Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 16, 2006 P&Z Minutes ; ': f ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 59 of 82 Item 17: Item 18: America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Public Hearing: PP 06-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Public Hearing: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open Public Hearings AZ 06-013, PP 06- 011, and CUP 06-006, for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Public Hearings AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006, all related to Canterbury Commons Subdivision, to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: Rohm: Okay. And now the last item on our agenda. I'd like to at this time open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-008 and begin with our staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Victory and Eagle Roads. It is approximately 23 acres of roughly 50 acres that was part of a Comprehensive Plan map amendment that you guys reviewed late last fall, early fall, later last year, and recommended approval to .- 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 60 of 82 the City Council. The Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance at that time applied for the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designation of the property, which included the subject property that's up for annexation this evening, in the baby blue highlight, from low and medium density -- this parcel was low. I believe most of this is medium, to change those from -- those designations to a mixed use regional designation. This body sent a recommendation onto the City Council for a mixed use community designation. There was extensive discussion at that time with the Alliance properties about the designation -- appropriate designation. Several neighbors from Sutherland Farms and most of them were new neighbors in Sutherland Farms were at that hearing. Some of the existing residents in Thousand Springs on the other side of Eagle Road were in attendance. There was no specific proposal or concept plan at that time, it was just a -- to paraphrase, I guess, the request from the Alliance, it was, basically, due to all of the commercial uses in EI Dorado and Silverstone that Eagle Road really is not appropriate anymore for residential, that commercial uses belong in this area. The planning and zoning staff actually recommended denial. Like I said, this board forwarded onto the City Council with a provision that the City Council not act until an annexation application be filed by the applicant. So, the City Council had been waiting for the annexation application as you requested they do. Staff had a little bit of an issue, I guess, with -- the applicant did submit an annexation application. I think what may have been the intent was that there would be some type of a development plan to look as well, because an annexation application really doesn't -- it's just zoning. There is really no concept necessarily with just getting your zoning. So, the reason that I wanted to have this hearing tonight is to see -- if you tell me to press forward with the concept plan that they submitted, I will do my best to work up a staff report. This is the concept plan they did submit. It will just touch on that real quick. There is a stub street coming into the property in that location from Sutherland Farms. They are conceptually showing to extend that street one lot depth and, then, run a north-south street. This is an existing kennel in the county, zoned RUT. This is your use exception in Sutherland Farms. So, there is office, other nonresidential uses in that area. And, then, Easy Jet Drive. So, this would be Victory. There was one parcel on the south side of Victory, the other -- I think there is maybe four property owners that own eight or nine separate tax 10 parcels on the north side. The legal descriptions submitted for this whole property proposed a C-C zone, community business district zone. However, there is an office zone shown right on the corner, as well as seven or eight residential lots shown adjacent to the existing single family homes in Sutherland Farms. Some of the things that were discussed -- and I won't go into it too much, but just to kind of refresh your memory a little bit, because a lot of those neighbors aren't here this evening. But there was some concern of how do you transition from these new single family homes and at least a couple, if not several of them testified that when they bought they were assuming it was going to be residential, because that was the designation. I'm not here to say that you made a bad choice last time by amending the Comprehensive Plan map, it was simply just to point out that there wasn't a concept plan before and my question to you, I guess, is one row of single family homes enough of a transition to, then, the commercial that takes up a majority of the site. Something that I envision, I haven't drawn anything, is maybe just another row of some residences, which it does a couple of things, in my mind. If you remember Brad brought up that he thought -- and based on Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 61 of 82 a study that we had Thornton Oliver Keller do for the city that we already had enough commercial designated properties anyways. Our vacancy rates for office were -- were pretty high and didn't think we needed anymore. This, in my mind -- and I agree with what the Alliance was saying at that point, too, that residences right on Eagle Road probably don't make sense. But some compromise of that -- and in the staff report I'm saying approximately half of the property zoned to a residential zone, that still leaves you some decent size commercial businesses that you could put in there and it provides that -- that transition -- more of a transition, anyways, for the Sutherland Farms folks, and there are residences on the other side, too. So, I think if we get too much commercial in this area, there could definitely be a negative impact on the neighborhood. On the other side of the Ridenbaugh where EI Dorado and Silverstone are, it's not the same situation. You don't have existing residential subdivisions. So, this is -- it's really an in-fill piece that we have got to make work into an existing neighborhood. Granted, most of It's a newer neighborhood, but it still exists, So, just based on the concept plan, again, I didn't think there was enough information to recommend approval, but I think there is possibilities here to recommend approval, just not -- I wanted to give the Alliance a chance, really, to bring some concepts before the Commission and the Council has said that, too, that they really want to see detail. I met with -- with most of the Alliance members here on Tuesday, I believe it was, for a little while, and -- and staff realizes that those concept plans don't always come to fruition in how you -- you know, best laid plan. They really don't know. They are just trying to get zoning to market this and find someone or maybe a couple few entities that can develop this property. So, they really don't know how it's going to develop and I understand that. I respect that. At the same time the city, I tried to explain to them, is looking for some details where we can say, hey, this is going to be a good addition to the city with these concepts or these provisions. If it's going to be a roadway system or all of the buildings are going to have, you know. 30 percent windows facing Eagle Road and there will be double side architecture, so that the residences aren't looking at the back of buildings, something, some other provisions. Now, I have provided seven or eight guiding principles with the application and most of those are pretty good. I think some of them we are going to need a little tweaking. But just based on the detail and the motion, I guess, the question to the Commission is -- is this what you expected to see for this area when you said we like the idea of changing you from just straight residential to a mixed use designation, come back when you have an annexation application. I mean is this all the detail you really expected to see or were some other -- some details as far as, you know, acreages -- because, you know, our policies in the Comprehensive Plan for the mixed use areas have provisions for residential, different types of commercial businesses, offices. Here would just be, you know, all that's zoned C-C would be a little concerning to staff and without -- I may chime in a little bit later, too, but some of the other concerns, I guess, is without showing a concept plan I was really concerned about at least a portion of this lot, primarily the perimeter of this whole lot, and how it relates and how it relates -- these properties are still designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan map. So, how do you have a C-C right adjacent to low density residential and what do you do, especially with the strip, you're going to have a landscape buffer required on Eagle Road. one to buffer, and now you have got -- I mean I don't know how much room's in there, but it makes it quite difficult to actually Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 62 of 82 utilize that area for commercial businesses and how do they relate to these anticipated low density -- existing low density and anticipated low density properties around that -- that site. So, those are just some of the things that I would like to see addressed, you know, by the applicants and, again, get some guidance from the Commission on, you know, staff, this is what you need to work from and this is good enough for us, we think that it can be approved with this or we want to add a couple provisions, but this is good enough. I think -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if I may comment, I would add what I remember my expectation to have been and I probably was the leader in discussion with Mr. Forrey the alternatives to making it entirely commercial and he made the offer that there would be residential along the eastern side that I think pushed most of us over the side that -- to say, well, maybe the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be okay, but you're absolutely right, we wanted to see it. And I'll tell you my expectation was to see an annexation and a preliminary plat, not just a concept. I was expecting as a backup for whether the Comprehensive Plan amendment really should happen or not, to really see, essentially, the final detail. And my expectation, I believe, was pretty much as you described it, there would be residential on both sides of this back street, commercial along Eagle, but that there would be some depth to the amount of residential that was there, that we would see what the final location of the roadway would be. So, your instinct certainly matches the way I remember it, except that I would go one step farther and I don't know if the words were ever said, but I was expecting annexation and preliminary plat before we matched it up with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Moe: I concur as well. Zaremba: I see other people nodding their heads. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I remember very clearly that Mr. Forrey made the comment that there would be one row of houses on the east side. Zaremba: On each side? Newton-Huckabay: On the east. Zaremba: Oh, on the east side. Newton-Huckabay: I remember that to be his only promise to the Sutherland Farms homeowners that there would be one row of houses on the eastern side of the property, with -- I don't know if they agreed to a size specifically as far as lot size, but it wasn't going to be like apartments. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 63 of 82 Hood: Of similar size I think was basically the language. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. And I want to make -- if I may comment, too, that the one like that I think is important here was -- what was important for me at the time was that this can come in as one development or this can come in eight developments. And I really like the idea of it coming in as one development and I also think this is a critical corner, it's going to have -- I mean it's going to be a very critical corner. We have, what is it, Tuscany something Village and, then, we have got Kingsbridge going in right down below it, and, you know, I think there is going to be a need for services and neighborhood commercial on that corner. And I also think that those -- those other three big lots right there on Victory, once the road expands to the southeast, are likely going to want to expand in some type of commercial and, then, was this not also the property that Ada County was assessing as commercial property or something like that? They had stopped -- I remember Anna sitting here -- actually came to that meeting and said this is the first that had happened, where the county was designating a property different than the city. Hood: The assessor's office oftentimes does make assumptions that aren't based on our Comprehensive Plan. They very well may have been being taxed as a commercial property. I don't know that. An appraiser can look at highest and best, but if you're on an arterial intersection, they, generally, aren't looking at our Comprehensive Plan map either, which is a better guide than the appraiser saying what your highest and best is. But that -- you know, all that aside, I guess I think -- I agree with you -- with the -- you know, going back to the residential there, you're right on, your memory is right on, but I didn't think that that would be a minimum, like it has to be only one row of lots. And that's my question to you, I guess. If that's -- if that's what you understood you were getting, that's fine, I'll work with that, but that's not -- I didn't interpret that meaning to be that's a maximum. You can only have one row of houses and we want to see the rest of it be commercial, that's the question, I guess, and I -- without having the details in a plat, that's why I want this kind of open forum to see when you envisioned changing this to a mixed use designation, were you envisioning this. And that's my question. Borup: And my -- now that I think about it, my feeling was that that was correct, that would be minimum on the east, and it seems like that was something that Wayne committed to at the meeting and maybe saying he'd need to go back, they need to discuss it and work on a design and I don't know that we knew what we were getting, other than that would be a minimum. And I was not expecting a plat. Newton-Huckabay: I was not either. Borup: I was expecting maybe a little more detailed concept plan. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Borup: But not a plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 64 of 82 Hood: And I have just a -- to kind of finish, I did this morning -- Mr. Carpenter came into the office and dropped off a new plan and that doesn't show up very well. I have got a color rendering. It's basically the same plan, however, they have shown how their access roads can -- their driveways from Eagle can tie back in internally and back to that proposed north-south roadway that I mentioned earlier, so I'll put that up on the screen, too. Zaremba: While you're setting that up, I admit that my memory is sometimes faulty, but I -- now that I think of it, I remember some discussion, whether it went anywhere or not, that along the east property line would be single family dwellings of equivalent to what they backed up to and that on the west side of that road there might be a higher density of residential. Borup: It makes sense. Zaremba: Before the commercial along Eagle Road. Whether it was apartments or something else. I thought the subject was open to have more residential than just that one row. Hood: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, just -- I was going through the minutes of that meeting just before we had this one, just to kind of refresh my memory, and that was discussed and at least one, maybe two of the people in Sutherland Farms says we don't want apartment buildings there either. So, it's tough and I don't know what it is, but it just -- and maybe that -- if that's what -- you know, that was a separate hearing. I'm just saying that that was discussed, but it really wasn't a consensus that that would be any better. Zaremba: Well, among the other discussion I also support the idea of actually identifying different zones, that it should not all be one zone. The zone should be appropriate to what we think is going to be put there. Rohm: Caleb, thank you, and I think, really, at this point I'd like to have the applicant come forward and just kind of walk us through some of your own thought processes as to how this -- you envision this developing. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission. My name is Marty Thomason, I am a member of the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance and I drew the short straw, so I'm making a presentation tonight. Rohm: Lucky you. Thomason: My address is 2960 South Eagle Road. We came here tonight with the understanding that we were making a presentation on annexation application, but the discussion that has occurred so far leads me to the understanding that we really need to rediscuss the October 17th meeting and I have -- I have prepared for that, so I will lead you through that. To begin with we are not developers, we are property owners Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 65 of 82 pursuing the rezoning of our property as a group for its best use. We hired Wayne Forrey last year to lead us through the Comprehensive Plan amendment phase, because our purpose at that time was for a map change, not annexation. The October 17th meeting -- and I'll just direct your attention up here to some slides that we have prepared. We walked away from that meeting with the understanding that we had an approval for a map change with three conditions. And I'll go through those quickly now, but, then, I'll describe them later as well. Those three conditions were have another neighborhood meeting. Develop a development agreement that included our guiding principles that we had willingly put forth. And, third, to apply for annexation. And so we applied for annexation, my slide is basically about tonight, assuming we were going to have an annexation discussion. We applied for annexation and submitted our application on January 11 tho Six days ago we received a staffing report that was quite contrary to what we had understood we would be receiving. The initial summarization that we had received was almost opposite of that. Tonight we thought that we would show how we had complied with the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission from the October 17th meeting. And, then, I was going to move into a summary. But I'm going to be a little off of that tempo tonight. First of all, if I could have you move to the next slide. please. Caleb. I'd like to thank Caleb for his synopses and for his review. I know that he wasn't involved with our project at the time and I recognize that also two of the Commissioners weren't here at that time. And so this is probably a very good discussion, so that we are all at the same -- at the same place. Caleb went through where our properties were located, but the area is South Eagle Road and Victory Road. The northern most property is my property and, then, I will introduce the other families here in just a moment. But when we made our application for a zoning change, we did it based on 50 acres in this area and which were -- only our properties are now going forward for the annexation application. If I could have you move to the next slide, please. Thank you. Okay. Here you see where the properties are located. There are five families and ten tax parcels. We have come together because Ada County Highway District is widening South Eagle Road. The families are, starting from the north, my property, the Thomason family. Moving to the south we have the Bothman family. Then we have the Sharp family. The Carpenter family. And, finally, on the southeast side of Victory Road is the Axlerod family. All of those people are here tonight, thinking we were going to provide evidence -- or testimony, excuse me, of what we were doing here. If I could have you move to the next slide, Caleb, please. We have worked proactively with all of our neighbors. Again, we are not proposing a project or a development, we are proposing the right zoning for our property based on where it's located and the pressures that are happening in that area. And I'm going to quickly run through the things that we have done. If I could have you hit the space bar again -- or the down key again. We developed guiding principles. We put those forth. Wayne helped us develop those after neighborhood meetings, meetings with the planning staff, and with meeting with ACHD. We came to our map CPA meeting with the idea that we would be multi -- excuse me -- mixed use regional. We changed that designation to mixed use community. The recommendation that came out of that meeting actually states that. In our development agreement we said we want to restrict not big boxes. And we have created an internal roadway to minimize curb cuts on South Eagle. We have accommodated Sutherland Farms desire for a transition. Our original Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 66 of 82 recommendation is that we would have a landscape buffer. They weren't interested in that. The next recommendation was that we would have like size lots on our eastern border, of like size -- of like construction that would be the transition. And the challenge with what's being presented is, well, the transition just keeps transitioning. And in a moment I think we -- I'll point out where we made the conclusion at the last meeting that is that nobody is going to live there. And I will point that out here in just a second. And last we are in total agreement with taking the guiding principles and putting them into a development agreement. Our understanding is that following this meeting, if there was to be an approval to move forward. a development agreement would start to be developed, which would be finalized following the City Council meeting and we put forth our guiding principles for the very purpose of going into that. We are not proposing a project, we are proposing a rezoning. And the annexation request was that this body had recommended that, as the appropriate way to take the guiding principles and attach it to this property on a go forward basis. If I could have you move to the next slide. Thank you. Here is the area that we are talking about and we are located -- actually, let's just go ahead and fill this whole screen out. I think it's for -- one more. Thank you. There has been a lot of talk about mixed use regional and there being a lot of available commercial land set aside for commercial land development, but I'd like to address that for just a moment. And this was in Wayne's presentation at the last meeting. Where the 36 percent is located, that is 36 percent of the land designated as multi-use -- excuse me. Mixed use regional is located in that area. That's the Ten Mile interchange area. And the fact is that that's probably several years away from being developed. If we move down to the ten percent, that also -- that's south of where we are located. That's probably also several years from being developed, for the simple reason that there are not seNices out there. We are located in the lower 27 percent. In fact, our property is directly below that seven, if I can get this to point there. Right in here. That's where we are located. And. yes, there is -- there is a lot of multi-use -- mixed use regional in the Silverstone and EI Dorado, but there is no mixed use community out through here. And the growth that's happening out there is outrageous. Let me just lead you through what's happening around us. I'm the northernmost property. My southern -- or my northern border abuts against Kibby's Kennels. That is a commercial interest. It has an exemption to be a dog kennel there. Next to them, moving towards Ridenbaugh, is a Sutherland Farms lot. There is an old residence there. I will be commercial. That's going to be just like on the other side of Easy Jet where there is Sight and Sound, Stone Creek, and another building already going up. And, then, further, right next to Ridenbaugh, across from the new department that's been built out there, is another Sutherland Farms vacant lot, in essence. They have an old residence there. And that will be commercial, too. The reality is that the east side of South Eagle Road to my property line is already going to be light office or business interests of some sort. We are simply saying that's probably the appropriate use to continue down to Victory Road. Now, if I could just paint the picture for the rest of the area. East of us is Sutherland Farms. Yes. West of us is the Thousand Springs Subdivision. But let's go south. We have already talked about the Golden Eagle Estates. We have heard rumors this week that that's going to be more than -- more like light offices and apartments gOing in there. Be that as it may. let's go a step further south, that's Bob Aldridge's property. He's commented at the last meeting that he was in agreement with Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 67 of 82 this, because the reality is is that the ease is developing faster and is under more pressure than was originally anticipated. And if go further south, it's a proposed assisted living complex. If we go further south in the area that is bordered by Victory and Columbia Road, and bordered by Cloverdale and Locust Grove, that's an area of over six miles. Since the year 2001 there have been 2,500 housing units approved in that area. If we just take a simple projection and say 2.5 houses per acre in the proposed subdivisions that will be out in that area over the next several years, that's over 9,600 homes. There will be 24,000 people living there in a few years. The reality is is that Meridian has no mixed use community, no mixed use neighborhood sort of commercial setting to service those people. That's what our proposal was all about, is providing that in an area where the reality is that it's already being perceived that way. If I could have you move to the next slide, please, Caleb. And let's just go ahead and -- a couple more times. Thank you. Thank you. We know that realtors are looking at this area. They have commercial buyers that have uses along South Eagle Road, but they are not interested in minor arterials where a mixed use community is already set up. They are interested in highly visible areas and South Eagle Road is going to be that. It's going to be a five lane road. Ada County Highway District has already purchased easements along all of our properties. In every case they paid commercial value for those. I'm not sure how they record that in their accounting purposes, but every one of us collected commercial values for the easements that they have bought from us. They recognize that South Eagle Road and the southern area from where we live is -- will be developed in the next several years and they are recognizing the need for that arterial to be wider. Wayne presented this at the last meeting, that investors, developers, realtors, and public agency appraisers want to acquire the land on 1-84 for proximity business parks. We are right in the center of that. The interchange at Ten Mile is likely going to be delayed. Growth is going to be continued for us. The funding is probably going to be the issue there. Ada County appraisers already look at this and question whether it's commercial use. Several years ago when Thousand Springs was developed up to my front door, and Sutherland Farms was beginning to develop, I had an appraiser come out and I talked to them about getting an appraisal. One of the things he asked even then was should I appraise this for commercial or residential, because he viewed -- he saw that the potential was going to be there for commercial. And as I said also, the Ridenbaugh and Eagle Road area is already being used and will be built out for business purposes. This is how we left the last meeting and I will go into that in just a moment. But, basically, we believe that many of the issues that were raised in the staff report that you have all read were actually resolved at the October 15th meeting and the recommendation that was made, really, we thought resolved the residential issue. We have worked with our neighbors -- if I could have you move to the next slide, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Let's go through this real quickly, just one, two -- I think -- there we are. In September 21 st, 2005, Wayne reported this at our last meeting. The Idaho Statesman reported that we are not building office space fast enough to keep up with demand in one of their articles. It also stated that a strong housing market increased demand for office and services. And, finally, the office park growth is going to be on 1- 84, the Eagle Road corridor. This is part of Wayne's presentation. I found it interesting that the people that they interviewed drew the conclusion that this is where the growth was going to be in office park and offices and services. If I could have you move to the Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 68 of 82 next one, Caleb. Thank you. This was the summary that we believe came out of that October 17th meeting and in just a moment I will just read the issues that we were working from. We believe that there was a vote recommended to approve our Comprehensive Plan amendment application with three caveats, three qualifications. Those three were a neighborhood meeting, an application for annexation, and a developed agreement. We -- the Planning and Zoning agreed with the property owners that a development agreement would address the future development issues and it would include our guiding principles. And, finally, our understanding was that the Planning and Zoning requested that we make this application with a mixed use community designation. This is where we stand and, again, Mr. Hood's report came to us on March 10th and so we were preparing our response -- or not our response, excuse me. We were preparing our presentation based upon the meeting minute summaries that Brad Hawkins-Clark had done following the October 17th meeting and before I get to that, I'll just read what -- if you don't mind, I'll just quote to summarize a couple of the statements out of that October 17th meeting and not to pick on anybody, but Commissioner Borup, I thought you summed it up best, so if you will allow me, I'll just read what it was that you said. Borup: Okay. Thomason: I quote: I don't know that anybody in this neighborhood or anybody in this room would live in that location with single family residential. So, it looks to me like the choices, if it's going to be, is going to be high density or it's going to be commercial or office. I mean that's the way it is -- that's the way Eagle Road is to the north, that's the way Meridian Road is developing from the south. I think it is one of the realities. Now, that's not to pick on that, we just thought that was the best summary of the whole discussion about this area was going to be moving towards more of a business use. The recommendation, if it's okay, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I'd like to just read your recommendation. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thomason: Okay. Mr. Chairman -- and I quote: Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of CPA 05-001, request to amend the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan for approximately 50 acres from medium and low density residential to mixed use community by the South Eagle Road Property Alliance. There were three qualifications that are at the end of this recommendation and I will just quote those as well, if that's all right. And I quote: And we would like to request that City Council hold action on this CPA until the applicant can make an annexation application and it will catch up with this. So, an annexation application. Which would, then, bind them to the development guideline principles that they put forth in their presentation and we are also asking them to organize another neighborhood meeting. Out of that that's what we have done. We have made every effort to comply with those. We had another neighborhood meeting on January 5th. We presented to the neighborhood our concept plan, which has one row of housing, which we had committed to, and only one row of housing which we had submitted it, if like size lots and similar construction along the east border, right next to Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 69 of 82 Sutherland Farms. We have initially proposed two things. One of two things. Landscaping buffer or residential. They all were in favor of residential and they were not in favor of a transition that included higher density residential. They were in favor of the residential that we have -- are similar to their lot sizes. At that meeting we also -- they all requested a copy of our concept map and we mailed that to them. I personally mailed that the very next day to each of them that was in attendance. The next thing was that we have a -- provide an annexation application and that's what we have done. We did not see stipulations here that we had to put together something further that required more of a development idea. Please understand, we are not developing this land. Our purpose is to rezone this property. The annexation was a request of this body at the last meeting, so that the guiding principles we had put forth could be attached to it appropriately. Our plan is to market this based on its best use with the documents that lays out a clear limit and clear potential for a potential purchaser only. It's not for us to go in there and develop it. I came here prepared to talk about a recommendation for approval, but I'm still going to bring that up, recognizing that the body has -- already understands that there are some issues, perhaps, to continue to talk about. But we believe that now is the time to move forward with a decidedly clear decision. That helps the planning staff that helps us put together the right kind of development agreement. It allows us to proceed with a development agreement. It provides us with a clear direction and clear limits when we market our property. It propels this land forward on its best use and eliminates further delays. Please understand, the development will happen here. All of us purchased our property, because we want a rural setting. The vast majority of us have been there for 20 plus years. We will all find another rural setting. When the road widens, this property is -- these properties will start to sell. Here is Meridian's perfect opportunity to work with property owners who are bringing ten parcels, five different owners, into this annexation proposal or application and this is a way for the City of Meridian to have a coordinated and cohesive go forward on this project -- or on this property. And now I'll summarize, using Brad Clark-Hawkins, because I like what everybody else says, as opposed to what I say, as you have already noticed. This is a summary report we received from him following the October 17th hearing. This is on the final page, last paragraph, section nine, Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations. This is how we thought the meeting ended as well. Number one -- excuse me. The Commission recommends approval of this application for the following reasons: Number one. The property owner collaboration and coordination is a benefit to the city, because it avoids piecemeal development and provides for a more cohesive development pattern_ Number two. South Eagle Road is rapidly changing. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan could not have foreseen this degree of growth and pressure. The plan needs to be flexible and reflect changes to the area. Number three. There is a higher likelihood of high density commercial and/or office uses being supported along this corridor than residential uses. Number four. The Commission supports adding commercial uses to the city limits where ever it is feasible. We want to encourage people to shop and spend money in Meridian and allowing commercial uses in this area is one option to accomplish that goal. Number five and, finally, the Commission believes the applicant's protection offered to Sutherland Farm Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 70 of 82 Subdivision in the proposed development are sufficient to address many of the neighbors concerns. This includes providing residential uses at the common property line with Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Commissioners, thank you for your time. The Alliance members bring this annexation application before you based on our understanding of the request of October 17th. We think the case for the land to be rezoned has been made and the decision, based on a recommendation of October 17th is why we were here tonight. Annexation of this land binds with the Alliance through a development agreement and to the guiding principles that we willingly put forth. And it moves this land forward on its best usage_ Now that I have said all that, I'll stand and take your questions. Rohm: Thank you. And I would comment that you did an excellent job -- Thomason: Thank you. Rohm: -- of recapping the past and very much appreciated. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman_ Rohm: Question of the applicant at this time? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with that. It was an excellent presentation. And, basically, I think we are already in agreement with that, because Mr. Forrey did an excellent job of convincing us of the need. It's unusual for us to pass a recommendation along to the City Council with strings on it and the reason that we put strings on it is that the devil is in the details and what we wanted to see before we made it an absolute recommendation was some of the details and, again, I state we are 99 percent on board with you. What you're talking about is exactly what most of us envision should happen there. That's not the issue. The sort of the details of how we satisfy the neighbors is the issue and, again, I think you made an excellent presentation, but we still want to work out the details. Thomason: Thank you, Commissioner. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I just -- just kind of reviewing this, I realize you're not developers and whatnot and you're going to the point that was made in the last hearing, but I'm just kind of curious. Has there been any thought whatsoever within your group -- you're putting the R-4s on the east side, what did anyone envision would be on the west side of that proposed street going through there? Just commercial at that point as well, so everyone living in those housing is going to be looking directly across the street at commercial properties? Thomason: Thank you for that question. Again, I appreciate your understanding that we are not developers and we are also not planners in that respect either. Our goal here is to provide an area of land that has the right kind of zoning that a developer Meridian Planniny & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 71 of 82 would look at and, then, be able to see, okay, I'm going to have houses across there and when I make my proposal for my development project, I'm going to have to deal with those houses. Yes, we have had discussions. I have driven around the City of Meridian and seen where this sort of thing is already in place. One has a church in one area and it has a row of houses in another and a Pizza Hut across the street. I could answer you and say, yes, we envision that same sort of thing, but the truth of the matter is is that we ~~ we are not going to propose a project here and we want to have a clear cut development agreement that includes our guiding principles, which does say things like no big box. The mixed use community has certain limits on what the footprint of a building can be regarding -- it has to be 25 percent of the total space and so forth. It has rules about what the landscaping will be. With all due respect, I -- that's where we think we are going when we put together the developed agreement, is to that point, rather than putting out a limitation that -- or a potential that we might see, we are, really, looking for the guidance of a development agreement to -- and, of course, the planning and development rules to help support that. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to make the comment that when I went away from this hearing, the big benefit I felt like that we were getting from this -- and I stated this before -- is avoiding the situations like we have had at Eagle and Ustick where we have got three parcels that are small trying to develop at different times and that type of thing. Basically, in essence, this is the majority of that land that's left between the Ridenbaugh and Victory Road and I don't -- for me, that was the big benefit, is that ultimately you're agreeing to develop all this together and I guess for me that's important. I am comfortable with getting conditions of approval with this the way it is, because of the alternative if we don't move forward with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, is this is -- is this R-4, R-8 on the Comprehensive Plan, is that -- Thomason: It's RUT. Newton-Huckabay: Well, on Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Thomason: Oh, I'm sorry. Hood: Medium density. Newton-Huckabay: Medium density. Which, you know, each one of you could come in with six four-plexes or something. Thomason: That was a discussion at the last meeting, where it was discussed that a -- the opportunity to bump up a level existed and I don't know what that means to me, since I already have a commercial interest that's operating right next to me. I don't know what I could actually bump up to. I don't know the rules for that. But the reality is Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 72 of 82 that. yeah, there has already been interest expressed in our land for higher density housing. Newton-Huckabay: Right. But I guess I don't want to lose sight of the fact that I think for me personally that's the thing that I think is really important to me is that we have got now 58 acres that's going to develop into something that's a little more similar to -- I'm going to guess like the Gateway that came through tonight, but on a much smaller scale. Thomason: If I might just make one qualification. The Alliance owner -- the Alliance property owners own 20 -- well, it's 23 acres we will say, roughly. The 50 acres was a recommendation by the staff when we were doing our Comprehensive Plan amendment and it involved some of Sutherland Farms and it involved Kibby's Kennels and the land just a little bit to the south of the Axlerod property. Our property that -- the owners -- Alliance owners represent is 23 acres. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Kind of to wind this down just a bit, I think that you're in substantial agreement -- or this Commission's in substantial agreement with your concept plan, even as it is before this Commission. I see from the sign-up sheet that there were a number of people that signed up that are -- were against your development. Just from that, I ask if you've had an additional neighborhood meeting to put to rest some of their fears or if -- if any of that has taken place or -- would you like to speak to that just briefly? Thomason: On January 5th we held the neighborhood meeting that was requested after the October 17th Planning and Zoning meeting and, again, at that time the big issue was that they wanted to have a residential buffer and that's where we put in the concept map the residential row of houses right next to Sutherland Farms. Beyond that there has not been anything specifically expressed to us. I know that Darrell Hines had wrote a letter and had sent that into the planning staff and one of his comments in there was regarding the light office -- if I could have you put our very last slide up, I think I have our colored concept map on there, Caleb. Thank you. There is an area on the -- next to Victory Road and on the corner where Sutherland Farms is located, where we had initially had single family dwelling or R-4 all along our back row, but when we submitted that concept map to the planning staff, there was a request that came back to us to actually make that entire block light office. One of Darrell Hines' comments was that it -- what he sees on the new map is not what he saw on the concept map I mailed to him on January 5th. And, again, that was the planning staff's recommendation right after we turned in our annexation application. We are willing to accommodate that residential slice there again. I mean that's -- we have been willing to accommodate many things, Obviously. You know, our original proposal was for the mixed use regional and it's turned out that it's best mixed use community. A transition is the right thing to do. So, we have accommodated that. We have put in our concept plan, as you can see here, we have a -- there has been mention in the staff report about a roadway that goes through. We have done that. We have identified these access points, because those ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 73 of 82 were ones recommended by Ada County Highway District. I should just mention about access points quickly. Wayne Forrey had met with Ada County Highway District and one of the things they were concerned about is when the widening project is done they will have 13 access points to our property, not all along South Eagle, some on Victory. But there will be 13 access points to all these different properties. They were excited to see that come down to seven in this kind of a proposal, when it's only dealing with rezoning and annexation and not a project. You know, they were -- they liked that idea. But what we have done here on this final map is we have identified where the business settings would be and, again, I leave those open to the rules that would be applied with any development in terms of the landscape based upon footprint of the building and that sort of thing. But the light office I was talking about is right over here and we at one time, when we submitted this, had this area right here still as single family dwelling, but that was a requested change by the planning staff. And I can't tell you what the logic was behind that. I'm sorry, I wasn't involved with that. I suspect it might have had something to do with the fact that it's right along Victory Road, which is going to widen to five lanes and the property probably across Victory Road is probably not going to be residential, but rather be light office. I suspect it had something to do with they had more vision than I did about what the area will look like. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: Again, I would comment I'm absolutely on board with what you're saying. This particular drawing I think is part of what the issue is. Rather than zone all of that c- C, part of it should be zoned L-O. That's probably the gray area. And part of it should be zoned R-4 or whatever the other -- yeah, it backs up to R-4, so it would need to be R-4. And the reason that we want the concept plan or the preliminary plat, which ever one you bring, is to identify those zones. Years ago the city used to zone a big piece of property and, then, use exceptions. Sutherland Farms has one of those. We don't do that anymore. We like the underlying zone to be what's there. And, you know, I certainly can see that my memory is wrong about how much residential, but even if it was exactly this, we would want to see the annexation be for three different zones, not all C-C. And I think that's where we are going in wanting to see the details, agreeing where the roadways are, where the accesses are, and concept plans are flexible, but we think the zoning needs to be accurate to what's there and that isn't very flexible. Thomason: Thank you for that. I appreciate that. It's very straight forward. Thank you. Rohm: I guess in conclusion, I think that some of our local developers could take notice from the work that you folks have put into making this thing move forward in a timely fashion and with good forethought and thank you for all your hard work. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 74 of 82 Rohm: With that being said, I don't think we are going to be able to move forward with this, because we have dismissed everybody that has intended to speak out on this, so I'm looking for a date that you feel you would like to see this continued to. The 20th? Thomason: The sooner the better. Rohm: Would the April 20th work for you? Thomason: If it's okay, I'd like to turn around and look to my neighbors to make sure that that's an appropriate time for each of them. I don't make this decision alone, unfortunately. If I could paraphrase that just for the record, we started this process July of last year. We had our meeting in October for the Comp Plan amendment and, then, our concern is if that has any sort of ramifications if we are delayed very long, what those ramifications would be to that Comp Plan amendment. What kind of process we have to go through again and that sort of thing. Rohm: I don't think that that would enter into it. It appears as if from the discussion from the floor that the best date available would be the first meeting in May, which would be May 4th. We can't -- we can't put you on the 6th of April, it's already -- Borup: How full is the 20th? Rohm: The 20th -- the 20th there is plenty of room, but-- Borup: We added a lot to it tonight. That's why I was wondering. Rohm: I think we still have room on the 20th, but some of their people aren't available to -- Borup: No, I understand that. They may want to decide if they feel the others can represent them properly. Rohm: And that works for me. Thomason: We might prefer to go for the 20th and supply written testimony from those neighbors who wouldn't be able to attend. Borup: That's what I was going to say. If they feel comfortable that the rest can represent them properly, that shouldn't make any difference. Rohm: Well -- and I think conceptually this Commission is in pretty substantial agreement with what you have here already and it would only be that additional communication with those people that are your neighbors how you address that through your development agreement or otherwise. So, to continue it to the 20th is fine with us. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 75 of 82 Thomason: Since I'm a novice in this process, if I could ask what would the body be looking for in that 20th meeting? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Very good question. Zaremba: I, actually, was going to ask a similar question of Mr. Hood. Commissioner Borup pointed out to me that one of the drawings in the packet actually identifies zones -- it's near the end of it. This one. And each of the pieces of property shown, granted, as a concept, does have a zone designation. And my question to Mr. Hood is the only thing we need to revise this annexation application is actually legal descriptions of those different areas. Hood: Correct. Zaremba: You know, that's going to be a five minute discussion when we reopen the hearing. Borup: And, then, also included in the application some C-C and L-O and R-4 on the application. Hood: Yeah. I mean I have got to work up development agreement provisions, so I think some of that discussion should be had. Now, I may have to maybe do it twice, because of the neighbors or some other folks that left early or may not be here. If I may, just some of the questions that I have and maybe I can run it by you and if you say, no, we want to go another way, we can save some time in front of everyone else next time. I know it's getting late tonight, but -- because, you know, I have got worked up some of them, I just didn't think that it was enough to recommend approval at this time. So, just access is probably one of the bigger questions I have for the Commission. We were quoting minutes from that last meeting and Wayne Forrey asked -- Commissioner Borup asked him how many accesses on Eagle Road and he said he envisioned one between Easy Jet and Victory. And that was for the entire property between Easy Jet and Victory. This is two-thirds of that property and they have got three proposed. So, that doesn't seem to be consistent with the testimony there. And so that's -- and I'm not saying that three is right or wrong. but that's not consistent. Staff -- I would like to see maybe a maximum of two. I understand that they have got streets that they are aligning with and ACHD would allow them to construct those, but Eagle Road is a classified roadway and that's consistent with other plans. So, just to bring it out there. I mean if you guys want to give me a fixed number, that's fine, but just so you know, that's where I'm going is to limit access points. I don't know if it would be to the one that they originally envisioned, but at least limited from what's proposed. It sounds like that's the biggest thing for the -- if that's all the provisions that you want to put in is just, you know, access points -- and this is a concept plan, just as a disclosure, I think it's going to have a tough time at City Council. They are going to want to see some more details. So, if there is something else that they can maybe provide -- and I'm just Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 76 of 82 saying that to really help the applicant. It's going to be an uphill battle. The City Council is not -- I do not think going to give them just here is a C-C zone, develop, And they have the seven guiding principles for positive neighborhood development. Some of them are a little bit how do we enforce them type things. You know, they say the intent of the alliance is to do this or that. We really need to require it be that if it develops -- jf they all develop together, well, how do you do that? Do you make them form an LLC and have one property? How is that carried forth? And I guess I'm going to have to work with the legal department a little bit on putting some of these intents into actual requirements in the development agreement provisions and I can work with -- with them a little bit on that. But some of the other as proposed -- it sounds like some of the neighbors -- you said there was a consensus that they all wanted to see houses, rather than the 40 foot landscape buffer that was an option before. So, I guess I'm going to propose that that be changed and we'll let them testify and say, hey, yeah, we agreed to do that or, no, we didn't. But that's something that I would -- I would make as a change. Or if you have any suggestions, too, if you want to throw them at me for any of these -- these things. So, restricting the individual site development -- and I agree with you, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that, you know, it's just something that we don't see very often, property owners getting together, not piecemealing things, we can really look at a master plan for the area. Just wish there was some more details, but I won't go into that, really, too much anymore. It wasn't really talked about, though, and I would bring this up as a separate kind of talking point, is the property south of Victory, how does that -- I mean they are in the Alliance. Are we going to say that if every -- if all these Alliance people develop together that that person also has to develop on the other side of that roadway? That doesn't seem to fit and I doubt that that's going to really happen, but, yet, they are asking for the same zoning and to really tag along with the other ones that are all part of this. So, that's -- that's something in my mind that -- how does that play in with the rest of this. not only with the rest of the Alliance properties, but those other properties there. With all due respect, I mean Sutherland Farms mayor may not have purchased properties there and have these ideas to do L-O or multi-family even I have heard. The Comprehensive Plan shows low density residential. If they wanted to do either one of those, they are going to have to amend the Comprehensive Plan map just like you guys did in November. So, it's not going to be anything that's just going to be a guaranteed use. So, again, if you have any -- those are some of the sticking points that I had when trying to formulate a recommendation. But I will work -- I mean I can work with this concept plan and bring some provisions back and we can discuss further, but if you have any guidance now on the front end. that would be great. too. Rohm: I guess my only comment to that is I agree with your statement that limiting the number of accesses on Eagle Road is always in good keeping and I'm not saying that two is the right number or what they have got on this concept map here, but anytime you can reduce the number of accesses, it makes for better traffic flow along your main corridors. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 77 of 82 Newton-Huckabay: I want to explore a comment that Caleb just made regarding an uphill battle at City Council. I don't want to, one, direct all these property owners to say, okay, this is what we think we will work and, then, have you end up at City Council and you're, you know, remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and so we probably do need to consider that it is a very real possibility that no more detail than this could cost you time at the City Council level and get you remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on them wanting more detail than we were requiring, which is their right to do. So, I think we do need to -- well, you, the Alliance, need to consider that as how you want to move forward with that, because that is a risk you are going to take, but their decision -- our decision doesn't guarantee their decision is going to be the same one. And so we do need to keep that in mind. Thomason: Thank you. Rohm: And to that -- to that end, working with staff very closely on your concept may -- may help you with City Council. And I think with that being said, I'm ready to wind down here. Thomason: Thank you. Borup: Maybe I just -- Mr. Chairman, one additional comment, because we are looking for input for them to take. I mean they have got a concept plan here. We do not have a copy of that in our packet. But looking at some of the notations I have from Mr. Hood's -- on the staff report, I had some of the same concerns or questions, anyway, that he brought up. One was on the zoning and that was my thoughts and Commissioner Zaremba mentioned if the site plan that was submitted with the application, if that would take precedence on the zoning, then, it would just be a matter of changing the application itself. And, apparently, the legal description also. But I think limiting some access points on Eagle Road is consistent with the guiding principles and it says that -- I mean number five was to construct an internal roadway to minimize curb cuts on Eagle and -- that's still a lot of curb cuts on Eagle in that -- in a short section like that, so -- I take it that that's something I would like to -- maybe just two -- I don't know if there is a -- if that's the right number, but at least -- I mean one may not be enough. Thomason: We appreciate that comment and Wayne's comment at the last meeting was prior to his last meeting with the Ada County Highway District and the curb cuts that you see there, that came out of the meeting with representatives there and -- Borup: Because they are lining up with those across the street. Thomason: Well, the -- no, we had not shown any proposals of roadways on the internal side. That's simple the road cuts that they had put in on the plan. So, those aren't set in stone. I guess that's the comment I trying to make here. Ada County Highway District, I just got their report today and the bottom line of that report -- because they were responding to something Wayne had sent to them when we were Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 78 of 82 still working with this on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The bottom line of that report was that this is a rezoning and annexation, not a project, and so they listed all the other things we'd still have to be held accountable for. But, in essence, they were listing that since it's a rezoning and not a project, they have no problems with that -- with what we had talked to them about. So, the bottom line, I guess, again, is that we were talking in a none project mode and another discussion with them will, obviously, reduce those cut cuts down, because they will be interested in that as well. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Thomason: If I could, I will give each of you a color copy of the map you have now. Borup: The only other question I had, Mr. Chairman, is if we had anyone else here to testify that was not part of the Alliance? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I didn't think we were taking any public testimony? Rohm: That is a good question and -- Borup: Well -- and if it would be something pertinent for them to consider before the next meeting. I don't know if it would be or not. Rohm: Absolutely. If you would like to come forward, sir. Borup: And what I was interested in is something that would give some input for the next meeting. Romello: Well, my name is Scott Romello. I live at 3293 South Capula Way in Meridian. I mean we have had, basically, a discussion here about the future of this property and at 7:00 o'clock when I first walked in you dismissed all the opposition to this property, so no public statements were going to be heard, so I had people from my development Tuscany, there were people here from Sutherland Farms who got up and walked out and at this point all we have sitting here are people who are for this project and we have some -- we still have some concerns about this project and I feel like it's being pushed through here at the end and they are assuming that there was a zoning change and at this point as of the October meeting, there wasn't a zoning change approved, so -- Borup: Yeah. We all understand all that stuff. Did you have anything pertinent that you wanted to share? Romello: Just that, basically -- I guess not. I mean I guess we -- we have had everybody who was going to come out and say something against this has left at this point and you're, basically, having a discussion about this without any of the people -- Borup: That's why I asked you to come up. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 79 of 82 Romello: Yeah. Borup: And you don't have anything to say, either, you're saying? Romello: Not specifically -- not without all the people that were supposed to be here, no. Rohm: We are not going to dismiss anything that they have to offer. That's not the intent of this at all. We just knew that we were not going to be in a position to act on this -- on this application tonight and that's why we gave them the option of leaving, so that they could come back at a date certain that this would be continued to and still have every opportunity to testify at that point in time. Nobody is going to be eliminated from the opportunity to testify. Romello: Okay. Thank you. Borup: And I was just hoping that you might have had some input on what they would say, but -- Romello: Well, yeah, I have talked to a lot of the owners in Tuscany and I have talked to Darrell Hines just recently and we are not -- we are still not satisfied with the plans. As you have said previously, this is a very sketchy development. I mean I could go into a lot of details, I know it's late in the evening, so I'm not going to go into a long presentation like they did, but there are some concerns we have about this project and the impact on the area and the fact that you're basically putting the commercial that's already existing that was referenced earlier today, was all on a variance, and you're still plugging a commercial right into existing brand new neighborhoods. Sutherland Farms doesn't have an active homeowners association. Tuscany doesn't have an active homeowners association, because those neighborhoods aren't even finished yet and the developer hasn't released us to have that responsibility to even have an organization -- Borup: Your objection is to the zoning, then? Romello: Yes. Borup: Okay. Romello: Of course. That opposition is to the zoning. Borup: All right. Romello: I don't understand -- we just saw a development -- plans earlier tonight where people were putting subdivisions into 20 acre parcels and somehow it's assumed that ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 80 of 82 this is automatically the best use for this property is to be commercial oriented and we don't necessarily agree that that is an absolute as far as the homeowners in the area. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Does someone else have -- Rohm: Yeah. In no way were we trying to circumvent anybody's opportunity to testify. Romello: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just for the record, I want to restate that the intent of the discussion tonight was to flush out the staff concerns and to let the applicant know that more detail would be desired and that it would be more efficient to have that detail be presented before we heard from the opposition, so that they could be commenting on a more fully formed plan. So, indeed, when this does come back, there will a full discussion of those for and those against and those who are neutral. Rohm: Thanks, Mr. Baird. With that being said, I'd entertain a motion to continue this. Zaremba: One question before we do that. Are we, as a group, comfortable directing both staff and the applicant to work with the concept plan as presented, but give legal descriptions for three different zones and try and eliminate at least one access on Eagle? Is that all we are asking for or are we asking for more residential? Rohm: I think from my perspective, just as you stated it is where I'd like to see them go with the zonings for the three different areas and -- and reducing the access to Eagle Road. Borup: I think we are relying on -- on what the consensus was at the neighborhood meeting. Without that neighborhood -- that's all we have to go by. Hood: And Mr. Chair? Borup: Even though we questioned it. Hood: Commissioners, just to save -- and I talked with the applicant on -- all my days this week are running together. They have a surveyor that's either a property in there or they know one. If it's fairly inexpensive I guess it would be to have those zoning designations. It would be just fine to press forward with the zoning as proposed now and, then, after that meeting, the next meeting, prior to City Council we actually get the legal descriptions here that show those different zones, because I would hate for them to do new legals and, then, it changes something else and they need revised new legals -- so, we can work under the assumption that we have got three different zones that represent what's on this revised concept plan and I would be fine with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 81 of 82 Borup: Well, I'm very comfortable with that, too. Hood: I mean I will just make a condition in there that prior to City -- you know, ten days, at least, prior to City Council provide revised legal descriptions for the properties as discussed at the meeting. Moe: I guess my point would be as far as any -- our motion to continue, they can comment anyway, for the simple fact, we still have a Public Hearing to hear when we go back in. So, it's a Simple matter of just doing a continuance to the 20th and go forward. Rohm: I agree with that. Borup: Yeah. That makes sense. Yeah, I don't think we need a legal description either. I mean the road could shift two feet and, then, they have to do it all new. Rohm: I'm open to a motion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. recommend we continue Public Hearing AZ 06-008, request for annexation and zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation, to the date of April 20th, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-008 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I would entertain one more motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Good night.