Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 26, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 25 of 77 Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-0 zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 12: Public Hearing.: MI 07-013 Request for Miscellaneous application to modify the Recorded Development Agreement for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 13: Public Hearing.: RZ 07-018 Request for a Rezone of 12..64 acres from R- 4 to an L-O zone for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Corner of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road.: Item 14: Public Hearing.: PP 07-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 10.2 acres in the .proposed L-O zoning district for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Corner of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 15: Public Hearing.: MI 07-014 Request for a Miscellaneous application to modify the recorded Development Agreement for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Corner of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: RZ 07-022 Request for a Rezone of 7.37 acres from C- G and R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group., LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 07-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the proposed C-N zone for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: De Weerd: All right. Okay. Our next items are 10, 11 -- 10 through 17 and it's RZ 07- 017, PP 07-022, MI 07-013, RZ 07-018, PP 07-023, MI 07-014, RZ 07-022 and PP 07- 026. Iwill open these public hearings with staff comments. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 26 of 77 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for opening all those items. For the benefit of any public that may have snuck in that I didn't get a chance to talk to, we did ask Mayor and Council to consider all of these, because the development agreements are intertwined and we didn't want to have to repeat testimony with regard to the development agreements. I will go through each project one by one, so you will have three projects and three discussions on appropriate development agreements for those, so -- having said that, we are going to start with the Verona Commercial project. It's located at the northeast corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. It's 18.82 acres and the existing zoning is C-G and R-8, as you can see on a small portion of the property right there. The applications before you tonight are a rezone and preliminary plat. The proposed development includes 12 nonresidential building lots and two others on the 18..82 acres and there are ten buildings shown on the submitted concept plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation is both commercial and office. We are proposing a new development agreement specifically for this area, so that we don't have to reference the old Verona planned development agreements, so that we are asking for a brand new one that applies only to this area. Just to back up a little bit on those histories of the DA -- so, this area was proposed as commercial area and was originally subject to both the Bridgetower Crossing DA and those are the properties currently zoned C-G and the Corona DA. Those are the properties currently zoned R-8. And they are currently proposed for both L-O on the east side and, then, C-G on the west side of those R-8 areas. Staff is tying the developer to the elevations submitted with the application and those same elevations will be used for each development agreement that we have discussed tonight. By developing a new DA for this commercial and office area, staff believes it will allow for more efficient implementation of the DA and more consistent implementation of the DA over time. So, we are recommending a new development agreement for this area and it would contain the following provisions: The proposed commercial and office building shall be constructed with high quality materials, including, but not limited to, stucco, wood and brick, with substantial stone accents, four-sided architecture, highlighted main entrances, stamped decorative concrete, composite or file roofing material, variations in color, roof planes, and parapet heights. And those are related to the elevations that we will show you that -- we have six photos. So, those are kind of sample elevations that led to that list, but they will be tied to these elevations as well. And, then, for this project a minimum of nine buildings with no one building exceeding 50,000 square feet, shall be constructed on -- within this area and the maximum allowable nonresidential square footage for the development shall be 225,000 square feet. And the development of the site shall generally conform to the site plan. Okay. That's the recommendation that's coming forward from the Planning and Zoning Commission, who did recommend approval at their December 6, 2007, Public Hearing. Chuck Christensen spoke for the applicant. Gary Payne, a resident of Verona Subdivision spoke in opposition.. There was no one else commenting and no written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were they discussed the impacts of the through traffic entering the surrounding residential neighborhoods and those were concerns raised by Mr. Payne. The majority of the Commission felt the commercial project would not impact the residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it would provide access for the residents of the Verona community, rather than forcing them out onto arterials to access the commercial development. They also discussed the Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 27 of 77 access points along Ten Mile and McMillan., the history of the commercial lots for the proposed development, and the planned intersection improvements at Linder and McMillan. The key Commission changes to the staff recommendation -- they modified condition 2.15 and deleted the reference to the Fair Housing Act, since there is no housing in this project. The outstanding issues before City Council -- currently, the DA provisions read that the applicant should construct a minimum of nine buildings. The applicant would like that number decreased to five buildings. And staff is recommending that the Commission -- or the Council add an additional provision to this DA that drive access needs to be stubbed to the eastern property line for the two office lots for future connectivity. Let me get an overall -- these lots are all approved office lots with -- they still have R-8 zoning on them, but these are approved for office uses. They do -- there is about four or five lots there that were preliminary platted and, then, just for reference, because I know this was an issue, the Selway Apartments are on the property just to the north of that. So, we are recommending that the two lots here on the east have drive aisle access that connects to those L-O lots, so that we get future connectivity. The applicant did call me today about this issue and it is an outstanding issue. We do try and get cross-access where ever possible. One consideration may be that maybe we just get one of those lots, the southern lot, to provide that cross-access and not worry about the northern lot, which is closer to the residential development. So, if we could get cross-access at least on this south lot it would be beneficial to get through traffic among the commercial development. And with that I will answer any other questions Council may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions on this item? Bird: I have none at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Do you want to go through ail of these or you want to do them item by item? Okay. Is there public testimony on this application? I didn't show anyone as signing up, but is there any testimony desired? Canning: Madam Mayor, you might ask the applicant. De Weerd: Oh. Well, they didn't jump up and down either. That's right. I guess I do have to ask the applicant, uh. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time. always thought it was so strange that no one was standing forward. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Cornell Larsen. Address is 210 Murray in Garden City. I'm here tonight representing the application on this project. A lot of our comments that were -- are pretty well directed to all of the projects. A lot of the staff conditions carry through from each project and they go on for -- for the three hearings you have before you tonight, so I could certainly address those now or at the end, but in this particular case I can take this one and, then, come back again and repeat the testimony for each subsequent one after or I can do it once, whatever you would prefer to -- to do. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 28 of 77 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: It would probably be helpful, Cornell, if you could do it -- the specifics on each one -- Larsen: On each one? De Weerd: -- as they are presented. Larsen: Okay. Zaremba.: Thank you. Larsen: Be happy to do that. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: We have read the staff report and I also have -- just so you know, I have Chuck Christensen here who is with me tonight with Quadrant and he may need to answer some questions, if you have questions on platting., because I'm not sure I'm up to speed on that, but I am on the rest of the project. So, he may need to come up and visit with you if you have a question there. We have looked at the staff report and we wanted to suggest some modifications to the conditions -- to the bullet points under the Verona development agreement. First, I'd like to talk about the building materials. We submitted many photos to staff and they had picked the ones that you have seen in the staff report, but we actually submitted probably 30 or 40 photos. So, the photos that are in the packet are not necessarily consistent with what our long range plan is. We would like to have a little more flexibility in the materials and type of design of the buildings. Those buildings were geared towards a smaller user and as we move through the Verona project we may have the bigger buildings that may have one or two entries, may have common areas, may have other things, so we would like to have some flexibility on the types of materials that we might use in the building and, again, we did submit quite a few photos and staff has selected some good looking buildings and we did some upgraded buildings on that site and -- in an effort to attract some users to a new retail area. What we would like to suggest is that we -- after the word four-sided architecture we add the term where needed. There may be instances where we have a building that may not need four-sided architecture, it may need -- may not need glass on all four sides. But it may need some decoration or some relief on all four sides. So, we'd like to add the words where needed... The stamp and decorative concrete, we'd certainly like to use that selectively, not everywhere. We would like some flexibility on the roofing. If it all has to be composite roofing and the roofing, that, in itself, won't work for us, because we will probably have some flat roofs and some -- maybe even some metal accents. So, we'd like you to consider changing that to also allow us to do some flat roofs and maybe some metal accent roofing. As far as the elevations conforming to the photos that we have submitted, again, we would just like to have a little more flexibility in those particular buildings. I believe we submitted pictures from various projects, including Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 29 of 77 Silverstone, EI Dorado, Boise Research Center and a lot of the buildings in those projects are fairly nice and would be fine in this facility as we move forward with this development. I think staff recommended five -- a minimum of five buildings with no building exceeding 50,000 square feet and we are okay with that change. What we were trying not to do is get a whole bunch of small buildings on the site and we would like to make sure that the minimum number of buildings does give us flexibility for size. As you probably all know at Silverstone and EI Dorado and some of the other projects I have been involved in, we have made many lot splits and many lot line adjustments. Commercial development, unfortunately, is a little different than residential and we have to adjust to the user and as a result of that we have to adjust the lot lines according to some of the users we get. So,.that reducing the minimum number of lots will help us to -- required minimum number of lots will help us to make sure that we can adjust accordingly. There was a comment on generally conforming to the concept plan. Sort of as I just explained., as you know, I don't know that our concept plan for Silverstone and EI Dorado has came out exactly or even close to what he had initially submitted, so we want to make sure that you understand that it is a concept plan and we do need the flexibility in order to move forward with a commercial development, so we'd like to have you add some wording in there that may state that we must meet the requirements of the current UDC, so that we can have a little bit of flexibility in the -- in the concept plan and not be locked into it as it's currently designed. Then, the last comment we had was on the connection to the adjacent property. We have made over time commitments to the people that have bought in Bridgetower that we would try not to connect those properties together for traffic reasons and for circulation through the project. We understand connectivity, but we would -- we might suggest that we make a connection with a pathway system and it might be in this general area right here.. We have an easement through there that we could certainly make a pathway connection that might allow users from the adjacent property to come over into this -- into the facility itself and use whatever buildings or services are in that project. Just a brief overview of the master plan. We had potentially looked at a gas station facility here. We were exploring a car wash here. We have some interest in a couple of drive-thru banks, smaller fast food retail has looked at it. Up in this particular area we do have a commitment for some medical. We thought we might be able to track down some health club type uses on the site, potentially. So, those are some of the things we are looking at on this site to maybe give you a feel for the overall concept that we are in search of there. I believe in a couple of the earlier staff reports staff had suggested that we move a couple of these buildings out to the street and we agree to do that, so we get a little bit more connectivity to the street and a little bit more variety of design. I would be happy to answer any questions if you have concerns or comments. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 30 of 77 Bird: Cornell, with the material that we have listed in here, would that, in your opinion, disallow tilt up buildings? As I read it, it would disallow tilt ups, which you said EI Dorado and -- and you took a lot of your pictures out of EI Dorado and Silverstone and Turnbull's project over there at BRC and most of those are tilt ups. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, we have done quite a few tilt up buildings, but we have usually tried to create a variety of materials on those buildings from the rock to stone to glass, heavy cornice, a lot of different elements to try to break those -- those buildings up, so they didn't look like a concrete building and, in general, a lot of times we put a textured coating on the building, so it looks more like a stucco project. So, we would hope staff wouldn't eliminate that flexibility, as those have been fairly economical buildings and pretty good energy buildings as well. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Additional questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Cornell, you suggested some additional words in one of the recommended comments from staff on the DA and one of them was four-sided architecture as needed and that always puts us on the spot, because I would interpret that as needed to be determined by staff and you would interpret it as to be as needed as determined by you or your client. So, I know we attempt to wordsmith these things to make them sound and do what we all agree to do, but that doesn't do it for me. So, we need some better words there, so you and/or your client and/or our staff have an expectation of what's going to happen there. So, I don't have a problem with what you're saying that there is some flexibility there, but when we just make a statement like that it gets us all in a position of being really angry with one another. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I understand your concerns. I guess where we are coming from is that, you know, on occasions we have retail buildings that have backs to them and we really want to be careful about addressing the backs to make sure that they look decent. We have other buildings that may have service entries or locations where we need to get trucks up to them or for whatever reason and we want to be careful that we don't get into trying to design a bunch of costly facades that really is of no benefit to -- to the end user. In other words, we have double loaded retail buildings with glass on both sides, it's very tough for a retail user to have a back room, a store room, those kind of issues. So, we are concerned, we want the buildings in the City of Meridian to look very nice, be first class. We do not want to get into a situation where we are in disagreement with staff, but we wouldn't like to use all buildings -- we try to design all buildings with four-sided architecture, but sometimes the sites don't need to be as well done as maybe three of the sides on the building. And I'm not sure that I have answered your question, but lunderstand -- Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 31 of 77 Rountree: I understand your intent and I would ask Anna if she has maybe a better way of stating that to where everybody knows what's going on. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree -- or President Rountree, perhaps it could be for retail uses or those that require loading areas, one facade may be screened in lieu of facade treatment or something like that. Larsen: Yeah. We are open for that -- any kind of language on that that gives us some flexibility where we have service equipment or vehicles or we may have an office building.., for example, that may have some generators on the ground., some equipment, some things like that that we don't necessarily have to spend a lot of money on the building, because we have got a lot of equipment right next to the building. So, we would like a little flexibility on that and I think we could work with staff on some verbiage. Rountree: Thank you.. Are you comfortable with that, Anna? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, I am. I think the reason the four- sided is in there is related to the concept plan. The concept plan does show very -- kind of open site plan with individual buildings that kind of would need fairly -- most of them would require four-sided architecture the way it's currently drawn. I did want to comment on the need for flexibility in the concept plan and I know that this is difficult for the development community to commit to a concept plan and we are very mindful of that. We do try to be very flexible in our interpretation of what's consistent with that concept plan.. Our problem is if you just tie it to the UDC there is nothing to say that they couldn't come back with one building that's partitioned into five -- you know, one massive building that's perhaps partitioned into five and that would be consistent with their DA, but clearly not consistent with what was presented tonight. And I'm not trying to say that Mr. Vareille will propose that, it's just that those are the kind of issues that come up when we don't have something to fall back on that says, well, you kind of told us you were going to distribute this around the site and not just have a sea of parking and one large building.. So, that's why we do ask that you tie it to the concept plan and not just the provisions of the UDC. We commit to developers on a regular basis that we will provide them every sort of flexibility that -- that we can afford to help them get toward the end. Larsen: Madam Mayor, may I address that for just a minute? We -- when we have a building in a situation like this regarding the four-side architecture, a lot of times those are tenant buildings and they may be loaded from two or three sides as a result of how the building's leasing and so in a case where we have a building out on its own like that surrounded by parking or if it's out -- one side is up next to the street and it has parking on three sides, we assume that we are going to need four-sided architecture there in order to attract tenants and make sure that they are all on a level plane. A lot of tenants that lease space in buildings now they want to have their own separate identify and they don't want to look different than the tenant next to them. So, it's important that we do have the four-sided architecture on a lot of that product. The other item with regard to Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 32 of 77 Anna's comments on the concept plan, staff has been very flexible with us in the past on allowing us to do things to the concept plan that generally conform to it and we have had pretty good -- pretty good luck in working with them through those issues. Several of things that Silverstone and EI Dorado have all had to be brought back in for staff to look at it and it's gone fairly well. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further, Council? Zaremba; Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I was just going to add to the same discussion that the flexibility in the roofing materials, it would be the same discussion that we already had., but it's the same as the facades. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Now, if you have questions on platting, I would defer to Chuck. Did we have any issues on -- I guess there is no issues on platting or any of the subdivision stuff, so we are okay with those. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen.: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. At this point -- at this time we are taking testimony on Verona, the commercial aspect. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Anna, we will just go ahead and go to the next item. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you can take action, if you'd like to, on the -- De Weerd: Ten and eleven? Canning: On ten and eleven and., then, we will come back to the development agreement. I think all the changes that were requested were in the development agreement, so you can make those modifications later if you want to take up that item later. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 33 of 77 De Weerd'.: Okay. So, there is no public testimony on either Items 10 or 11 ? No further comment by the applicant? Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd.: Council, any further information? Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would like to discuss the subject of the drive aisle to the east. We had asked the developers of the property to the east to provide more connectivity than they intended to. They seem to have been resistant to that and., apparently, they have conveyed that to the current applicant as well. But I feel the connectivity is important in spite of the fact that the neighbor is not in favor of it and I would support the staffs request for a drive aisle connection to the east. It's fine with me if it's on the lower property or the southern most property. I'm supportive of the staffs request on that. De Weerd: Council, any further comment on that? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird:: Anna, show us where you -- where the staff kind of has plans to have an access out. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the staff report says that each drive aisle should have some sort of stub currently. I guess as a -- as a proffer, I would say, you know, if we could at least get one, I think that that would be beneficial. And somewhere on this southern lot would seem to make more sense, because you do have residential up here. So, bringing that traffic any -- somewhere away from the residential makes sense. It could come in anywhere along this -- that boundary. Bird: Put up -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. Anna, put up a site for the whole area. Isn't there a road that goes right up there? Canning: No. It looks like that. It's an irrigation feature that's been tiled. Bird: Oh, that's the irrigation deal? So, you want it to dump over in that -- Canning: This is the road. l'm sorry. That's a road. Bird: That's what I thought. Canning: That's that road.. Bird: Yeah. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 34 of 77 Canning: But, then, you have two lots to the east of it. So what we are trying to do is get this office traffic to have across-access all along here, so that they are not having to go onto the arterial roadway and it's very typical from commercial development to commercial development we try and get cross-access where ever we can. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. We did -- what we required of Selway is that they have a western stub from the apartment section into what will be the commercial section and it would make sense that that would connect to something on the eastern end of this property. Bird.: Do they come down to the top of that, though? Does Selway come down to the -- north of this project? Zaremba: It's not the entire thing., but it's about -- Bird: I think it goes right across there, don't it? Zaremba: Oh. I'm sorry. It ends at Apgar Creek. Bird: Yeah. So, it goes -- it actually don't butt up to this project at all, so what we required them to go to the west is up in that subdivision. Canning: No. We required anorth-south street along the western edge of their property -- development. Bird: Okay. North-south. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, you're correct, this would not connect directly to Selway Apartments. Zaremba: It would go through the other owner's commercial property. Canning: Correct. De Weerd: So, will that other property have access out onto McMillan? Canning: The preliminary plat for the office lots currently show I believe three access points to McMillan.. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 35 of 77 Bird: My concern is that -- is that North Goddard Creek Way road is -- you`re dumping everything out on that, why not just let it dump -- let this project dump out on that one road between McMillan and Ten Mile? I don't know why you wanted to go out back through there. And that other project's got all kinds of frontage along McMillan. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council., as ACHD progresses in their efforts we are seeing access controls at the arterial roadways. Possibility of more medians to control that access where you have driveways versus public streets, we are really trying to get folks to the public streets, so that they don't have to take the -- necessarily take the arterial roadway. If, for some reason, you have a dentist here and you want to go pick up milk at the -- the Rite-Aid there or something, you don't want to have to get out onto the arterial roadway and that's always staffs goal in asking for the cross-access is to relieve the congestion on the arterial roadways. De Weerd: Would the applicant care to comment on this? Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Cornell Larsen again. De Weerd.: Thank you. Larsen: I was just curious. Anna, did you say there was a road that would just come down along that boundary of the property? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Larsen, it's not right along the boundary, it's a couple hundred feet, probably, a stub. It's about a -- maybe a quarter of the way over. Larsen: Madam Mayor, I guess our biggest concern is just the -- I guess our biggest concern was just that the residents that have purchased from Bridgetower in the past have been really concerned about that connection and the flow-through traffic and they have not desired that and we were here expressing their wishes tonight as well, so -- De Weerd: So, these are representations that were provided through your neighborhood meeting, then? Larsen: Through the owner, as he's developed these parcels, he's trying to not allow this through traffic or has indicated to the neighbors that he would prefer not to have that traffic through there and -- as it feels like it does end up being a detriment to his neighborhood. And the applicant has indicated to me that they have also discussed that at the neighborhood meetings. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd.: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 36 of 77 Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor. Anna, would you put up the site plan. Canning: That one or this one? Rountree: Okay. So, on the eastern boundary of the two commercial lots, I don't see any provision for a fence or landscaping or whatever. If we are talking about access or no access, it seems to me if there is no access there ought to be some kind of a barrier there. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council., we -- they seem to be depicting a five foot landscape buffer for the parking lot. Rountree: Is that indicated on the plat? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, because we don't usually put just parking lot landscaping on the plat that the -- landscape easements that we general show on the plats are either street buffers or land use buffers. So, this wouldn't be one of those times that we ask for that. It would allow a little more flexibility in the design of the building. Rountree: So, I guess what I'm getting at -- I'm confused. on the landscaping requirements. If this was an industrial site it would be required to be landscaped with a buffer. Canning: Yes. They would have to have a buffer to residential uses. We are not -- it's an unusual situation. It's zoned R-8, but it's approved for L-O, so we tend to treat it as if it's nonresidential use. Rountree: Okay. Canning: So, we did not require the land used buffer to those properties, because they are approved for office uses. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: But how about on the north side of that? Isn't that residential? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, it is. I suspect that the staff report already notes that there is a land use buffer required there. I can verify. But there is a land use buffer required there. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 37 of 77 De Weerd.: Okay. Larsen: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Larsen: Cornell Larsen again. There is a planted buffer along there already currently existing. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further, Council? If there is nothing further, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items 10, 11 and 12. Bird: No. No. Not 12. Rountree: ten and eleven. De Weerd'..: Ten and eleven. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I move that we close public hearings on Items 10 and 1. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 10 and 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird.: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, on the rezone, it had nothing to do with the development agreement, so all we are doing there is going from a minimum of nine to five; is that right? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the DA is associated with the rezone, but you could take action on the rezone without worrying about the DA agreement at this time. Bird: I thought the DA come down on the 12. Maybe I misunderstood. Canning: Correct. So, the rezone -- we can for the development, because there is a rezone application before you, but the two aren't -- Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 38 of 77 Bird: Where would you prefer it? Canning: It needs to be in the DA discussion. Bird: In what? Canning: The DA discussion. Rountree: Item 12. Bird: In Item 12. Canning: Yes, sir. Bird,: Right. Okay. So, RZ is just the rezone from five to -- or from nine to five. And from C-G -- or R-8 to C-G and L-O; right? Canning: Correct. The latter. Yes. Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.. Bird: I move that we approve RZ 07-017, the rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 to C-G and L-O zone for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10. Is there any discussion or clarification needed? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 11. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird.: I move we approve PP 07-022, preliminary plat approval for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 39 of 77 Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Verona, Item 11. Discussion? Zaremba: Madam Mayor, again, this is a question of where is it appropriate. Would it be the preliminary plat where we decide whether there will be access to the east or not? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if we knew -- Councilmember Zaremba, if we knew exactly where it needed to be on the plat we could, but I don't think -- staff didn't have that specificity at this time. We'd like to leave the developer that ability to move it, so it would be better as a DA provision. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14. Rountree: Twelve. De Weerd: Did you want to do the DA's at the end of all of these? Canning,: Yes, ma'am. Bird: We are going to move 12? De Weerd: Yes. We are going to consider it at the end of all of these discussions. Twelve and fifteen we will consider after Item 17. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the things I forgot to mention when I get to the last presentation is part of the reason we are asking you to defer on those, the reason they are still intertwined is because although we proposing new DA's for these projects that are before you tonight, the existing DA remains for the properties that are not under not the applicant's control. So, that's why they are -- still go on. So, they are just -- the only complicated thing about this is the development agreements and so they -- De Weerd: The only complicated. Bird.: Don't confuse me. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 40 of 77 Canning: I'm sorry. Okay. We are going to move onto -- we are going to move onto Bridgetower Crossing Office. This is -- we switched roads on this one. We have moved over about a mile to the east. It's the southwest corner of Linder and McMillan. This project is 12.64 acres and the existing zoning is R-4. The applications before you tonight are a rezone and preliminary plat. They are asking for 11 nonresidential lots, which would be -- and, actually, 12 buildings as shown on the submitted concept plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is office, reflecting its planned development approval in years past. We shift aspects here, so north is going to the -- the left side of the page -- or the screen. The Planning Commission has recommended a new development agreement specifically for this area and the discussion with regard to the materials is the same as the previous one and the elevations are the same as previously proposed. The development -- the other site specific comment would be that the development of the property shall generally comply, as determined by the planning director, with the concept site plan submitted as you see before you. Minimum of -- there is the concept plan. Minimum of eight buildings with no one building exceeding 15,000 square feet shall be constructed on the lots associated with the Bridgetower Crossing Office Subdivision. The maximum allowable nonresidential square footage for this development shall be 137,640 square feet. The Commission recommended approval at their January 3rd, 2008, Public Hearing. Chuck Christensen spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented or provided written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were tiling the Settler's Canal along the northern property boundary, which, again, is toward the left of your page -- of your screen. Limiting the number of access points on Linder Road. In the key Commission changes to staff recommendation were the portion of the Settler's Canal along McMillan Road and west of Bellagio Way is not expected to be tiled. So, that would be this portion. Outstanding issues for the Council -- in the Bridgetower Crossing DA modification section it reads that to remove the properties shown in Exhibit C and it says pages nine to 14. It just should say pages seven to 14. That's just clerical edit that we would ask Council to put on the record.. With that, I will answer any questions Council may have with regard to this application. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Zaremba: In the section where the waterway would not be tiled is there still -- it looks like this is depicting sidewalk. Am I correct that there is sideway there? Canning: I believe so. It's already platted as residential, as you can see from the -- from the photo.. So, I -- I'm sure the applicant will address that in his testimony. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 41 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. We will ask that of the applicant. Okay. Anything else for staff at this point? Okay. Would the applicant like to comment. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Cornell Larsen, address is 210 Murray Street, Garden City. This under the development agreement had the same bullet points as we had on the previous application. However, we wanted to suggest a couple of modifications on that as well and., then, in addition to the -- I'll give you a little insight on the Settlers Canal. We tiled a portion of this to widen the road and to have access at this point. The Settlers Canal requested that we not the the rest of it. There is a walkway, a fence way, and, then, an open ditch, I believe, along the -- along the boundary of McMillan. And so that's what currently exists there at this point in time. Under the bullet points in the development agreement we had already mentioned are concerns about the materials. Second bullet point was the elevations. Under the third bullet point it required a minimum of eight building lots and we were going to request that we'd like to see that made five building lots and when we met with staff on the Verona project we had talked to them about 25 percent coverage being kind of a normal coverage that we shoot for on the -- on the projects and so that's how they got to the 137,650 number that's in your report. We'd like to see if you would consider that going to 155,00 square feet, instead of the 137,650. And part of the reason for doing that is some of the buildings that we do actually have a little better coverage than 25 percent. We get a little better land use and some buildings that we do, don't, and it sort of depends on the use. For example, a medical facility we may put quite a bit more parking on it, because of their use and the number of patients they have coming and going, whereas an office building that may have a lot of offices and have very little parking, we could actually get a little more coverage on it. So, we'd like to see that number potentially up in the 155 range. And, then, on the last bullet point it would be our same concerns, we would like you to make sure that you know that this is a concept plan and there will be changes to it as a result of the type of project that it is. And I would be happy to answer any questions if you have those. De Weerd.: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd.: Ijust -- so, you want a minimum of five? Larsen: Minimum of five lots. De Weerd.: And no one -- Larsen: Five buildings. Excuse me. De Weerd: Buildings. Larsen: Five buildings. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 42 of 77 De Weerd.: And no one building exceeding -- Larsen: Fifteen thousand square feet is okay. That's what staff had asked for. De Weerd: Okay. And, then, you have 155,000 square feet. Larsen: For the total square footage. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: That gives us a little bit of flexibility, we can only get on there what we can, but if we are locked into 25, we can't -- percent coverage we may not be able to exceed that on a given site and we want to be sure we have got a little flexibility. De Weerd.: Okay. Larsen: And I believe staff does have some flexibility in the ordinance, too. I think they can have a little flexibility as well. De Weerd: Okay. So, Council, anything further? Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. I would accept public testimony on Items 13 and 14. Okay. Seeing none. Council, any further information needed? Rountree: Madam Mayor. Anna, if you would put the aerial back up, I just need to -- and, then, if you would -- one of the items for discussion was minimize access on Linder. Are we talking about the need for this particular street? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, because that one lines up directly across the street I don't think it was, but -- Rountree: I think they both apparently line up, so -- Canning: Yeah. I'd have to -- I would have to peruse the minutes. I'm not sure. This cushion may have actually been that they are consolidating the access on those public streets and it may have been more of a positive comment than the way it appears in the bulleted items. Rountree: Okay. Canning: And., Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't have any concerns with the changes proposed by the applicant. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 43 of 77 Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. If there isn't anything further -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Having heard staff and applicant testimony and given the opportunity to the public to testify, I move we close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. Bird: Second.. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Canning.: Okay. Any discussion? Zaremba: And, again., I would clarify that the changes that Mr. Larsen mentioned would be appropriate to the DA motion later; right? In that case, Madam Mayor, I move that we approve RZ 07-018, request for a rezone, and at the same time approve PP 07-023, request for preliminary plat approval, both relating to Bridgetower Crossing Office. Rountree: Second. De Weerd.: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Items 13 and 14. Any discussion? Hearing none -- Zaremba: And part of the motion was to include all staff comments and -- Rountree: I agree. De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea.; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Gorton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd.: Okay. And, finally, Items 16 and 17. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are back over toward the Verona side of life and we have Bridgetower Crossing Commercial and it is located on the east side of Ten Mile Road and approximately 400 feet south of McMillan Road. It's 7.37 acres, the preliminary plat is, and the existing zoning is C-G and, again, a residential Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 44 of 77 designation of R-4. The applications before you tonight are a rezone and preliminary plat and a development agreement, of course. The highlights of the proposed development are eight nonresidential building lots and one other lot with two to seven buildings as shown on the submitted concept plan. So, we have quite a few for this one. Let me tell you what the recommended DA provisions are and, then, we will get into some of the issues for the end again. Again, the same quality of materials, same elevations, same concept plan comments. Minimum of four buildings with no one building exceeding 33,725 square feet shall be constructed on lots within this subdivision and the maximum allowable nonresidential square footage for the development shall be 80,260 square feet. Again, our aspect has shifted. I think north is to the right side of the screen now. It's still to the left? Okay. I'm sorry. Now, they are back at the top. North is back at the top. So, these were the concept plans submitted with the application. The applicant's preference is shown to the left there. The concept plan that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved was kind of a hybrid of a couple of those, so this is the Planning and Zoning recommended plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their January 3rd Public Hearing. Chuck Christensen spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition, nor commented, nor provided written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission forwarding the project to City Council without the Ada County Highway District staff report. Tiling of the White Drain along the southern boundary of the project. The combination of concept plan one and three to allow the larger building pads north of Capris Street and transition to smaller buildings south of Capris Street and that's the concept plan you see before you. Key Commission changes to staff recommendation. They didn't require two mains to Locust Grove within the Public Works Department. And the concept plan was -- as shown before you tonight was recommended forward. So, the outstanding issues -- the applicant is very concerned about this concept plan as recommended by Planning and Zoning Commission. They are working on a project immediately across the street to the west. They are re-thinking the approved commercial project to the west of this site and that would have a number of smaller uses as shown on the recommended site plan for the south of Capris Street. So, they are concerned that these will compete with the project they are working on across the street. The applicant prefers the concept plan that allows the one larger tenant, as noted as the applicant's preference. When the Council acts on this one for the development agreement, you will need to specify which concept plan or plans should be included in the DA. All of them work to some extent and all could be included or they -- the Council can select one, if you would like. And with that I'll answer any questions you may have about this project. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Zaremba: Not at this time. Rountree: Not right now. De Weerd: Would the applicant like to comment? Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 45 of 77 Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Cornell Larsen, 210 Murray Street, Garden City. I'd like to take a minute and maybe walk you through this project a little more. If Anna would be so kind as to go back to kind of the overall aerial that shows the zoning. That one would be good.. Thank you. We've -- as Anna, said, we have been looking at developing a project here, as well as up in this particular area and when we started through this project over here we were trying to keep the White Drain open, use that as an amenity for the back side of some buildings that would be along a streetscape and they would be smaller buildings, maybe in the same form as Ballen Crossing, we would be looking for some smaller tenants, a little bit more of a streetscape design and as we started looking at that project and., then, realizing that we had a good deal of product in this area that was small and we felt like it would be advantageous to the overall area to have a couple of larger sites that we could use for a -- for example, a garden store or an office store, craft store, something like that that would allow us -- maybe even a hardware store that would allow us to have a larger user in that particular area that may benefit the residences. So, when we picked the larger buildings for these sites we were looking at a couple of things. There is a fairly large 100 foot landscape barrier between these residences and the roadway that separates these buildings. I believe the Bridgetower waterfall and water features in this area and, then, it wraps up clear up into here. So, we felt like that with that extended buffer, with the street buffer, we could potentially support a few larger users on that site without being detrimental to the adjacent residential area. And with what we were doing in the proposed adjacent property that we will have before you in the near future -- and we have shown that concept to staff, they have looked at -- at our proposed overall project, and we felt like that we needed some -- some bigger builders. Now, we did -- at staffs request submit three or four different concept plans, but the one we preferred was the two building concept. And so with that I could go through the .bullet points again on the development agreement. That's kind of how we got to where we are on that particular project. As far as tiling the White Drain, the White Drain -- we are finding the same situation we are in Settlers, they wanted us to leave that open and we have had that before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council before and as a request we are continuing to leave that open., we would like to do so. We hope to be able to utilize that as an amenity as we move over onto the other project, as I mentioned before, so -- but under bullet point -- the first bullet point we would, again, pretty much the same comments as we had on Verona regarding the building materials. Bullet point two., same comments on the elevation, so we'd like to see a little flexibility in the elevations. Minimum buildings, we would like to change that from what it is down to two., think, would be acceptable to us for minimum buildings. We are okay with the size of the 33,725. And.., again, we'd like to have a little more flexibility than 25 percent coverage and would like to suggest 90,000 square feet for the development. And, then, once again, our concerns about the concept plan that we have flexibility in that. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Mr. Zaremba? Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 46 of 77 Zaremba.: Madam Mayor simple. If you have two anywhere near 90,000 -- Larsen: Correct. Zaremba: -- square feet. Larsen: Correct. I didn't do the math on the other ones, but this one is fairly buildings that don't exceed 33,700, you're not going to be Zaremba: So, you`re saying that you may possibly put three buildings there and that might be up to 90. Larsen: Correct. Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, that would be correct. We could put three buildings on there. We could -- we could work around the 90,000 number or the 33,000 number on the two sites. So, it does give us flexibility and we may only have 33,000 on each site as it develops out, as we know what the user is and know what the parking requirements are. But we were willing to live with it. The down side, too, if that occurred, we just needed to -- we thought we needed to have some larger users there for marketability and services in the area. Thank you. De Weerd: Anything further, Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any public testimony on Item 16 or 17? Okay. Staff, any additional information? Canning: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Council.., any further information needed? Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a question for Anna. On the photos that were submitted and apparently we just saw a portion of them, were there any buildings of the magnitude that have been described here for these two presented for consideration? Canning: I'll have to check the file, sir. Rountree: And maybe Cornell has one in his portfolio. I don't know. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 47 of 77 Larsen: Madam Mayor, President Rountree, We took several pictures of buildings out in Silverstone and EI Dorado and a lot of those buildings are in the 20 to 40 thousand square foot range as their average size, but we do have smaller ones, obviously, but a lot of the commercial office buildings or -- and, actually, a couple of the retail buildings along the street are in the 18 to 20 thousand range. De Weerd.: Yeah. I looked through my packet and (couldn't -- Bird: I didn't see it. De Weerd: I only saw the ones that were -- Rountree: Give me a name on a couple of those, so I can have a point of reference, if you would, please. Larsen: Let's see. The building that is called EI Dorado One Retail Building, which is at the corner of Bonito and Eagle Road is about 21,000 square feet. Fairly good sized building. The building that is in Silverstone, which would be right at the gate on Overland Road, is about 40,000 square foot building. That is on what I'd call the intersection of Silverstone and Overland. It would be on the southwest side of Overland and it was the very first building that went up in that project. De Weerd: Who's in that? Larsen: I know Pioneer Title was in it for awhile, but they have moved out. I'm not sure who's -- they kind of blend together after awhile. De Weerd: Ooh, I don't think they would like to hear that. Bird.: Him they do. Larsen: Yeah. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, anticipating -- or I suspect that Councilmember Rountree is asking for examples so that we can reference them in the DA. Maybe one thing we can do is you do act on the DA separately from tonight. You approve it separately. We could work with the applicant to get additional photos to include in the DA and just make sure we point them out to Council before you approve that development agreement. Rountree: Thank you. Larsen: Madam Mayor, President Rountree, another building that might be a good example would be an Office Max is about 25,000 square feet. GI Joe's was about 50,000 square feet over in Centre Pointe. That might give you another feel for scale. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 48 of 77 Rountree: I have a sense of scale. I don't have a sense of the architecture at that scale. Larsen: No. De Weerd: Those two examples of scale are kind of scary on the residential side. Larsen: Yeah. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd.: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. .Zaremba: Just in trying to mull over the concept plan that the Planning and Zoning Commission moved forward with a recommendation, the difference seems to be in the southern portion that they were liking the buildings closer to the street. I can see the practicality of that with the smaller buildings, but would it be appropriate to have a single large building move forward like that? Would you do that or would you want to set that back? Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, we would probably prefer to set that back. We'd like to keep the parking away from the residential area, probably keep the back of the building with some -- some four-sided architecture, if you will, but try to keep traffic and noise off of the side that would be facing the residential area. De Weerd: Anything further, Council? Rountree: I have nothing. De Weerd.: Okay. Larsen: Thank you very much for all the trips and listening. Rountree: Got your exercise. De Weerd.: Good exercise. Bird: You're not done yet. De Weerd: If there is no further public testimony or staff comments, Council, I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 16 and 17. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird.. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 49 of 77 Zaremba: Second.. De Weerd:: I have a motion to close Items 16 and 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion or comments? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird.. Bird.: Hearing no discussion, I move we approve RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026 with applicant and staff comment. Rountree.: Second.. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Council -- oh, is it in the DA that you would want the specifics on the buildings? Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, on the remaining two items, what I would recommend is that can guide you -- kind of facilitate a discussion on the five development agreements that are really before you tonight and, then, you could make a motion based on staff, applicant, and public comments. Bird.: We need the help.. Canning: I think the first issue of discussion for the Council and Mayor is are you in favor of removing the properties that you have discussed tonight from the existing Verona and Bridgetower Crossing development agreements. Rountree: I believe so. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 50 of 77 De Weerd: It looks like it. Canning: Okay. Rountree: Do we need a motion to that effect or -- Canning: Well, it's -- as long as -- Rountree: We already moved to include that with the plats. Canning: Pardon, sir? Rountree: We already made a motion to, essentially, approve that when we approved the plats. Canning: It's just a development agreement discussion. These were the -- the issues that were raised in the miscellaneous applications before you tonight. So, the first one is a larger one of -- we are just recommending that you get new DAs for these and just remove them from the existing development agreements. So, it sounds like there is consensus that that's the appropriate approach to take. Rountree: I believe so. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would say yes, but just to confirm, the old DA still applies to all the remaining property? Canning: Yes, sir, it does. Zaremba: That we have not specifically talked about tonight. Canning: Correct. They will remain in effect and we will continue to try and get those rezoned from R-4 to an appropriate commercial designation. But it will remain in effect for those properties. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Okay. The second issue -- I think these are the general provisions that are common to all three development agreements that I'm anticipating you'll want the same treatment for all three DA's, but if you don't, just, please, let me know. One was the building materials. What I -- and at this point I'm not sure if you want me to summarize Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 51 of 77 what I have heard or if one of the Council members wants to recommend language with regard to these items. De Weerd: Council, would you like Anna to paraphrase what she's heard? Rountree: That would be good. Canning: With regard to building materials, I have heard that stamped decorative concrete is expected, but not with every project. But it is -- selectively I wasn't quite sure what to do with that, so it sounds like it should be an accent within the development pattern. Rountree: Madam Mayor -- and a point on Anna. The way that paragraph reads to me is that these are suggested items, but not limited to. So, if they use a combination of these, it doesn't mean they need to use all of them, but these are the kinds of materials that represent the high quality materials we would expect. Canning: Okay. Rountree: So, I don't know that I would interpret that that they have to have that. Canning: With that clarification, then, I think all we need to do is add flat roofs and accent metal roofing or metal roofs, as an example, within that list. Zaremba: I would agree with that, but, then, add the end of the sentence that additional variations may be approved by the director. Canning: And I believe it already says that. It says including, but not limited to. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: So, I think that gives that kind of flexibility. Zaremba: My point was to decide who it is that's going to decide. Canning: Ah. As determined by the director? Zaremba: Yes. Canning: Excuse my pause. Sorry. With regard to four-sided architecture, I believe that the discussion was for retail development, one side may not need full facade treatments if there is screening for loading areas. With regard to elevations, the applicant will submit -- or the applicant and staff will work on examples of larger buildings to include in the development agreement and those will be shown to Council prior to approval of the DA? Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 52 of 77 Rountree: Okay. Zaremba: Works for me. Canning: And the last one was with regard to the concept plan. I believe that the applicant has the flexibility he's looking for. I understand that -- the hesitancy on the part of the development community on just relying on the fact that I'm going to be good to them. I mean I know that's difficult. But I don't know if Council wants to make a statement with regard to the need for flexibility in concept plans or not. That's -- that's something I -- I feel it's there, but if you want to make a statement with regard to that, that's fine, too. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: We are trusting them in building materials, so they can trust you; right? Yes. Zaremba: I would just express an opinion that a concept plan is a concept, it isn't necessarily etched to be exactly the same, but there is some point at which a concept isn't being followed. If they are proposing offices and, them, some day they come in and say, well, we want this to be an airport, they clearly haven't followed the concept. But if it's just a different kind of office or a different kind of retail or a different shape, that still, to me, within the concept. De Weerd: Anna, maybe you can kind of give a summary of the things that -- that you really look for that would be a substantial difference. Canning: Certainly, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I typically look at the relationship of the buildings to the surrounding property owners, if they have changed significantly. If there was, you know, 50 feet of landscaping and now there is five feet of landscaping and a hundred foot concrete block wall with no fenestration on it. That would be a significant change in my book, because it affects the surrounding. property owners significantly. If they took -- if the concept plan were for a distributed max'ing of individual buildings and they came in with a strip mall, that would be something where would call their bluff, basically. Well, not call their bluff, but say, no, I won't approve this and they'd have to appeal it up to you and I have done that before. So, those are kind of the big scale changes that we are looking for. If, for some reason the access points change significantly or the traffic flow was significantly different and it's an impact to surrounding property owners, I would probably bring -- raise concerns with that as well. So, those are typically the things I am looking for. With regard to the number of buildings and the square foot and the overall square foot, those are spelled out in more concrete terms and there is certainly flexibility there. I mean you can't state it as a concept plan and have only two buildings.. I mean it's not going to work. Or the ones where they have ten lots and asked for the flexibility of five buildings. Obviously, there is flexibilities open to those parameters as well. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 53 of 77 De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I just was going to comment to what Anna was saying. There is a great deal of latitude that we allow the director. I think in approving a concept plan of this nature there is a lot of trust on both sides of this that what we want and what you want will be accomplished.. It's when that trust is violated that things really get uncomfortable on both sides. I agree with Anna, what she explained in terms of conceptually we see a smattering of buildings on this particular property. If you want to twist and turn them or whatever, as long as you don't put five Walgreens on your property, I'm fine with it. De Weerd: Probably even if you don't put two. Maybe even one. Rountree: So -- but, you know, there is a lot of give and take with these things that are somewhat nebulous. The other extreme, I guess, is that we could require that this be platted and engineered and we'd know what the building -- each building is going to look like and who is going to be in it and that doesn't do these guys any good. It doesn't do the community any good., because we don't know what we are going to get, then, either. So, I think as long as we can play together well we will be just fine and our trust and our mutual respect remains high and I think in this particular application it's there. De Weerd: Well, this applicant has had a great track record., so -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I would support that comment. The only issue I have with being too liberal is that it is possible for the applicant sell it to somebody who we might not have quite as good a relationship with and that has burned us a couple times before. Rountree: That's why we are getting a little more specific all the time. De Weerd.: We know his address. Canning: All right. Madam Mayor, moving on to the other -- on the new Verona DA, the two access -- the two issues I heard were reducing from nine buildings to five buildings and., then, the Council needs to address the cross-access issue. Zaremba: I'm in favor of the access. Rountree: Madam Mayor, having visited a community in southern California recently and a very upscale community, I was very disappointed at seeing -- I was excited about the access control that went on in the community. I was excited about the signage that was not allowed in the community. But what I found very disappointing is that as the traveling public that you would be controlled accessed into a rather large parking lot and Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 54 of 77 see a retail or commercial establishment that you wanted to get to and you couldn't, because there was no cross-access. Every -- almost every store or every site you drove into you were contained to that particular development and all the other developments around it, you either had to go in it right in or right out or find an access to an arterial and go around the block and get to it. So, I strongly support cross-access in these kinds of situations and I know it may not happen, but I think the DA ought to be written in such a way as that it be investigated and be required to be dealt with not only with this parcel and the future development of the one adjacent to it. Unfortunately, they are not occurring at the same time. I don't know how we can tell them to put your cross-access at this point out into a vacant field when we don't know what kind of retail and what kind of concept we are going to see next door. But I think when that happens we need to have these parties come together and understand that they are going to allow cross- access amongst one another, so people can get from their establishments to the other ones and from the other one to theirs without having to go on an arterial. So, I support it, but I don't know how you word it when you -- we have a preliminary plat, but we don't have specifics, we have a concept. We have an adjacent use that's a similar use, but no concept or preliminary plat, so it's really tough to say you're going to put it here. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, President Rountree, typically what we do is at the time of the CZC approval we just require that they get to -- who's ever in first, basically, selects where the cross-access goes. If you want to apply it to the southern lot or the north and south lot, we would just get it when they come in for a building permit and just say, you know, you can put it where you want, but -- and, then, the next guy just hooks up to it. Rountree: Well, my preference would be the southern lot, but if that doesn't fit with their concept, then, where they decide to put it I'm okay with that as well.. But I would think one would be sufficient. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comment? Canning: Okay. Moving on to the new Bridgetower Crossing Office. The amendments to the DAs I heard there were from -- requiring eight buildings down to five, from limiting square feet to 137,650, bumping that up to 155,000. And, then, this was the one that has the edits that instead of pages nine to 14, it should be pages seven of 14. And I don't think any of those were contested or -- those were all fine with staff, if Council is okay with those amendments as well. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: And finally -- De Weerd: Hold on. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: And we are okay with them not tiling the -- what was it, Settlers? Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 55 of 77 Bird: And the Settlers Canal. Rountree: Settlers Canal. Canning: I believe that's the way it's currently written, so -- and., then, moving on, finally, to new Bridgetower Crossing Commercial. The changes I heard were four buildings down to two buildings and -- or a minimum of two buildings and instead of 80,260 square feet, they'd like a maximum cap of 90,000 square feet. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.. Bird: Anna, what number is the MI for the Bridgetower Crossing Commercial? Twelve is for Verona -- Verona and 15 is just Bridgetower Crossing Office. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the whole reason we started off by opening all of these is because the DAs are very entertained at this point. So, what we are suggesting is that a new DA be developed for the commercial areas that's currently, actually, part of Bridgetower DA, I believe. Bird: With the south -- the southwest corner of the Ten Mile and McMillan you want a new DA for it completely? Canning: Yes. We want new DAs for all of the projects. Bird: Weil, new DAs for all of them, but we have already got two and this other one intertwined. Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's why I suggested that the Council approval just reflect all of the conversation that went on, because it's, really, the same for both miscellaneous applications that are before you tonight, since they are both --one's just -- they are all tied together. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: And on this one there was a discussion of which concept plan we would -- De Weerd.: Oh, yes., sir. Thank you. I forgot that. Yeah. The concept plan, One, two, three or all four or -- Zaremba: Hybrid or not or -- Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 56 of 77 Canning: Right. Zaremba: Frankly, I don't have an opinion. Bird.: Frankly, I'm for whatever the market allows them to do. Rountree: Madam Mayor, if we have a minimum of two buildings that it seems to me to incorporate all the concepts that have been presented -- I think there was one that didn't seem to do much for me and it was the one where the -- the middle one where it seemed to be -- I have a tough time figuring out how you're going to get around that middle one. Get in and out of those parking spaces between those buildings. So, I would think either the one on the left or the one on the right work for me. De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I agree with Councilman Rountree, the middle one is not attractive or probably not good circulation, but would we want to allow them the flexibility to choose version one or version three or the lower portion of one or the other, just exclude version two, to mix the versions. Is that too much flexibility? Rountree: I think they have got that flexibility if either one of them are okay. Canning: Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Those were all the issues, I believe, with regard to the two miscellaneous applications. De Weerd: Okay. Those two public hearings are open. Applicant comments? No? Any public testimony? Okay. Council, any further information needed? If not, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Item 12 and 15. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd.: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Having heard all staff and applicant testimony and giving the public the opportunity to testify, I move that we close the public hearings on Items 12 and 15. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on items 12 and 15. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Canning: If there isn't any further discussion, I would entertain a motion on these two items. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 57 of 77 Zaremba.: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve MI 07-013 and MI 07-014 and the related development agreements that will relate to Verona Commercial, Bridgetower Crossing Office, and Bridgetower Crossing Commercial with all of the changes that the staff has just read to us. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Rountree: I have none. Bird: Did we have a second? De Weerd:: Did we have a second? Rountree: No. De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Are you going to second it? Rountree: Second it. Bird: Okay. Discussion now. Did that -- did that include the applicant's testimony, public testimony also? Zaremba: Yes. De Weerd: But it was clarified in the questioning that Anna walked Council through. Zaremba: I believe the applicant's response was they didn't have any changes to what Director Canning was -- Bird.: Well, they had already testified earlier is what they have testified on, is what I was getting at. To include that. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Rountree: I have nothing. De Weerd: Madam Clerk, will you, please, call ro11. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 58 of 77 MOTION CARRfES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thanks. Sorry that one was a little convoluted, but thank you for sticking with us on that. Item 18: Public Hearing: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I-L to C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark: Item 19; Public Hearing: CUP 07-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 18 and 19 are public hearings on RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Rockin KB Saloon project. It's located at 3163 East Lanark Street on the southwest corner of Eagle Road and Lanark. The applications before you tonight include a rezone and conditional use approval. The highlights of the proposed development are the rezone of 2.20 acres from I-L to C-G zoning and the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a drinking establishment in the proposed C-G district. The gross square footage of the structure is 8,042 square feet. It an existing structure. The Comprehensive Plan designation is currently for industrial. The property just north of this was just today approved for commercial designation, so it's surrounded pretty much by commercial. The proposed DA requirements, we aren't recommending a DA or the planning commission has not recommended a DA. The Conditional Use Permit would take care of any conditional requirements necessary for the drinking establishment. We do have elevations of the structure. And this is the floor plan. The floor plan does -- or the proposal does include a portion of the adjoining structure, that's where they would have some of their storage maintenance and bathroom facilities. I believe it's these two sections. The Commission recommended approval at their January 3rd., 2008, Public Hearing. The -- Patrick McKeegan spoke in favor of the applicant representing the -- spoke in favor of the application, representing the applicant. And Kevin Kelly, who is the applicant, also spoke. No one spoke in opposition. Ron Van Auker commented about the parking concerns. And written testimony was provided by Bradley Miller, also of Van Auker Properties. And those written testimonies, we have letters dated December 19th, January 3rd, and February 25th., all with regard to the parking issue. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the adequacy of the off-street parking for the proposed use. The location of the restroom in the adjacent building and the landscaping sidewalk, what's in the street buffer along Eagle Road. The key Commission changes to staff recommendation, they add a condition of approval for the restroom facilities in the adjacent building to remain available as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit. And