issues and giving us an accurate report demonstrating that this is, indeed, in conformance with those Meridian Planning & 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 & 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 1138-6 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 8~ 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 & 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 8 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. I 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 & 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 I 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 ACHD 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, factually -- 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 -- love 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, (actually -- 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 & 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 8 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 & 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.) APP SCOZf'T FREEMAN - CHAIR 8 ~ 2 ~ l~- DATE APPROVED ATTEST: JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ~G~gpOR/-TPp9GC G~ ~~ ~ r ~/r`'~L/T ~+ltyOf W ~ < ~t of `6! r4FA80R8 V1.V~`i