Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 20, 2006 P&Z Minutes .c: Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 18 of 88 Zaremba: That's, actually, what I was aiming for. If we went 30 days from now and, then, added ten days, we would be at -- Canning: The first hearing in June. Zaremba: -- a few days one side or the other of the first meeting in June. Rohm: Well, it's of little value to continue it without having an opportunity come to a consensus, so I think what I'm hearing is June 1 is a date certain and I'd certainly entertain a motion to that effect Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion to continue Items AZ 06-013, PP 06- 011, and CUP 06-006, all relating to Canterbury Commons, to our regularly scheduled meeting of June 1 st, 2006. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Item AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 1, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: 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: And thank you all for your testimony. It was much appreciated. At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing of AZ 06-008 relating to South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance annexation and begin with the staff report Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, this is the Eagle -- South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Project and, surprisingly enough it's located on South Eagle and Victory Road. There we go. And it does extend south of Victory Road as shown. I did want to remind the Commission before we get started that this had been on your agenda before and it got to be very late on your last agenda and you did go ahead and open up the hearing. Some of the folks that are here tonight may have left thinking that you wouldn't have heard that hearing, so we just want to make it clear to everyone tonight that although the applicant made a presentation and there was one member of the public that spoke that night, that we were -- we are starting over again tonight So, staff will make their presentation, the applicant will remake their presentation, and we would ask that the one member of the public that testified, please, do testify again. We consider this as a brand new Public Hearing for this and no ..... Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 19 of 88 decisions were made at the last hearing. There was some clarification, but this is the beginning of this hearing. I want to make that very clear. The request that is before you tonight is for annexation and zoning. The annexation comes with a Comprehensive Plan -- or with a concept plan and this was requested from the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of their Comprehensive Plan approval -- Comprehensive Plan amendment approval for this to be mixed use regional -- I mean mixed use community designation on the Comp Plan. Let me find my staff report for a moment. Here we go. So, the question that's -- or the proposal that's before the Commission tonight is for a mixed use project. They have some residential component and they have a commercial component, but the first request as the application came in was just for C-C, community commercial zoning, on the entire property. There are -- the applicant is now proposing three zones and I will let them explain that a little bit more, because there seems to be a discrepancy in the annexation and zoning legals that have been prepared and the acreages discussed in the staff report. So, I think there may be some lines that have shifted in response to staff's comments, but I don't -- what you see before you tonight is the one that goes with the staff report as prepared. So, there was a proposal for light office at the entrance road at Victory and, then, residential adjoining the residential properties and the remainder of the property, the original application had it as C-C zoning. So, in your analysis -- staff analysis of this, based on that, Mr. Hood did point out that the proposed zoning does lean more towards the C-C zoning and less towards the residential and the office and he questioned -- he recommended that the Commission consider whether the ratio that the applicants are proposing of commercial office and residential is appropriate and compatible for this area. There is a large regional mixed use development to the north of the property. There is low density residential and medium density residential pretty much surrounding the property. Some scattered office uses and kind of preexisting commercial uses along Eagle Road. Mr. Hood also asked that the Commission consider whether the detail provided by the applicant is sufficient for you to feel comfortable forwarding this on to the City Council. Over the last few years we have seen a variety of detail and concept plans, generally the more specific they can be, the more comfortable Council is with making a final decision on these. That's one thing that the Commission should consider. Have they shown enough here that you feel comfortable that this will be a benefit to the city. With regard to access as noted in the staff report, there was originally a commitment by the applicants that there would only be one access onto Eagle Road. We are now seeing three on the subject annexation properties, one, two, three, and I think staff is recommending that that be restricted to one full access for a public street between Easy Jet Drive and Victory Road. One right-in, right-out driveway north of Victory Road, if approved by ACHD. Staff further recommends that only one right-in, right-out driveway to Eagle Road be allowed south of Victory Road. Access to Victory Road should be restricted to one full access, again, a public street, and one right-in, right-out driveway on the north side of the road. And, then, only one access on the south side of Victory Road. So, there are a number of access points. There is three shown on Eagle. I believe another one shown to this property. So, that's a total of four on Eagle. There is two shown on Victory and, then, one on the south side of Victory. So, those are the -- ail the access points in question. And, then, the staff report details a number of things in the development agreement. Mr. Hood has worked with the applicants to try and take 1 ! Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 20 of 88 the concept plan and incorporate the valuable components that the Commission found in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He's tried to incorporate those into the development agreement. Those are listed on -- in the staff report. There is about a page and a half of them. On pages 10, 11, and 12. So, with that staff is recommending approval of the subject application with the development agreement provisions as shown. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one, actually, for Mr. Cole, I believe. On page five of the staff report, the paragraph number seven about the comments meeting, next to the last sentence recommends that the applicant contact Boise Project Board of Control. I have never seen that requirement before and I wonder, one, who they are and are we really asking applicants to ask Boise anything about Meridian? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, what page again? Zaremba: Page five, paragraph seven, comments meeting. In the capital letters it says note and the sentence following that says Public Works staff did recommend that the applicant be required to contact the Boise Project Board of Control to see if they have any concerns with the proposal. I don't understand that statement. Cole: The Boise Project Board of Control is an irrigation district that we are going to be running into more and more further south that we head in our annexations. You have seen Settlers way up north, a lot of Nampa-Meridian -- Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District in the middle and the further we go south the Boise Project Board of Control, they can control the Ten Mile feeder, the New York Canal, I believe, or one of the components there coming off the New York Canal. I think Mr. Freckleton was in that meeting and not me and I assume that he was -- there must be a waterway through this that he feels is under the jurisdiction of the Boise Project Board of Control. Zaremba: Thank you. The answer that it's the name of an irrigation company -- Cole: Yes, sir. Zaremba: -- helps me greatly. Like Nampa-Meridian Irrigation, I mean why are we asking -- Cole: I don't get the microphone very often. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? ! Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 21 of 88 Thomason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Marty Thomason. I live at 2960 South Eagle Road and I am a member of the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance. We have some slides that we will talk about in just a moment, but I'd like to spend just a few moments in recapping the events that led us to here, like Anna did, thank you for that, Anna. We are five property owners who have joined together for the purpose of rezoning our property for a future sale. We are not looking to develop the land ourselves. This isn't a development project that we are proposing. You probably all remember that now after our last discussion. What we have done is we have looked at the change in landscape around us and we have decided that the best and highest use of our property is probably no longer medium density residential and I'll explain some reasons behind that in just a moment. So, we have banded together, joined together, and we are pursuing a rezoning without a development project. So, I know that throws some wrinkles into the development plans that everybody's accustomed to seeing. So, having said that, I'd like to share just a few moments with you who the property owners are and if I could have you just move forward, Anna, to the next slide. And again. Okay. There are five families involved here. I am the northern most property and, then, next me to the south the Baughman family, owned by Don and -- excuse me. Dan and Dolly Baughman. Continuing to move south is John and Anita Sharp. Further south is the Carpenter family, Bob and Nedra Carpenter. And, then, on the southeast corner of Victory Road is the Axlerod property. Family members for each of these properties are here tonight and they will make their comments during the public opportunity. As a group we have joined together in the summer of last year and we determined that we wanted to pursue a rezoning of our property and in doing that we determined that it was probably best to hire a consultant. So, we hired Wayne Forrey to help us through that process. And in the process of that Wayne did some research for us. He helped us construct a -- what we called the Guides to Positive Neighborhood Development. These were the founding principles that we will submit to a development agreement. Wayne also did some research for us and determined where the -- if there would be a need for commercial use of land where we are located. Wayne was in the industry and so he met with realtors and developers and so forth and he helped us formulate our ideas as to whether we should -- what we should ask in our mixed use designation. Originally, we asked for mixed use regional. After neighborhood meetings and planning staff meetings and our presentation here, we stepped that down to mixed use community. And, again, the plan you will see later, after more meetings, neighborhood meetings and discussions here, we determined that it would probably be more propose to have three designated zones and I will talk about those in just a moment. Some of the changing landscape around us is -- Ada County Highway District is widening our road. South Eagle Road will be a five lane road soon, so will Victory Road in this area. This will be - - South Eagle Road is a major arterial. Realtors are interested in putting businesses along these roads. They are more interested in putting them on these major arterials than the minor arterials. One of the things that we -- that Wayne got for us was a letter from Kowallis and Mackey and that's in your packet of information that Wayne presented at the first meeting, but I would like to just read that letter again, because it's kind of the basis for our presentation here. I have that here. You have asked me to comment on the need for commercial zoning south of the complexes on Eagle Road at Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 22 of 88 Overland Road. Here is my response. There is a definite need for neighborhood seNices, whether retail or professional office, south of the major commercial areas growing up near the freeway. Just look at the homes currently in place south of Overland and those subdivisions in the planning and building stages and the population will continue to grow in a southerly direction. And everyone who lives there will be driving north for shopping and seNices. There is land properly zoned available in Silverstone and EI Dorado, but the price is getting prohibitive for neighborhood retail and professional offices to afford. Tenants going into those developments and the others, the Majestic Marketplace and Grand View, are trending towards regional players and national franchises. How much do we need south of Overland? Just look north of the freeway all the way to Eagle. There seems to be no end to the appetite of office and retail users along that corridor. The residents south of Overland are not going to want to drive along that congested corridor for essential seNices. Finally, with no other on ramp to the freeway between Cole and Meridian Roads, Eagle is the natural funnel for traffic. People will be driving it anyway, why not proVide what they need there and keep the car trips in the neighborhood. Best regards, Ray Frechette, retail specialist of Kowalis and Mackey. The subdivisions continue to pop up south of us. There is the Tuscany Subdivision that continues to grow. There is additional subdivisions, Kingsbury approved out in that area. There is the assisted living complex south of Victory Road. There are continued need to satisfy the appetite of residential buyers south of us and, again, what we are talking about in our area is a business campus environment that doesn't necessarily draw from the region, but services those people going up and down those roads. And I'll explain that when I get to our concept map. But, again, a little more recap. Given these changes we asked Wayne to present our proposal at an October 17th meeting. At that meeting the motion was made to recommend approval of mixed use community for our property, with three qualifications. That is that we would submit an annexation application, that we would have another neighborhood meeting in compliance with the annexation application process and, finally, that we would sign a development agreement. We had another neighborhood meeting on January 5th. We submitted our annexation application on January 11 tho We were put on the docket for our meeting to discuss annexation on March 16th, but we were assigned a new staff member -- or planning staff person between those two meetings and at the March 16th meeting it was deemed more appropriate to provide direction for both the Alliance members and the staff and help get us a little further along the process. So, no public comment was taken. But I did have the opportunity to share this presentation then. At that meeting Caleb used the opportunity to ask you for direction, as did we, the Alliance. And we felt that there were five directives that were provided to us. My slides are a little out of order. I'm sorry, Anna. That's okay. I can just do this without the slides, though. We felt there were five directives that were given to us. The first was that our proposal needed to include legal descriptions of each zone. Remember, we put in a request for a mixed use regional initially. We stepped that down to mixed use community. Then, further, we said that we are committed to a residential or landscape buffer along Sutherland Farms. In our neighborhood meetings it was determined that those occupants wanted residential, as opposed to landscape. So, we threw out landscape and we committed to a residential buffer along Sutherland Farms. Our meetings with the planning staff determined that the more appropriate use of the space along Victory Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 23 of 88 Road next to Sutherland Farms would be light office, something where there could be landscape buffers that would be appropriate between the subdivision and between our new R-4 designated area and to Victory Road and something that would be more like an 8:00 to 5:00 environment, where it would be something like what's at Easy Jet and South Eagle Road. The Stone Creek Dental site and Sight and Sound. Something like that. So, we were asked to provide legal descriptions for each of these zones. We were also asked to provide a vision of how we saw the land being used. And so we have made an attempt at doing that and I'll explain that in the package you have in just a moment We were asked to describe in detail the feathering of uses of the C-C zone. If you will remember, we had indicated that we were committed to a feathering of uses. So, we have tried to detail that in the information that we are presenting tonight. We were asked to work with the planning department to minimize curb cuts and access off of Victory and South Eagle Road and, then, work with the planning department to formulate a development agreement. We met with the planning department on March 22nd. Anna and Caleb were very helpful in sharing what typically goes into a development agreement for a development project. We have taken the information from that that we can commit to, because, remember, our scope is not a development project, but a rezoning, and, then, we put that into the document. If we could put up the concept map now, then, I'll just talk that through. There we go. This was provided in a package of information -- I'm sure most of you have it, but I'm sure your file's gotten pretty large right now, so if we will just look up here, I'll walk us through it. The first area I will talk about is the area that's yellow green. That's the residential area. We are committed to providing a residential buffer next to Sutherland Farms. This area would be zoned R-4 and it is -- we intend that those lots would be of like size to the lots that it backs up to on Sutherland Farms, which are approximately 8,000 feet in this area and we envision that the structures that would be constructed here would be compatible with the Sutherland Farms homes. The next area I'll talk about is the blue area. It's the light office. That's 1.43 acres that's designated to the light office area. And, again, what we see here is something similar to what's at Easy Jet and South Eagle Road, where they would be single level structures, they would have roof lines that are consistent with residential areas. They would probably be more like dental offices, that sort of thing, located there. In our C-C zone, that's the brown zone, there are four different uses I'd like to describe. The first of those uses is along the arterial roadways. Those uses would be along South Eagle Road and Victory Road and what we envision here is more retail intense type buildings or business interests. We anticipate the footprints of these to be not to exceed 12,500 square feet. These would be something like what you see facing Overland in the Silverstone and EI Dorado business parks, like where Me-Time Coffee and Baird's Drycleaning are. Those smaller neighborhood serving business interests we would see. It's what we would envision there. This -- the area I'm talking about right now is just the north side of Victory Road along South Eagle and Victory Road. Maybe on the corner what we'd see there is like a business like a bank branch or something along those lines, okay? The next area I'll talk about is what we call the interior transitional lots. That's the lots that would be against the residential area. They would be on the opposite side of the proposed new roadway that runs to the back of the property and these would be, again, lighter office-type settings. These would probably have footprints in the 7,500 square foot range. They would be of similar construction to Meridian Planning & ZonillY April 20, 2006 Page 24 of 88 residential in terms of their look. They'd probably have roof lines along those lines. We would envision that the windows in the front would face the residences. Parking lots would be behind that towards the rest of the commercial buildings. They would be joined by parking lots. Access to that would only be off of the proposed roadways. That sort of thing is what we envision there. In the center, what we are going to call the interior lots, we have the buildings that would be of a more business commercial intensity. These might be multi-level. They wouldn't exceed, obviously, the C-C zoning, but we are saying that the footprints for these buildings would probably not exceed the 20,000 square foot range. These would be, you know, contemporary business park development would be used here where there would be shared plaza for gathering areas, that sort of thing. We envision this to be the area that -- it's surrounded by the retail on one side and the lighter office on the other. It's not right up against the residential. Anyway, that's what we envision there. Finally, the area I'll talk about that's a C-C zone is the area on the southeast corner of Victory and South Eagle Road. This is, again, zoned C-C here, but what we envision here is something along the lines of a development that is pedestrian friendly, kind of a retail office complex where the parking is on external portions of it, but there is no parking internally in front of the buildings on the inside. It's more of a walk through complex pedestrian focused type thing. That's our concept map and, again, I know this was provided in the packet of information that you all had and, unfortunately, this particular map doesn't reflect that. The one that I gave you, if we -- can we show that on the scanner? Can you reflect it that way? It has -- it has our buildings put on there and so forth. Oh, well, we'll move on. Moe: This one? Thomason: That's the one. Right there that's in your packet. Yeah. You know, in response to the staff report, I'll take just a moment. Actually, will be faster than that. We really agree with the staff report in general. The report that Caleb submitted last Friday is, basically, the concepts that we have talked about. We appreciate the effort they have put into it to understand our unique proposal. We have submitted only three comments back to them. The first is regarding the interior lots, because in the development agreement section it doesn't have the word in there for footprint and we don't want to be misleading in that respect. We are talking about 20,000 square foot footprint. The second is regarding the access points on the property on the southeast corner of Victory Road and South Eagle Road. The intent of the property owners is to develop the southeast corner as a pedestrian friendly retail office complex and the restriction of access points may negatively affect that access. And the third is regarding the areas in each zone. Or, excuse me, the acres in each zone. On the first page of the staff report, the R-4 zoning and the L-O zoning, the acres they assign to that are just switched. I think it's just a transportation on their part, because it's right later in the document. So, we are in agreement with the -- in general with the document that's been submitted. The information that they put in for the development agreement is right out of our packet and we agree with that. We are willing to commit to those in our plan here. Let me summarize. The reality is that these properties will sell. This Commission will deal with changes on these properties. We all purchased our properties because we liked rural settings. I purchased mine in '86. There was no on-off ramp. There was Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 25 of 88 a corn field across from me. A wooded area across from me. Hay fields across from me. A horse ranch behind me. We bought a rural setting and well -- that's what we will do again. So, these properties will sell. The City of Meridian and this Commission has a unique opportunity here to actually manage the future land use of ten parcels of land. Our collaboration and coordination we believe is a benefit to the city, because it avoids piecemeal development and provides a more cohesive development pattern. The Alliance believes we are proposing something that is positive for the city and the surrounding area. I will finish with a recap of -- other people say it better than I do. Brad Hawkins-Clark summarized the October 17th meeting with these words: There is a higher likelihood of high density commercial and/or office uses being supported along this corridor than residential uses. 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. And, finally, one of the things that Brad said was the Commission believes the applicant's protections offered to Sutherland Farms Subdivision in the proposed development agreement are sufficient to address many of the neighbors' concerns. This includes providing residential uses at the common property line with Sutherland Farms Subdivision, The Alliance requests the Commissioners approve this application and move us onto the City Council meeting. We are currently on the docket for May 2nd. We have taken input from all the parties involved. We have modified our application and our proposal as much as we possibly can without an actual development project. We believe we have provided significant detail for a development agreement and we are committed to signing that. We believe our proposal has merit and should be heard by the City Council. Thank you. I'll take questions if you have any. Rohm: Thank you. That was a well orchestrated presentation and I know you folks have put a lot of work into this and I'll just say that it's appreciated that you come as well prepared as you have. Thomason: Thank you, sir. Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate that. Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one if I may. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. Thomason, one of the requests was that you supply the survey -- the boundaries of the three different zones that you're asking for and I see that you have complied with that. However, staff notes that that must also be stamped by a professional land surveyor and are you going to be able to do that? Thomason: Yes. That was turned in on the 19th and, I'm sorry, our response to the staff was -- it takes all of us getting together, since we are an Alliance, and it was a little Meridian Planning & Zoniny April 20, 2006 Page 26 of 88 slower than we had anticipated. But, yes, we have turned those stamped documents into Caleb on the 19th, whatever day that was. I have forgotten now. Was that yesterday? Newton-H uckabay: Yesterday. Thomason: Sorry. My days kind of run together. Zaremba: It changes every day. It's hard to keep up. Rohm: I think at this time I'd just like to get a legal opinion on if this application that we have before us is to -- from RUT to C-C and the revisal is to have three separate zone applications, R-4 and -- Thomason: Light office. Rohm: -- light office is another one, would -- should this have to be re-noticed, so that -- that the public would actually receive notification of that application, as opposed to it all being C-C? Baird: Well, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think that's a good thing to discuss and I would like some input from planning staff. Generally, if what has been noticed is the most intense use and the additional zones are less intense use, then, we are usually satisfied that the notice has been adequate. And it appears that the neighbors are aware of what's going on and this is giving them additional information by being here tonight. So, I'm almost leaning towards saying, yeah, this is probably okay and if there is any deficiency it can be cured with the additional posting for the City Council hearing. But before we make a conclusion on that, I would want to get some input from the planning director and see if there is some concurrence on that. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, my only concern would be if it were just going down in intensity within a commercial district, but we are introducing a whole new residential component to this that -- that would be my only concern. If it were going from C-C to L-O and that were it, then, I wouldn't be concernod. But it is a residential use, less intense than a commercial use. To most people, no, but -- or, yes, sorry. But there may be somebody that would have feelings the other way. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, it appears that the proposed residential uses do abut residential - - other residential uses; is that correct? Yeah. And that's probably where you're going to have the problem, because somebody who may have seen the notice said, okay, office building, I'm gone during the day, it's no problem, you know, vacant on weekends. This is a different use. So, with that additional information from the planning director, it might make sense -- if they, indeed, are going forward with the three zones, it's basically a new application. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 27 of 88 Rohm: And I think to kind of summarize that, I think that it's still important to go ahead and take the balance of the public testimony, but to continue this, so that it can be re- noticed, so that all three zones would be depicted in the re-notice. Then, we would be covered, so that anybody that would have differing views would have an opportunity to speak to that as well. But I -- that doesn't take anything away from your presentation, because I think you did an excellent job. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: If I may comment. I agree with going ahead and taking all testimony tonight. My opinion is that the discussion isn't going to be a whole lot different than the discussion we had when we were discussing the Comprehensive Plan amendment. One of the requirements was that this Alliance go through the process that we are doing right now. We have put them off a couple of times and I'll hang my opinion on one sentence that Mr. Baird provided, which was that this will be re-noticed and there will be another Public Hearing before the City Council. I -- not that I want to do everything on behalf of the applicant, but I would be comfortable making a decision tonight and feeling that not only had notice been appropriate, but that there will be a second opportunity for noticing the zones as they are. Is that a safe -- Thomason: If I might interject. At our January 5th neighborhood meeting, which was held at the police station in Meridian, this was presented and the attendees all requested a copy of our concept map and they all received a copy of that. The very next day I put that in the mail to them. The challenge here is this was a request of the planning staff that we formalize this, rather than be just going C-C, because we have made the commitment about the uses. This seems like an unnecessary road block to us. Rohm: And it may well be. Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chairman, due process for everyone involved should never be seen as a road block. We try and do the decision right the first time. So, please, don't get us wrong, we just want to make sure that everybody who is affected has been noticed. And it's my understanding that under normal circumstances this would go onto Council without an additional mailing notice; is that correct? Canning: Chairman Rohm, Tara will have to help me out. I'm never quite sure. Does a mailed notice get sent out between Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council hearing? Green: Mr. Chairman, Anna, yes, it does. For the City Council meeting there will be a notice sent out. Meridiem Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 28 of 88 Canning: And that notice gets sent out in approximately a week and a half, is that right, for -- Green: Yeah. It has to be sent out 15 days prior to the Public Hearing. Canning: So, we would need to change that -- we would need to make sure we change that before -- description before City Council. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I guess before we continue this discussion on, maybe we should get through all the public testimony and whatnot and see whether or not we have anybody in the audience that-- Rohm: I'm all for that. Thank you, sir. Canning: And, Chairman Rohm, I'm sorry to -- I know you want to move on, but before any of the folks leave, the applicant testified that this would be heard by the City Council on May 2nd and that is not correct. On May 2nd the City Council will decide what day they will hear this on. It's been a -- this has been a very difficult one timingwise, because you made the recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, we had to forward that recommendation to the City Council, so it's been kind of just sitting on their docket waiting to get scheduled. So, the purpose of the May 2nd discussion regarding this item is solely to set it to a date for them to hear it based on your recommendation. I just want to make that clear, so that -- you all don't have to show up on May 2nd. That's all. Just wanted to let you know. Rohm: Okay. At this time there are a number of people that have signed up for this particular application and the first thing that I'd like to do is see if there is a single spokesman for a homeowners association or a group that would like to speak for -- you, sir? Olsen: Mark Olsen. I'm the board treasurer for -- Rohm: That's all right. I'll take care of that. And could I get a show of hands -- those people that he would be speaking for tonight? Okay. There was quite a number of folks. And I guess what I'm asking is when he comes forward and speaks, unless he does not bring up something that you feel is a very valid point, we would like to give him a ten minute time slot and he is taking your time in speaking for you and unless there is something specific that he omits, we'd appreciate it if it was just at your -- at the time that your name is called, just let it be known that you have been spoken for. And so with that being said, sir, would you like to come forward. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 29 of 88 Olsen: Commissioners, Chairman, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as treasurer of Thousand Springs -- Rohm: You will need to state your name and address. Olsen: Oh. Mark Olsen. 2969 South Givens Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. In Thousand Springs Subdivision. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Olsen: As treasurer of Thousand Springs Homeowners Association and at our board's urging and vote, with the consensus of many homeowners within our subdivision, I'm here as a spokesperson of the association and surrounding groups, including Tuscany. If I may, would you raise your hand if you're from Tuscany? And also from Sutherland Farms. Would you raise your hand if you're from Sutherland Farms. Representing 380 homeowners in our subdivision alone and 950 people living in just one of these three subdivisions at the intersection Eagle and Victory in Meridian. When you consider the impact this proposed petition has upon the three subdivisions immediately surrounding the intersection, there are literally thousands of people being affected by this single or one petition. With me tonight are many who support, as I have just identified and live in, our neighborhood and surrounding area at this intersection. We do not want wholesale continued commercial development along Eagle Road south of the Ridenbaugh Canal to Victory or even south further along Eagle Road from Victory. We moved all of us out here less than seven years ago into an area that we were assured by then existing designation zoning predominately was either rural or residential. Those designations and zoning controls were, we believed, to be reasonable and had as a reasonable expected outcome and influence upon everyone's decision to build, buy, and live out here to raise our families. We find ourselves now already in the midst of development so dense and impacted that it is, at best, nerve racking and really a challenge just to drive in and out of the subdivisions respectively. Eagle Road and Victory are planned for expansion, yet today and for at least the next 12 to 18 months, perhaps as long as two years, we face the nearly insurmountable dally obstacle of a narrow farm-to-market two lane road at this very intersection. Eagle Road has only two lanes from Victory north until you pass Ridenbaugh Canal over a quarter of a mile. Victory Road is only two lanes in any direction until you drive further east approximately three miles. There are literally thousands of people dumping into a narrow two lane farm-to-market county road on any given day from the hours of approximately 6:00 in the morning until 7:00 and 8:00 at night. With the combined population of several large subdivisions, the Meridian School District has acquired new land. They have identified a location for a new elementary school within less than one quarter mile of the Eagle and Victory Road intersections. The traffic burdens and the vehicle travel trips through this intersection has more than doubled in the last four years. They will more than triple within the next 36 months as homes being built right now come onto the market, as the school is built, as the population of the students occur and as Eagle Road continues a rapid growth and high density traffic volumes. Yet, we will have ourselves no real traffic relief effectively for two years. Planning and Zoning staff have correctly published sound Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 30 of 88 reasons why this particular intersection at Eagle and Victory have some real and we believe substantive issues. This will unreasonably impact the entire neighborhood surrounding the area. The Planning and Zoning Commission has a potential interest in this request, because, in theory, we believe it may be easier to administer and zone larger tracts of land where both landowners and prospective developers can come together to petition the Commission for just one or two classes of use under zoning control. We believe this seems to be the case before you. And yet a closer examination of the petition for commercial designation discloses some serious issues and flaws within the petition from this coalition applicant. There are over 250 acres of commercial land and currently zoned property in less than one half mile sitting along both Eagle and Overland that, as commercial, are not even yet developed. With the continued development of Silverstone and EI Dorado commercial plazas on either side of Eagle Road south from Overland, it's reasonable to observe that the Ridenbaugh Canal establishes a natural and cohesive break or barrier, a dividing line, if you will, between that high density impacted commercial versus residential uses along Eagle Road. All that said, we are still painfully aware that dollars talk. Right now these dollars are shouting in commercial value along Eagle Road, even near the intersections particularly at Eagle and Victory. We will need to compromise. no doubt. Planning and Zoning will continue, albeit we believe, of course, unnecessary commercial development in our residential neighborhoods. So, we have come to a conclusion, a consensus, if you will, that we probably have a much more reasonable solution that limits the use of the expansiveness of the commercial zoning, accommodating a commercial demand in a limited manner and still encouraging responsible development in residential, high density conditions such as exists within the petition circumstances before you. Mr. Darrell Hines of Sutherland Farms has, in fact, put together with several of us an alternative zoning designation design plan. We urge your positive action now to look at and consider that alternative, thus to limit and accept the commercial zoning changes and impact that are evident within our alternative proposal. Without timely action now to help us responsibly develop our area, we will continue to bring issues like these and, unfortunately, we believe perhaps even worse, before the Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, even the City Council now and in the years to come. We, like you, on the Commission, want to avoid an otherwise unnecessary or negative and destructive publiC review process and we, too, want to strike a responsible pose, while still limiting an otherwise degrading event or impact to our home values and the very lifestyles of families for our neighborhood and our future. Thank you. Three and a half minutes. Rohm: That was pretty good. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you very much. Rohm: Darrell Hines. From the audience he's deferring his testimony until we have heard from another individual. Romello: Hello. I have a slide presentation. if you could get that ready for me. Under Tuscany, the disk that I gave you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 31 of 88 Rohm: What was your name, sir? Romello: My name is Scott Romello. I live at 3293 South Capulet in Meridian. That's in the Tuscany Subdivision. I have been volunteered by my neighbors to voice some of the concerns Tuscany has regarding this development. I did a dry run earlier today at about 13 minutes, so I hope that I'm not cut off if I go a couple minutes over, because I'm speaking for quite a few people in Tuscany. I'd like to thank the chair and the Commissioners for the time and the opportunity to address you tonight. First, I want to turn into the board, if I made, some signed petitions that we collected for the March meeting from Tuscany homeowners who are against commercial development at Eagle and Victory. As of last week Tuscany had 391 homeowners of record, which is just over a thousand residents. Approximately 594 additional homes are planned in Tuscany over the next two years with more on the way after that. First, I would like to start on something that we all seem to be able to agree on. We are very supportive of South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance mutual decision to come together to have all of their properties zoned and developed as one larger parcel. We believe that this is good for the City of Meridian, good for Eagle Road, and good for the neighborhoods in the immediate area. We understand and also have compassion for the situation that these homeowners have been faced with, having to see the neighborhood transition from rural to urban, as well as having their pieces of their land involuntarily taken away for the upcoming widening of Eagle Road. I'd like to state that the preference for the majority of residents in Tuscany is for there to be no change to the Comprehensive Plan and for the residential zoning that was originally planned for this corner to take effect. We, along with our neighbors in other communities to the north have bought property here with the understanding that the immediate area would remain residential. We do not want the mistakes of Eagle Road north of 1-84 repeated south of the interstate. It is our desire to keep this corner residential. If our desire to keep this corner residential is found to be impossible, we will continue to work towards the lowest possible impact of commercial development, meaning for us light office uses and restricted hours. If you can go to the next slide, please. I think you -- you went a couple too far. I had a couple maps in the beginning. Canning: I got it. I thought you had forgotten to tell me to forward it. I'm sorry. Romello: Okay. I'm sorry. Canning: I will wait for your instructions from now on. Romello: Okay. I'm sorry. You don't possibly have a pointer that I could use, do you? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I was borrowing one, so-- Romello: Thank you. If you look at this map, these are the properties that are in question and it is, basically, surrounded on all sides by residential. You have Sutherland Farms. You have Thousand Springs. You have Tuscany. You have the ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 32 of 88 future Medford Place, which is duplexes. It's already been approved. And I also wanted to state I think maybe the reason that Boise Control was brought in was because of the McDonald Lateral, which is an irrigation ditch, does run across this property and I don't know if that was talked about in their development plans. If you'd go to the next slide, please. If you can pull back a little bit and look at the area past our immediate region, within three miles we see an area that is literally awash in commercial, industrial, office, and mixed business use. The original staff report from the October 2005 meeting was very thorough in refuting most of the Alliance's claims and statements that this corner has no choice but to develop in a commercial manner. I will, essentially, paraphrase a few parts of this report several times this evening to support some of our points. If you can go to the next slide, please. These are the major points of concern I would like to address on Tuscany's behalf this evening. Commercial development will make a bad traffic situation only worse on Eagle Road. Second, there are compatibility and design issues with the existing neighborhoods. Thirdly, there is no pressing need for further commercial in this part of Meridian. Four. We want to know what the impact will be on a future Tuscany elementary school, which is very close to this project. Five. This project seems to contradict many of the goals and objects of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan of 2002. And, six, we request clarification on the state statute regarding the CPAs. So, I'll go a little bit in depth, if you can go to the next slide, please. About the traffic situation. Turning this corner into commercial would negatively impact the traffic on an already very busy road. In the afternoon during rush hour traffic backs up at the Eagle exit from the interstate for sometimes a quarter to a half mile. These are people illegally pulled over onto the shoulder just waiting to exit the interstate onto Eagle Road. Eagle Road is already straining from the existing traffic today. This is not projected traffic two years from now, this is traffic this afternoon. Eagle Road between 1-84 north to Fairview Avenue is the most congested road in the state of Idaho. And according to the Idaho Department of Transportation -- transportation department, in 2004 the 1-84 interchange at Eagle was handing more than 52,000 vehicles in a week day. This interchange was designed originally for no more than 30,000 vehicles a day, which it's currently operating at 40 percent beyond design capacity. Anyone who is fortunate enough to be driving south on Eagle Road from the interstate in the afternoon or, who knows, you sometimes have to wait ten minutes just to get past -- just to get south of Victory. Mr. Thomason in his eloquent presentation to the board last month stated to us that there may be as many as 9,600 homes and 24,000 people living within the area south of Eagle within the next few years. We see this fact as an excellent reason why not to put commercial development at this corner. Many of these people are going to want to reach 1-84 and get to work and most of them are going to be driving past this intersection on a daily basis. Commercial and retail development will mean more traffic, slower speeds, more traffic lights, and more curb cuts will be required. There are already three existing traffic lights between 1-84 and Victory Road, which is a drive of less than a mile and this commercial development will probably require even more. We believe that prudent city planning would be to place community shopping hubs away from the interstate as shown in the 2002 Meridian Comprehensive Plan, not next to it, in order to reduce the traffic demands on these crowded arterial collector roads next to the interstate. And paraphrasing from the staff report of Brad Hawkins, if the additional 50 plus acres of commercial and office use is constructed south of .. Meridian Planning & Zonin9 April 20, 2006 Page 33 of 88 Ridenbaugh, another traffic signal would likely be needed. However, traffic signals often function best when served by four legs of traffic. Since all the mixed use land south of the Ridenbaugh Canal would only be on the east side of the road and no high volume east-west street to intersect with Eagle Road, it is questionable that traffic warrants would be met or that the city would function as well. If you can go to the next slide, please. Our second contention. Compatibility and design issues. Directly from the 2002 -- Brad Hawkins' staff report: One reason for designating specific commercial area on the Comprehensive Plan is to minimize negative impacts upon nearby residents and the general public. This is one of the objectives of the neighborhood centers. And separately on this point, currently the Ridenbaugh Canal serves as an excellent buffering transition from the intense commercial activities in Silverstone and EI Dorado business parks to the residential uses there upon Eagle. If you can go to the next slide, please. There is absolutely no need for additional commercial in this part of Meridian. The Silverstone and EI Dorado business campuses alone, within site of this project, offer a potential total of over two million square feet of commercial space on Eagle Road. This is just between 1-84 and Victory. Coming from the staff report again: By adding additional acres of land designated for mixed use in Meridian's area of impact, staff is concerned with the potential over-supply of commercially zoned land, especially office uses. Meridian's 2005 office vacancy rate has been noted by the chamber of commerce and other real estate sources to continue to be high. We are concerned about extending more retail and office uses south of the Ridenbaugh Canal and believe other locations are better suited for these uses. Southstone Subdivision located at the intersection of Eagle and Easy Jet provides three acres and eight building lots of light office zoned land. And the Sutherland Farms Subdivision provides an additional five acres and seven building lots for this area. Staff finds that between these two projects, which already provide more than eight acres of nonresidential uses, there is adequate commercial land supplied along this corridor. Furthermore, in an area south of 84 between Locust Grove and a half of Eagle Road there is over 250 acres of vacant or undeveloped land either designated as commercial or mixed use regional on the future land use map. This does not include Silverstone or EI Dorado or any land north of 84. All of this property is within a one and a half mile radius of the subject properties. Furthermore, there are two mixed use centers noted along Victory Road. Staff has not seen commercial development plans for either of these centers and this would, generally, indicate there was not a very high demand for nonresidential uses. That's the end of the staff report on that matter. We would also like to comment for a moment on the commercial developments already south of the canal in Southstone and Sutherland Farms. Both of these were done without ever having to go through the formal rezoning process. They are sitting on what was supposed to be a residentially zoned land. One was done with an exception, from our understanding, and the other on a variance. Homeowners woke up one morning to see commercial office parks springing up next to their property. If signs had been placed and we had been noticed that these were going to be built, we probably would have shown up to oppose them. Now, their presence on Eagle Road outside of their originally assigned zone, is basically being used as justification by the owners to force commercial further down this corridor outside the guidelines of the existing Comprehensive Plan. Also, to address an Alliance point. They have stated that several real estate appraisers have told them that land is -- that Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 34 of 88 land is not residentially at its highest and best use. We would like to make the point that just because an appraiser believes a parcel is not currently zoned for its best use, this does not automatically make it so. I'm guessing that the land and the buildings that St. Luke's occupies might be worth commercial -- more commercially as a multi-story corporate headquarters than a hospital, but it's not zoned for that use, so it doesn't matter. But our way of thinking, just about any land at a major intersection would be worth more commercially than residentially. If you will go to the next slide, please. Tuscany Elementary. How will this change in zoning affect the future Tuscany Elementary School, which is currently projected by Meridian School District to be open in the 2008-2009 school year. Within a few years there will be an elementary school opening less than a quarter mile from this intersection. The school board already owns the land. It's not a matter of if it's going to open, it's a matter of when. This is not going to be a high school. It's not going to be a junior high. This is going to be an elementary school. Young children that live in Thousand Springs, Sutherland Farms, Tuscany, and the future Medford Place will, in many cases, be walking to this school. This means children as young as five having to cross some of these roads. Turning this corner into commercial does not help create a safer environment for them to get back and forth to school every day. If you could go to the next slide, please. This development seemingly contradicts the Comprehensive Plan guidelines and some of these points were addressed in the October staff report. I'm going to paraphrase once again for time. To allocate and identify locations for industry and commercial business parks. The primary tool to accomplish this action is the future land use map, which was created in 2002 after more than 18 months of public workshops and hearings. That map designates the industrial business park areas and staff believes represents an adequate land supply for the total build out population of Meridian. The subject area was not designated for such uses and the residents and prospective buyers have now made purchasing decisions based on the fact that this is planned a residential area. Another guideline. Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within your impact area. Staff believes commercial opportunities have been planned and that the subject property is not one of them, nor should residential land be removed from the area of impact to accommodate additional commercial land in this area. And the last guideline. Protect existing residential properties from incompatible use development on adjacent parcels. This policy touches on one of the primary objectives of zoning, to protect the public health and welfare. It is the city's obligation to insure existing properties, both county and city, are protected from harmful, disturbing, or unnecessary encroachments. Go to the next slide, please. We also ask for clarification from the City of Meridian the folloWing State of Idaho Code -- State Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 65, states that commission may not recommend amendments to the land use component of the Comprehensive Plan to the governing board more frequently than once every six months. We would like to be -- we would just like to know when was the last date Planning and Zoning Commission formally recommended CP amendments to Meridian City Council. A Comprehensive Plan by statute is not something that's permitted to be changed more than twice a year. Next slide, please. The way this whole project has been moving forward, we believe is problematic. In order to have an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, local municipalities providing the essential services and nearby neighborhood are to be consulted to give input. Since the Alliance will not end up being Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 35 of 88 the final developer of this property, they are primarily seeking a zoning change. Their original application did not include an annexation request or a development plan. Without a formal development plan the municipalities servicing this area have not been able to comment or give proper input to Planning and Zoning. This is not how the process has been designed to work. It is our opinion that the Alliance is seeking a change in zoning first and foremost for financial reasons. They are only now applying for annexation and submitting a development plan to achieve a zoning change, by their own admission at this very meeting tonight. We do not doubt the desire to work with their fellow neighbors in piecing together a large parcel to be developed together. We actually applaud them for it. But they also have financial reasons to do so as well. The parcels joined as a whole are worth more than they are individually. They are worth more -- more commercially than they are residentially. They have already somehow convinced Ada County Highway District to pay commercial rates when they were selling residential land for right of way on Eagle Road and they now wish to have commercial rates for the rest of it as well. They are attempting to cash out selling their rural and residentially zoned lands at commercial prices and they are basically going to leave the neighbors in the area to deal with the aftermath of this commercial development. Last slide, please. In closing, we have identified several standard guidelines the city uses in approving commercial rezoning that are being violated with this annexation and rezoning application package. First, we believe it's going to worsen an existing traffic problem. Secondly, this is a strip-type development which is generally to be avoided. Third, it is a commercial development surrounded by existing low density residential neighborhoods. Fourth, it is one side of the street commercial development only. The west side of the street is going to remaining residential. Five, we don't believe that it has been proven that there is a compelling need for additional commercial developments in the immediate area. Six, there is an overwhelming opposition to this plan from both adjoining and nearby property owners. To our knowledge. not a single homeowner, not one, has come forward saying this will be good for the neighborhood, that what they really want, shopping options around the corner for easier convenience. Number seven. There is an elementary school being planned right down the road that has not been taken into consideration at this point. And, eight, it goes against Planning and Zoning Department's own staff report recommendation from October 2005 when this issue was first brought before the board to keep this area and develop it residentially. We ask you to reject the commercial development plans for this corner. I am quite confident in saying that most opposition to this development would cease if they would decide. instead, to develop this corner with low to medium residential units. If the Commission does not agree with our view, we would assure we will be at City Council there once again to voice our opposition to the nature of this project. I'd like to thank you very much for your time. Rohm: Thank you. Wow. Before we take additional testimony -- and thank you, I -- that was very well put together as well. And I know there is other people that want to speak, but we also need to move on tonight, too. So, what I'd like to do is as each of you come forward, I would like you to keep your remarks to items that were not brought up by previous testimony. If you're in support of testimony already given, that's well and good, but if it's just going to be restating what's already been stated, then, that doesn't Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 36 of 88 add any value to the decision-making process. So, with that being said, we will continue taking testimony and -- but, please, keep your remarks to items that have not previously been brought before the Commission. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I know you're working your way through the list. I would like to ask that at the point where you feel we have heard from all the group spokesmen -- Rohm: I think we have one more. Zaremba: Okay. After that, then, if that's not Mr. Harris, it was suggested that Mr. Harris an alternate suggestion. My thinking would be to hear that next after we are done with the spokesmen, before we go on to individuals. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: That's a request. Rohm: Mr. Hines, would you like to come forward, please. Zaremba: Apparently I had the name wrong. I stand corrected. Hines: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Darrell Hines. I live at 3471 East Publisher Street in Meridian. 83642. That's part of Sutherland Farms Subdivision. And, no, I don't have that fire. Maybe I should change my presentation. Mine's pretty soft compared to that. Let me just begin here tonight by reading a quote from one Commissioner from the minutes of the March 16th meeting and this was addressed to the Alliance and I quote: Conceptually, this Commission is in pretty substantial agreement with what you have here already and it would be that additional communication with those that are your neighbors, how you address that through your development agreement or otherwise. Then, another quote from the Commission: We are 99 percent on board with you. And, finally, the devil is in the details. Well, we are those people, the neighbors, and we want to present some ideas and an alternative concept map. Our ideas are based on the Alliance's guiding principles for positive neighborhood development. We hope to have input on that remaining one percent, the details. As you may recall, we opposed the CPA at the October 17th hearing, because we felt it wrong to drop 23 acres of commercial development in the middle of our residential neighborhoods. Our neighborhoods being what's already been stated, Sutherland Farm to the east, Thousand Springs and Wood Haven to the west, and Tuscany to the south and west. Your planning staff agreed with us. There is no shortage of commercial land supply in the general area of the Alliance properties. In fact, the most recent staff reports -- and I would just ask you to keep in mind, we haven't had any input in this process since October 17th. So, I'm going a couple of staff reports back. They point out -- and I know you have heard about 250 acres within a mile and a half radius, so I won't restate that, because you asked me not to do that, so I won't go through that. But there are other staff -- staff things that have been said consistently in all three reports and I will review some of them later on. Commissioners, even though Mt::riuion Plonniny IX Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 37 of 88 we oppose the CPA, it is apparent to us that the Commission has decided to take the course it has and we are hear to put -- to be a part of this continuing process. We have reviewed the March 16th meeting minutes and the extensive discussion between Commission, your staff, and the Alliance. Even though we were quite disappointed that we were dismissed from the March 16th discussion, that process, we are here and ready to move on this process. The minutes reveal that the Commission was expecting more detail on this 16th than was seen on either the Alliance's concept map or their written application for annexation and zoning. After my personal review of the application file. I felt exactly the same that being not enough detail, nothing much on which to base a development agreement, which is a very important part of this process for us. It's our guarantee. The file contained an old version of guiding principles for development, not the revised version that we were handed on January 5th, the neighborhood meeting which this Commission requested that the Alliance have. We share the Commission's view that final approval of the CPA comes after a firm basis is established on which to write a development agreement. To quote a Commissioner, quote: I was expecting annexation and preliminary plat before we matched up with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. That, again, is exactly what we expected also. I hear the Commission's desire to see each specific area of this development zoned appropriate according to what the city wants to see developed. At one time you used exceptions to designate land use within a big zone, but I understand you no longer do that. Following that lead, our concept map includes varied zoning within the development to accomplish your goals and to achieve the feathering of land use intensity as described in principle two of the Alliance's guiding principles for development. In March the Commission seemed to be looking for suggestions for transitioning from the Alliance's R-4 residential on the east side of their internal roadway over to the west side of the roadway and beyond. We have proVided for that transition in our concept map. Your planning staff has recommended additional residential zones/uses and land use buffers to insure compatibility and provide a mix of uses as is in the intent under mixed designation. The staff states that commercial zoning should be limited and not a majority of this mixed use development. The Alliance. The Alliance from the beginning has expressed their desire to promote a neighbor friendly development, which could include light office and professional buildings. However, the designation that is pending before this Commission carries a very large and heavy footprint. Frankly, we don't understand why the Alliance needs a designation any greater than mixed use neighborhood, which still allows the type of development they want to promote on their properties. Mixed use neighborhood limits residential to R-8. which permits only single family or two family dwellings. The Alliance has on several occasions said they have turned away buyers who want to build high density residential. It seems like mixed use neighborhood would be all they would ever want. Finally, we have a concept map that we believe provides a sufficient detail on which to write a development agreement and avoid your recommendation to the Council being remanded back for lack of clarity. We have listened closely to the Commission and your staff and we have fully implemented the Alliance's guiding principle number two, which reads -- and I quote -- this is an important part of it as far as we are concerned. The quote: The development approach will be to feather land use intensity from residential to professional office and business uses. The most intensive land use will occur along Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 38 of 88 Eagle Road and Victory Road, with less intensive land uses farther away from the arterials. We offer a compromise that hopefully satisfies basic needs of the Commission, your staff, and the Alliance and the surrounding residential community. It is not perhaps anyone's ideal, but it's a reasonable compromise. If you can project that up, Anna. Oh, you got it. I'm sorry. First, let me just say please forgive the crude map, but, hopefully, it tells you what we have in mind. Our concept map uses zoning to accomplish the feathering of land use, rather than the limited zoning that you see on the Alliance's map. They have a large C-C area that they have tried to distinguish different types of buildings on. To me, as I listen to the Commission, through the minutes that I read, because we weren't here and participating, it seemed like you were looking for that same thing and that you don't -- that you like to see things done through zoning, not through exemptions and so on. So, following that lead, this is how we came up with this plan. What you see there on the right in the greenish yellow is the residential area that the Alliance proposed and it doesn't say on there -- I didn't add it, they have already proposed that for R-4. What we have added, because there seemed to be a lot of conversation amongst the Commission about what could be done across the street, how do you transition, and what I heard from at least a couple of Commissioners, as I read the minutes, was that possibly some higher density residential across the street. And that's how we would see it, too. And so our proposal would include R-8 across the street from the R-4, which would permit single or two family units, condos or duplexes. And, then, behind that light office, which would -- do I have a pointer? Rohm: There should be one right there. Zaremba: If that's not working, I think I got mine working better. Hines: Oh. Okay. The light office that they designated was just this little corner down here. I'm suggesting the feathering should include light office going the full distance of the middle of this property. And also in the staff report was a mention -- there is a single family residence to the north of here. So, keeping that in mind, it's not a development, but just single family residents where a family lives. And with that in mind, that's why I have included the piece that goes across the northern part here. And, then, I have restricted the commercial and I'm suggesting C-N, rather than C-C, because I think it allows them to do everything that they want to do. So, I'm restricting the heavier commercial and I'm carrying out what's been suggested all along, certainly by the Alliance, that want to feather the land use from here to here to here to here. So, I'm adding one more as we go across there. It's really difficult for me to imagine people buying homes here that look across at commercial and I think I heard the Commission say that at the last hearing. You were wondering the same thing. Well, I think this offers a solution to that. And the last thing here that I might want to mention is as we look at the Alliance's map, that is not the map that we were given at our neighborhood meeting. Now, I know when Mr, Thomason said that he probably had something else in mind, but the map that was up on the overhead at that time was the latest thing that they have submitted. What was submitted to us I'm sure is in your file. I don't know if it's the same one or not. But it was very Simple. It showed the R-4 residential a little bit different, kind of a split down there on the lot at the bottom, but I understand why that Meridian Planning oS. Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 39 of 88 changed. The rest of it all designated commercial. And it showed just entrances into a parking area. But what we see on the Alliance's map are major roadways that, essentially, link Publisher -- this is the street coming from Sutherland Farms that's proposed to come in and tie into this -- this internal roadway that they have suggested, which is fine, but it's shown as T-boning on there and that's the way it was presented to us and I specifically asked Mr. Forrey at that neighborhood meeting, who was representing the Alliance at that time, if there would be any direct tie between this internal roadway, which would attach it directly to Eagle, and his specific answer to me was, no, only if you wanted to wind your way through the parking lot. Now we see two major roadways that do that, which is a threat to the Publisher link into our subdivision. So, that -- we consider that a deviation from the commitment that was given to just at that meeting that the Commission directed them to have. Also you notice we have very limited access and I'm not suggesting this is the final result, but also if you look at the meeting minutes on October the 17th, our first hearing, one Commissioner asked Mr. Forrey -- he said in light of this internal roadway that you propose to construct in order to avoid curb cuts, how many curb cuts do you anticipate in addition to that and his direct answer was to the Commissioner who asked the question was one. But what we see in the proposed map today is considerably different than that and that causes us great concern. So, we think we have offered a compromise to limit. We would like to see this smaller. I'd like to see it go away, as, obviously, Tuscany would, too. But we are trying to deal with reality. We are trying to be compromising and we are trying to take direction from the staff, as well and their recommendations, which they have stated over and over, that there is no shortage of commercial. And I might just suggest -- I think I missed a page of my notes in trying to hurry through it. You know, the statistics that are presented by the staff have no monetary motivation and I think they deseNe special attention for that reason. They have pointed out in all three staff reports there is not a need, there is not a need, there is not a need and this is inconsistent with the area. And this is a compromise. Limit it. Limit. Limit. And protect the residential area. The staff has again and again restated the need to protect the residential area. This is dropped in the middle of thousands of homes. This has already been very clearly stated and a point made tonight. Any questions? Rohm: Any questions of this individual? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it's not, actually, a question, but I would ask if I could comment while he's here. Rohm: Please do. Zaremba: I am one of the people that you quoted and I appreciate that. And I would also say that I am known as being supportive of wanting to consider what the Alliance has been putting forward. But I believe I'm also the one that when this Commission recommended to the City Council that they consider the Comprehensive Plan amendment, I believe I'm the one that added the requirement that it wait until we really saw what the details were before the City Council acted on it. I very much appreciate the drawing that you have provided. That is what I expected. What you have shown is Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 40 of 88 what I thought we were going to see from the Alliance. I would be happy to consider what you have provided. And one of the reasons that I'm willing to consider changing this from all residential is when you consider traffic patterns, the traffic from -- for lack of better words, residential traffic is a push and commercial traffic is a pull. There is some benefit in believing that the services that would be provided on these properties would save you all from having to drive the other side of the interstate to get the services and it could actually turn out to be a benefit. But the point that I wanted to make is if it were to go ahead, not only with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but also with the concept as provided, what you are showing is what I expected and I would be very in favor of this suggestion. Hines: Thank you. And if I just might add one more thing, that was the comment I got when I took this in for review with Caleb at staff. He said that would be easy to use to write a development agreement. That's the kind of thing that we like to see, so -- Zaremba: Well -- and the other advantage, as you point out, there is only one access on each of the -- what will be arterials. Hines: Yes. And we put it clear at the top for what we feel is good reason. We don't have any problem wandering through parking lots. People generally don't do that to try to find cut-through routes. But if there is a cut-through route by road, they'll find it. And this is directly aligned with Thousand Springs -- one of the Thousand Spring entrances. That's why it's there. And it is one of the roadways that was shown on the original concept map that the Alliance presented to us, which we took that to mean an entrance into the parking lot area, not a roadway as we see shown on the Alliance's very extensive roadway system. Moe: Mr. Hines, one question I had for you would be -- this concept is great. What about the south side of Victory? Hines: Well, I'm glad you asked, because I don't have a clue, because I think, you know, even though they are a part of the Alliance, it's separate. It's a piece they want to make all commercial, it's completely surrounded with R-4, low density residential. It's just kind of there. What do you do with it? It's an odd shaped piece and, personally, I think it should be dealt with separately. I don't think it belongs in this application. I think it should be separate. And, quite frankly, I think that's how staff feels about it, too. It's an awkward -- what do you do with it? I really don't know. I might just say that in this division that I have here, that's -- the way that's divided up, it's 6.4 acres of C-N, 4.7 acres of combination R-4 and R-8, and 7.3 acres of light office, for a total of 18.4. So, it's a good -- it's a good mix, which we don't see on the other plan. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 41 of 88 Zaremba: I would just suggest that the record note that Commissioner Borup has joined us. Rohm: Welcome, Commissioner Borup. There are -- Zaremba: And he's dressed very natally this evening. Newton-Huckabay: Yes, he is. Rohm: Should we start over? Okay. There are quite a number of other people that have signed up for this, but, quite honestly, I think that the ones that have spoken have addressed most of the issues, so what I'd like to do, as opposed to going through each of the individual names, I'd like to just open it up and say if there is somebody else that would like to speak to this, we will take them one at a time and they are welcome to come forward. Merical: Thank you. My name is Tonya Merica!. I reside at 2994 East Tipple Avenue-- or Tipple Street in Tuscany. 83642. One thing I would just like to point out, with all of the conversations around widening of Eagle and Victory Roads, it's my understanding from ACHD that that is only going to be widened from the Ridenbaugh Canal through the entrance to Tuscany and, then, it will narrow back down to a two lane road. So, the widening is not going to have as much of an impact on the traffic. It may help us get out of our neighborhood a little bit easier in the morning, but it's not going to be a major arterial as was referred to earlier and that it's going to be five lanes in all directions for a great distance. So, please, keep that in mind. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Please come forward. Ernesto: My name is Brent Ernesto. I live at 2950 East Taluka. I just wanted to also address EMS. We have a new fire department that's been placed on South Eagle Road. We have concerns about with the traffic congestion as far as the EMS response time. Also, I personally, along with a couple of other people from our neighborhood, visited virtually every residence of Tuscany yesterday and spoke with them on this topic and it was unanimously no, that nObody wanted this to happen over there. Rohm: Thank you. McKibben: My name is Dennis McKibben. I reside at 2820 South Eagle Road, directly north of the subject property. I will be short. It is commercial, you know, there. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather have light commercial, light office, compared to any type of residential. This map here is not a bad idea. I wouldn't care if there was an entrance road coming down the south side of my property line. That would create a buffer for the kennel itself. And as far as the residential against Easy Jet, there are -- the ranch over here, that would be -- would have no complaints with that either. But as everybody is complaining about the traffic, I don't see how this -- if it was light office is going to put Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 42 of 88 anymore traffic on the street, compared to putting how many more subdivisions they are going to put out there. I mean I bought there in 1988, rural area, that's what I wanted. It changed on me. They bought here because they thought it was all residential. Unfortunately for them, it's changing much faster. So, I'm pretty much okay with something like this, as long as the residential is kept back away from my kennel, so I don't think anybody in this room is going to want to buy a residential property within 150 feet of a commercial dog kennel. That's pretty much all I have. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Sharp: My name is John Sharp. I live at 3020 South Eagle Road, Meridian. I am one of the Alliance members and I moved there in 1986 and just the complaints that the neighbors have about people moving in and surrounding them and traffic is the same one that I had. So, unfortunately, the problem of the traffic is the -- all of us and the additional traffic that we put on there for this small commercial area probably isn't going to be anymore than what the residential would be or maybe even less. This concept plan that we had here that -- or that's suggested here, the original one we had looked a little similar to this. It didn't have any colors on it, but we went to the planning staff and we revised it about four times in order to get to the point we are, assuming -- or thinking that we were doing what we were being asked to do. The connections of the roads and the access points on there were a suggestion of the staff and Ada County Highway District. We were fOllowing what we thought were the recommendations of everybody that was giving us advice on this. What we had for total things of being commercial is what we proposed to do. We met with the neighbors and worked out a compromise -- or at least what we thought was a compromise and we keep hearing things differently and I guess if I lived next to it and it was being changed, I may have the same idea, but we -- when they came in and moved in on us, we had the same concept and same arrangement that they have towards us. I'm not necessarily in favor of what they have here, but we've looked at this several times and what we have put together is what we thought was being required of us and that the early concepts that we had, we had only two entrances on Eagle Road and two on Victory Road for the north properties. The southern properties we had the same thing and since they have changed to a different concept on the parking areas and things, we've had to modify that a little bit. But through this whole process we have tried to look at everything that we were doing and take the advice of the planning staff as we went along and the concept we have now is what we thought was a concept we was being asked to put together_ Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. As far as the applicant, I think it's probably best if the group of you respond as a whole in rebuttal to opposing testimony and not that what you said wasn't important, but to group all of you in a summary, which is -- you're given a ten minute rebuttal to all the testimony probably would be the best way to do it, is to have the group of you testify together. Sir. Carpenter: Bob Carpenter, 3250 East Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho. Don't want to ignore the comment you just made, but I got some stuff. I have seen red lights up there all night, so -- currently we have four lots varying in size from .2 acres to 4.8 acres on Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 43 of 88 that corner South Eagle Road and Victory. We have had several offers in the last 18 months to sell one or more of these lots for development similar to the previous testimony you heard earlier tonight on Canterbury Commons, which would be townhouses and four-plexes and things like that. It's currently a medium density R-8. In the comp plan it's still RUT Ada County. So, it's not in Meridian. I'm of the opinion that the proposals that we are proposing would make a lot more sense than Canterbury type subdivisions. I thought the neighbors were of the opinion of that also, that they would rather have a buffering of homes coming down from R-8 to R-4 and, then, going into office and retail uses, rather than larger apartment complexes, which is what you're going to get before you if we sell these properties separately. There is ten separate properties involved. When we moved out there in 1990 it was rural and I have calculated, as the one gentleman mentioned from Tuscany, there is a thousand homes in the Tuscany part that's been proposed south of Victory Road between Eagle and Locust Grove and Victory and Amity and, then, there is other subdivisions in there, too. And so you calculate that out, in the nine square miles between Cloverdale and Meridian Road and Victory Road and South Columbia, there was nine square miles, you take two and a half houses per acre, you're going to have 36,000 people out there. They are going to funnel up Meridian Road, Locust Grove Road, and Eagle Road and I just think you're going to need a little more commercial than you got putting it all at the freeway or above. So, I thought we had pretty much gone over that in the previous two meetings. Staff had -- we thought we had come to an agreement with this and they have recommended approval and moving on. We are ready to move on with it, but if we can't, we are ready to sell and move out of there. That road is starting in six months. The first of October. So, we have had the neighborhood meetings, we have met with them, I don't have anything specifically against what Darrell is proposing there, other than I think we have a better plan and I don't think we should need to buffer our own residential with more residential. It doesn't make any sense. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Baird: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mr. Baird. Baird: If I could reiterate what -- the point that you just made is that in order to provide for an orderly hearing, we do need to hear from all of the residents first before we hear the rebuttal from the applicant. If we start getting a back and forth, we are going to be here all night. So, I know that's the point you're trying to make and so if there are any other members of the Alliance, they will have their opportunity to rebut after we have heard everybody else. Rohm: And well said. Baird: No harm done, but-- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 44 of 88 Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application? I'm pretty sure we are there, but -- and thank you for your comments to Mr. Carpenter. With that being said, what I'm going to do is I'm going to give the last time slot to Marty Thompson -- Thomason to -- any concluding remarks that you would like to make in reference to all testimony -- Baird: Mr. Chair? And, again, sorry to interrupt. Getting -- before we take the final testimony from the applicants, I do think we need to revisit the issue of whether we need to continue this hearing. During the testimony I have concurred with staff -- conferred with staff, I have looked at our CZC or our -- I'm sorry, our UDC with regards to hearing notice and I do believe that because of the way this application has changed, we do have a defect that needs to be cured before you make your decision. It specifically mentions that the notice is to provide a summary of the application that is to be heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission and if you were to summarize the three districts that you have before you now, as compared to what they originally were, it may not be that much of a change of intensity, but it is a different nature of use that needs to be properly noticed before you make your decision. Not trying to have additional delay, but that also might give Commissioner Borup the opportunity to review the minutes from tonight's meeting, so he can participate in your final decision. So, if you are inclined to take our recommendation to continue this, so that the matter can be property re-noticed, I would encourage you to take the concluding comments from the applicant at that next hearing. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Baird. I appreciate what you're saying. Basically, what it boils down to is we are going to need to continue this, because of the application taking on a little different characteristic from the zoning perspective and all of the testimony that's been heard tonight is -- should be responded to in your concluding remarks. So, I think that what I would like to see is a continuance only to provide the adjustment to the zoning application and to hear your concluding remarks in response to -- as a rebuttal. And we would not at that time take any additional public testimony, but your responses to testimony already received. Can we do that, Mr. Baird? Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, you would be obligated to hear testimony from the public for those who may be affected by the change in the nature of the application. However, I do want to reiterate that everybody that's spoken tonight, the testimony is valid, it's on the record, we are not going to start again. There is no reason to have to re-testify. I think everybody tonight has -- your testimony has been well received. Rohm: And I guess we will address that at the time that we reopen it and just limit testimony to the change in application for rezone and that alone. Baird: And those affected by it, yes. Rohm: Those affected by it. Okay. So with -- Meridian Planning 8. Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 45 of 88 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, may I ask a question? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: So, Mr. Baird, are you saying with certainty if we were to close this Public Hearing and move it on to City Council, that a notice for the City Council hearing will not be legally sufficient on this -- my concern is this: This is, I think, the third or fourth time that we have looked at this. I think everybody -- the property Alliance and the homeowners need to get their day before the Council and so I'm just concerned that we just keep delaying and everybody has to get up and testify again. Baird: Thank you, Members of the Commission and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. I do empathize with you and, in fact, that's why initially I was leaning towards looking for some way to cure the defect that we have here. It's a procedural due process issue. It's a technical legal issue, and our advice to both this Commission and City Council is always the most conservative advice to cure any potential defect before moving forward. You are free to ignore my advice and act otherwise, but, you know, we are here to protect everybody's interest and to make sure that these things are clean. And I don't think that we will need to hear from everybody else again and I'm encouraging the people who are here tonight and who have spoken and whose points have been made to leave that record be as it is. I -- frankly, I don't expect that many additional people to be surprised by the new notice, but as a legal matter it is different. The way I'm interpreting the code we do need to proceed in that fashion. In talking with the planning director, we can't think of an instance where there has been something of this nature that we have attempted to cure it on its way to City Council and I'd hate to set a precedent tonight. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I guess my question of you is when do you perceive that you can have -- be ready to re-notice with the proposed new zoning deSignations? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, before he answers that question, I would ask that we have some discussion on what it is we are proposing him to change. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I agree. Zaremba: And I think that will be appropriate for this meeting before we continue it, rather than to have to keep -- I don't want to keep giving them one change every time we see them. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Zaremba: I think we need to get it all on the table based on the public testimony that we have just heard and, then, let the applicant move forward with considering all the changes that we have discussed. Rohm: Would you care to take a stab at it, Commissioner Zaremba? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 46 of 88 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair -- Mr. Chair, can I ask one more question? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: If we do that, then, are we not obligating ourselves, because we have made suggestions beyond the zoning designation, to have to reopen the opportunity for everybody to testify again on the changes, because, then, we bring in -- and don't get me wrong, I appreciate the alternative proposal and I think -- I think that's wonderful that that was put forth, but to comment on that and all of the testimony tonight, are we -- do you understand what I'm saying? I can't see how we can just open up the hearing and forward it on. So, I'm just kind of unclear on whether or not -- I mean I thought that the requirements had been met. So, Mr. Thomason, on that I -- Thomason: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: -- I believe that you guys -- I had believed originally you had done what you were asked to do. I guess what I would just like to see is how -- how we can most quickly get this on to City Council and they can -- because, in essence, it is setting some -- a bit of a precedent and I think it's something that's going to come through -- this type of thing is going to occur again and again as density gets so -- so thick in these outlying areas. So, I guess that's a question I need answered. Rohm: Wow. That's a good question. Personally, what I kind of felt was the answer to that question is the applicant is going to have an opportunity in his submittal for rezone to take into consideration the public testimony that he's heard tonight and in that application for the specific zone changes to incorporate into your -- in your application the comments received from the public and whether you concur with their specific recommended changes to the zoning or if you come up with something that's an alternative to that and, then, you will be responding to all the testimony that's been received and we would, then, only be addressing that application as amended. And that's -- that seems logical to me, because that's just your response to public testimony. But that's as I perceived it. Thomason: If I might make a comment, without stealing my rebuttal thunder later, our concept map is one that it takes into account all parties involved and I appreciate Darrell's comments and his attempt at a concept map for us, but our concept map involves discussions with Ada County Highway District, multiple discussions with the planning staff, multiple discussions amongst the Alliance members, conversations that Wayne had with property developers, commercial developers, and so forth, and we thought we had a compromise map where we already put in a residential buffer and, again, from Bob's standpoint, his comments, why do we have to buffer our own residential again? And it limits our opportunities when we offer this up for sale. We-- our map is a compromise already. We went from mixed use regional to mixed use community, adding in residential, adding in light office. Yes, it's not what the existing property owners behind us want, but what they are suggesting is not what we want. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 47 of 88 That's what compromise is, is that you come as close together as you can and I'm having a hard time understanding that if the only way you're going to approve it is if we come back with the plan that Darrell presented, that doesn't take into account all of the other discussions that we have already had with other members and other entities. Our -- I get what you're saying about the legal issue. I don't speak for the entire Alliance group when I say this comment, because this wasn't rehearsed beforehand and agreed upon, but it's unlikely that we will come back with a different map. The map that we have submitted is the one we are willing to compromise on at this point. And so I don't _ - again, I don't want to steal my thunder, but I want to make that clear. Yes, we have heard these comments and I hear them, I have empathy for them. The fact is is that we are making a compromise and so the plan we are going to resubmit is the one that we have -- I say this without the Alliance agreeing to it, but this is our -- my feelings at this point. So, what we need here is, I guess, the clear direction that a new annexation application gets submitted with the documentation that supports the three zones that we have proposed and, then, we come to another meeting here, anybody who hasn't spoken gets to speak, and, then, I have the opportunity to deal with any rebuttal issues on that and, then, the decision is in the power broker's hands as to whether we move forward or not. Is that what I'm hearing? Rohm: I believe that encapsulates what we would like to direct-- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just want to go kind of on record to make you understand that we are not suggesting that you have to take any of the testimony this evening and make changes to what you are wanting to do. It's just the point that you do have to come back to us with the zoning change and whatnot. We want you to consider what was discussed this evening. If you do, you don't, that's entirely up to you. Just come back forward with the new zoning request. Thomason: Okay. Thank you. Moe: I wanted to make sure you understood that we are not trying to tell you which way to go at all. Thomason: Okay. Thank you. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, if I could further clarify his concept of what's going to happen at the next meeting. The planning director pointed out to me that, really, the only significant change is the addition of the residential component. The L-O and the C-C are similar enough that we have heard everything on that. What we haven't heard is anybody who was affected by the addition of the residential. So, the recommendation is that testimony would only be heard on that matter, which is going to significantly limit the length of the next hearing. Rohm: Hopefully so. Thank you, sir. Okay. Just a date certain. We are still looking __ it looks to me like either the 4th or the 18th. I don't think they -- can they get everything through by the 4th? Tara? 18th. Meridian Pltlnning 8. Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 48 of 88 Thomason: May 18th. Rohm: May 18th. Would that work for you? Thomason: Yes. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Can I make a motion now? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: I will. Okay. Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Director Canning, do you -- you look like you have something that you want to add before I -- Canning: Commissioners -- Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be appropriate to have the conversation tonight, since we have come this far. If there are changes you want, then, he should know now. He can decide if he wants to not change it, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't be appropriate to give him direction now, rather than waiting until the 18th to give further direction. I think it -- Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you expressed a concern that we are just having him change one thing every time. This would be your opportunity to express to the applicant any changes you want to see. We are going to re-notice it. Hopefully, we could wrap it up that night. Newton-Huckabay: Actually, that was Commissioner Zaremba's statement. Two times I have seen what I thought I was gOing to see come before this Commission regarding this application. So, I have nothing further to add on it myself -- is regarding whether or not to forward it on to City Council. I mean I -- I don't know what would be -- specifically need to be added. Are you talking about like the layout of the zoning and -- that specifically or -- Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if all the Commissioners are comfortable with what they have presented, then, they might want to hear that. But I think that now is the opportunity to have the discussion, so that we can tie this all up on the 18th. But that's all I was encouraging the Commission to do. I'm not trying to direct you in what those comments should be, I just would like to have the discussion. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20,2006 Page 49 of 88 Newton-Huckabay: Right. I guess is what I'm saying is that each time we have ended one of these hearings I have thought that everyone has come back with what our expectations were. I feel like both times I thought the expectations that we laid out were met and I kind of get the feeling that before we are done we are going to have developed this property and I would just like to get it on to City Council and -. we don't know how they are going to act on something like this and I feel like we are -- I would just like to see closure for all parties involved, an idea of how the city is going to handle this type of situation, because I don't think it's the last time we are going to see this type of thing. And I will say nothing else. Borup: Mr. Chairman, just continuing on, Commissioner mentioned that the only thing we are really looking at is zoning designation and the areas that's been designated for those zones; is that correct? We are not -- we are not looking at access points or anything else. That's all going to have to be approved by ACHD and a further staff report when a plat comes before us. So, it's -- I mean we are spending a lot of time talking about that kind of stuff and I think that's very important. I'm going to be very interested in that at the proper time. But at this point we are just nothing more than just the three zones and if those locations are appropriate. Is there anything more complicated than that? Rohm: I think that pretty well captures it. So, I think the bottom line is -- is I think the applicant needs to take into consideration public testimony in his re-app and if he -- if the association still conceptually believes that their proposed layout with the re-app depicting the three zones is what they want to -- as their proposal, that's well within their province and it's not this Commission's position to tell them how to formulate their re- app and there is -- I don't believe that there is anything that this Commission has seen from the application that is conceptually offensive from our perspective and how they adjust to public testimony is up to them. That's kind of the way I capture or -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I made the alternate opinion on that and even though I'm very supportive of considering that this group of properties might not be all residential as previously established and that I'm very much in favor of appreciating that this is an Alliance of people, we keep saying it's easier to put together big properties than it is to deal with small ones. I still feel that in the discussion with Mr. Forrey, what he described is much closer to the alternate that was proposed and -- which is why we needed to see the concept. I realize a concept is just a concept, it's not a plat, it's not etched in stone, it's variable, but it is an assumption of how that property is going to develop and I am not supportive of all those accesses, even as a concept. I am supportive of even if it had to be four different zones and I may be the only one, but I would suggest to the applicant -- my full support would be behind something much closer to the alternate proposal. Rohm: And that being said -- Zaremba: And I may be in a minority, so that's fine. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 50 of 88 Rohm: Fair enough. I think that we are ready for a motion. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think you got started and, then, we got kind of side-tracked. Would you like to make another stab, please. Newton-Huckabay: So, we are continuing to the 18th of May? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue file number AZ 06-008 to the hearing date of May 18th, 2006, for the following reasons -- and that's so that the applicant can modify their annexation request to include the residential; correct? Zaremba: And re-notice. Newton-Huckabay: And re-notice the property and we will only be taking public testimony at that hearing on May 18th regarding the addition of the residential piece. All other testimony received tonight will continue onto that point. Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Rohm: Good. It's been moved and seconded that we continue the continued Public Hearing of AZ 06-008 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of May 18th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. And thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: May we take a break? Rohm: Well, I'm going to -- we will talk about where we want to make the break, because we are not going to get through the entire agenda and I don't want to stay until 3:00 o'clock tonight, so -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? We are allowed, I believe, even now, to rearrange the agenda. Would there be any value in asking if the majority of the remainder of people are here for one issue and deal with that one out of order? Rohm: I'm not opposed to that. Quite honestly, I think we are getting so -- we are getting to a pOint that we got have to do something a little differently, because what we have been doing in the past isn't working any longer.