Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS. Eagle & Victory Rd. May 15, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING AZ 06-008 May 18, 2006 APPLICANT South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of 23.29 acres from RUT to C-C zone for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes !i{!ommtnd Ifpprovat -/7J c,'--/:J DUlJdJ (JZ-- QIY! Lf-D CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting / See Attached Legal Descriptions Contacted: u-. r A.-.t I(l?M1;/\., Date: 5' !{(J!O(P Phone: X~ 7 --9'; 19 Emailed: -('I\Y.,+,o pe..r~ ('J....O I . r" ,oCV) Staff Initials: LI<~ ~ 'Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ( l je~ ~e--lcLG\../ Meridian Planning 8< 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 January 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 8< 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 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 8< Zoning April 20, 2006 Page 22 of 88 Overland Road. Here is my response. There "is a definite need for neighborhood services, 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 services. 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 services. 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 8< Zoning 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 & Zoning 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-Huckabay: 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-Q and that were it, then, I wouldn't be concerned. 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 8< 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 ~xcellent 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. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 20, 2006 rage 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. Mae: 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 daily 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 ta 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, na 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. Rahm: Darrell Hines. From the audience he's deferring his testimony until we have heard from another individual. Romella: 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 8< Zoning 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 8< 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 8< 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 Meridian Planning & 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 & 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 deserve 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 8< Zoning April 20, 2006 PaQe 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 Merical. 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 8< 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 togelher. 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 d 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 starl 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 8< 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 Planning 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 8< 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 8< 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. -~s ~b ;.l1~esSTC A \r\~ ) ~g2.t;" f\RC \'.~. ~~0~S~O - }2G-f\ l- '0 f: S C \?~T-V> '0 "> y-O {2 ,n-E "), L \'\bL8 (2-'0 \ '\J:S:C \D~ -{ ~ () ~ \2-uP . o vJ y-J~ ') ALL:r:-f1-N (~ !\ ---z. - D b-O 0 to . ,'W:: (Dr^-,^T5 S-=rD~ \;'Jf\N~ ~ew . 0 \0 Gt: ~-2~\ C)lJ\ TO })D\R Bf-'/ ''\ ~ \ ~ ?~i)~~ ovJ 0 . , _,o..rrrS!r, _ 4- ~ 5-\16-06 ~..., rJevv0~N>&' tD ~wJ~ [, ~f f) 'Se;vv+ +0 1v1 ~ (~vitW ~ ~uJ i)-lb'1k. Oft RBCBIVED APR 2 1 20t":, City of M.eridian City C\ers OfficE .,----- PAGE.01 Ap r, 28, 2006 8: 22AM No. 4335 P. 3 April 18. 2006 DESCRlPTlON FOR C-C ZONE ;"u This description is for the C-C ZONE as shown on the Eagle Alliance Map which is a parcel ofland located in the SW1/4 of the SWl/4 Section 21 and the NWl/4 of the NW1I4 Section 28 Township 3 North Range 1 East Bosie Meridian Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south east comer of said Section 21 T3N Rl E BM, which is the True Point of BegiIUling for the description; Thence NO.OO'17"W along the west boundary of said Section 21 a distance of 1023.12 feet; Thence S89.25' 49"E for a distance of 667.16 feet to the centerline of a proposed street; Thence along a curve with a radius of 400 feet, a central angle of 6'52'55", a long chord bearing of 83. 26' 45"E and a long chord length of 48.02 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline SO. 0' 17"E a distance of 530.92 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a central angle of 37034'45", a long chord bearing ofS1S" 47' 06"W and a long chord length of 115.95 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline 837.34' 28"W a distance of 105.49 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a central angle of 3 7'10'21", a long chord bearing ofSI80 59' 18"Wand a long chord length of 114.74 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline 80.24' 07"W a distance of 139.47 feet to the south boundary of section 21; Thence SO'30' S9"W a distance of 167.00 feet; Thence S 18919' 49"W a distance of 170.00 feet; Thence N89035' 54"W a distance of 336.72 feet; Thence S0031' IO"W a distance of339.13 feet; Thence N30.09' 49"W a distance of 277.25 feet to the west boWldary of Section 28; Thence along the west boundary of Section 28 NO.32' 39"E a distance of 429.15 feet and back to the point of begirming. Said parcel contains some 19.41 acres, more of less. FlPR 28 '136 139:48 PFlGE.03 Ap r, 28, 2006 8: 22AM No, 4335 P. 4 April 18. 2006 DESCRIPTION FOR L-O ZONE This description is for the L-O ZONE as shown on the Eagle Alliance Map which is a parcel ofland located in the SW1I4 of the SWl/4 Section 21 Township 3 North Range 1 East Bosie Meridian Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south east comer of said Section 21 T3N RIE BM, Thence SS9035'55"E along the south boundary of said Section 21 a distance of 530.00 feet which is the Troe Point of Beginning for the description; Thence NOo24'07"B along the centerline of a proposed road a distance of 139.47 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet. a central angle of 3 7"10'21". a long chord bearing ofN1S" 59' 18"E and a long chord length of 114.74 feet; Thence 852"25' 31 liE a distance of25.00 feet to the easterly right of way line of said road; Thence S89"33' SOliE a distance of211.87 feet to the westerly boundary of Sutherland Farms Subdivision; Thence SO"OO'17/1W a distance of233.00 feet to the southerly boundary of Section 21; Thence N89"35' 55"W along said southerly boundary a distance of270.02 feet and back to the point of beginning, Said parcel contains some 1.43 acres, more of less. APR 28 '06 09:48 PAGE. 04 Ap r. L~. LUU6 8: 23AM No.4335 p, 5 April 18, 2006 DESCRIPTION FOR R4 ZONE This description is for the R4 ZONE as shown on the Eagle Alliance Map which is a parcel ofland located in the SW1I4 of the SW1I4 Section 21 Township 3 North Range 1 East Bosie Meridian Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south east comer of said Section 21 T3N RIE BM, Thence NO"OO'17"W along the west boUDdaryofsaid Section 21 a distance of 1023.12 feet; Thence 889025' 49"E for a distance of 667.16 feet to the centerline of a proposed street which is the True Point of Beginning for the description; Thence along a curve with a radius of 400 feet, a central angle of 6" 52'55", a long chord bearing of 83. 26' 4S"E and a long chord length of 48.02 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline 80" 0' I7"E a distance of 530.92 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a cen1ral angle of 37"34'45", a long chord bearing ofS1S" 47' 06"W and a long chord length of 115,95 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline 837"34' 28"W a distance of 105.49 feet; Thence SS2"25' 31"E a distance of2S.00 feet to the easterly right of way line of said road; Thence 889033' SO"E a distance of211.87 feet to the westerly boundary of Sutherland Farms Subdivision; Thence NO"00'17"W a distance of 787.77 feet; Thence NS9"2S'49"W a distance of 132.88 feet and back to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains some 2.55 acres, more of less. APR 28 '06 09:48 PAGE. as f't\ t' j Co....l-e b H-o od P I ~ tJ '" " N l\ fr\ fA-ND-- fY\ 'I' P J --..J ~~ ,. , t:1 (' \ <;i. ,0......,) -+ L De \Jt::\.. r-- '" t'Y'\ e ,..j -+- \ R -e I, 5ov-t-h E~le.. o...~d. Y' J. () , I ~~O~4 ~O~~ N (') '+- I ~ e.... 0-8-- P os-f-~ IV j' -./ ., h. "'- "'- N C- l 0 s =:! 6 P ~o-t-D5 ~ I--- s os- ""- pos-t-e.d -fc\' heO-....i'~~ Az 06 -008 "~CLt"-~ N ~ . 5\3/'Jl 5\5~:2. S~3 N 3 b,) ~r 5/8/06 P f"o f-e.J"'~ CJ oJ k) e.f" 5 A- I',' a,N <: o-fl i- "-:e T ~-'e. S '8 IV.s -for -t-h.e Mo..y 18/ .?.-oo6 p o-.s-+-e-d .s/b/O.b Cl N S. E. Co r-- (\j e r- o-f. E~/f-e Rd. ~Nd- V~ci-o~, Po..si--d S/6./0/; O"-l E. S:.Je c-f' Ei;Ik Road. 4- ~ ro '-lC - bOO Pe. t + tv. 0 -f V, 'c- i-o r:J ~ ~ Pos-{-~d- 5/6/0' c N E-. 5 t 'd~ CJ -f Eo...y{ e. R 0 o.-d.. A-" r-D ~ L t) 00 F ec f'.N~ r+- h...." 0 ~ V (' ~f..o r:j RJ. ~s_~ So If+-~ E~ Ie o...t>Jd V ,'c- ~r:3 RoM P\'o f>-er'\-..j 0 w ~ e...i"::5 A-I (,'Cl..-~ ~~. ~s~ CAROLDtXON ~ Public "of 1dIhG'- My ComrrnssionExpires . July 1. 2008' \ AZ 06-008 April 20, 2006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: Annexation and Zoning of 23.29 acres from RUT to C-C zone for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of. Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Previous Item Packet / Minutes See attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY ,~ ~rv <6 ~~ ..f V ~'J ~ ~~ ~~ ~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMP A MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS'IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~ OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 SUBJECT: r "if.~ . cU;;;;;;/;n .~; \, ~e~~i:~ ~fa~~~:;~~~:~ng Manager.~~. ll~;(; E !tVF~'J'.'" 208-884-5533 , L\. " S. Eagle and Victory Road Property . :.;~~'~~;\~, 200G "" Owner's Alliance Annexation crry OF MERIDIAN AZ-06-0?8 . '-~~TV f:1J:'RK nr-::~!cC AnnexatlOn and Zorung of 23.39 acres from RUT (Ada Cotmty, tiYe~C ' , . '. ;-' . (Community Business District), by the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance* Planning & Zoning Commission STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: Hearing Date: 4/20/06 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST * The applicant, the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance, submitted an application for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) to C-C (Community Business District) for 23.39 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. NOTE: Between the time of submittal of the allllexation application and this hearing, the applicant has provided staff with legal descriptions for three zones. The applicant is proposing to zone 19.41 acres of the site to C-C. 2.55 acres of the site to L-O. and 1.43 acres of the site to R-4. The Alliance is comprised of five different property owners (who own ten individual tax parcels) on the east side of S. Eagle Road, generally grouped north and south of the intersection of S. Eagle and Victory Road. This site is currently rural residential with several single~farnily homes and accessory buildings. The applicant is not proposing any land use, development or subdivision at this time. Instead, the applicant is proposing to annex the property with Development Agreement provisions that would guide future development of this property. The applicant has submitted a Concept Map for the subject property. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. In 2005, the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance (represented by Wayne S. Forrey), applied for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan (CPA-05-00l). The Alliance proposed to amend the Map designation from Low and Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional for approximately 50 acres of hmd. The CPA application proposed to amend an additional 30 acres of land north of the Alliance's land holdings, including two other county parcels and several parcels in the city limits that lie within Sutherland Farms and Southstone Subdivisions. Staff recommended denial of CPA-05-0ll. However, at the October 17, 2005, Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing for the CPA, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject CPA with the following provisions: 1) That the new Map designation be Mixed Use - Community, not Mixed Use - Regional; 2) Recording a Development Agreement which binds the applicant to the commitments listed in the document called "Guiding Principles for Positive Neighborhood Development"; 3) Wait on [mal action on the CPA until an alUlexation application has been submitted; and, 4) Hold a neighborhood meeting. As requested by the Commission, the Alliance has submitted an allllexation application (although not required by the Commission, the Alliance has not submitted a preliminary plat, conditional use pennit, or any other concurrent development application). The subject annexation application includes just over 23 of the 50 acres that were a part of the CPA application (only those properties which the members own). Prior to submitting the annexation application, the Alliance held a neighborhood meeting with property owners in the surrounding area. The applicant has re- South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED- AZ-06-008 PAGE I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006 submitted the "Guiding Principles for Positive Neighborhood Development" for inclusion within a Development Agreement. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject Armexation and Zoning application was submitted to the Planning Department for review. By City Ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Commission makes recommendation to the Council on Armexation and Zoning applications. Any comments related to the Armexation application (AZ-06-008) will be included in the Commission's recommendation to the Council. Staff is recommending: approval of the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Armexation (AZ-06-008). with a Development Ag:reement for this proiect. 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number AZ-06-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement: (add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number AZ.06-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006, for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number AZ- 06-008 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 3210 S. Eagle Road, 3020 S Eagle Road, 2990 S. Eagle Road, 2960 S. Eagle Road, and 3250 E. Victory Road. The parcels north of Victory Road lie within Township 3N, Range IE, Section 21. The parcel south of Victory Road lies within Township 3N, Range IE, Section 28. All properties are on the east side of S. Eagle Road. b. Property Owners of Record (Alliance members): Marty and Leeta Thomason (2910 & 2960 S. Eagle Rd.) Daniel and Dolly Baughman (2990 S. Eagle Rd.) John and Nita Sharp (3020 S. Eagle Rd.) Robert and Nedra Carpenter (3060 S. Eagle Rd. & 3250 E. Victory Rd.) Mark Hartenstein representing Charles Axelrod (3210 S. Eagle Rd.) c. Applicant: South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance 3100 S. Eagle Rd. Meridian, Idaho 83642 d. Representative: Marty Thomason South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED- AZ-06-008 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 e. Present Zoning: RUT/Ada County (all Alliance member parcels) f Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium and Low Density Residential (proposed for Mixed Use - COlIllllunity with CP A-05-00l) g. Description of Applicant's Request: 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C. h. Applicant's Statement/Justification (see Applicant's application and letter): Wayne Forrey, representing the Alliance, states in the application cover memo that the Alliance property owners have applied for, and been approved pending submission of this annexation application, an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. There are currently no developers involved with the property owners and no projects have been proposed to the Alliance members. This annexation request is the result of the motion made by Commissioners Newton~Huckabay, Borup, and Zaremba during the October 17, 2005 Meridian P&Z special meeting. The applicant is requesting annexation approval of 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as detennined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: February 27,2006 and March 13,2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 22, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 7, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There are existing homes, limited office/retail businesses, and other outbuildings on the subject site. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The ilIllllediate vicinity is transitioning rapidly to urban-scale development. The I-84/Eagle Road interchange is less than a mile to the north and has a significant influence on the area. Thousand Springs and Sutherland Farms Subdivisions are adjacent to the subject property and both ofthese residential developments are annexed, averaging 3.5 to 4 dwelling units per acre with mid-to-high end housing. A new Meridian Fire substation is being constructed just south of the Ridenbaugh Canal on the west side of Eagle Road. As one travels south from Overland Road, the El Dorado and Silverstone mixed use developments are currently being built-out, intended to serve as regional employment, hospitality, office and service centers with more than two million square feet of building area expected between the two projects. Traffic generated from the Tuscany Lakes project on the south side of Victory Road (approx. 450 units) also strongly impacts S. Eagle Road in this area. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Approved Silverstone Subdivision, zoned C-G (General COlIllllercial) 2. East: Approved Sutherland Farms Subdivision, zoned R-4 (north of Victory Rd.) and Golden Eagle Estates, zoned RUT/Ada County (south of Victory Rd.) 3. South: Approved senior assisted living facility, zoned R-8 (south of Falcon Dr.) and rural residential in Golden Eagle Estates, zoned RUT (Ada County) 4. West: Existing Thousand Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4/Meridian City, and rural South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED- AZ-06-008 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 residential, zoned RUT/Ada County near Victory Road. Medford Subdivision (proposed as R-8 for single and multi-family) is proposed at the southwest comer of Eagle and Victory Roads. d. History of Previous Actions: As mentioned above, the subject property is part of the recent request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of this area (CPA-05-001). The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is on the City Council agenda for May 2nd, 2006. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Sewer is constructed in Sutherland Farms Subdivision stub streets adjacent to the property north of Victory Road. This property drains to the Five Mile Trunk: and capacity is available. The property to the north of Victory would drain to the mains extended through the Tuscany Development. Location of water: Available in S. Eagle Road and local streets 2. Vegetation: There are numerous existing trees on the subject properties that should either be preserved or mitigated for at the time of development. The rest of the site is primarily used for rural residential purposes. 3. Flood plain: N/ A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The McDonald Lateral courses across the Carpenter parcels at the northeast comer of the EagleNictory intersection. This is a sizeable facility that may impact future development site plans on these parcels. 5. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any potential hazards on this site. 6. Proposed Zoning: C-C for all 23.39 acres. However, the submitted Concept Map shows R-4 and L-O zoned property. Consistent with the mixed use designation, the submitted Concept Map, and the adjacent developments, staff is recommending that portions of this site be zoned for residential, commercial and office uses. 7. Size of Property: 23.39 acres f. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: Although no development is proposed at this time, the submitted Concept Map (revised) shows a north. south access road located near the east boundary. Staff is supportive of the general location ofthis road, and the extension of E. Publisher Road from Sutherlund Farms. There are four accesses shown on the Concept Map to Eagle Road, and four accesses shown to Victory Road. Staff believes that this is too many access points to the adjacent roadway system, and recommends that access points be limited (please see Analysis below). g. Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): Per City Code (UDC Table 11-2B-3), a 25.foot wide landscape street buffer is required adjacent to Eagle Road and Victory Road, which are both arterial roadways. 2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: Per City Code (UDC Table 11-2B-3) a 25- foot wide landscape buffer is required between C-C zoned properties and residential uses/zones. h. Required Commercial Standards: C-C South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED-- AZ-06-008 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 Setbacks Landscape (Local/Commercial Street) Arterial Road (Eagle & Victory) Collector Street Maximum Building Height Proposed Required NA 10' NA 25' NA 20' NA 50' 7. COMMENTS MEETING On February 2,2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. The Meridian Fire Department was the only department or agency to provide comments. These comments are "standard" and have not been included as conditions of annexation. Once a development planes) is submitted staff will provide the applicant with specific comments and conditions from all commenting agencies and departments. NOTE: 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. Staff is recommending that the applicant contact the Board to see what, if any comments they have at this time. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is currently designated "Medium Density Residential" and "Low Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. However, in October of 2005, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Map Amendment (CPA) to change the designation of this property to "Mixed Use - Community." Staff is evaluating the subject annexation request under the assumption that this area will obtain a mixed use designation (CPA-05-00l is on the May 2nd, 2006 City Council agenda). In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use designation is defined in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The Mixed Use - Community designation allows residential density between 3 and 15 dwelling units per acre, up to 200,000 square feet of non-residential building area, and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the subject property (staff analysis in italics below policy): . Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner: . Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. . The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REViSED- AZ-06-008 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 · The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). · The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change. · The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. · The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. · "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) 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 ensure existing properties (both county and city properties) are protected from harmful, disturbing or unnecessary encroachments. While it may be possible to design non-residential projects that are compatible with residential, it does require more time, energy and money from all parties involved (both private and public) to design and enforce these situations. The applicant is proposing a commercial zone adjacent to proposed and established residential areas. There are existing homes in Sutherland Farms to the east of the subject site, south (Golden Estates), and north (County parcel). Staff finds that to protect the existing single-family homes to the east and north, certain restrictions on this development should be formulated. The applicant has written into the proposed DA provisions a requirement that Alliance properties located next to the residential uses in Sutherland Farms will provide either a residential buffer with the same size lots, or a 40 foot wide landscape buffer. Staff has used the Guiding Principles provided by the Alliance as a base for a DA, which is detailed in the Analysis section below. · "Allocate and identify locations/inventory for industrial and commercial business parks." (Chapter IV, Action 3, Objective C) Staff believes that the proposed proportion of commercial zoning to residential zoning for this property is not appropriate. Staff believes that additional residential and or office zoning should be allotted to limit commercial zoning. Staff also believes that there is already an adequate amount of built and/or planned commercial land supply in this area. The Commission and Council should rely on any pubic testimony provided when determining if the proposed zoning is appropriate for this property. · "Permit new. . .commercial developments only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action 6) Municipal water, solid waste and other services exist to this area of Meridian. South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED-- AZ-06-008 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 · "Locate new community commercial areas on arterials. . .near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective D, Action 3) Both Eagle Road and Victory Road are designated arterial roadways. Based on the volume of phone calls staff has taken from neiflhbors in this area that are concerned with the amount of commercial beinfl vrovosed. and the uncertain tv of what uses mav be constructed on this site. staff is unable to find that the sub;ect avvlication will comvlement, rather than conflict with. the adioininfl residential areas. Especially, staff has a dffJicult time envisioning how the development of the parcel on the south side of Victory Road will complement the nearby residences. The adjacent properties are designated low density residential and no transition of zoning or uses is proposed by the applicant. Staff believes that a C-C zone is too intense for the parcel south of Victory Road. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any public testimony provided when determining if the subject annexation and zoning, and subsequent development will complement the adjoining residential areas. . "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2) The Alliance is proposing four access points to Eagle Road and four access points to Victory Road. Both Eagle Road and Victory Road are designated arterial roadways. Stqff is recommending that access points be restricted to both Eagle Road and Victory Road. Staff is not supportive of the proposed access point locations to Eaflle Road and Victory Road. Staff recommends that access to this site be vrimarilv vrovided bv the future internal roadwav/drivewav svstem and not EafIle Road and Victory Road when this vrovertv develovs. See Analysis below. . "Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13) A stub street from Sutherland Farms, Publisher Street, is provided to this property. Currently there are no opportunities to connect to any other roads in adjacent properties. Staff believes that when the roadway/driveway system is constructed, this site should be required to extend Publisher Street into the site and out to Victory Road and Eagle Road. NOTE: This connection should not go straight out to Eagle Road. Rather, the connection should provide a circuitous route, as to prevent cut-through traffic. Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: · "The capacity of arterial. . .roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with AClIO to minimize access points on arterial. . .roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) · "Develop methods, such as cross~access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, page 79) Staff recommends that the Commission and Council determine whether the proposed zoning designations are generally harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED- AZ-06-008 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006 provided at the public hearing when determining tfthe applicant's zoning and development request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the C-C and L-O zoning districts. UDC Table 11-2A-2lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the R-4 zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: Community Commercial (C-C) and Limited Office (L-O): The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. R-4 Medium Low-Density Residential: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. AZ Application: Please see Exhibit C for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings. Proposed Zoning: One of the primary objectives of zoning is to protect the public health, safety and welfare. It is the City's obligation to ensure existing properties are protected from harmful, disturbing or unnecessary encroachments. While it is possible to design non-residential projects that are compatible with residential uses, it does require more time, energy and money from all parties involved (both private and public) to design and enforce these situations. Of the subject 23 acres, over 19 acres is proposed for C-C zoning, while 2.5 acres is proposed for R-4 zoning and I .4 acres is proposed for L-O zoning. By adding an additional 20 acres of land designated for primarily commercial use to the City's inventory, staff is concerned with a potential over-supply of commercially zoned land. Meridian's 2005 office vacancy rate has been noted by the Chamber of Commerce and other local real estate sources to continue to be high (between 9% and 25%, depending on the sub-area). While staff understands the applicant's argument that Eagle Road is a high visibility corridor and opportunistic for both office and retail, staff is concerned about extending too much more retail and office uses south of the Ridenbaugh Canal and believe other locations are better suited for these uses. In the area south ofI-84 between Locust Grove Road and a half mile east of Eagle Road, there is over 250 acres of vacant or under-developed land designated as either Commercial or MU- Regional on the Future Land Use Map. This does not include any of the Silverstone or EI Dorado land or any land north of 1-84. All of this property is within a 112 mile radius of the subject properties. South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED- AZ-06-008 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006 On the south side of Victory Road the applicant is proposing commercial zoning directly adjacent to existing residential. Staff is charged with ensuring that the proposed zoning, existing and future uses are compatible with each other. Staff has fielded several phone calls from neighbors in Sutherland Farms Subdivision, Tuscany Subdivision and Thousand Springs Subdivision. For the most part the neighbors are concerned with the amount of commercial zoning proposed and the anticipated amount of vehicular traffic and noise that this site will generate. Further, staff can not envision how the proposed C-C zoned property on the south side of Victory Road will be compatible with the low density residential surrounding the property. Staff finds that the subject application only proposes approximately 2.5 acres of residential zoning on the entire 23 acres proposed for annexation. Staff questions how the sliver of property on Eagle Road, south of Victory will develop with C-C zoning, as landscaping will take up a significant portion of the property. Further, no provisions have been provided for the re- development of the county properties to the north of the subject site (currently Kirby Kennels) and east in Golden Eagle Estates; C-C zoning is proposed adjacent to them. If zoning is approved as proposed by the applicant, staff believes that these adjacent properties will also seek a commercial zone, thereby furthering the oversupply of commercially zoned properties in this area. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council detennine if the ratio of commercial. office and residential zoninl! is appropriate for. and compatible with the other uses in this area. Staff reconunends that the Commission and Council detennine what the appropriate mix of zoninwuses. in this area proposed for mixed use - community. is to be. The legal descriptions submitted by the applicant (dated March 29, 2006) shows the properties as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. Said legal descriptions are not stamped by a professional land surveyor. The applicant should be reauired to submit lel!al descriptions for this property that are stamped by an Idaho State certified professional land surveyor. Concept Map: On April 12, 2006, the applicant submitted a revised/updated concept map and proposal letter. The revised concept map and the commitments outlined in the revised letter are detailed below. Detail: When the CPA application was submitted in 2005, the Alliance intended to develop a business campus similar to the EI Dorado and Silverstone developments to the north. All property owners were committed to coordinate future development plans. The Alliances' goal is to rezone the properties to their best use and then to market the property to a buyer who will be bound by the DA that comes out ofthe annexation process. A positive and encouraging aspect ofthe Alliance's applications are that owners of contiguous, smaller parcels are coordinating their development plans and appeared to be willing to submit a single planned development/site plan. This kind of cooperation is strongly encouraged by City Staff, the Commission and the Council and helps to facilitate future driveway and roadway access points to Eagle Road and Victory Road and avoids fragmented development. Staff believes that the revised Concept Map and the commitments offered up by the applicants, provides a good base for evaluating the annexation request. The revised Map shows a vehicular system, proposes maximum building sizes and heights, and limits some of the uses that may be constructed within the six distinct areas. The six areas are broken up as follows: the R-4 area adjacent to Sutherland Farms Subdivision; the L-O area south of the R-4 area, adjacent to Victory Road, the C-C area along Eagle Road and along the north side of Victory Road; the interior transitional C-C area (on the west side of the proposed north-south roadway, across from the R-4 area); the C-C area interior to the development; and, the C-C area south of Victory Road. South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED- AZ-06-008 PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20, 2006 Because the Commission has recommended approval to the City Council of a Mixed Use- Community designation for this property, staff has attempted to incOlporate detailed DA provisions that will ensure that the subject property is developed in the best interest of the City. Access: During the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-05-00l), Wayne Forrey testified that he imagined that there would be one additional access point to Eagle Road, between Easy Jet Drive and Victory Road, for this property. However, on the Concept Map north of Victory Road there are two accesses shown to Eagle Road, two access are shown to Eagle Road south of Victory Road, and four accesses shown to Victory Road. Staff believes that this is too many access points to the adjacent arterial roadways. Staff recommends that EaQ:le Road access points be restricted to: one full access (public street) between Easy Jet Drive and Victory Road. and one riQ:ht-inlriQ:ht-out driveway north of Victory Road. if approved by AGIO. Staff further recommends that only one riQ:ht-in/riQ:ht-out driveway to Eagle Road be allowed south of Victory Road. Access to Victory Road should be restricted to one full access (public street) and one riQ:ht-inlriQ:ht-out driveway. on the north side of the road. and only one access on the south side of Victory Road. in locations approved by ACHD. A stub street from Sutherland Farms, Publisher Street, is provided to this property. Currently there are no opportunities to connect to any other roads in adjacent properties. Staff believes that when the roadway/driveway system is constructed. this site should be required to extend Publisher Street into the site and out to Victory Road and EaQ:le Road. Staff further recommends that a public stub street be provided to the county parcel to the north (Kirby Kennels). NOTE: Retail operations typically want their own driveways or at least more frequent curb cuts to arterials than residential uses. Residential subdiyision developers are typically less concerned with direct access. and put less pressure on both the City and ACHD to construct them. Landscapilll2:: Per City Code (UDC Table ll-2B-3), a 25-foot wide landscape street buffer is required adjacent to Eagle Road and Victory Road, which are both arterial roadways. Per City Code (UDC Table 11-2B-3) a 25-foot wide landscape buffer is required between C-C zoned properties and residential uses/zones. The Alliance is agreeable to a DA provision where 25-foot wide street buffers along Victory Road and Eagle Road will be constructed in the future. A 40- foot wide landscape buffer is proposed between the office zoned area and the residents in Sutherland Farms. Development AQ:feement: UDC 11-5B-3.D.2 and Idaho Code 9 65-6711A provides the City the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA is necessary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion that is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation and does not negatively impact nearby properties. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council direct the City's Legal Department to draft a development agreement for the subject properties as follows: . That the Alliance believes there are advantages to selling the subj ect properties to a single development entity. . That because the Alliance property owners have joined together for a unified development, all of the property north of Victory Road shall be included within the boundaries of a plat, with a [mal plat for the property being recorded prior to the City's issuance of any building permit. South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED- AZ-06-008 PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006 . That because the development approach is to lessen (feather) land use intensity approaching the existing neighborhoods, the following restrictions will be placed on the development of the property: . A 40- foot wide landscape buffer will be provided between the L-O zoned property and Sutherland Fanns Subdivision. Said buffer will be constructed on the L-O property. . A 25-foot wide landscape buffer will be provided between the L-O zoned property and the R-4 zoned property to the north. Said buffer will be constructed on the L-O property. . The area zoned L-O will be limited to single level structures up to 5,500 square feet. . All buildings with frontage on Eagle Road and Victory Road, north of Victory Road, will be limited to a 12,500 square foot building footprint; that all buildings will have a variety of building materials and colors; that there will be variations in building setbacks from the road (not strip mall); and that buildings will be oriented towards the adjacent arterial street (at least two-sided architecture, not a blank: fayade facing the street(s)). . The area directly west of the proposed north-south street shall be limited to a single level, up to 7,500 square feet in size; have two-sided construction so that there are windows facing the R-4 homes to the east and internally to the west; that the commercial building will look similar to the homes constructed in Sutherland Fanns; and that no retail stores, fuel sales, or wireless communications facilities will be allowed in this area. . That the internal commercial buildings north of Victory Road, shall not exceed 20,000 square feet. . That at least one centrally located plaza gathering areas, with some covered seating shall be provided within the conunercial area north of Victory Road. . That the buildings south of Victory Road, shall not exceed 20,000 square feet; that all buildings will have a variety of building materials and colors; that there will be variations in building setbacks from the road (not strip mall); and that buildings will be oriented towards the adjacent arterial street (not a blank: fayade facing the street(s)). . That the future R-4 lots located next to Sutherland Farms Subdivision shall contain at least 8,000 square feet and have dwellings of at least l,400 square feet. . That unless specified otherwise in this DA, all landscaping along the perimeter of this property and internally shall comply with all of the provisions of the Unified Development Code. . That Publisher Street will be extended into the site and circuitously connect with Eagle Road and Victory Road, as not to encourage cut~through traffic. . That a public stub street will be provided to the property to the north, to eventually tie into Easy Jet Drive. . That Eagle Road access points be restricted to a maximum of: one full access (public street) between Easy Jet Drive and Victory Road, and one right-inlright-out driveway north of Victory Road, if approved by ACHD; that only one right-inlright-out driveway to Eagle Road be allowed south of Victory Road. . That access to Victory Road shall be restricted to a maximum of: one full access (public street) and one right-inlright-out driveway, on the north side of Victory Road; that only one access on the south side of Victory Road be allowed. Locations for access points mentioned shall be contingent on ACHD approval. . That the Alliance agrees to facilitate a well-planned, neighborhood compatible development. . That the Alliance agrees to submit legal descriptions for each approved zone, prepared by a professional licensed surveyor in the State of Idaho, prior to annexation ordinance approval. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owners (at the time of annexation ordinance South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED- AZ-06-008 PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 20,2006 adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney. Bill Nary. at 888- 4433 to initiate this process. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subiect application AZ-06- 008. with the Development Agreement provisions listed above in the AZ Application Analvsis of Section 10 of the Staff Reoort for the hearinll date of AptillO. 2006. 11. EXHmITS A. Legal Description B. Required Findings from Unified Development Code C. Concept Map South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation REVISED- AZ-06-008 PAGE 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAfF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 Exhibit A - Legal Descriptions Murch 2'1, 200(\ rlESCRlJ'T10N loUR C.C ZONE Ihis lleserirtion is I"f lnt' C-C lOl'\jI:: as shown on tlU' Eagle Alli,mee Map whidl is <I parcel orland locatcd in lhe SWl /4 ofthC' SWli4 Sectioll 21 and the l'\W1/4 oflhc I\~"J 14 Section 2l! 10wnship 3 North Range I l:.astlJosic Meridian Ada ('OUnly, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Comm.::m:ing althe soulh ellst corner of said SC'ction ::! I 1":.\ N R I E BM, whi\:h is Ihe True Plljnt or Beginning lhr [he descriplion: Thence l'IiO'O(l' I7"W along the west boundary of said Section 21 a distance of I 02." I] leel: Thence Sl!9-25' 49"F iC)I' a distancC' of 66 7.16 feel to the centerline of a pruposed sl~et: Thence along a \:urve \\.ith a radius of 400 fcC'1. il central allgk of 6"52'55", a kmg chord bearing ot'SJ" 26' 45"F. and a long chord kngth of 48.02 lcct; Th~nce conlinuing along thc ccntcrlinc SO" (l' 17"C a distance of 53U,\)2 feet; ThellCl' al(JOg a curve wilh a radius of I RO leeL a central angle 1'1' 37'J4'45", J IlJlJg chord bearillg or S Ill' 47' O()"W and a long chord length (If 115,95 feet: I hcnt::e clmtinuing along the I:l>nterline S37"-,4' 2R"W a dislant::e of 11l5.49 led: Ih..,ncc altJOg a ('urvc wilh a raJius of 1 ROlcel, a cl:ntra] angle orJ 7"1 n'21", II long \:hnrd bearing of S 18" 59' I R"W mllia long chllrJ length of 114.74 leet: I'hence continuing along lhe e.enterlinC' Scr24' 07"W a dislance "I' 13\).4 7 !Cd II. Ihe south boundary of section 11 : Thencc SO"JlJ' 5\)"W a distance of l67.00 leeL: Thence S Ill"t <)' 49"W 1I JiStllnCl' uf J 70.0{) fi:C'I: I hellce NlllrJ5' 54"W a distancc of 336. T2 feel: I hC'nee SO"]I' I O"\V a distance of :B9.I] teet: Thence N30"09' 4Q"W a distance of 277.25 fcelwlhe we~l boundary of Section 28: I'hcnci.' along lile west b(.undary of Section 211 NO":';:!' Jl)"l a distance of 42'1,)5 fccl am] haek to d\(' point of beginning_ Said parcel conlai [IS :;ume 19 AI acres. more or kss. Exhibit A - Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8T AFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 March 29.2006 DESCRIP'nON FOR 1,.()]ONE lhis d~scripli(ln is Ihr lh~ [AllDt><E as shown on th~ Fllj!.le Alli(\llI.'l' Mdp whi"h is a pured ofland located in tho; SWI /4 urth~ SW'1l4 Sectkm 21 Township 3 North Rlmgt' I East Bosic M.:ridian Ada CounlY_ Idaho and more particularly deserlh~d 3-<.; !Illlows: Commencing nt tlw south cast comer of saiJ Section 11 L\N R I F 8M, Thl.'llCl" SIN"',-~'55"E :liung tll(> south boundary of ~miJ Section 21 II distance of 530J}() 11::1.'1 which is .he True ruint of Beginning for Ihe description: Thence ~O'14'07"E along the centerline ora propos<.'(j road a distance of 139.47 leet; Thcnl.:c along a curv<: with a r<ldius of 1.80 keto a central angle of 37" I 0'21 ", a lung chorel beming of N 18" 59' 1 R'T, and a long chord length of 1]4.74 1i.'C1: Thence S52" 25' 31 "F a distance of 25.()() feet to the easterly right HI' way lin~ of said mad: Th,'llee SIl'Y 3]' 50"F a dislann' of 211 ,ll7 lCel to the westerly boundary of Sutherland Faml~ Subdivision; Thellee SO'OU' 17"W a distance HI' 2J3,OO feet to the southerly boundary llfScctioll 21: Thence NIl9"3S' 55"W along said sOUlhcrly bl)undary a distance of270,02 !Cd and hud... II' the poinl of begi nning_ Said parcel conlains some 1.4J acres. more <lrk-s5. Exhibit A - Page 2 CiTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006 Exhibit A - Page 3 March 24,10()o DESCRIPTION fOR H4 lONL Tl1i~ d.:scription is for the R4 ZONE liS sh~lwn on the Eagle Alliance Map which is i1 rxm;d orland locatt-d in 1m: SWl/4 ofthc SWI/4 ScL.tion 21 Township:~ Nonh R,mg.:: 1 East Bosie Meridian Ada County. Idaho lmd more pnfticu!;uly described .IS follows: Commencing al the ~outh calit corner 0 f said Sedion 21 T3N R 1 E BM. Th~:l1n: NO'(}(1' ITW along the west boundar) of said Section 21 11 distance of 1023_12 fed; Thence S89'2~' 49"F I'm a distance or 067.1 (j tect to the centerline of a proposed stre.:t which is Ihe True Poinl or Beginning I{)r the Jescriptiun; Thence ahlllg. 11 curve with a radius of 4()() teel, a central angle of (i"52'55". a long chord hearing ot'S]" 26' 45"F and 11 long chmd length of 4l!.02 feet: I'hence continuing illong the centerline SO' ()' I7"E [I distance of 530.91 fcet: lhence along a curve with a mdius or 180 feeL a central anglc of 37'"34'45". a long chord bearing of S 18" 47' tl6"W and a lung chord length or 11 5.95 feet; Thence cOlllinuing along (he centerline 837"34' 2S"W a distance or 105.49 fe:et; rhcnce S'i2'~5' ] 1 "E a distance of 25.00 lCet to the easterly right 01' way line 01' said r'lild; I'hcncL' S89" 3 3' 50"F. a dislam.:c of 211.117 feet 10 the weslerly houndll'-)' of SuHlcrhlllJ Fann:l Subdivision; !"hellC':: \I0'OO'17"\\' a distance of7H7.77 ted; Thence '\I1l9"25'49"W a distancl' of 132.88 It.'ct and buck III Ihe JXlilll of ()I:ginning. Said paTcel conlilins some 2.55 acres. more of Icss. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 B. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to C-C, L-O and R-4. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report for more information. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; No development is proposed concurrent with the zoning map amendment. Staff finds that there are several uses that are allowed and conditionally allowed within the requested zoning districts of C-C, L.O and R-4. If the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in the development agreement, staff finds that the proposed zoning districts will be in compliance with the specific district regulations. Staff fmds that future development of this property should comply with the established regulations and purpose statements of the requested zones. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff recommends that the Commission and CO\lllcil rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation is in the best of interest ofthe City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). The C-C, L-O and R-4 zoning amendment will provide commercial and residential areas that are similar in nature to existing and proposed commercial development in the vicinity. Staff fmds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council determine whether the orooosed Annexation and Zonin!! of this property will be in the best interest of the City. If the Commission and Council determine the annexation is in the best interest of the City. staff recommends that the applicant enter into a Development Al!reement (DA) with the Citv. as mentioned in Section 10 of the StaffReoort. Exhibit B - Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 C. Concept Map IA(;/I dI.L/ANa CWICEPT MAP ,. 1116. lUl. .....~1r/ItfIio :l-r; t I '- ~ I --T-'"~-/ " I ! .~-- I J --or ~ ._..IfI!/' r'~ ~. ~ I I J' I (- ---- '! I ij 'I -----LJ . u,_ -__~ t;;;-..; ;;:.:~-- ~..., .------ / ; t-... -- J T-- \ \ \ c " ( J>\ J -'- ......,.tiIpII..~ ....... ...-.- &Jib;. _J_" " \ -- -----~.,.----~-. -.. 1 - I. --- t...---- .:..1 j r'." ,'j,' /1 .I" ,,~ ! ,,' , P. -/ I , ,': "' . ~.ir~/ """""""'fW"~.~ --. -'. -'\ ) - tlJ ~~~.--cr "1 ~,... . -""'" -,~ .-- ~.~.........~-.. 2. ..,.~~~lit;rtt/~-~ .J. ~c:.~~=:,JiuJlm> .-- Aoww #I.... /.oW ~ Ig..-_ Mow =:=--~".f'g~ --- ~1: t-- :::;:;:-_----=---'~_;J:-~'- '--1 <woo_ f:~ -... .. ----I I I I I I I I L.._____ t_~~._~.__~ ~_.~_ ~.~_.~_.~__~_..,'__.__.__._ , ~ .. ~ 'tMto i-... Exhibit C - Page 1 Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 59 of 82 Item 17: Item 18: America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Public Hearing: PP 06-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Public Hearing: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open Public Hearings AZ 06-013, PP 06- 011, and CUP 06-006, for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Public Hearings AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006, all related to Canterbury Commons Subdivision, to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: Rohm: Okay. And now the last item on our agenda. I'd like to at this time open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-008 and begin with our staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Victory and Eagle Roads. It is approximately 23 acres of roughly 50 acres that was part of a Comprehensive Plan map amendment that you guys reviewed late last fall, early fall, later last year, and recommended approval to Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 60 of 82 the City Council. The Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance at that time applied for the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designation of the property, which included the subject property that's up for annexation this evening, in the baby blue highlight, from low and medium density -- this parcel was low. I believe most of this is medium, to change those from -- those designations to a mixed use regional designation. This body sent a recommendation onto the City Council for a mixed use community designation. There was extensive discussion at that time with the Alliance properties about the designation -- appropriate designation. Several neighbors from Sutherland Farms and most of them were new neighbors in Sutherland Farms were at that hearing. Some of the existing residents in Thousand Springs on the other side of Eagle Road were in attendance. There was no specific proposal or concept plan at that time, it was just a -- to paraphrase, I guess, the request from the Alliance, it was, basically, due to all of the commercial uses in EI Dorado and Silverstone that Eagle Road really is not appropriate anymore for residential, that commercial uses belong in this area. The planning and zoning staff actually recommended denial. Like I said, this board forwarded onto the City Council with a provision that the City Council not act until an annexation application be filed by the applicant. So, the City Council had been waiting for the annexation application as you requested they do. Staff had a little bit of an issue, I guess, with -- the applicant did submit an annexation application. I think what may have been the intent was that there would be some type of a development plan to look as well, because an annexation application really doesn't -- it's just zoning. There is really no concept necessarily with just getting your zoning. So, the reason that I wanted to have this hearing tonight is to see -- if you tell me to press forward with the concept plan that they submitted, I will do my best to work up a staff report. This is the concept plan they did submit. It will just touch on that real quick. There is a stub street coming into the property in that location from Sutherland Farms. They are conceptually showing to extend that street one lot depth and, then, run a north-south street. This is an existing kennel in the county, zoned RUT. This is your use exception in Sutherland Farms. So, there is office, other nonresidential uses in that area. And, then, Easy Jet Drive. So, this would be Victory. There was one parcel on the south side of Victory, the other -- I think there is maybe four property owners that own eight or nine separate tax ID parcels on the north side. The legal descriptions submitted for this whole property proposed a C-C zone, community business district zone. However, there is an office zone shown right on the corner, as well as seven or eight residential lots shown adjacent to the existing single family homes in Sutherland Farms. Some of the things that were discussed -- and I won't go into it too much, but just to kind of refresh your memory a little bit, because a lot of those neighbors aren't here this evening. But there was some concern of how do you transition from these new single family homes and at least a couple, if not several of them testified that when they bought they were assuming it was going to be residential, because that was the designation. I'm not here to say that you made a bad choice last time by amending the Comprehensive Plan map, it was simply just to point out that there wasn't a concept plan before and my question to you, I guess, is one row of single family homes enough of a transition to, then, the commercial that takes up a majority of the site. Something that I envision, I haven't drawn anything, is maybe just another row of some residences, which it does a couple of things, in my mind. If you remember Brad brought up that he thought -- and based on Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 61 of 82 a study that we had Thornton Oliver Keller do for the city that we already had enough commercial designated properties anyways. Our vacancy rates for office were -- were pretty high and didn't think we needed anymore. This, in my mind -- and I agree with what the Alliance was saying at that point, too, that residences right on Eagle Road probably don't make sense. But some compromise of that -- and in the staff report I'm saying approximately half of the property zoned to a residential zone, that still leaves you some decent size commercial businesses that you could put in there and it provides that -- that transition -- more of a transition, anyways, for the Sutherland Farms folks, and there are residences on the other side, too. So, I think if we get too much commercial in this area, there could definitely be a negative impact on the neighborhood. On the other side of the Ridenbaugh where EI Dorado and Silverstone are, it's not the same situation. You don't have existing residential subdivisions. So, this is -- it's really an in-fill piece that we have got to make work into an existing neighborhood. Granted, most of it's a newer neighborhood, but it still exists. So, just based on the concept plan, again, I didn't think there was enough information to recommend approval, but I think there is possibilities here to recommend approval, just not -- I wanted to give the Alliance a chance, really, to bring some concepts before the Commission and the Council has said that, too, that they really want to see detail. I met with -- with most of the Alliance members here on Tuesday, I believe it was, for a little while, and -- and staff realizes that those concept plans don't always come to fruition in how you -- you know, best laid plan. They really don't know. They are just trying to get zoning to market this and find someone or maybe a couple few entities that can develop this property. So, they really don't know how it's going to develop and I understand that. I respect that. At the same time the city, I tried to explain to them, is looking for some details where we can say, hey, this is going to be a good addition to the city with these concepts or these provisions. If it's going to be a roadway system or all of the buildings are going to have, you know, 30 percent windows facing Eagle Road and there will be double side architecture, so that the residences aren't looking at the back of buildings, something, some other provisions. Now, I have provided seven or eight guiding principles with the application and most of those are pretty good. I think some of them we are going to need a little tweaking. But just based on the detail and the motion, I guess, the question to the Commission is -- is this what you expected to see for this area when you said we like the idea of changing you from just straight residential to a mixed use designation, come back when you have an annexation application. I mean is this all the detail you really expected to see or were some other -- some details as far as, you know, acreages -- because, you know, our policies in the Comprehensive Plan for the mixed use areas have provisions for residential, different types of commercial businesses, offices. Here would just be, you know, all that's zoned C-C would be a little concerning to staff and without -- I may chime in a little bit later, too, but some of the other concerns, I guess, is without Showing a concept plan I was really concerned about at least a portion of this lot, primarily the perimeter of this whole lot, and how it relates and how it relates -- these properties are still designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan map. So, how do you have a C-C right adjacent to low density residential and what do you do, especially with the strip, you're going to have a landscape buffer required on Eagle Road, one to buffer, and now you have got -- I mean I don't know how much room's in there, but it makes it quite difficult to actually Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 62 of 82 utilize that area for commercial businesses and how do they relate to these anticipated low density -- existing low density and anticipated low density properties around that __ that site. So, those are just some of the things that I would like to see addressed, you know, by the applicants and, again, get some guidance from the Commission on, you know, staff, this is what you need to work from and this is good enough for us, we think that it can be approved with this or we want to add a couple provisions, but this is good enough. I think -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if I may comment, I would add what I remember my expectation to have been and I probably was the leader in discussion with Mr. Forrey the alternatives to making it entirely commercial and he made the offer that there would be residential along the eastern side that I think pushed most of us over the side that -- to say, well, maybe the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be okay, but you're absolutely right, we wanted to see it. And I'll tell you my expectation was to see an annexation and a preliminary plat, not just a concept. I was expecting as a backup for whether the Comprehensive Plan amendment really should happen or not, to really see, essentially, the final detail. And my expectation, I believe, was pretty much as you described it, there would be residential on both sides of this back street, commercial along Eagle, but that there would be some depth to the amount of residential that was there, that we would see what the final location of the roadway would be. So, your instinct certainly matches the way I remember it, except that I would go one step farther and I don't know if the words were ever said, but I was expecting annexation and preliminary plat before we matched it up with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Moe: I concur as well. Zaremba: I see other people nOdding their heads. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I remember very clearly that Mr. Forrey made the comment that there would be one row of houses on the east side. Zaremba: On each side? Newton-Huckabay: On the east. Zaremba: Oh, on the east side. Newton-Huckabay: I remember that to be his only promise to the Sutherland Farms homeowners that there would be one row of houses on the eastern side of the property, with -- I don't know if they agreed to a size specifically as far as lot size, but it wasn't going to be like apartments. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 63 of 82 Hood: Of similar size I think was basically the language. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. And I want to make -- if I may comment, too, that the one like that I think is important here was -- what was important for me at the time was that this can come in as one development or this can come in eight developments. And I really like the idea of it coming in as one development and I also think this is a critical corner, it's going to have -- I mean it's going to be a very critical corner. We have, what is it, Tuscany something Village and, then, we have got Kingsbridge going in right down below it, and, you know, I think there is going to be a need for services and neighborhood commercial on that corner. And I also think that those -- those other three big lots right there on Victory, once the road expands to the southeast, are likely going to want to expand in some type of commercial and, then, was this not also the property that Ada County was assessing as commercial property or something like that? They had stopped -- I remember Anna sitting here -- actually came to that meeting and said this is the first that had happened, where the county was designating a property different than the city. Hood: The assessor's office oftentimes does make assumptions that aren't based on our Comprehensive Plan. They very well may have been being taxed as a commercial property. I don't know that. An appraiser can look at highest and best, but if you're on an arterial intersection, they, generally, aren't looking at our Comprehensive Plan map either, which is a better guide than the appraiser saying what your highest and best is. But that -- you know, all that aside, I guess I think -- I agree with you -- with the -- you know, going back to the residential there, you're right on, your memory is right on, but I didn't think that that would be a minimum, like it has to be only one row of lots. And that's my question to you, I guess. If that's -- if that's what you understood you were getting, that's fine, I'll work with that, but that's not -- I didn't interpret that meaning to be that's a maximum. You can only have one row of houses and we want to see the rest of it be commercial, that's the question, I guess, and I -- without having the details in a plat, that's why I want this kind of open forum to see when you envisioned changing this to a mixed use designation, were you envisioning this. And that's my question. Borup: And my -- now that I think about it, my feeling was that that was correct, that would be minimum on the east, and it seems like that was something that Wayne committed to at the meeting and maybe saying he'd need to go back, they need to discuss it and work on a design and I don't know that we knew what we were getting, other than that would be a minimum. And I was not expecting a plat. Newton-Huckabay: I was not either. Borup: I was expecting maybe a little more detailed concept plan. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Borup: But not a plat. Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 64 of 82 Hood: And I have just a -- to kind of finish, I did this morning -- Mr. Carpenter came into the office and dropped off a new plan and that doesn't show up very well. I have got a color rendering. It's basically the same plan, however, they have shown how their access roads can -- their driveways from Eagle can tie back in internally and back to that proposed north-south roadway that I mentioned earlier, so I'll put that up on the screen, too. Zaremba: While you're setting that up, I admit that my memory is sometimes faulty, but I -- now that I think of it, I remember some discussion, whether it went anywhere or not, that along the east property line would be single family dwellings of equivalent to what they backed up to and that on the west side of that road there might be a higher density of residential. Borup: It makes sense. Zaremba: Before the commercial along Eagle Road. Whether it was apartments or something else. I thought the subject was open to have more residential than just that one row. Hood: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, just -- I was going through the minutes of that meeting just before we had this one, just to kind of refresh my memory, and that was discussed and at least one, maybe two of the people in Sutherland Farms says we don't want apartment buildings there either. So, it's tough and I don't know what it is, but it just -- and maybe that -- if that's what -- you know, that was a separate hearing. I'm just saying that that was discussed, but it really wasn't a consensus that that would be any better. Zaremba: Well, among the other discussion I also support the idea of actually identifying different zones, that it should not all be one zone. The zone should be appropriate to what we think is going to be put there. Rohm: Caleb, thank you, and I think, really, at this point I'd like to have the applicant come forward and just kind of walk us through some of your own thought processes as to how this -- you envision this developing. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Marty Thomason, I am a member of the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance and I drew the short straw, so I'm making a presentation tonight. Rohm: Lucky you. Thomason: My address is 2960 South Eagle Road. We came here tonight with the understanding that we were making a presentation on annexation application, but the discussion that has occurred so far leads me to the understanding that we really need to rediscuss the October 17th meeting and I have -- I have prepared for that, so I will lead you through that. To begin with we are not developers, we are property owners Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 65 of 82 pursuing the rezoning of our property as a group for its best use. We hired Wayne Forrey last year to lead us through the Comprehensive Plan amendment phase, because our purpose at that time was for a map change, not annexation. The October 17th meeting -- and I'll just direct your attention up here to some slides that we have prepared. We walked away from that meeting with the understanding that we had an approval for a map change with three conditions. And I'll go through those quickly now, but, then, I'll describe them later as well. Those three conditions were have another neighborhood meeting. Develop a development agreement that included our guiding principles that we had willingly put forth. And, third, to apply for annexation. And so we applied for annexation, my slide is basically about tonight, assuming we were going to have an annexation discussion. We applied for annexation and submitted our application on January 11 tho Six days ago we received a staffing report that was quite contrary to what we had understood we would be receiving. The initial summarization that we had received was almost opposite of that. Tonight we thought that we would show how we had complied with the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission from the October 17th meeting. And, then, I was going to move into a summary. But I'm going to be a little off of that tempo tonight. First of all, if I could have you move to the next slide, please, Caleb. I'd like to thank Caleb for his synopses and for his review. I know that he wasn't involved with our project at the time and I recognize that also two of the Commissioners weren't here at that time. And so this is probably a very good discussion, so that we are all at the same -- at the same place. Caleb went through where our properties were located, but the area is South Eagle Road and Victory Road. The northern most property is my property and, then, I will introduce the other families here in just a moment. But when we made our application for a zoning change, we did it based on 50 acres in this area and which were -- only our properties are now going fOlWard for the annexation application. If I could have you move to the next slide, please. Thank you. Okay. Here you see where the properties are located. There are five families and ten tax parcels. We have come together because Ada County Highway District is widening South Eagle Road. The families are, starting from the north, my property, the Thomason family. Moving to the south we have the Bothman family. Then we have the Sharp family. The Carpenter family. And, finally, on the southeast side of Victory Road is the Axlerod family. All of those people are here tonight, thinking we were going to provide evidence -- or testimony, excuse me, of what we were doing here. If I could have you move to the next slide, Caleb, please. We have worked proactively with all of our neighbors. Again, we are not proposing a project or a development, we are proposing the right zoning for our property based on where it's located and the pressures that are happening in that area. And I'm going to quickly run through the things that we have done. If I could have you hit the space bar again -- or the down key again. We developed guiding principles. We put those forth. Wayne helped us develop those after neighborhood meetings, meetings with the planning staff, and with meeting with ACHD. We came to our map CPA meeting with the idea that we would be multi -- excuse me -- mixed use regional. We changed that designation to mixed use community. The recommendation that came out of that meeting actually states that. In our development agreement we said we want to restrict not big boxes. And we have created an internal roadway to minimize curb cuts on South Eagle. We have accommodated Sutherland Farms desire for a transition. Our original Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 66 of 82 recommendation is that we would have a landscape buffer. They weren't interested in that. The next recommendation was that we would have like size lots on our eastern border, of like size -- of like construction that would be the transition. And the challenge with what's being presented is, well, the transition just keeps transitioning. And in a moment I think we -- I'll point out where we made the conclusion at the last meeting that is that nobody is going to live there. And I will point that out here in just a second. And last we are in total agreement with taking the guiding principles and putting them into a development agreement. Our understanding is that following this meeting, if there was to be an approval to move forward, a development agreement would start to be developed, which would be finalized following the City Council meeting and we put forth our guiding principles for the very purpose of going into that. We are not proposing a project, we are proposing a rezoning. And the annexation request was that this body had recommended that, as the appropriate way to take the guiding principles and attach it to this property on a go forward basis. If I could have you move to the next slide. Thank you. Here is the area that we are talking about and we are located -- actually, let's just go ahead and fill this whole screen out. I think it's for -- one more. Thank you. There has been a lot of talk about mixed use regional and there being a lot of available commercial land set aside for commercial land development, but I'd like to address that for just a moment. And this was in Wayne's presentation at the last meeting. Where the 36 percent is located, that is 36 percent of the land designated as multi-use -- excuse me. Mixed use regional is located in that area. That's the Ten Mile interchange area. And the fact is that that's probably several years away from being developed. If we move down to the ten percent, that also -- that's south of where we are located. That's probably also several years from being developed, for the simple reason that there are not services out there. We are located in the lower 27 percent. In fact, our property is directly below that seven, if I can get this to point there. Right in here. That's where we are located. And, yes, there is -- there is a lot of multi-use -- mixed use regional in the Silverstone and EI Dorado, but there is no mixed use community out through here. And the growth that's happening out there is outrageous. Let me just lead you through what's happening around us. . I'm the northernmost property. My southern -- or my northern border abuts against Kibby's Kennels. That is a commercial interest. It has an exemption to be a dog kennel there. Next to them, moving towards Ridenbaugh, is a Sutherland Farms lot. There is an old residence there. I will be commercial. That's going to be just like on the other side of Easy Jet where there is Sight and Sound, Stone Creek, and another building already going up. And, then, further, right next to Ridenbaugh, across from the new department that's been built out there, is another Sutherland Farms vacant lot, in essence. They have an old residence there. And that will be commercial, too. The reality is that the east side of South Eagle Road to my property line is already going to be light office or business interests of some sort. We are simply saying that's probably the appropriate use to continue down to Victory Road. Now, if I could just paint the picture for the rest of the area. East of us is Sutherland Farms. Yes. West of us is the Thousand Springs Subdivision. But let's go south. We have already talked about the Golden Eagle Estates. We have heard rumors this week that that's going to be more than -- more like light offices and apartments going in there. Be that as it may, let's go a step further south, that's Bob Aldridge's property. He's commented at the last meeting that he was in agreement with Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 67 of 82 this, because the reality is is that the ease is developing faster and is under more pressure than was originally anticipated. And if go further south, it's a proposed assisted living complex. If we go further south in the area that is bordered by Victory and Columbia Road, and bordered by Cloverdale and Locust Grove, that's an area of over six miles. Since the year 2001 there have been 2,500 housing units approved in that area. If we just take a simple projection and say 2.5 houses per acre in the proposed subdivisions that will be out in that area over the next several years, that's over 9,600 homes. There will be 24,000 people living there in a few years. The reality is is that Meridian has no mixed use community, no mixed use neighborhood sort of commercial setting to service those people. That's what our proposal was all about, is providing that in an area where the reality is that it's already being perceived that way. If I could have you move to the next slide, please, Caleb. And let's just go ahead and -- a couple more times. Thank you. Thank you. We know that realtors are looking at this area. They have commercial buyers that have uses along South Eagle Road, but they are not interested in minor arterials where a mixed use community is already set up. They are interested in highly visible areas and South Eagle Road is going to be that. It's going to be a five lane road. Ada County Highway District has already purchased easements along all of our properties. In every case they paid commercial value for those. I'm not sure how they record that in their accounting purposes, but every one of us collected commercial values for the easements that they have bought from us. They recognize that South Eagle Road and the southern area from where we live is -- will be developed in the next several years and they are recognizing the need for that arterial to be wider. Wayne presented this at the last meeting, that investors, developers, realtors, and public agency appraisers want to acquire the land on 1-84 for proximity business parks. We are right in the center of that. The interchange at Ten Mile is likely going to be delayed. Growth is going to be continued for us. The funding is probably going to be the issue there. Ada County appraisers already look at this and question whether it's commercial use. Several years ago when Thousand Springs was developed up to my front door, and Sutherland Farms was beginning to develop, I had an appraiser come out and I talked to them about getting an appraisal. One of the things he asked even then was should I appraise this for commercial or residential, because he viewed -- he saw that the potential was going to be there for commercial. And as I said also, the Ridenbaugh and Eagle Road area is already being used and will be built out for business purposes. This is how we left the last meeting and I will go into that in just a moment. But, basically, we believe that many of the issues that were raised in the staff report that you have all read were actually resolved at the October 15th meeting and the recommendation that was made, really, we thought resolved the residential issue. We have worked with our neighbors -- if I could have you move to the next slide, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Let's go through this real quickly, just one, two -- I think -- there we are. In September 21 st, 2005, Wayne reported this at our last meeting. The Idaho Statesman reported that we are not building office space fast enough to keep up with demand in one of their articles. It also stated that a strong housing market increased demand for office and services. And, finally, the office park growth is going to be on 1- 84, the Eagle Road corridor. This is part of Wayne's presentation. I found it interesting that the people that they interviewed drew the conclusion that this is where the growth was going to be in office park and offices and services. If I could have you move to the Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16. 2006 Page 68 of 82 next one, Caleb. Thank you. This was the summary that we believe came out of that October 17th meeting and in just a moment I will just read the issues that we were working from. We believe that there was a vote recommended to approve our Comprehensive Plan amendment application with three caveats, three qualifications. Those three were a neighborhood meeting, an application for annexation, and a developed agreement. We -- the Planning and Zoning agreed with the property owners that a development agreement would address the future development issues and it would include our guiding principles. And, finally, our understanding was that the Planning and Zoning requested that we make this application with a mixed use community designation. This is where we stand and, again, Mr. Hood's report came to us on March 10th and so we were preparing our response -- or not our response, excuse me. We were preparing our presentation based upon the meeting minute summaries that Brad Hawkins-Clark had done following the October 17th meeting and before I get to that, I'll just read what -- if you don't mind, I'll just quote to summarize a couple of the statements out of that October 17th meeting and not to pick on anybody, but Commissioner Borup, I thought you summed it up best, so if you will allow me, I'll just read what it was that you said. Borup: Okay. Thomason: I quote: I don't know that anybody in this neighborhood or anybody in this room would live in that location with single family residential. So, it looks to me like the choices, if it's going to be, is going to be high density or it's going to be commercial or office. I mean that's the way it is -- that's the way Eagle Road is to the north, that's the way Meridian Road is developing from the south. I think it is one of the realities. Now, that's not to pick on that, we just thought that was the best summary of the whole discussion about this area was going to be moving towards more of a business use. The recommendation, if it's okay, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I'd like to just read your recommendation. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thomason: Okay. Mr. Chairman -- and I quote: Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of CPA 05-001, request to amend the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan for approximately 50 acres from medium and low density residential to mixed use community by the South Eagle Road Property Alliance. There were three qualifications that are at the end of this recommendation and I will just quote those as well, if that's all right. And I quote: And we would like to request that City Council hold action on this CPA until the applicant can make an annexation application and it will catch up with this. So, an annexation application. Which would, then, bind them to the development guideline principles that they put forth in their presentation and we are also asking them to organize another neighborhood meeting. Out of that that's what we have done. We have made every effort to comply with those. We had another neighborhood meeting on January 5th. We presented to the neighborhood our concept plan, which has one row of housing, which we had committed to, and only one row of housing which we had submitted it, if like size lots and similar construction along the east border, right next to Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 69 of 82 Sutherland Farms. We have initially proposed two things. One of two things. Landscaping buffer or residential. They all were in favor of residential and they were not in favor of a transition that included higher density residential. They were in favor of the residential that we have -- are similar to their lot sizes. At that meeting we also -- they all requested a copy of our concept map and we mailed that to them. I personally mailed that the very next day to each of them that was in attendance. The next thing was that we have a -- provide an annexation application and that's what we have done. We did not see stipulations here that we had to put together something further that required more of a development idea. Please understand, we are not developing this land. Our purpose is to rezone this property. The annexation was a request of this body at the last meeting, so that the guiding principles we had put forth could be attached to it appropriately. Our plan is to market this based on its best use with the documents that lays out a clear limit and clear potential for a potential purchaser only. It's not for us to go in there and develop it. I came here prepared to talk about a recommendation for approval, but I'm still going to bring that up, recognizing that the body has -- already understands that there are some issues, perhaps, to continue to talk about. But we believe that now is the time to move forward with a decidedly clear decision. That helps the planning staff that helps us put together the right kind of development agreement. It allows us to proceed with a development agreement. It provides us with a clear direction and clear limits when we market our property. It propels this land forward on its best use and eliminates further delays. Please understand, the development will happen here. All of us purchased our property, because we want a rural setting. The vast majority of us have been there for 20 plus years. We will all find another rural setting. When the road widens, this property is -- these properties will start to sell. Here is Meridian's perfect opportunity to work with property owners who are bringing ten parcels, five different owners, into this annexation proposal or application and this is a way for the City of Meridian to have a coordinated and cohesive go forward on this project -- or on this property. And now I'll summarize, using Brad Clark-Hawkins, because I like what everybody else says, as opposed to what I say, as you have already noticed. This is a summary report we received from him following the October 17th hearing. This is on the final page, last paragraph, section nine, Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations. This is how we thought the meeting ended as well. Number one -- excuse me. The Commission recommends approval of this application for the following reasons: Number one. The property owner collaboration and coordination is a benefit to the city, because it avoids piecemeal development and provides for a more cohesive development pattern. Number two. South Eagle Road is rapidly changing. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan could not have foreseen this degree of growth and pressure. The plan needs to be flexible and reflect changes to the area. Number three. There is a higher likelihood of high density commercial and/or office uses being supported along this corridor than residential uses. Number four. The Commission supports adding commercial uses to the city limits where ever it is feasible. We want to encourage people to shop and spend money in Meridian and allowing commercial uses in this area is one option to accomplish that goal. Number five and, finally, the Commission believes the applicant's protection offered to Sutherland Farm Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 70 of 82 Subdivision in the proposed development are sufficient to address many of the neighbors concerns. This includes providing residential uses at the common property line with Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Commissioners, thank you for your time. The Alliance members bring this annexation application before you based on our understanding of the request of October 17th. We think the case for the land to be rezoned has been made and the decision, based on a recommendation of October 17th is why we were here tonight. Annexation of this land binds with the Alliance through a development agreement and to the guiding principles that we willingly put forth. And it moves this land forward on its best usage. Now that I have said all that, I'll stand and take your questions. Rohm: Thank you. And I would comment that you did an excellent job -- Thomason: Thank you. Rohm: -- of recapping the past and very much appreciated. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Question of the applicant at this time? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with that. It was an excellent presentation. And, basically, I think we are already in agreement with that, because Mr. Forrey did an excellent job of convincing us of the need. It's unusual for us to pass a recommendation along to the City Council with strings on it and the reason that we put strings on it is that the devil is in the details and what we wanted to see before we made it an absolute recommendation was some of the details and, again, I state we are 99 percent on board with you. What you're talking about is exactly what most of us envision should happen there. That's not the issue. The sort of the details of how we satisfy the neighbors is the issue and, again, I think you made an excellent presentation, but we still want to work out the details. Thomason: Thank you, Commissioner. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I just -- just kind of reviewing this, I realize you're not developers and whatnot and you're going to the point that was made in the last hearing, but I'm just kind of curious. Has there been any thought whatsoever within your group -- you're putting the R-4s on the east side, what did anyone envision would be on the west side of that proposed street going through there? Just commercial at that point as well, so everyone living in those housing is going to be looking directly across the street at commercial properties? Thomason: Thank you for that question. Again, I appreciate your understanding that we are not developers and we are also not planners in that respect either. Our goal here is to provide an area of land that has the right kind of zoning that a developer Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 71 of 82 would look at and, then, be able to see, okay, I'm going to have houses across there and when I make my proposal for my development project, I'm going to have to deal with those houses. Yes, we have had discussions. I have driven around the City of Meridian and seen where this sort of thing is already in place. One has a church in one area and it has a row of houses in another and a Pizza Hut across the street. I could answer you and say, yes, we envision that same sort of thing, but the truth of the matter is is that we -- we are not going to propose a project here and we want to have a clear cut development agreement that includes our guiding principles, which does say things like no big box. The mixed use community has certain limits on what the footprint of a building can be regarding -- it has to be 25 percent of the total space and so forth. It has rules about what the landscaping will be. With all due respect, I -- that's where we think we are going when we put together the developed agreement, is to that point, rather than putting out a limitation that -- or a potential that we might see, we are, really, looking for the guidance of a development agreement to -- and, of course, the planning and development rules to help support that. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to make the comment that when I went away from this hearing, the big benefit I felt like that we were getting from this -- and I stated this before -- is avoiding the situations like we have had at Eagle and Ustick where we have got three parcels that are small trying to develop at different times and that type of thing. Basically, in essence, this is the majority of that land that's left between the Ridenbaugh and Victory Road and I don't -- for me, that was the big benefit, is that ultimately you're agreeing to develop all this together and I guess for me that's important. I am comfortable with getting conditions of approval with this the way it is, because of the alternative if we don't move forward with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, is this is -- is this R-4, R-8 on the Comprehensive Plan, is that -- Thomason: It's RUT. Newton-Huckabay: Well, on Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Thomason: Oh, I'm sorry. Hood: Medium density. Newton-Huckabay: Medium density. Which, you know, each one of you could come in with six four-plexes or something. Thomason: That was a discussion at the last meeting, where it was discussed that a -- the opportunity to bump up a level existed and I don't know what that means to me, since I already have a commercial interest that's operating right next to me. I don't know what I could actually bump up to. I don't know the rules for that. But the reality is Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 72 of 82 that, yeah, there has already been interest expressed in our land for higher density housing. Newton-Huckabay: Right. But I guess I don't want to lose sight of the fact that I think for me personally that's the thing that I think is really important to me is that we have got now 58 acres that's going to develop into something that's a little more similar to -- I'm going to guess like the Gateway that came through tonight, but on a much smaller scale. Thomason: If I might just make one qualification. The Alliance owner -- the Alliance property owners own 20 -- well, it's 23 acres we will say, roughly. The 50 acres was a recommendation by the staff when we were doing our Comprehensive Plan amendment and it involved some of Sutherland Farms and it involved Kibby's Kennels and the land just a little bit to the south of the Axlerod property. Our property that -- the owners -- Alliance owners represent is 23 acres. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Kind of to wind this down just a bit, I think that you're in substantial agreement -- or this Commission's in substantial agreement with your concept plan, even as it is before this Commission. I see from the sign-up sheet that there were a number of people that signed up that are -- were against your development. Just from that, I ask if you've had an additional neighborhood meeting to put to rest some of their fears or if -- if any of that has taken place or -- would you like to speak to that just briefly? Thomason: On January 5th we held the neighborhood meeting that was requested after the October 17th Planning and Zoning meeting and, again, at that time the big issue was that they wanted to have a residential buffer and that's where we put in the concept map the residential row of houses right next to Sutherland Farms. Beyond that there has not been anything specifically expressed to us. I know that Darrell Hines had wrote a letter and had sent that into the planning staff and one of his comments in there was regarding the light office -- if I could have you put our very last slide up, I think I have our colored concept map on there, Caleb. Thank you. There is an area on the -- next to Victory Road and on the corner where Sutherland Farms is located, where we had initially had single family dwelling or R-4 all along our back row, but when we submitted that concept map to the planning staff, there was a request that came back to us to actually make that entire block light office. One of Darrell Hines' comments was that it -- what he sees on the new map is not what he saw on the concept map I mailed to him on January 5th. And, again, that was the planning staff's recommendation right after we turned in our annexation application. We are willing to accommodate that residential slice there again. I mean that's -- we have been willing to accommodate many things, obviously. You know, our original proposal was for the mixed use regional and it's turned out that it's best mixed use community. A transition is the right thing to do. So, we have accommodated that. We have put in our concept plan, as you can see here, we have a -- there has been mention in the staff report about a roadway that goes through. We have done that. We have identified these access points, because those Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 73 of 82 were ones recommended by Ada County Highway District. I should just mention about access points quickly. Wayne Forrey had met with Ada County Highway District and one of the things they were concerned about is when the widening project is done they will have 13 access points to our property, not all along South Eagle, some on Victory. But there will be 13 access points to all these different properties. They were excited to see that come down to seven in this kind of a proposal, when it's only dealing with rezoning and annexation and not a project. You know, they were -- they liked that idea. But what we have done here on this final map is we have identified where the business settings would be and, again, I leave those open to the rules that would be applied with any development in terms of the landscape based upon footprint of the building and that sort of thing. But the light office I was talking about is right over here and we at one time, when we submitted this, had this area right here still as single family dwelling, but that was a requested change by the planning staff. And I can't tell you what the logic was behind that. I'm sorry, I wasn't involved with that. I suspect it might have had something to do with the fact that it's right along Victory Road, which is going to widen to five lanes and the property probably across Victory Road is probably not going to be residential, but rather be light office. I suspect it had something to do with they had more vision than I did about what the area will look like. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: Again, I would comment I'm absolutely on board with what you're saying. This particular drawing I think is part of what the issue is. Rather than zone all of that C- C, part of it should be zoned L-O. That's probably the gray area. And part of it should be zoned R-4 or whatever the other -- yeah, it backs up to R-4, so it would need to be R-4. And the reason that we want the concept plan or the preliminary plat, which ever one you bring, is to identify those zones. Years ago the city used to zone a big piece of property and, then, use exceptions. Sutherland Farms has one of those. We don't do that anymore. We like the underlying zone to be what's there. And, you know, I certainly can see that my memory is wrong about how much residential, but even if it was exactly this, we would want to see the annexation be for three different zones, not all C-C. And I think that's where we are going in wanting to see the details, agreeing where the roadways are, where the accesses are, and concept plans are flexible, but we think the zoning needs to be accurate to what's there and that isn't very flexible. Thomason: Thank you for that. I appreciate that. It's very straight forward. Thank you. Rohm: I guess in conclusion, I think that some of our local developers could take notice from the work that you folks have put into making this thing move forward in a timely fashion and with good forethought and thank you for all your hard work. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 74 of 82 Rohm: With that being said, I don't think we are going to be able to move forward with this, because we have dismissed everybody that has intended to speak out on this, so I'm looking for a date that you feel you would like to see this continued to. The 20th? Thomason: The sooner the better. Rohm: Would the April 20th work for you? Thomason: If it's okay, I'd like to turn around and look to my neighbors to make sure that that's an appropriate time for each of them. I don't make this decision alone, unfortunately. If I could paraphrase that just for the record, we started this process July of last year. We had our meeting in October for the Comp Plan amendment and, then, our concern is if that has any sort of ramifications if we are delayed very long, what those ramifications would be to that Comp Plan amendment. What kind of process we have to go through again and that sort of thing. Rohm: I don't think that that would enter into it. It appears as if from the discussion from the floor that the best date available would be the first meeting in May, which would be May 4th. We can't -- we can't put you on the 6th of April, it's already -- Borup: How full is the 20th? Rohm: The 20th -- the 20th there is plenty of room, but -- Borup: We added a lot to it tonight. That's why I was wondering. Rohm: I think we still have room on the 20th, but some of their people aren't available to -- Borup: No, I understand that. They may want to decide if they feel the others can represent them properly. Rohm: And that works for me. Thomason: We might prefer to go for the 20th and supply written testimony from those neighbors who wouldn't be able to attend. Borup: That's what I was going to say. If they feel comfortable that the rest can represent them properly, that shouldn't make any difference. Rohm: Well -- and I think conceptually this Commission is in pretty substantial agreement with what you have here already and it would only be that additional communication with those people that are your neighbors how you address that through your development agreement or otherwise. So, to continue it to the 20th is fine with us. Meridian Planning 8< Zoning MarCh 16. 2006 Page 75 of 82 Thomason: Since I'm a novice in this process, if I could ask what would the body be looking for in that 20th meeting? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Very good question. Zaremba: I, actually, was going to ask a similar question of Mr. Hood. Commissioner Borup pointed out to me that one of the drawings in the packet actually identifies zones -- it's near the end of it. This one. And each of the pieces of property shown, granted, as a concept, does have a zone designation. And my question to Mr. Hood is the only thing we need to revise this annexation application is actually legal descriptions of those different areas. Hood: Correct. Zaremba: You know, that's going to be a five minute discussion when we reopen the hearing. Borup: And, then, also included in the application some C-C and L-O and R-4 on the application. Hood: Yeah. I mean I have got to work up development agreement provisions, so I think some of that discussion should be had. Now, I may have to maybe do it twice, because of the neighbors or some other folks that left early or may not be here. If I may, just some of the questions that I have and maybe I can run it by you and if you say, no, we want to go another way, we can save some time in front of everyone else next time. I know it's getting late tonight, but -- because, you know, I have got worked up some of them, I just didn't think that it was enough to recommend approval at this time. So, just access is probably one of the bigger questions I have for the Commission. We were quoting minutes from that last meeting and Wayne Forrey asked -- Commissioner Borup asked him how many accesses on Eagle Road and he said he envisioned one between Easy Jet and Victory. And that was for the entire property between Easy Jet and Victory. This is two-thirds of that property and they have got three proposed. So, that doesn't seem to be consistent with the testimony there. And so that's -- and I'm not saying that three is right or wrong, but that's not consistent. Staff -- I would like to see maybe a maximum of two. I understand that they have got streets that they are aligning with and ACHD would allow them to construct those, but Eagle Road is a classified roadway and that's consistent with other plans. So, just to bring it out there. I mean if you guys want to give me a fixed number, that's fine, but just so you know, that's where I'm going is to limit access points. I don't know if it would be to the one that they originally envisioned, but at least limited from what's proposed. It sounds like that's the biggest thing for the -- if that's all the provisions that you want to put in is just, you know, access points -- and this is a concept plan, just as a disclosure, I think it's going to have a tough time at City Council. They are going to want to see some more details. So, if there is something else that they can maybe provide -- and I'm just Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 76 of 82 saying that to really help the applicant. It's going to be an uphill battle. The City Council is not -- I do not think going to give them just here is a C-C zone, develop. And they have the seven guiding principles for positive neighborhood development. Some of them are a little bit how do we enforce them type things. You know, they say the intent of the alliance is to do this or that. We really need to require it be that if it develops -- if they all develop together, well, how do you do that? Do you make them form an LLC and have one property? How is that carried forth? And I guess I'm going to have to work with the legal department a little bit on putting some of these intents into actual requirements in the development agreement provisions and I can work with -- with them a little bit on that. But some of the other as proposed -- it sounds like some of the neighbors -- you said there was a consensus that they all wanted to see houses, rather than the 40 foot landscape buffer that was an option before. So, I guess I'm going to propose that that be changed and we'll let them testify and say, hey, yeah, we agreed to do that or, no, we didn't. But that's something that I would -- I would make as a change. Or if you have any suggestions, too, if you want to throw them at me for any of these -- these things. So, restricting the individual site development -- and I agree with you, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that, you know, it's just something that we don't see very often, property owners getting together, not piecemealing things, we can really look at a master plan for the area. Just wish there was some more details, but I won't go into that, really, too much anymore. It wasn't really talked about, though, and I would bring this up as a separate kind of talking point, is the property south of Victory, how does that -- I mean they are in the Alliance. Are we going to say that if every -- if all these Alliance people develop together that that person also has to develop on the other side of that roadway? That doesn't seem to fit and I doubt that that's going to really happen, but, yet, they are asking for the same zoning and to really tag along with the other ones that are all part of this. So, that's -- that's something in my mind that -- how does that play in with the rest of this, not only with the rest of the Alliance properties, but those other properties there. With all due respect, I mean Sutherland Farms mayor may not have purchased properties there and have these ideas to do L-O or multi-family even I have heard. The Comprehensive Plan shows low density residential. If they wanted to do either one of those, they are going to have to amend the Comprehensive Plan map just like you guys did in November. So, it's not going to be anything that's just going to be a guaranteed use. So, again, if you have any -- those are some of the sticking points that I had when trying to formulate a recommendation. But I will work -- I mean I can work with this concept plan and bring some provisions back and we can discuss further, but if you have any guidance now on the front end, that would be great, too. Rohm: I guess my only comment to that is I agree with your statement that limiting the number of accesses on Eagle Road is always in good keeping and I'm not saying that two is the right number or what they have got on this concept map here, but anytime you can reduce the number of accesses, it makes for better traffic flow along your main corridors. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 77 of 82 Newton-Huckabay: I want to explore a comment that Caleb just made regarding an uphill battle at City Council. I don't want to, one, direct all these property owners to say, okay, this is what we think we will work and, then, have you end up at City Council and you're, you know, remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and so we probably do need to consider that it is a very real possibility that no more detail than this could cost you time at the City Council level and get you remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on them wanting more detail than we were requiring, which is their right to do. So, I think we do need to -- well, you, the Alliance, need to consider that as how you want to move forward with that, because that is a risk you are going to take, but their decision -- our decision doesn't guarantee their decision is going to be the same one. And so we do need to keep that in mind. Thomason: Thank you. Rohm: And to that -- to that end, working with staff very closely on your concept may -- may help you with City Council. And I think with that being said, I'm ready to wind down here. Thomason: Thank you. Borup: Maybe I just -- Mr. Chairman, one additional comment, because we are looking for input for them to take. I mean they have got a concept plan here. We do not have a copy of that in our packet. But looking at some of the notations I have from Mr. Hood's -- on the staff report, I had some of the same concerns or questions, anyway, that he brought up. One was on the zoning and that was my thoughts and Commissioner Zaremba mentioned if the site plan that was submitted with the application, if that would take precedence on the zoning, then, it would just be a matter of changing the application itself. And, apparently, the legal description also. But I think limiting some access points on Eagle Road is consistent with the guiding principles and it says that -- I mean number five was to construct an internal roadway to minimize curb cuts on Eagle and -- that's still a lot of curb cuts on Eagle in that -- in a short section like that, so -- I take it that that's something I would like to -- maybe just two -- I don't know if there is a -- if that's the right number, but at least -- I mean one may not be enough. Thomason: We appreciate that comment and Wayne's comment at the last meeting was prior to his last meeting with the Ada County Highway District and the curb cuts that you see there, that came out of the meeting with representatives there and -- Borup: Because they are lining up with those across the street. Thomason: Well, the -- no, we had not shown any proposals of roadways on the internal side. That's simple the road cuts that they had put in on the plan. So, those aren't set in stone. I guess that's the comment I trying to make here. Ada County Highway District, I just got their report today and the bottom line of that report -- because they were responding to something Wayne had sent to them when we were Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 78 of 82 still working with this on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The bottom line of that report was that this is a rezoning and annexation, not a project, and so they listed all the other things we'd still have to be held accountable for. But, in essence, they were listing that since it's a rezoning and not a project, they have no problems with that -- with what we had talked to them about. So, the bottom line, I guess, again, is that we were talking in a none project mode and another discussion with them will, obviously, reduce those cut cuts down, because they will be interested in that as well. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Thomason: If I could, I will give each of you a color copy of the map you have now. Borup: The only other question I had, Mr. Chairman, is if we had anyone else here to testify that was not part of the Alliance? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I didn't think we were taking any public testimony? Rohm: That is a good question and -- Borup: Well -- and if it would be something pertinent for them to consider before the next meeting. I don't know if it would be or not. Rohm: Absolutely. If you would like to come forward, sir. Borup: And what I was interested in is something that would give some input for the next meeting. Romello: Well, my name is Scott Romello. I live at 3293 South Capula Way in Meridian. I mean we have had, basically, a discussion here about the future of this property and at 7:00 o'clock when I first walked in you dismissed all the opposition to this property, so no public statements were going to be heard, so I had people from my development Tuscany, there were people here from Sutherland Farms who got up and walked out and at this point all we have sitting here are people who are for this project and we have some -- we still have some concerns about this project and I feel like it's being pushed through here at the end and they are assuming that there was a zoning change and at this point as of the October meeting, there wasn't a zoning change approved, so -- Borup: Yeah. We all understand all that stuff. Did you have anything pertinent that you wanted to share? Romello: Just that, basically -- I guess not. I mean I guess we -- we have had everybody who was going to come out and say something against this has left at this point and you're, basically, having a discussion about this without any of the people -- Borup: That's why I asked you to come up. Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 79 of 82 Romello: Yeah. Borup: And you don't have anything to say, either, you're saying? Romello: Not specifically -- not without all the people that were supposed to be here, no. Rohm: We are not going to dismiss anything that they have to offer. That's not the intent of this at all. We just knew that we were not going to be in a position to act on this -- on this application tonight and that's why we gave them the option of leaving, so that they could come back at a date certain that this would be continued to and still have every opportunity to testify at that point in time. Nobody is going to be eliminated from the opportunity to testify. Romello: Okay. Thank you. Borup: And I was just hoping that you might have had some input on what they would say, but -- Romello: Well, yeah, I have talked to a lot of the owners in Tuscany and I have talked to Darrell Hines just recently and we are not -- we are still not satisfied with the plans. As you have said previously, this is a very sketchy development. I mean I could go into a lot of details, I know it's late in the evening, so I'm not going to go into a long presentation like they did, but there are some concerns we have about this project and the impact on the area and the fact that you're basically putting the commercial that's already existing that was referenced earlier today, was all on a variance, and you're still plugging a commercial right into existing brand new neighborhoods. Sutherland Farms doesn't have an active homeowners association. Tuscany doesn't have an active homeowners association, because those neighborhoods aren't even finished yet and the developer hasn't released us to have that responsibility to even have an organization -- Borup: Your objection is to the zoning, then? Romello: Yes. Borup: Okay. Romello: Of course. That opposition is to the zoning. Borup: All right. Romello: I don't understand -- we just saw a development -- plans earlier tonight where people were putting subdivisions into 20 acre parcels and somehow it's assumed that Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16. 2006 Page 80 of 82 this is automatically the best use for this property is to be commercial oriented and we don't necessarily agree that that is an absolute as far as the homeowners in the area. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Does someone else have -- Rohm: Yeah. In no way were we trying to circumvent anybody's opportunity to testify. Romello: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just for the record, I want to restate that the intent of the discussion tonight was to flush out the staff concerns and to let the applicant know that more detail would be desired and that it would be more efficient to have that detail be presented before we heard from the opposition, so that they could be commenting on a more fully formed plan. So, indeed, when this does come back, there will a full discussion of those for and those against and those who are neutral. Rohm: Thanks, Mr. Baird. With that being said, I'd entertain a motion to continue this. Zaremba: One question before we do that. Are we, as a group, comfortable directing both staff and the applicant to work with the concept plan as presented, but give legal descriptions for three different zones and try and eliminate at least one access on Eagle? Is that all we are asking for or are we asking for more residential? Rohm: I think from my perspective, just as you stated it is where I'd like to see them go with the zonings for the three different areas and -- and reducing the access to Eagle Road. Borup: I think we are relying on -- on what the consensus was at the neighborhood meeting. Without that neighborhood -- that's all we have to go by. Hood: And Mr. Chair? Borup: Even though we questioned it. Hood: Commissioners, just to save -- and I talked with the applicant on -- all my days this week are running together. They have a surveyor that's either a property in there or they know one. If it's fairly inexpensive I guess it would be to have those zoning designations. It would be just fine to press forward with the zoning as proposed now and, then, after that meeting, the next meeting, prior to City Council we actually get the legal descriptions here that show those different zones, because I would hate for them to do new legals and, then, it changes something else and they need revised new legals -- so, we can work under the assumption that we have got three different zones that represent what's on this revised concept plan and I would be fine with that. Meridian Planning 8< Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 81 of 82 Borup: Well, I'm very comfortable with that, too. Hood: I mean I will just make a condition in there that prior to City -- you know, ten days, at least, prior to City Council provide revised legal descriptions for the properties as discussed at the meeting. Moe: I guess my point would be as far as any -- our motion to continue, they can comment anyway, for the simple fact, we still have a Public Hearing to hear when we go back in. So, it's a simple matter of just doing a continuance to the 20th and go forward. Rohm: I agree with that. Borup: Yeah. That makes sense. Yeah, I don't think we need a legal description either. I mean the road could shift two feet and, then, they have to do it all new. Rohm: I'm open to a motion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, recommend we continue Public Hearing AZ 06-008, request for annexation and zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation, to the date of April 20th, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-008 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I would entertain one more motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Good night. April 11, 2006 RECEIVED APR 1 3 2006 . City Of l\L . City ClerkeOl1dian 'iIice C. Caleb Hood, Planning Manager Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 Meridian,ID 83642 RE: South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Dear Mr. Hood, As you are well aware, we are a group of 5 property owners controlling 10 parcels of land in the South Eagle Road and Victory Road area who have joined together for the purpose of rezoning. Our project consists of a request for annexation with a Mixed Use - Community Zoning. We are not proposing a development project and we have no plans for a specific development project at this time. Our goal is to rezone our properties to their best use based on the changing enviromnent around us and then to market our property to a buyer who will be bound by the Development Agreement that comes out of the atmexation process. To this end, the Alliance property owners are committed to signing a Development Agreement that incorporates the information in the attached documents, as well as the infonnation presented in earlier documents atld at earlier meetings. The Development Agreement will be a guide for potential buyers, providing them with a clear direction on the use ofthis land. hl preparation for the April 20th Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, we have pulled together the following infOlmation. . A concept map with our vision for the subject properties. Again, we are not proposing a development project. Our map is a general picture ofthe feathering of uses we are proposing as stated in our Guidelines for Positive Neighborhood Development. . Descriptions for each zone (R4, UO, and C-C) . An overview of our vision regarding the various uses within each zone. We have incorporated the suggestions from the last P&Z COl11l11ission meeting as well as the direction provided by you and Anna at our last meeting. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ~~ Marty Thomason 2910 S. Eagle Road Meridian, ID 83642 888-6997 SUMMARY The South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Alliance has applied for, and been approved pending submission of this annexation application, an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. To complete the annexation application, the Alliance is providing a more detailed concept map and description ofthe subject properties. The Alliance members are not proposing a development project. Instead the Alliance members are conmlitted to annexation and zoning in preparation for the sale of this land, based on its highest and best use, to a buyer who will develop the land according to the standard uniform development codes and regulations for the City of Meridian. The following inform.ation is intended to provide the City of Meridian Planning Department, Plamling and Zoning Conmlissioners, and City Council with a concept of how the land might be developed. Since the Alliance is not proposing a development project, we are not attempting to address all of the Articles in Chapter 3 - Regulations Applying to all Districts at this time. This document will simply provide our "vision" for the subject properties. LOCA TION/DESCRIPTION . Charles Axelrod (Mark Hartenstein representing) 3210 S. Eagle Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642 · Bob and Nedra Carpenter 3250 E. Victory Road and 3060 S. Eagle Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642 · John and Nita Sharp 3020 S. Eagle Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642 . Dan and Dolly Baughman 2990 S. Eagle Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642 . Marty and Leeta Thomason 2960 and 2910 S. Eagle Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642 See the attached legal descriptions for the area zonings. GENERAL GUIDELINES The Alliance property owners have committed to several guiding principles for pOSItIve neighborhood growth. We have joined together for unified development that is coordinated with good master planning, rather than individual site development without coordination. We suggested a development approach that will feather land use intensity from residential to professional office and business uses. The most intensive land uses will occur along Eagle Road and Victory Road with less intensive land uses farther away from the arterials. The Alliance property owners suggested constmcting an internal roadway system that runs north and south to minimize curb cuts to Eagle Road. Finally, the intent of the Alliance is to facilitate a well plalmed, neighborhood compatible office and business park. Specifically, the Alliance members are committed to no "big box" type structures. We enVISiOn building footprints that do not exceed 20,000 square feet. The Alliance members believe there are advantages to selling their properties to one or two development entities to ensure a coordinated development plan consistent with these guiding principles. CONCEPT MAP After 2 neighborhood meetings, 2 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, and several discussions with Plmming Staff, the Alliance is seeking annexation and zoning for 23.39 acres located in the South Eagle Road and Victory Road area. The Alliance proposes 3 zones for the subject property: R4, L/O, and C-c. The C-C zone will be further segregated by use with: . Retail-type use along South Eagle Road and ViCtOlY Road frontage areas. . Transitional, light office-type lIse along the proposed new north/south roadway. . Community commercial-type use in the interior area. A more detailed description of each area follows. See the next page for the concept map. Legal descliptions are attached at the end of the document. AREA DESCRIPTION I: Residential area. LOCATION (see full size map for detail) Yellow hi Ii ht is the referenced area EACLE ~~.c. ,":%CEPr MAP MU ~"IT, ~o - ~ .fj'I--~- t ~-I____ J.__r_"""" ~~~.... '.~~ E:~* USES The Alliance, with input from the Planning Staff and Sutherland Farms property owners, proposes this area be zoned R4, similar to the current Sutherland Farms suodivIsion. Landscaping: Consistent with Sutherland Farms subdivision. Building and lot size: Consistent with Sutherland Farms subdivision. Lot sizes along this border are 8,000 sq. ft. on average. Access: From the proposed new north/south __ roadway. I '" ~4.' I Architecture: Similar to Sutherland Farms ~ subdivision homes. See the sample pictures ~ below. ... ..-, Photo Similar II: LID area. LOCATION (see full size map for detail) Yellow hi hli ht is the referenced area EAClE ALLLfNCE COIfCEPT JIAP r':LV 6/~ /I.N. MI. nll,.,?_ IiYlJiI USES The Alliance, with input from the Planning Staff, proposes this area be zoned LID. Landscaping: A landscape buffer of 40 feet to Sutherland Farms and 25 feet to the R4 zone and 25 feet to Victory Road. ' Building size: The Alliance envisions multiple single level structures ranging in size from ~,~___ 2,000 to 5,500 sq. ft. #';"1_- 1,-_..., --- .-- =::i;:-E: ........... I .. ~ L! .. - ;., SAMPLE PICTURES: Access: From the proposed new north/south roadway. Architecture: The Alliance enVISIOns structures similar to the newly constructed Sight & Sound and Stone Creek Dental buildings located at the comer of South Eagle Road and Easy Jet Drive. See the sample pictures below. ,.,~ ill: C-C area. The contiguous areas, separated by Victory Road, from Falcon Drive on the north to Kibby's Kennels on the south, and from South Eagle Road on the west to the proposed new north/south roadway on the east. The Alliance envisions a development approach that involves different uses. See below for a description of each use and each area. 1. ARTERIAL ROADWAY LOTS LOCATION (see full size map for detail) Yellow hi hli ht is the referenced area EACU: AlUANCE COIiCCPr IlAP t;>>I RI&.. a~. ~ ~tl. fOb.,. - '.~'I_~' ~.OQ'j-"""""', i__"" ......- E::Z~ -. I .. ~ - USES Landscape: Arterial street buffers will be 25 feet. Building size: The Alliance envisions multiple structures ranging in size from 4,000 to 12,500 sq. ft. footprints. Access: At the request of Planning Staff, the Alliance has limited South Eagle Road accesses to 2 and Victory Road acc"esses to 2. Appropriate access from interior roadways is also envisioned by the Alliance. Architecture: The Alliance envisions structures similar to the recently constructed buildings along Overland Road west of South Eagle Road. See the sample pictures below. III: C-C area. - continued 2. INTERIOR TRANSITIONAL LOTS. LOCATION (see full size map for detail) Yellow hi Ii ht is the referenced area EACU; AI.LIAJICE GTJNCEPT JlAP ~ltlL ~.Jr. Ad. CD_tr. ~.. - I ~'4~~~ ~--_...... ~ _ c-.-r,. . .~...... ....-..--,p. _"'I~~ _..~I""""" -,.. ~ - , '\f~i':::,.' -- - ."~"~,,~,,.,, _._,-_._".~,.,._._~.,..y,,_..._-~-----------_. . ..\.:,1;:,., 'II~ 1 L ,. ';ll~'I;'!li1\li~':'P'~: .' , ,- .<~t;".-,~"-~-;'-'-' _ ',' 1,'" ~. -. '1\ - -~,::-. '~:~ '-'] .,.... :;/ JM' ~I" . :.-~: :~?, ,~ .;\:,~ .,.~;.."'~::"Ji . ~, . /. : L~,..rl :-". _1\ ,.~~..,,!"lI .._ ~.~. . .,.""". I ~ .... " i:r\. ..-,--'- . ....,....... . ,''':}i:. USES Landscape: Street buffers will be 1 0 feet Building size: The Alliance envisions multiple single-level structures ranging in size from 3,000 to 7,500 sq. ft. footprints. Access: From Victory Road onto the proposed new north/south roadway and appropriate access from interior roadways is envisioned by the Alliance. Architecture: The Alliance envisions structures similar to the newly constructed Sight & Sound and Stone Creek Dental buildings located at the comer of South Eagle Road and Easy Jet Drive or structures similar to the recently constructed buildings near Mountain View High School. See the sample pictures below. -- --:'-;;;~~;:~al':1'~ '.F~dJ,~.~' ~;J 'II,,: ,J' - -, ......... .-- - .f1-~. 1'-".1 . li:i: . _ .L.....;::; "",' (, " j-r' ... '~ III: C-C area. - continued 3., INTERIOR LOTS. LOCATION (see full size map for detail) Yellow hi hli ht is the referenced area KACLE AJ.L/.AJIC& CtJi/CEPr MAP t2t1",e..If.iI. ... ~it'''. ~ - '.""'4_~ 1<<1'1--. J. ==-~~ .. "--" =EiZ~ ......... I n' ~~ mil .'-l'}'~jr~~~,~:-'-'-"-'---'-----------'---~' .. -;.'" ; " '\.,~""'-".~, ,I', . J., - ..", , ,) .,. .'.il-:-.'~i::';"1'\' ,~~", - ." ,:"'!""'-' _....: . I ,\"."' ~f-~:- "8 .. .. .~j~.t~' , ,. .",_,>L~\_-,"':: ny,....~-f .. '. . .".,.l;~ . . , "...",,,....""" ';.,'I'''l:''~'''''''I:~~i .,,1>" ~". .,~" ." ~i. ;-'1 . '-'. '.JII% , t~'. ..~~~ USES Landscape: Standard street buffers and landscaping consistent with Meridian C-C zoning for interior roadways, building separations, etc. Plaza and gathering areas consistent with buildings and development plans for a business park of this size are envisioned by the Alliance members. Building size: Building footprints will not exceed 20,000 sq. ft. Access: At the request of Planning Staff, the Alliance has limited South Eagle Road accesses to 2 and Victory Road accesses to 2. Appropriate access from interior roadways is also envisioned by the Alliance. Architecture: The Alliance envisions structures similar to the those being developed along Overland Road near Mountain View High School and structures currently tmder development in the EI Dorado and Silverstone business parks. See the sample pictures below. ~~--- ~ TII: C-C area. - continued 4. SOUTH OF VICTORY ROAD LOTS. LOCATION (see full size map for detail) Yellow hi hli ht is the referenced area KACl.& ALLIANCE CONCEPT lIAP r::wInL 4" MI. C"""'r_ ~" - .~.,_...-.# ,.,',-_. .1 _____ __cw"",-"". =:~~ "-" '" I ~' ~ ~ SAMPLE PICTURES: P-"., t:'tF",I'1 ,L "".''* I' .i: i" l.~ .(, .' ", . ,."f' ;&': '1~ ;, ~ , (, .' -, -i ]ri~lIl.t~Nllij,'I! ' , }; ~ra" USES Landscape: Standard 25 feet on arterials and adjacent residential parcels. Building size: The Alliance envisions multiple structures starting around 2,500 sq. ft. but not to exceed 20,000 sq. ft. Access: The Alliance envisions no more than 2 curb cuts on Victory and 2 curb cuts on South Eagle Road, all of which will be placed in accordance with ACHD standards. Curb cuts are expected to lead to parking areas. Architecture: The Alliance envisions structures similar to the those being developed along Overland Road near Mountain View High School and structures currently under development in the EI Dorado and Silverstone business parks. See the sample pictures below. .. --.-."----- " r;' " ,,~ t . March 29,2006 DESCRIPTION FOR R4Z0NE This description is for the R4 ZONE as shown on the Eagle Alliance Map which is a parcel ofland located in the SWl/4 of the SWl/4 Section 21 Township 3 North Range 1 East Bosie Meridian Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south east comer of said Section 21 T3N RIE BM, Thence NOoOO'17"W along the west boundary of said Section 21 a distance of 1023.12 feet; Thence S89025' 49"E for a distance of 667.16 feet to the centerline of a proposed street which is the True Point of Beginning for the description; Thence along a curve with a radius of 400 feet, a central angle of 6052'55", a long chord bearing of S3 0 26' 45 "E and a long chord length of 48.02 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline SOo 0' 17"E a distance of 530.92 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a central angle of37034'45", a long chord bearing ofS180 47' 06"W and a long chord length of 115.95 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline S37034' 28"W a distan.ce of 105.49 feet; Thence S52025' 31 "E a distance of25.00 feet to the easterly right of way line of said road; Thence S89033' 50"E a distance of211.87 feet to the westerly boundary of Sutherland Farms Subdivision; Thence NOoOO'I7"W a distance of787.77 feet; Thence N89025'49"W a distance of 132.88 feet and back to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains some 2.55 acres, more of less. ~. March 29,2006 DESCRIPTION FOR L-O ZONE This description is for the L-O ZONE as shown on the Eagle Alliance Map which is a parcel ofland located in the SWl/4 of the SWII4 Section 21 Township 3 North Range 1 East Bosie Meridian Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south east corner of said Section 21 T3N RIE BM, Thence S89035'55"E along the south boundary of said Section 21 a distance of 530.00 feet which is the True Point of Beginning for the description; Thence N0024'07"E along the centerline ofa proposed road a distance of 139.47 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a central angle of 37010'21", a long chord bearing ofN180 59' I8"E and a long chord length of 114.74 feet; Thence S52025' 31 "E a distance of25.00 feet to the easterly right of way line of said road; Thence S89033' SO"E a distance of211.87 feet to the westerly boundary of Sutherland Farms Subdivision; Thence SOoOO' 17"W a distance of233.00 feet to the southerly boundary of Section 21; Thence N89035' 55"W along said southerly boundary a distance of270.02 feet and back to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains some 1.43 acres, more ofless. '! March 29,2006 DESCRIPTION FOR C-C ZONE This description is for the C-C ZONE as shown on the Eagle Alliance Map which is a parcel ofland located in the SWII4 of the SWII4 Section 21 and the NWl/4 of the NW1/4 Section 28 Township 3 North Range 1 East Bosie Meridian Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south east comer of said Section 21 T3N RIE BM, which is the True Point of Beginning for the description; Thence NO 000'17"W along the west boundary of said Section 21 a distance of 1 023 .12 feet; Thence S89025' 49"E for a distance of 667.16 feet to the centerline of a proposed street; Thence along a curve with a radius of 400 feet, a central angle of 6052'55", a long chord bearing of S3 0 26' 45 "E and a long chord length of 48.02 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline SOO 0' 17"E a distance of 530.92 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a central angle of37"34'45", a long chord bearing ofSl80 47' 06"W and a long chord length of 115.95 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline S37034' 28"W a distance of 105.49 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a central angle of37010'21 ", a long chord bearing ofSl80 59' 18"W and a long chord length of 114.74 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline S0024' 07"W a distance of 139.47 feet to the south boundary of section 21; Thence S0030' 59"W a distance of 167.00 feet; Thence S 18019' 49"W a distance of 170.00 feet; Thence N89035' 54"W a distance of336.72 feet; Thence S0031' 10"W a distance of339.13 feet; Thence N30009' 49"W a distance of 277.25 feet to the west boundary of Section 28; Thence along the west boundary of Section 28 N0032' 39"E a distance of 429.15 feet and back to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains some 19.41 acres, more of less. ~q/L~/L~06 11:02 APR 20 '06 11:29 21383369882 ROBERT L. ALDRIDGE PAGE 01/02 April 20, 2006 RECEIVED APR 2 0 2006 re: City of Meridian City Clerk Office '1> l\ 'L Co rv"l vv~ Lt -20 --Ol, - ).+e.,III./\.... t\..o . cj South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation AZ~OB-008 Meridian City Planning & Zoning Commission Faxed to 888-6854 and 888-4218 Dear Commissioners: I will be unable to attend tonight's hearing on this matter due to illness and so I am submitting this letter as my testimony. As you may remember, I previously appeared and testified at the comprehensive plan amendment hearing, CPA 05-001. which is now before the City Council in May. I own the property, 3300 Falcon Drive, which ;s immediately south of the Alliance property and is therefore one of the most effected properties. I repeat my remarks from that prior hearing, favoring the value of having a coordinated and unified approach to development of the Eagle Road corridor in this area, There have been a large number of housing units approved along, or close to, Eagle Road south of Victory, continuing for a number of miles to the south, with more units in the pipeline for approval. Additionally, development ;s also in progress along Victory Road to both east and west of Eagle Road. Those units currently must travel to at least.the area of Overland Road, and more often north of 1~84, to obtain services such as community retail and office centers. This has contributed greatly to congestion on Eagle Road, especially north of Overland. Whether planned or not. Eagle Road has become a major center for office and retail. In my opinion. the best approach to controlling the problems of Eagle Road is to create community hubs for local retail and offices, allowing shortertrips; sometimes even bicycle or foot access, to these uses. With the large number of residential units in the area, there is a great need for offices and small local retail establishments. The proposed Alliance development would service that need. The development would also balance out traffic and other problems, unlike large solid blocks of purely residential areas. Since the Comprehensive Plan amendment is already approved by you and before the City Council, it would be logical to approve this annexation and let the City Council examine both in a unified manner. Developer agreements should be negotiated with the City to protect surrounding landowners. and prevent problems to the area, including traffic, but those agreements need to be rational and balanced. 212183369882 PAGE. 01 04/20/2006 11:02 2083369882 P&Z Commissioners April 20. 2006 page 2 Sincerely yours, Robert Lftd.r.ic:lge;-el1aT1.'tr ....-- .....' r ~ -- Robert L. Aldridge RLAlkca APR 20 '06 11:29 ROBERT L. ALDRIDGE 2083369882 PAGE 02/02 PAGE. 02 Apr,19. 2006 3:17PM No. 4225 P. 1 I{.~~ c ~~ I"V'Eft; April 19. 2006 ;: .j D 'iOOr: "., !" 1... l.l C. Caleb Hood, Planning Manager Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 Meridian,ID 83642 efT v OF MERIDIAf:, :'~rT\; C~'-FRI( r:-~:::~I/'''t~ 'y ~ L C0 \'V\- V\i"- . DY ~ 2a-o 1.0 ,J -tvv,^-- n..(;. g RE: South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alllance (AZ-06..008) Response to April14Ul PlanDing Department Report. Dear Mr. Hood, First of all, thank you for the recommendation for approval in your April141h report. The Alliance members appreciate that you have studied our proposal and understand what we are offering with this alliance. Two issues we would like to clarify. The first is in the Analysis Section (section 10) under the development agreement subheading, the 9lh bullet point (my copy did not have numbers, only bullet icons) where the statement reads "That the internal commercial buildings north of Victory Road shall not exceed 20,000 square feet". This should be further olarified as ". . . . shall not exceed a 20,000 sq. ft. footprint." It is not our intention to limit structures in this area to single level if a future developer desires multilevel structures within the constraints of the C-C zoning. The second clarification is regarding the property located at the southeast corner of S. Eagle Road and Victory Road, Characterizing the properties adjacent to the southeast comer (Axelrod property) as "low density residential" is misleading because: I. There are only 2 parcels ad1acent to this property, each approximately 5 acres: one was purchased by Trevor Roberts, developer of Sunderland Farms (5 units/acre) and who plans to develop it and adjacent parcels; and, the other adjacent property is owned by the Aldridges. Bob Aldridge spoke in support of our project at the October 17, 2005 P&Z meeting and indicated he'd prefer office commercial to residential adjacent to his property. 2. There will be a 5 lane intersection with a traffic signal at the corner of Victory and Eagle with: · 2-story four plexes on the opposing southwest comer, · either commercial or high density residential on the northeast comer done by the Alliance or some developer, and · just south of the Aldridge property is an approved R15 elder-housing community. There have been no negative comments voiced at either neighborhood meeting or either P&Z meeting by property owners within the 300 ft notification radius regarding this property being rezoned to C-C. APR 19 '06 16:42 PAGE. 01 ~ Apr. 19, 2006 3:17PM No. 4225 P. 2 Page 2 April 19, 2006 RE: South Eagle aDd VIctory Road Property Owner's AUiance (Az..06-008) RespoDse to April 14lh PlaDDlng Department Report, Specifically, the wording regarding access points as mentioned in the development agreement section, bullets 16/17, is too restrictive. The intent of the property owner (the Axelrod family) is to develop the southeast comer as a pedestrian friendly retail~office complex. The 4 proposed access points, subject to ACHD approval, would facilitate access and facilitate incorporating a pedestrian plaza and structures clustered along Victory and Eagle at the north and west ends of the property closest to the comer. The final item addressed with this letter is the statement on page 9 regarding legal descriptions for the property being stamped by an Idaho State certified professional land surveyor. These are attached. Again, Caleb, thank you for all of your help and support through this process. Weare grateful for your assistance. Sincerely, ~~ -............ Marty Thomason 888~6997 2910 S. Eagle Road Meridian,ID 83642 ~PR 19 '06 16:42 P~GE.02 Ap r. 19. 2006 3: 17PM No. 4225 P. 3 Apri118p 2006 DESCRIPTION FOR C~C ZONE This description is for the C-C ZONE as shown on the Eagle Alliance Map which is a parcel ofland located in the SW1I4 of the SWl/4 Section 21 and the NWl/4 of the NW1I4 Section 28 Township 3 North Range 1 East Dosie Meridian Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south east comer of said Section 21 T3N RIE BM, which is the True Point of Beginning for the description; Thence NOoOO'17"W along the west boundary ofssid Section 21 a distance of 1023.12 feet; Thence 889025' 49"E for a distance of 667.16 feet to the centerline of a proposed street; Thence along a cW'Ve with a radius of 400 feet. a central angle of 6052'55". a long chord bearing of 83" 26' 45"E and a long chord length of 48.02 feet; Thence continuing along the oenterline SO" 0' 17"E a distance of 530.92 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a central angle of 37"34'45". a long chord bearing ofSt8" 47' 06"W and a long chord length of 115.95 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline S37"34' 28"W a distance of 105.49 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a central angle of 3 7"10'21", a long chord bearing of818" 59' 18"W and a long chord length of 114.74 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline 80"24' 07"W a distance of 139.47 feet to the south bOWldary of section 21; Thence SO"30' 59"W a distance of 167.00 feet; Thence S 18"19' 49"W a distance of 170.00 feet; Thence N89"35' 54"W a distance of 336.72 feet; Thence SO"31' 10"W a distance of339.13 feet; Thence N30"09' 49"W a distance of 277 2S feet to the west boundary of Section 28; Thence along the west boundary of Section 28 NO"32' 39"E a distance of 429.15 feet and back to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains some 19.41 acres, more ofless. APR 19 '06 16:43 PAGE. 03 Apr. 19. 2006 3:17PM No, 4225 p, 4 April 18. 2006 DESCRIPTION FOR L-O ZONE This description is for the L-O ZONE as shown on the Eagle Alliance Map which is a parcel ofland located in the SWl/4 of the SWl/4 Section 21 Township 3 North Range 1 East Bosie Meridian Ada COWlty, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south east comer of said Section 21 T3N RIB BM, Thence S89'35'5S"E along the south boundary of said Section 21 a distance of530.00 feet which is the True Point of Beginning for the description; Thence NO"24'07"E along the centerline ofa proposed road a distance of 139.47 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a central angle of37010'21 ", a long chord bearing ofNIS" 59' IS"E and a long chord length of 114.74 feet; Thence 852"25' 31 liE a distance of25.00 feet to the easterly right of way line ofsaid road; Thence 889"33' SO"E a distance of 211.87 feet to the westerly boundary of Sutherland Fanns Subdivision; Thence SO'OO' 17"W a distance of233.00 feet to the southerly boundary of Section 21; Thence N89035' S5"W along said southerly boundary a distance of270.02 feet and back to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains some 1.43 acres, more of less. APR 19 '06 16:43 PAGE. 04 Apr, 19. 2006 3:18PM No, 4225 p, 5 April 18, 2006 DESCRIPTION FOR R4Z0NE This description is for the R4 ZONE as shown on the Eagle Alliance Map which is a parcel ofland located in the SWl/4 of the SWl/4 Section 21 Township 3 North Range 1 East Bosie Meridian Ada County. Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south east comer of said Section 21 TIN R1E BM, Thence NO"00'17"W along the west boWldary of said Section 21 a distance of 1023.12 feet; Thence 889"25' 49"E for a distance of 667.16 feet to the centerline of a proposed street which is the True Point of Beginning for the description; Thence along a curve with a radius of 400 feet, a central angle of 6' 52'55/1, a long chord bearing of83" 26' 45"E and a long chord length of48.02 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline SO" 0' 17"E a distance of 530.92 feet; Thence along a curve with a radius of 180 feet, a central angle of37'34'4S/I, a long chord bearing of818" 47' 06"W and a long chord length of 115.95 feet; Thence continuing along the centerline S37"34' 28"W a distance of 105.49 feet; Thence SS2 "25' 31 liE a distance of 2S .00 feet to the easterly right of way line of said road; Thence 889"33' SOliE a distance of211.87 feet to the westerly boundary of8utherland Fanns Subdivision; Thence NO"OO'17"W a distance of 787.77 feet; Thence N89'25'49"W a distance of 132.88 feet and back to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains some 2.55 acres, more of less. APR 19 '06 16:43 PAGE.0S - - -----~""" ----- cM'endl~h " '-", -, ''(, ..J! '-! n ~ ~, v. v~ JY To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your comments and recommendtions to the City of Meridian TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ) IDAHO MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CXTY COUNCXL MEMBERS Keith Bird Joseph W. Borton Charles M, Rountree Shaun Wardle Attn: Planning Department, by: March 9, 2006 Transmittal Date: February 16, 2006 File No.: AZ. 06-006; PP 06-005 Hearing Date: March 16, 2006 Request: Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C (Community Business District) for the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation CITY DEPARTMENTS City AttorneylHR 703 Main Street 898-5506 (City Attorney) 898-5503 (HR) Fax 884-8723 Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234/ fax 895-0390 By: South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation Location of Property or Project: east side of Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579 / fax 898-5501 _ David Zaremba (no~ _ Meridian School District (No FP) _ David Mae (no FP) 'n 1?r Meridian Post OffiCe(FPIPP only) Wendy Newton-Hue lEPlC County Highway District = Michael Rohm (No 1~. " ~County Development Services _ Keith Borup (No FP) FE8 eftral District Health _ Tammy de Wee~~Qr 17 2006-- rnpa Meridian Irrig. District _ Charlie RountrCf\.~~'Y OF' ~,t'~.", _Settlers Irrig. District _ Christine DonneM;-4~1"E.7}v::"-:'I.J~.lI}'f'A. i~d~aho Power CO. (FP,PP,CUP) _ Keith Bird, CIC L-l11i.l~ ~west (FPJPP only) Shaun Wardle, CIC ~ .eJ~l'tennountain Gas (FPIPP only) - Water Department - Bureau of Reclamation (FPJPP only) 7Sewer Department Idaho Transportation Dept. (No FP) - Sanitary Services(No VAR, VAG, FP) == Ada County Ass. Land Records Building Department Meridian Development Corp. Fire Department Hi~torical Preservation Comm. Police Department City Attorney City Engineer City Planner Parks Department Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533 / fax 888-6844 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678/ fax 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500/ fax 895-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211 / fax 887-1297 - Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile H.oad 888-2i91 / fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242/ fax 884-1159 Your Concise Remarks: NT RECEIVED tt.E; 1 ? 2006 CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (2Ql?)~an CITY CLERK - FAX 888.4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFIC~f 8e~Jt'k Office Printed on recycled paper ..;1 y SUTHERLAND FARM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 14148 South Can-Ada Road Melba, Idaho 83641 TelephonelFax: 208-362-3339 March 13,2005 T~U'~ ,,_ -~"~ .":L~..J ~-- .' l".1'.'...--'-' ' , ~~'1 ._.:~,',_'_',_.!! ';~,l f.i'" .....~ \:G:o:..- 1"' City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 MAR 1 6 2006 ~;i::y :~ ;'.~: :"~ '~:,'f it' _ Dear City Clerk: Regarding application AZ06-008 for South Eagle Road and Victory Road by Property Owner's Alliance for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, please be advised the Sutherland Farm Homeowners Association opposes the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment because it is a substantial departure from what was initially planned. Sincerely, ~Ci;li: Trevor C. Roberts, President TCR:shlSF.006.03.l0 Mar. 16. 2006 4:41PM No, 3948 p~e...1~ of 1 Barbara Shiffer From; Sandy Maple [smaple@twlgafoundetlon.org] Sent: Thursday, March 16.2006 10:14 AM To: Barbara Shiffer Subject: Proposed Development at Victory and Eagle As a resident of the Tuscany subdivision just south of Victory off Eagle, I OPPOSE any change allowing proposed commercial development for the 5 properties owned by the South Eagle Road & Victory Road Property Owners Alliance. We already have both the Silverstone and the EI Dorado Business complexes just to the north, as well as a lot of commercial developments on Overland. According to the 2002 Meridian Comprehensive plan, "A population growth forecast included in Chapter IV estimates that from 2000 to 2020 the City's population may be expected to increase by 48 percent. However. even with the projected Increase, it is estimated there are adequate residential areas and commercial capabilities within the Impact Area." Why the change? Please explain to me (and my neighbors) the reasoning behind this proposal. Sandy Maple and Andy Aparicio 3031 E. Calabria Dr. 208~888..7628 Sandy Maple Associate Director [a, -1\' J~ F I II\!'J\)J\"IIU" The Twiga Foundation 500 W. Idaho St. #240 Boise, ID 83702 Ph: 208-343-1551 Fax:208~343.1720 MAR 16 '06 17:06 PAr,i=.Vl1 ~J 3/16/2006 MAK/lb/1UD6/THU 04:45 PM I- I I I FOUNDATIONS LLC FAX No, 2089559050 P. 00 I Foundations lie 1735 S MllIenJum Way Meridian 10 83642 * 208-955-9000 Melin 208-955-9050 Fax . Fax To: \3fT~" From: ~I - Pages: .;l Date; 5\llt\O"LP- Fax: Phone: cg'~~ - ~ d \.<'( Re.: cc: o Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Kecycle . Comments: .p~ C:ALL H€- t ~ ~ ~ ~L~\:t-"\"\b) e... L.~ e:.. , -g~ MAR 16 '06 17:12 2089559050 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE April 20, 2006 ITEM # 9 PROJECT NUMBER AZ 06-008 PROJECT NAME South Eagle and Victory Rd. Property Owners Alliance Annexation NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL )Z v ?< AZ 06-008 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 16, 2006 APPLICANT South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance ITEM NO. 1 9 REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 23.29 acres from RUT to C-C zone for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: See attached Staff Comments CITY FIRE DEPT: C-crLlL.r\...uJ- PI rt +0 112D CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS'IRRIGATlON: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See affidavit of Posting and letter from Sutherland Farm HOA contacted~~ Date:~ Phone: <t<67-'1&L{( Emailed: {Y\,---\ + r()Juc~ 0.....0 I" CO(Y\ Staff Initials: ~ '-' r--::: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 SUBJECT: South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation ",-0 /"'"W f~ ~:ri~jt'~~[VED ._'-,-.~,,,.,. "" '. DI 1 0 2006 ."- . .,.,.I-.......,J"t ,-'" - - n.i;tr GITY OF MERIDIA~~ AZ-06-008 =:lTV CLERK C!=i="rCF Annexation and Zoning of23.39 acres from RUT (Ada County) to C-C (Community Business District), by the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: Hearing Date: 3/16/06 Planning & Zoning Commission C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager Meridian Planning Department 208-884-5533 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) to C-C (Community Business District) for 23.39 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The Alliance is comprised of five different property owners (who own ten individual tax parcels) on the east side of S. Eagle Road, generally grouped north and south of the intersection of S. Eagle and Victory Road. This site is currently rural residential with several single-family homes and accessory buildings. The applicant is not proposing any land use, development or subdivision at this time. Instead, the applicant is proposing to annex the property with Development Agreement provisions that would guide future development of this property. The applicant has submitted a general Concept Map for the subject property. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. In 2005, the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance (represented by Wayne S. Forrey), applied for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan (CPA-05-00l). The Alliance proposed to amend the Map designation from Low and Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional for approximately 50 acres of land. The CPA application proposed to amend an additional 30 acres of land north of their land holdings, including two other county parcels and several parcels in the city limits that lie within Sutherland Fanus and Southstone Subdivisions. Staff recommended denial of CP A-05-0 11. However, at the October 17, 2005, Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing for the CPA, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject CPA with the following provisions: 1) That the new Map designation be Mixed Use - Community, not Mixed Use. Regional; 2) Recording a Development Agreement which binds the applicant to the commitments listed in the document called "Guiding Principles for Positive Neighborhood Development"; 3) Wait on fmal action on the CPA until an annexation application has been submitted; and, 4) Hold a neighborhood meeting before submitting a development application. As requested by the Commission, the Alliance has submitted an annexation application (the Alliance has not submitted a preliminary plat, conditional use pennit, or any other concurrent development application). The subject annexation application includes just over 23 of the 50 acres that were a part of the CPA application (only those properties which the members own). Prior to submitting the annexation application, the Alliance held a neighborhood meeting with property owners in the surrounding area. The applicant has re-submitted the "Guiding Principles for Positive Neighborhood Development" for inclusion within a Development Agreement. South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation - AZ-06-008 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject Annexation and Zoning application was submitted to the Planning Department for review. By City Ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Commission makes recommendation to the Council on Annexation and Zoning applications. Any comments related to the Annexation application (AZ-06-008) will be included in the Commission's recommendation to the Council. After reviewing the subiect application. staff finds that more information is needed for staff to make a final recommendation to the Commission. For instance. the submitted application requests C-C zoning for all 23.39 acres. However. on the submitted Concept Map. R-4 and L-O zoning is shown. Staff would like to see the applicant modify the submitted legal description by providing separate descriptions for each zone. and to modify the Concept Map to show what the vision is for this property (See Section 10 below). Further. staff finds that there are several aspects of the proposal that do not comply with the proposed Mixed Use - Community policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Rather than recommending denial at this point. staff is recommending that the Commission hold a hearing and direct the aoplicant to meet with staff and provide more detail on how this site will develop. After this meeting. staff will re-evaluate the proposal and make a recommendation to the Commission. which includes the required Annexation Findings. Below. in Sections 8 andlO. staff has provided a list of the items that should be addressed by the applicant in a revised concept map. Staff is recommending that the Commission continue the subiect applications to allow the applicant to redesign the proiect. incorporating the items noted Section 10. Analysis below. 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number AZ-06-008, and direct staff to prepare findings for denial for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number AZ- 06-008 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 3210 S. Eagle Road, 3020 S Eagle Road, 2990 S. Eagle Road, 2960 S. Eagle Road, and 3250 E. Victory Road. The parcels north of Victory Road lie within Township 3N, Range IE, Section 21. The parcel south of Victory Road lies within Township 3N, Range IE, Section 28. All properties are on the east side of S. Eagle Road. b. Property Owners of Record (Alliance members): Marty and Leeta Thomason (2910 & 2960 S. Eagle Rd.) Daniel and Dolly Baughman (2990 S. Eagle Rd.) John and Nita Sharp (3020 S. Eagle Rd.) Robert and Nedra Carpenter (3060 S. Eagle Rd. & 3250 E. Victory Rd.) Mark Hartenstein representing Charles Axelrod (3210 S. Eagle Rd.) c. Applicant: South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation - AZ-06-008 Page I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006 South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance 3100 S. Eagle Rd. Meridian, Idaho 83642 d. Representative: Wayne S. Forrey, AICP, Pathway Development e. Present Zoning: RUT/Ada County (all Alliance member parcels) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium and Low Density Residential (proposed for Mixed Use - Community with CPA-05-00l) g. Description of Applicant's Request: 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C. h. Applicant's Statement/Justification (see Applicant's application and letter): Wayne Forrey, representing the Alliance, states in the application cover memo that the Alliance property owners have applied for, and been approved pending submission of this annexation application, an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. There are currently no developers involved with the property owners and no projects have been proposed to the Alliance members. This annexation request is the result of the motion made by Commissioners Newton-Huckabay, Borup, and Zaremba during the October 17,2005 Meridian P&Z special meeting. The applicant is requesting annexation approval of 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as determined by City Ordinance. By reason ofthe provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: February 27,2006 and March 13, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 22, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 7, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There are existing homes, limited office/retail businesses, and other outbuildings on the subject site. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The immediate vicinity is transitioning rapidly to urban-scale development. The I-84/Eagle Road interchange is less than a mile to the north and has a significant influence on the area. Thousand Springs and Sutherland Farms Subdivisions are adjacent to the subject property and both of these residential developments are annexed, averaging 3.5 to 4 dwelling units per acre with mid-to-high end housing. A new Meridian Fire recently opened just south of the Ridenbaugh Canal on the west side of Eagle Road. As one travels south from Overland Road, the El Dorado and Silverstone mixed use developments are currently being built-out, intended to serve as regional employment, hospitality, office and service centers with more than two million square feet of building area expected between the two projects. Traffic generated from the Tuscany Lakes project on the south side of Victory Road (approx. 450 units) also strongly impacts S. Eagle Road in this area. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Single-family home/kennel, zoned RUT in Ada County and approved Sutherland Farm Subdivision, zoned R-4(approved for commercial uses as a South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation - AZ-06-008 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006 use exception) 2. East: Approved Sutherland Farms Subdivision, zoned RA (north of Victory Rd.) and Golden Eagle Estates, zoned RUT in Ada County (south of Victory Rd.) 3. South: Approved senior assisted living facility, zoned R-8 (south of Falcon Dr.) and rural residential in Golden Eagle Estates, zoned RUT (Ada County) 4. West: Existing Thousand Springs Subdivision, zoned R~4lMeridian City, and rural residential, zoned RUT/Ada County near Victory Road. Medford Subdivision (proposed as R-8 for single and multi-family) is proposed at the southwest comer of Eagle and Victory Roads. d. History of Previous Actions: As mentioned above, the subject property is part of the recent request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of this area (CPA-OS-OOl). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Sewer is constructed in Sutherland Farms Subdivision stub streets adjacent to the property north of Victory Road. This property drains to the Five Mile Trunk and capacity is available. The property to the north of Victory would drain to the mains extended through the Tuscany Development. Location of water: Available in S. Eagle Road and local streets 2. Vegetation: There are numerous existing trees on the subject properties that should either be preserved or mitigated for at the time of development. The rest ofthe site is primarily used for rural residential purposes. 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The McDonald Lateral courses across the Carpenter parcels at the northeast comer of the EagleNictory intersection. This is a sizeable facility that may impact future development site plans on these parcels. 5. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any potential hazards on this site. 6. Proposed Zoning: C-C for all 23.39 acres. However, the submitted Concept Map shows R-4 and L~O zoned property. Consistent with the mixed use designation, the submitted Concept Map, and the adjacent developments, staff is recommending that portions of this site be zoned for residential and office uses. 7. Size of Property: 23.39 acres f. Sununary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: Although no development is proposed at this time, the submitted Concept Map shows a north-south access road located near the east boundary. During the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Wayne Forrey testified that he imagined that there would be one additional access point to Eagle Road between Easy Jet Drive and Victory Road for this property. Staff is supportive of the extension of E. Publisher Road from Sutherlund Farms. However, there are 4 accesses shown on the Concept Map to Eagle Road, and 3 accesses shown to Victory Road. Staff believes that this is too many access points to the adjacent roadway system, and recommends that access points be limited (please see Analysis and Comprehensive Plan sections below). g. Landscaping: South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation - AZ-06-008 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006 1. Width of street buffer(s): Per City Code (UDC Table ll-2B-3), a 25-foot wide landscape street buffer is required adjacent to Eagle Road and Victory Road, which are both arterial roadways. 2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: Per City Code (UDC Table ll-2B-3) a 25- foot wide landscape buffer is required between C-C zoned properties and residential uses/zones. h. Required Commercial Standards: C-C Setbacks Landscape (Local/Commercial Street) Arterial Road (Eagle & Victory) Collector Street Maximum Building Height Proposed Required NA 10' NA 25' NA 20' NA 50' 7. COMMENTS MEETING On February 2,2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. The Meridian Fire Department was the only department or agency to provide comments. These comments are "standard" and have not been included as conditions of annexation. Once a development planes) is submitted staff will provide the applicant with specific comments and conditions from all commenting agencies and departments. NOTE: 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. Staff is recommending that the applicant contact the Board to see what, if any comments they have at this time. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is currently designated "Medium Density Residential" and "Low Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. However, in October of2005, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to amend the designation of this property to "Mixed Use - Community." Staff is evaluating the subject annexation request under the assumption that this area will obtain a mixed use designation. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use designation is defined in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The Mixed Use- Community designation allows residential density between 3 and 15 dwelling units per acre, up to 200,000 square feet of non-residential building area, and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the subject property (staff analysis in italics below policy): . Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City sen;ices to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal sen;ices to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner: South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation - AZ-06-008 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNiNG DEPARTMENT STAff REPORT fOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006 . Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. . The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. . The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). . The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change. . The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. . The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. . "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) 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 ensure existing properties (both county and city properties) are protected from harmful, disturbing or unnecessary encroachments. While it may be possible to design non-residential projects that are compatible with residential, it does require more time, energy and money from all parties involved (both private and public) to design and enforce these situations. The applicant is proposing a commercial zone adjacent to proposed and established residential areas. There are existing homes in Sutherland Farms to the east of the subject site, south (Golden Estates), and north (County parcel). Stafffinds that to vrotect the existinf! sinf!le-familv homes to the east and north. additional residential zones/uses and land use buffers should be constructed alonf! the eastern and northern boundaries of this vrovertv. The applicant has written into the proposed DA provisions a requirement that Alliance properties located next to the residential uses in Suther/and Farms will provide either a residential buffer with the same size lots, or a 40 foot wide landscape buffer. Please see the Analysis section below. . "Allocate and identify locations/inventory for industrial and commercial business parks." (Chapter IV, Action 3, Objective C) Staff believes that the proposed proportion of commercial zoning to residential zoning for this property is not appropriate. Based on recent inventOr\! numbers. staff believes that this area should be allotted limited commercial zoninf!. not a ma;oritv. Staff also believes that there is already an adequate commercial land supply for the total build-out population of Meridian. South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation - AZ-06-008 Page I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006 . "Permit new. . .commercial developments only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action 6) Municipal water, solid waste and other services exist to this area of Meridian. . "Locate new community commercial areas on arterials. . .near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective D, Action 3) Both Eagle Road and Victory Road are designated arterial roadways. Based on the lack of detailed information vrovided with the submitted Concevt Mav. staff is unable to find that the subiect avvlication will comvliment the adioinine residential areas. . "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2) Staff is recommending that access points be restricted to both Eagle Road and Victory Road. Staff is not suvvortive of the vroTJOsed access voint locations to Eazle Road and Victory Road. Staff recommends that access to this site be vrimarily vrovided by the future internal roadway/driveway system and not Eazle Road and Victory Road when this vrovertv develovs. See Analysis below. . "Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13) A stub street from Sutherland Farms, Publisher Street, is provided to this property. Currently there are no opportunities to connect to any other roads in adjacent properties. Staff believes that when the roadway/driveway system is constructed. this site should be required to extend Publisher Street into the site and out to Victory Road and Eazle Road. Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: · "The capacity of arterial. . .roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway cormections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACHD to minimize access points on arterial. . .roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) . "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, page 79) Staff finds that the proposed C-C zoning designation is not generally harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's zoning and development request is appropriatefor this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the C-C zoning district. South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation - AZ-06-008 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006 b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose ofthe Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. AZ Application: Commercial Zoning: One of the primary objectives of zoning is to protect the public health, safety and welfare. It is the City's obligation to ensure existing properties are protected from hannful, disturbing or unnecessary encroachments. While it is possible to design non-residential projects that are compatible with residential uses, it does require more time, energy and money from all parties involved (both private and public) to design and enforce these situations. Because the applicant is proposing commercial zoning adjacent to existing residential, staff is charged with ensuring that the proposed zoning and uses are compatible. As proposed. staff does not believe that the proposed zoning districts and future uses will be compatible with the surrounding area. and is in the best interest of the City. Staff believes that additional residential zones/uses and land use buffers should be constructed alOlll! the eastern. southern and northern boundary of this property. to ensure compatibility. By adding an additional 23 acres of land designated for primarily commercial use to the City's inventory, staff is concerned with a potential over-supply of commercially zoned land, especially for office uses. Meridian's 2005 office vacancy rate has been noted by the Chamber of Commerce and other local real estate sources to continue to be high (between 9% and 25%, depending on the sub-area). While staff understands the applicant's argument that Eagle Road is a high visibility corridor and opportunistic for both office and retail, staff is concerned about extending too much more retail and office uses south of the Ridenbaugh Canal and believe other locations are better suited for these uses. In the area south of 1-84 between Locust Grove Road and a half mile east of Eagle Road, there is over 250 acres of vacant or under-developed land designated as either Commercial or MU- Regional on the Future Land Use Map. This does not include any of the Silverstone or El Dorado land or any land north of 1-84. All of this property is within a 1 Yz mile radius of the subject properties. Staff finds that the subject application only proposes approximately 2.5 acres of residential zoning (7 lots) on the entire 23 acres. Staff questions how the sliver of property on Eagle Road, south of Victory will develop with C-C zoning, being directly adjacent to low density residential land uses. Further, no provisions have been provided for the re-deyelopment of the properties to the north of the subject site and east in Golden Eagle Estates; C-C zoning is proposed adjacent to them. If zoning is approved as proposed by the applicant, staff believes that these adjacent properties will also seek a commercial zone, thereby furthering the oversupply of commercially zoned properties. To provide a mix of uses in this area proposed for mixed use - community. and to allow for a better transition from the existing residential uses to the subiect site. staff is recommending that at least Yz ofthe subiect property be zoned for residential uses. Concept Map: Detail: When the CPA application was submitted in 2005, the Alliance intended to develop a business campus similar to the El Dorado and Silverstone developments to the north. All property South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation - AZ-06-008 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006 owners were committed to coordinate future development plans. A positive and encouraging aspect of the Alliance's application was that owners of contiguous, smaller parcels were coordinating their development plans and appeared to be willing to submit a single planned development/site plan. This kind of cooperation is strongly encouraged by Staff, the Commission and the Council and helps to facilitate future driveway and roadway access points to Eagle Road and Victory Road and avoids fragmented development. The submitted Concept Map does not provide the detail nor show the cooperation of property owners that is needed to evaluate the merits of this project, to ensure that it is not a fragmented development, or the ability to analyze the impacts to the surrounding area. Further, as a part of annexation only request, the City generally ties the applicant to the submitted concept plan, or at least some of the concepts proposed with the plan. There are really no concepts to include in a Development Agreement, if this project were to be annexed with the submitted Concept Map. When the Commission recommended approval of CPA-05.001. and recommended that the Council not approve the CPA until an annexation application could catch uP. staff believes that the Commissioners were anticipating being able to review a plan for this propertv that would help them envision how this property would develop. Other than access points and a new north. south roadway. staff finds that there is not enough detail or concepts to evaluate the viability of the requested zoning and concept plan. Access: During the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Wayne Forrey testified that he imagined that there would be one additional access point to Eagle Road, between Easy Jet Drive and Victory Road, for this property. However, there are 4 accesses shown on the Concept Map to Eagle Road, and 3 accesses shown to Victory Road. Staff believes that this is too many access points to the adjacent arterial roadways. Staff recommends that Eagle Road access points be restricted to: one full access (public street) between Easy Jet Drive and Victory Road. and one right-in/right-out driveway south of Victory Road. if approved bv ACHD. Staff further recommends that Victory Road access be restricted to one full access. 4-way intersection (public street). in a location approved bv ACHD. A stub street from Sutherland Farms, Publisher Street, is provided to this property. Currently there are no opportunities to connect to any other roads in adjacent properties. Staff believes that when the roadway/driveway system is constructed. this site should be required to extend Publisher Street into the site and out to Victory Road and Eagle Road. Retail operations typically want their own driveways or at least more frequent curb cuts to arterials than residential uses. Residential subdivision developers are typically less concerned with direct access and put less pressure on both the City and ACHD to construct them. This is another reason why staff is recommending that this property be developed with more residential zoning/uses. Landscaping: Per City Code (UDC Table ll-2B- 3), a 25-foot wide landscape street buffer is required adjacent to Eagle Road and Victory Road, which are both arterial roadways. Per City Code (UDC Table ll-2B-3) a 25-foot wide landscape buffer is required between C-C zoned properties and residential uses/zones. At a minimum. the revised concept plan should show landscape street buffers and land use buffers. Legal Description: The application and submitted legal description request C-C zoning for all 23.39 acres. However, on the submitted Concept Map, R-4 and L-O zoning is shown. Prior to the next public hearing. staff recommends that revised legal descriptions that include multiple zones. includin2: at least 12 acres of residential zonill!!. be submitted to the Planninl! Department. South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation - AZ-06-008 Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 16,2006 b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission continue the subiect apolication AZ-06-008, with the provisions that the apolicant meet with staff to discuss a new Concept Plan for this site that includes the provisions listed in the Analysis section of the Staff Report above. South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owner's Alliance Annexation - AZ-06-008 Page 1 SUTHERLAND FARM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 14148 South Can-Ada Road Melba, Idaho 83641 TelephonelF.ax: Z()S..361.-3339 March 13, 2005 VIA FAX 208/888-4218 "RE C EIVEI) ," '1 ", ')006 " ;,." ' ,) l. G!T~1 OF MERIDIA~~ CIT'f C,lm::::Q!,/ [lc:=I('[= City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Meridian. Idaho 83642 Dear City Clerk: Regarding application AZ06~008 for South Eagle Road and Victory Road by Property Owner's Alliance for Compreh.ensive Plan Amendment, please be advised 1he Sutherland Farm Homeowners Association opposes the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment because it is a substantial departure from what was initially planned. Sincerely, ~~ Trevor C. Roberts, President TCR.;sI\ISP,Of)6.03. t 0 MAR 11 '06 13:37 PAGE. 01 ~ ;J d'L' c e of .p o.s'1--: ~ .RECE~D MAR 0 8 2006 (;J1'1" OF iliU'I:JIDl' 1I'r." p- '','.In, ,~ 'u\i ;-" L.--tY'Tf'{ING & ZO't\rING T '^'~ [;Al c-losed-b' f 1'-0 +-0,5 r""f J~s a.-r-E.- o~ --r "" e. T h. f'- e E- s- ~j N,s f 0 si- e-cL ~-,fo ,. " ev....r- ~ ~ A Z 0 b - 0 08 'fe, r {r\ CA.J,c:k ttJ ~j:';():6 ~ e...o....,""; ~ ~. ?'3N" J':fos-f-ed 3/S/LJ6 OI'JSE- Coq...rQ,D~ E' o...,j 1-<2, R.d 0...."'; ci V ( 'c+CJ ,- Y J S,'SI\J2 p~i-e.-d 3/s/tJ'- oAJ 1;.51'de o'-F E:arJ/e Road' A p r-o >' 6t?CJ F='.e e. --t 12, N. 0 -p V ,'c+o 'j Rd 5,3tJ 3 pos+ed- 3ls-/D{. ON ~ 5/"''8-' c'f2 E~/€ fCD"-.-cL A p ,0 >< leoC>~e..,d- N a-f V,'c+-<l r0 Rc b~ -t6r- r<o b e.-~+ Ca...-~Q..J+er- 5 W I..rt ~ IE A.eJ J-e ~k1d V,db r-r e(J~ rr6 f'-er---+ ~ Dw 1-J s-t-<$ A 11,'q tJ c~ ,/7/r'&11'C'G::> '23vaec' h?';: My Commlssion ~ July 1. 2008 - - - ~ - - ... - ~OlXoN . 1 C :-:ON '~ Public \,", " I ... Qf Idaho Notn' '-'ublic . S:,''', Jf' ',.:Ill0 f - '..,"....-- - - 4~d:~' 2:b,(> e 1"', ~In ~f i~~I~~ ,~! I ' I~t [Men~II~~i~i a~~ lo 'I '. . ~.. TIfCITYOFMERIlIANW~hold3.i1earingml'd. ~ ,16. 20063tl:OOpm at IheMeri~~HaOmE.ldaho)' . . ;'pu,pose, UIEllllD"/I~.~jljiIG of 23.31 ICRES ", :'.:, frOm RUllo 1l,f'.i.1. . · j~i . _oe:iltiQn: East stde of E 'Road. betwesfl Ruhmba '. . ' Canal and 1/8 ," ~ I>otlth of VJt:tory ~O,,~, , . " ..\'1 , ~~ / RECEIVED MAR 1 6 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE .3- lLD -0 u> ITEM # ~ 9 PROJECT NUMBER A 2- 0 LP - OO?? PROJECT NAME '). 'Ea.3k + V;ctcr~ l2.d OvJ(lm M \iOf\t'" City Of Meridian City Clerk Office FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL s;.