Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes July 24, 2007 Meridian City Council July 24, 2007 Page 12 of 70 De Weerd: We have no applicant. I still had to ask. Council, what do you want to do? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve VAC 07-008. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I believe we should ask if there is any public testimony. Bird: Oh. Oh, this is a Public Hearing. De Weerd: Well, I did and there is none, but if -- we would still have to close the Public Hearing. Bird: We need to close the Public Hearing. I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 8. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay.. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve VAC 07-008. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 07-006 Request for a Rezone of 4.38 acres from an R-8 to an R-15 zone for Bellabrook by J.E. Development, LLC - 300 South Locust Grove Road: Meridian City Council July 24,2007 Page 13 of 70 Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 07-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for multi-family residential use in a proposed R-15 zone for Bellabrook by J.E. Development, LLC - 300 South Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: I will open the two public hearings on Items 9 and 10, Public Hearing RZ 07-' 006 and CUP 07-005, with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Bellabrook project. It's located at 300 South Locust Grove Road, which is south of the LOS stake center there on Locust Grove. The applications before you tonight are a rezone and Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development. I guess I should state briefly this is a reconsideration hearing, so I will be going through the whole hearing again, with a summary of your previous hearing on this item. The project includes -- this will do -- 34 individually owned two plus bedroom condominiums or villas and those will be attached in combination ~f two and four dwellings each. We may have a colored site plan that's a little easier. All the villas will have two car garages with two additional parking spaces available in each driveway. The proposed buildings are depicted with two and three story elevations for each group of buildings. Usable open space is in the form of pedestrian walkways through the center of the project and a gathering courtyard, again, in the center. Actually, the pathways go down to the creek and through the center and, then, the courtyard is at the center of the project. And those will create a centralized open space and gathering area. Sorry. The gathering area will include seating, shade trees, and community artwork. Additional common area includes a buffer along Locust Grove Road and landscaping of the eastern strip leading to Five Mile Creek area. The gross residential density is 7.76 dwelling units per acre. This project was -- this parcel of land was previously approved for annexation to R-8 and a preliminary plat for 20 single family houses on 20 building lots. They are now asking for the R-15 zone, because it accommodates some multi-family development to that -- that their condominium project falls under. They still do not exceed the eight dwelling units per acre that would have normally been allowed in the R-8 zone. The Commission recommended approval at their April 19th, 2007, Public Hearing. Shawn Nickel, the applicant's representative, spoke in favor. Jerry Cunningham spoke in opposition. Christie Jordan commented. And we received written testimony from Ronald Hodge. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the private streets versus public streets within the development and the requirement of the development agreement to incorporate the proposed site plan and elevations. The key Commission changes to staff's recommendation were to again require that development agreement to incorporate the proposed site plan and elevations. The outstanding issues for the City Council prior to the previous hearing on June 5th were the requirement for the development agreement and also the applicant had submitted a perspective view of the proposed structures and I had shown you that previously. I can go back to that. These are really just additional items to the record more than they were outstanding issues. At your last hearing on June 16th -- or June 6, 2007, you did deny the project and asked Meridian City Council July 24,2007 Page 14 of 70 for findings for denial. At that hearing Council expressed concerns about future development of the parcel to the east and in response the applicant offered to provide a stub street to the east boundary. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and landscape plan, dated July 15th, 2007, which depicts an extension of East Kalispell Drive to the eastern property line, with a cross-access easement through Bellabrook. Staff reviewed these revisions and does support -- support those as they are consistent with the provisions of the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also spoke with Joe Silva, Meridian Fire Department, regarding the new stub street shown on the site plan and he is supportive of the extension of East Kalispell Drive to the east as shown. If the Council decides to move forward with a decision of approval on this application, a condition should be included for the applicant to record a cross- access easement agreement with the property owner to the east prior to application submittal for certificate of zoning compliance for any structures within this development. At that original hearing Council also expressed concerns about increasing traffic in the area and the impact on the regional roadway system. Staff requested Charles Trainer of Compass to comment on the applicant's proposal and how that project met the goals of Communities In Motion. That letter was included in your packet and I wanted to read just a couple paragraphs from that. In noting the project location it says it lies just one quarter mile distance to Franklin, a corridor identified by Valley Regional Transit as a high service level transit corridor in its regional operations capital improvement plan. It is also less than a half mile from the rail corridor now being evaluated for future commuter rail service and that -- and the last paragraph states: The Communities In Motion plan approved by the Compass board on August 2006 emphasized more compact development, a diversity of housing types, and increase in the amount of development near services and transit routes. Bellabrook Villas appears to support these objective.s, allowing for growth without consuming farm land. These are also goals endorsed in the Blueprint For Good Growth. Since the last hearing we have also received letters of support from the following: Eric and Jennifer Barnett. Laura Anderson. Ryan Retz and, again, Charles Trainer. So, we believe that the applicant is prepared to talk about where those folks are located in relationship to this project. With that I'll answer any questions Council and Mayor may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Is the applicant here? Nickel: Good evening, Madame Mayor and Council. Shawn Nickel, 148 North 2nd Street, Eagle, Idaho, here tonight representing the Bellabrook Villa Subdivision development. Thank you all so much for allowing us the opportunity for the reconsideration of this -- this application. The issues came up at the last meeting and they came up during the -- after the Public Hearing was closed and there was some -- some issues that were brought up that weren't addressed when the hearing was open Meridian City Council July 24,2007 Page 15 of 70 that we feel would have probably helped us in demonstrating that this project does meet all your goals and requirements for the Comprehensive Plan and for proper development within the City of Meridian. There was three items discussed. Anna has gone through most of them. I will try not to belabor them too much, but I think they are important. The first one was with regards to access and as Anna has stated we have provided -- I think the concern was, as you recall, there is two parcels to the east, one is this flag lot located right here and there is a landlocked parcel back in this area here. The concerns from the Council last month were -- with us having our private road system in here and accessing Locust Grove at this location, that the only -- the only access to these properties back here would be through this 50 foot wide flag through probably a public road network. So, I had gotten up at the last meeting and kind of off the cuff said that we would provide the access to the back. Well, we went ahead and committed to that with a revised application and site plan with staff that clearly indicates this stub street to the east, we will, through our development agreement, provide the access easement through our project and what this does -- this allows the property back here -- now, keep in mind that a lot of this property back here is in a flood way, flood plane, and so it's really limited on the development. But this does allow this portion that is developable, if they wish to continue on this concept, which would increase the density, to come through our development and that one access point would take most of the traffic. If they do go the route of a single family development and were to do a public road, just because of the limitations of the property, you know, the four to eight at the most single family houses they could get in there, could access off of that public road and the impact with an additional access wouldn't be as extreme as if you had higher density. So, in other words, we are going to take the burden of the higher density through our development, if that's the way it redevelops. Unfortunately, we don't have a crystal ball, so we don't know how it's going to develop. I think we have provided good opportunities for whichever direction they go. And in either case the back area would have emergency access either through our development as a secondary access or that 50 foot strip as their emergency access. So, we wanted to point that out. I thought that was important. At the last meeting we weren't really able to discuss that in detail. And, then, Anna has pointed out the Compass letter that is part of your packet. I also included it in my little packet right there, one of the comments from -- from Mr. Trainer does indicate that access onto Locust Grove presents an issue, especially when the pending completion of the overpass will certainly add traffic to the street. I understand the developer agreed to a joint access that would provide for adjacent parcels to develop without creating yet another intersection, which is an excellent strategy to preserve arterial capacity, so they do recognize that if we do -- if that probably does develop at a higher density we will have that within our access point. The second issue was regarding the density and the compatibility and if you look at that -- packet that I handed out, I have got a map -- a colored map -- if Anna could put that on the overhead. That first map. Thank you. I have pointed out -- this is a unique mixed use area in and of itself, considering the Locust Grove corridor, which is going to be a corridor as soon as that overpass comes into play and, then, the Franklin Road corridor. The existing single family residential, along with the industrial that you find on Meridian City Council July 24, 2007 Page 16 of 70 the north side of Franklin Road, the mixed use that is surrounding and including our property, a mixed use Comp Plan designation. There is a church to the north. Across the street there was discussion on those parcels being -- or those being kind of pushed out of development. I want to point out that those are camp planned as mixed use development. There is certainly a -- currently for sale right across the street. One has an existing L-O zone and the other, again, Comp Plan for multi -- multi use. And, then, there is some industrial behind those. Of course, you have got the police station, on the Comp Plan is public. You have got the commercial all up and down Water Tower. A public designation up in this area. The R-40 apartment complex here and also over here and, then, there is some areas located in here, although it's owned by ACHD, that is currently zoned R-40. In addition to all the other -- all the other commercial and office uses in this -- in this immediate area and, of course, the hospital and all the uses associated with that out onto Eagle Road. So, you have got quite a mixture of uses. And so what we are -- you know, what we are intending to do is to increase those -- mixed uses with a well thought out, high quality, multi-family development that you don't usually see -- or you haven't seen, I don't believe, in this city, that is owner occupied, that's the intent, and you have seen the elevations that I provided and they are very unique looking and I think it's going to be a very -- very nice asset to the city if approved this evening. But compatibility and density did come up that last discussion and I thought it was important that we -- that we are -- were able to re-address that. In addition -- Anna, can you show the next slide, which is the next page of your packet. Again, this is a little closer up, but showing the -- again, showing the use. This is our project site right here. Again, we are asking for 7.76 dwelling units per acre. And just as a comparison on the compatibility, the Woodbridge development, which was done as a planned unit development, in the area immediately adjacent to our project, the density of phase one is 5.9 dwelling units per acre. So, to compare that with our density, we are actually only six units more with our area than that phase of Woodbridge. So, what we are saying is compatibility with the surrounding residential, I believe we have -- we definitely meet that. And, then, to reiterate what Compass said in their letter and Anna read, their emphasis -- they recognize the emphasis and the compact development, the diversity in the housing type, increasing development near services and transit routes. Growth within -- growth without consumption of the farm land and meeting the goals endorsed by the Blueprint For Good Growth. Those are all qualities within this development that I believe were not presented at the last meeting that is really important when we are trying to -- trying to add to -- add to the city this type of project. And, finally, the third issue was the traffic and the transportation and one of the problems at the last meeting that we discovered was there was an inaccuracy with the ACHD report -- the written report. Their staff did get up and talked a little bit at the last meeting, but the staff report, that we didn't figure out until afterwards, was taken from the old -- from the old original application and so it indicated that Locust Grove was a three lane road and, in essence, it is a five lane roadway. So, they did provide a letter, which I believe you have in your packets, updating that information. But it's important to point out -- important to point out that ACHD is estimating that our generated -- our generated traffi.c will be 238 vehicle trips per day. The original application for the R-8 Meridian City Council July 24,2007 Page 17 of 70 development was 200 trips per day. So, we are -- that's only increasing that vehicle trips per day by 38 trips. So, I thought that was important to point out as well. And, then, in the Compass letter they speak about being a quarter mile from Franklin Road, that Valley Regional Transit showed that as a high service transit corridor and within a half a mile from that rail corridor that they are studying at this point. Again, we believe that the confusion, lack of better information, and a better understanding of this area that we are trying to develop in relationship to the access, traffic, compatibility, has led us to ask you for this reconsideration this evening. Our intent, again, is to provide a unique project of the type of residential living that is lacking in this area. In order to accomplish this we do have to ask for a rezone to the R-15 -- R-12 -- is it R-12? R-15. Sorry. R-15 zoning designation. However, to point out again, we are not exceeding R-8 density and we are only asking for that higher density so we can accommodate that -- this type of condominium living. So, with that I thank you for your time. Hopefully, I have addressed ~ome concerns that you had at the last meeting that were not addressed and -I will stand for questions. De Weerd: Shawn, once that private drive is vacated, what happens to that road? Once -- once it develops in the back. Canning: It's going to take a second. Nickel: Is this what you're referring to, what happens to this strip? De Weerd: Yeah. Uh-huh. Nickel: Again, it gives them the opportunity, if they were going to just stick with single family, to provide a public access back there. More than likely, because they are comp planned as mixed use, they could follow with what -- the type of development we are doing, in which case I think -- and I don't -- I hate to put Joe Silva on the spot, but I believe that it would need secondary access in there for emergencies, so I would imagine that would be a perfect location for an emergency access. If not there, then, if that was their public road for their single family, then, their emergency access could come through our -- our private road or private street. De Weerd: I guess when we discussed it earlier you talked about vacating it and putting it into a green open space, but -- because we wouldn't want both of those road accesses onto Locust Grove. That was the concern. Nickel: Well -- and the problem, Madam Mayor, is that we don't own that property and so we can't -- I don't think we can dictate what that property owner can do with his property. What we are trying to provide is as many options as possible for the redevelopment of that and I think that's why by providing that -- that access easement and committing to taking that traffic, that we have accomplished that. But it also gives them the ability, if they do want a public street, again, because of the limited amount of Meridian City Council July 24,2007 Page 18 of 70 space that they would have and, to be honest with you, the price that they are asking for that property, I don't know if anyone's going to go in there and really do a single family development and make it pencil out. So, it would make sense to access it through -- through our project. And that's what we are -- again, with that crystal ball that's what we are trying to give them as many options as possible. De Weerd: Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Nickel: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this application? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would ask a clarification of our legal counsel for the record. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. The applicant a couple times has called this a reconsideration, which, in fact, has a meaning and I guess my question is is this a reconsideration' or have we already bridged that and this is a noticed Public Hearing? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, this -- I think he's using it more in the lay person's context, since we have had a hearing previously, but this is a new hearing. It's been noticed. This is a Public Hearing. It's all new information and additional information. But it's not -- it's not a reconsideration hearing, it's simply a new hearing. Zaremba: Thank you. Nary: I don't know if that answers your question. Zaremba: Just wanted to clarify that for the record. Erickson: Hi, there. Ross Erickson. 1854 E. Lanark here in Meridian. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to touch on a few things that Shawn didn't talk about in his presentation just real quickly. I wanted to talk about the previous application that was submitted back in April '06 and, then, also a little bit about the site and the buildings and kind of how they fit to the area and what we have incorporated into the buildings. and site to make it a really nice project. Back in April of '06 we Meridian City Council July 24, 2007 Page 19 of 70 actually purchased this property and started the application shortly thereafter. We went through the entitlement process, prepared our construction drawings, and in a period of time where the market took some pretty significant changes we went through, looked at numbers, put a lot into it, and found that our project was upside down on paper before we even got started. So, basically, what we ended up having to do is go back and do additional market research to try to figure out what was actually occurring with the market and what we found is that there was a -- there was a significant amount of R-4 and R-8 housing in the Meridian area, but we also found that there was a gap between that housing and, then, the rental market in Meridian. There wasn't really anything in between. So, we came up with the concept for condominiums and presented to staff, we worked through several iterations of the design and different configurations, building layouts, different architecture, we worked with the neighbors and kind of honed the design to where it is before you now and to come up with what we feel is a really really good project in. an area that, you know, is -- has a lot of professional services, retail, pretty much everything around it. It's close to a transportation corridor. Unfortunately, there is not a mechanism in the city's code to do condominiums. We have to go through an R-15 zoning designation at a minimum and do the Conditional Use Permit for multi-family in order to do our condo projects, so we can condo plot it. I kind of feel like it puts a stigma, because there is a lot of multi-family projects that you see that aren't refined, they are not done quite as neatly and they are not maintained to a level that this project is intended to be. So, our project is significantly different than the other multi- family projects you have seen in the area and some of the differences are that we are trying to appeal to a buyer, we are not trying to appeal to a renter. So, there is a lot more detail put into our building, there is a lot more high quality materials being used with construction. Some of the -- some of the things that we have incorporated into the building designs are -- we have got private individual entrances, rather than like a confluence of entrances where there is like five doors or four doors where people go to their individual units, they are actually individual, so that people can get that feeling of an individual residence. The architecture, we have massed the buildings such that they will blend in well with the area. We have got a lot of relief on the building elevations that will create some interest in the street. We are planning on using various siding types. We have got lap, some shake, and some board and bat that we are going to mix up on the elevations to really kind of create some -- some differentiation on the elevations. We have got a.rchitectural gable treatments that you don't see on multi-family houses and open trusts, some things like that. So, we are not trying to cheapskate these buildings in any way. Again, we are trying to appeal to a buyer, so we need to create a sustainable product that will be marketable. We have also got -- we chose to paint the units different colors to kind of break it up a little bit and kind of differentiate ownership. Each one of the body colors will have, essentially, different shades of those colors on each unit to give more depth to it and relief. So, the pictures probably don't do that much justice, but that's what we are intending to do. We have also got some architectural stone that will be on every one of the units. Individual driveways and attached garages, as opposed to covered or like a central parking area, again, to try to get -- get in touch with that residential feel to where someone could pull in their Meridian City Council July 2412007 Page 20 of 70 driveway and they donlt have to worry about somebody else pulling in their driveway, so they have reserve space. As far as parking goes, we have got double the required parking for a multi-family project. Thatls excluding the on-street parking. So, we have got just a ton of parking on this project. So, parking shouldnlt be an issue. As well as the open space. I think we have three times the amount of open space thaes required for a project like this. Our units -- for the most part our units range in size from about 1 ,500 to 1 ,800 square feet. We have got two units that are a little bit larger. Each of the units is three bedrooms, two and a half bath. One of the bedrooms is design to -- the architecture is designed so that you can actually remove a wall, if thaes in the interest of the buyer, so that you can create a flex space, like a bonus room type concept. We have got some good letters with input and support from the neighbors and from Compass, so it seems like we havenlt had a lot of opposition with the project. Everyone thinks -- I would suspect, just by the showing, that we have done a decent job with it. I think with that I will stand for any questions and ask for your approval tonight. De Weerd: Thank you. Council? Thank you. Any further testimony by the public? Your time's up. If you would, please, state your name and address for the record. Smith: Good evening, Mayor de Weerd, Council Members. My name is Deanna Smith. I reside at 1208 East Jefferson, Boise, Idaho. And 11m here tonight to encourage you to consider this application from a Blueprint For Good Growthls perspective. As a member of the Blueprint For Good Growth steering committee, I believe it is important for all the communities in. this county to really look carefully at applications from this perspective and to consider strongly those that adhere well to the policies of that plan. I believe this one does a good job of adhering to Blueprint For Good Growth policies. It's my understanding that one of the greatest concerns in front of you that I have heard is that the density of this project is fairly -- of fairly significant and greater density than what currently is zoned or around it, but I wanted to encourage you to think about density from a perspective of form, function, and location. Location, from a perspective location, if I have this on the map right -- and I believe I do -- this particular location sits quite close -- not quite within the quarter mile, but certainly within the half mile to future high density corridor, that being the rail corridor. I know we donlt have that developed today, but one of the things that Blueprint For Good Growth calls for is to strongly consider transit ready development. I think you1re looking at such development in this application. As far as function goes, itls not the density that creates compatibility, but whether it really fits and belongs. You have a location where this piece of ground, this application would provide some ability for its residents and surrounding residents to create a few of their trips as walkable trips. You would have small commercial inside of it that might provide a few jobs. Also could provide some services and reduce car trips. That is very much something that Blueprint For Good Growth strives for. And, then, the final is form and I think this application does an admirable job of fitting in very nicely with its design to the adjacent single family residents. You have multi-family units that really from -- for all practical purposes look very much like homes. A few of them less so than others, but many -- the majority of them look like houses. They are large houses, but Meridian City Council July 24,2007 Page 21 of 70 they look like houses. So, you have got form, function, and location and I think that's really how we need to look at density, if we are going to be able to adhere to Blueprint For Good Growth, which calls for us to begin trying to develop our land use patterns in such a way that we can reduce vehicle miles traveled, improve our air quality, and support transit. I just wanted to mention I'm speaking tonight as a member of the Blueprint steering committee and wanted you to think about it from that perspective. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further testimony? Shawn, do you have any concluding remarks? No? Council, any questions? Borton: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Silva that Shawn might want to comment on. . When there is a discussion about emergency access for future development, is it an option -- I don't know if this landscape plan shows it well enough. Is there an option to have emergency access through -- and I'm just throwing out an idea here -- through the parking lot and across this common area? Is that -- is it feasible? I mean can you utilize that parking area that provides some emergency access? Because I think I share what sounds like the Mayor's concerned with -- what this might eventually become and since it all sort of ties into some of our discussion, I'm curious what your thoughts are. Silva: Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, typically it does not go through a parking lot. Most typically it's a dedicated easement. It's the way we handle those secondary means of access and it's always for -- there is different requirements depending on the individual project that's proposed, whether or not it's square footage, the height of the building, or number of homes served, will influence the need for a secondary or a third access point to a project. So, most typically it is not -- it does not go through a parking lot. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Any further questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Shawn, did you have any further comments? Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I guess to address that, because it sounds like there is still a concern about this -- about this property to the east. And, again, without - - without knowing -- without having the ability to predict, you know, how -- how things are going to develop that are out of your control, the best we can do is give -- give as many options as possible. This one, unfortunately, because of the separation in grade from the LOS church to our property wouldn't work, even if -- even if we could get an access through there. I think this is the most appropriate location. Also I want to point Meridian City Council July 24, 2007 Page 22 of 70 out, as stated in ACHD's report, that this -- this offset does meet their policy and I know that's -- it's not the -- it's not the way we want to see it and I don't -- I'm hoping that it doesn't develop that way, but, again, keep in mind that as testified by my developer, who, you know, paid for the property and, then, couldn't do a single family development, the chances of this going single family would be the only reason that you would need this access here, because it would most likely need a public road system. But once you build a public road with a 50 foot right of way, take into consideration all the flood way and the constraints of the property, I really don't think it's a practical piece of property for single family, that's why we thought it was so important to provide that access here, because if it did go to a full family development, then, it could access -- their private street system could continue off of our private street system and, then, this would provide an emergency only access, which I believe that the fire department would want to see being this far away from Locust Grove. So, I -- again, I wish I was a -- I wish I was a mind reader and a swami to see how things were going to develop, but I think we have done a good job of trying to -- trying to allay those concerns. At least I hope we have. Any other questions for me? De Weerd: You do plan on signing that private road that it will go through? Nickel: Yes, we will. Even though it's not a requirement of ACHD, we would agree to a condition of approval for that, since it's not a public road, there is no condition currently, but we would agree to that as a condition. De Weerd: Well, I think that's mandatory, because I do think that the city needs to be pretty vocal in its -- if that property does redevelop in the back and if this is approved, that that access will be discouraged in the form that we can. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. De Weerd: Council, if there is no further information needed, I would entertain a motion to close. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Unless you want discussion. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I will make a short discussion and, then, proceed. I would like to say that I very much appreciate the input from Blueprint For Good Growth and from Compass. As the valley moves forward in trying to incorporate these principals for all cities, not just ours, I, actually, think it would be helpful to have that be part of the analysis of all future projects is some -7 some comparison to Blueprint For Good Growth, whether or not we send that out for comment from Compass or develop that analysis in-house is not important to me, but it would be a nice paragraph to add to either future staff comments or other agency comments, because I think we do need to be aware of how projects -- Meridian City Council July 241 2007 Page 23 of 70 Meridian has supported the Blueprint For Good Growth and part of our support would be have their input. So, with that comment I would move that the Public Hearing on Items 9 and 10 be closed. De Weerd: I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 9 and 10. Do I have a second? Borton: I will second. De Weerd: I have a second. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I almost cut Councilman Zaremba off to get some of my remarks out before the Public Hearing was closed. I know Shawn and Ross probably are waiting to hear back. I think we had some confusion and I probably created it in making comments after the hearing was closed and although the Public Hearing is closed, I will -- my laundry list of complaints are zero. I applaud you both from my perspective. It's frustrating as ever, I'm sure, to have something, you know, denied, reconsidered, come back and delayed and if there is an opportunity to address it on the front end, I know that's desired and 11m sensitive to the cost and delay. What I see and what you each told me -- in particular, Ross, I appreciate your remarks about a little more of the history of this project and some of the dilemmas that you were faced with. I had a concern before when -- and anytime we approve an annexation and we are approving item A and, then, later on we are asked to approve B, that might have had an impact on whether or not it made sense for the City of Meridian to bring that in. That was one of the concerns the led to the denial, at least in . my eyes, and by no means do I think that there was any bait and switch going on, but your background provided some additional information which makes me more comfortable with it, coupled with the fact that the detail and the quality of the product that you're providing, make me feel more comfortable with it and the access issue to the east makes me feel a lot more comfortable with it. We all wish we were swamis or however Shawn phrased it on how this property to the east might develop and the emergency access issues. I hope youlre right, it makes sense as you describe it, what will pencil out there. I trust you would know better than I what would work. But what you provide it seems to be the best -- the best product for this area. I understand itls -- it was -- I believe mixed use community on the Comp Plan and kind of had this idea initially, but a long story short, 11m supportive of the project and appreciative of the changes and the patience that the applicants have shown in trying to meet some of our concerns. Meridian City Council July 24, 2007 Page 24 of 70 De Weerd: Thank- you. Any other comment? Do I have a motion? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve RZ 07-006 and CUP 07-005, both relating to Bellabrook, to include all staff comments and, specifically, that the applicant shall record a cross-access agreement for the property owner to the east prior to application submittal for a CZC and one additional addition to the staff comments that the applicant be required to post a sign at the east end of the private drive where it meets the property line of the property to the east, stating that that road will be extended in the future. End of motion. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Items 9 and 10 with the conditions as stated. Any further comment? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, .yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: MI 07-009 Request for a Miscellaneous application to Modify the existing Development Agreement to amend the concept plan for the site for Dorado Subdivision by Winston Moore - NWC of Eagle Road and Overland Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11 is a Public Hearing on MI 07-009. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Dorado project. It's located on the northwest corner of Eagle and Overland. The applications before you tonight are a development agreement modification and alternative compliance and I'm going to give a -- kind of quick rundown on the history and a little bit of staff concerns about this project. In August 2005 City Council approved a request for annexation and zoning to C-G. The concept plan approved for the site had two small retail buildings, approximately 2,800 square feet each, to be located on the lots at the southwest corner of the property. The buildings front Overland Road, an entryway corridor, with parking provided to the rear of the buildings. The applicant now seeks to combine the two buildings into one larger structure, which is about 11 ,000 square feet, and to have that structure back up to the existing residential property to the north. Therefore, the applicant requests modification of the concept plan to construct one large retail building with alternative compliance to allow the parking adjacent to Overland Road, not behind