Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 3, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 43 of 65 Item 10: Public Hearing: RZ 04-007 Request for a Rezone of 10.69 acres from R- 4 to R-4, R-8 and L-O zones for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC - 1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 46 building lots and 1 common lot on 10.69 acres in proposed R-4, R-8 and L-O zones for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC - 1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road:. Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 04-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot area, street side setbacks and minimum street frontage for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC - 1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Do we have the. applicant for this next hearing here? Okay. This is one time it's easy to see if there was anybody here for this application. Okay. Let me proceed. I'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 04-007, request for a rezone of 10.69 acres from R-4 to R-4, R-8, and L-O zones for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision and we would like to open Public Hearing PP 04-016, request for preliminary plat approval for 46 building lots and one common lot and open Public Hearing CUP 04-013, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reductions of minimum requirements, area of street setbacks, and minimum street frontage for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision. And with these hearings open I'd like to start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'll briefly go through some of the issues surrounding this project and staff is recommending approval. The project consists of 10.69 acres and it's located at the southeast corner of Cherry and Ten Mile and to the north of the subject property there is another church and, then, to the north of the church there is an existing medical office facility and just to the west of the subject property is Albertson's. And there is residential on the west side of Ten Mile, as well as just to the east of the subject property and to the south of the subject property. The proposed preliminary plat includes 46 building lots and one other lot. And I'm going to go through some of the issues surrounding the proposed rezone, because we have had some changes since the staff report was written and since the applicant submitted their application. Currently -- let's see. I'll go back to the parcel map. Currently, the southern two -- it's -- this property consists of three parcels. The southern two parcels have a Comprehensive Plan designation of public, quasi-public, because of the existing church property and the entire property was under a single ownership when the Comprehensive Plan map was created, so the entire property was given the public, quasi-public designation. The northern property, the northern --.the third property to the north has a Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed use community, so I sort of wanted to give you some of the background. All three parcels are today zoned R-4. Okay. And I'll go through what the applicant is requesting, because their -- the zoning that they have requested is different from what was on the original application and we have run this past our legal department and according to Bill Nichols, I talked to him Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page. 44 of 65 earlier this week, to go ahead and -- because we notice this as a rezone to R-4 -- or, excuse me, to R-8 and L-O, it's fine to go ahead and shift some of the zones, because we are not actually changing any of the zoning designations and the legal notice didn't have particulars about the acreages or the location of the zones. So, the changes that are going to -- that are being requested, that entire church property -- let's see. Can I use the pointer? Okay. The property -- this is where the church currently sits. So, this proposed lot and, then, this lot to the south, which will also be retained by the church and I think in the future they are planning to do amulti-purpose center and they will retain ownership of -- from what we know of this parcel. They want to rezone that property to L-O and this complies with our zoning code and basically if they -- if they don't do this rezone to L-O, if they want to build a new building or do an expansion, it would be an expansion and nonconforming use, because currently they have residential, so staff fully supports their request for the L-O zoning, it makes a lot of sense there. And the second area that's changed -- currently there is an existing house and, then, a detached accessory building on this lot and the applicant's proposing to have L-O to remove this detached accessory structure from this lot and to have L-0 zoning and develop that as a commercial office property in the future. The piece of property with the existing home will retain the zoning of R-4. Okay. And, then, our final rezone is currently -- this area is all R-4 and they are asking for a rezone to R-8, so that -- that part of the zone change request has not changed. But I will go through some of the issues surrounding that rezone request. As I said earlier, the Comp Plan designation for this area is public, quasi-public, but what's different from this requested rezone from some of the ones we have seen lately is that this actually has underlying residential zoning. So, the zoning is R-4. Essentially, what they are doing is asking for a step up to R-8 zoning and let me put back up the vicinity map and staff is supportive of this rezone, because of the residential that's located to the east of the property and to the south and, then, to the west. So, we feel that it's an appropriate -- it's in an appropriate rezone and the reason the entire property was originally given the designation of public, quasi-public was because it was under the ownership of the church, which no longer will be with this development application if this goes through. So, staff is supportive of that zone change. Let me get onto the preliminary plat. Actually, I'll go through the planned development first. The applicant's requesting reduced lot sizes and reduced frontages for the subdivision lots. It's a planned development and their amenities that they are proposing include nearly 11 percent open space and a homeowner's building and the developer can give you some details on this. The homeowner's building and the common area lot and also a picnic area. The preliminary plat -- I would also go through the -- the planned development does not include -- does not include the church properties and these two existing lots with the existing home and detached accessory building. Those are not included in the planned development. All lots are, of course, included in the preliminary plat. For the preliminary plat, 42 knew residential lots are proposed and for a total of 46 lots. We have the 42 proposed new residential lots, two lots for the church and the church property to the south and, then, there are these two existing residential lots. And I'm going to go through a couple of the issues associated with the preliminary plat. The first of these is the existing attached accessory building, which will be demolished if we allowed it to continue on its own lot, it would be a nonconforming use, so we have Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 45 of 65 requested they demolish the building and they are going to comply with that. The second issue I want to go through is currently there are two access points off of Ten Mile, that the southern access point, which is on the south side of the church building, will be, essentially, decommissioned, it will become just an emergency access point and -- for the church and we are requesting that the applicant work with the fire chief to meet the fire chief needs to have that as an emergency access point for the church. And the third issue I wanted to go through -- see if we have a better map. No. Is the cross- access for -- between the existing church property and the church property to the south. This property is, basically, a flag lot, taking its frontage off of this road and we wanted to make sure that there was across-access between the existing church property and this drive and that's just to reduce the number of cuts off of this public road and I spoke with the developer and we have come up with an agreement and he will kind of go through what he would like to see there, but the intent is just to reduce the number of access points off of that -- off of that road. So, those are the issues with staff. Again, staff is recommending approval of this project and I think it's a good addition to the City of Meridian. These preliminary plats that are proposed -- the preliminary plat they are proposing patio homes, which is similar to some of the other projects we have seen where it's geared towards seniors and I think it adds a good mix and diversity of housing types here for the City of Meridian. Are there any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Wendy, as far as the -- there is no secondary access out of the planned development, then. You're talking only one emergency exists off out of the church property, but there would be nothing in the rest of the residential? Kirkpatrick: That's correct. The secondary access point would be -- would be on the south side of the church building. There is a threshold once you reach 50 homes. That's when you're required to put in a secondary access point. Moe: Okay. I got you. Thank you. Zaremba: I have a question about the actual lots. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Zaremba: It appeared to me on this drawing and maybe one other that this is a lot line that runs through the middle of the church; is that correct? Borup: The existing lot line. Zaremba: And that lot line is going to go away. That's being corrected in this -- Kirkpatrick: It's being replatted. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 46 of 65 Zaremba: Okay. So, will this area become a single lot or will that still be two lots? Kirkpatrick: No. This will be two-lots. The existing church building will be on one single lot. Yeah. This shows a little more clearly. This is the lot with the existing church. This is -- also will be owned by the church, but it will be a separate lot. Zaremba: So, the lot line is moving 50 feet south or something like that? Kirkpatrick: Well, they are not doing a lot line adjustment, it's just being replatted. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: I want to -- actually, I wanted to make a correction in the staff report. It says there were two detached accessory structures. There is only one. There is -- so, this lot has attached accessory structures. This is a home with a large attached garage, but there is not -- there is not a second detached accessory and there is a couple references in the staff report, on page one and page seven, where I just wanted to go back and clarify that. Zaremba: Again, still on the church property, you said they were going to have an emergency access to Ten Mile on the south side of the church. Kirkpatrick: Correct. Zaremba: Will they take their access directly to Ten Mile on the north side or are they going to access through the other public road that's being created? I don't think it exists now, but -- the new public road. Kirkpatrick: And, actually, I do not have a site plan showing the church configuration, so I would ask the developer if that's going to change. Moe: I, actually, think the church takes access off that road that's there now. Zaremba: The road is there now? Okay. Moe: Yeah. From Ten Mile, yeah, that's already there. Kirkpatrick: Actually, I was out there this morning. I think that that is where the access point is. I don't remember there being a second one, but we will have the developer go through that. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 47 of 65 Moe: Just one more. Could you go back to the last slide you had up? No. The one that shows the -- there you go. So, basically, then, on the top left that's going -- that's proposed to go L-O now? Kirkpatrick: Well, only the one lot. This lot would be L-O, this will retain it's R-4 zone. Moe: R-4. Yeah. Okay. Borup: Okay. And you're still recommending that the church lot be zoned L-O also? Kirkpatrick: Correct. And, actually, we have recently had a number of churches when they have done an expansion also come in for a rezone to L-O, so it's kind of the preferred church zoning here in Meridian. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Sargent: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Ron Sargent, 4915 West Camas in Boise, Idaho. Let me, I guess, first of all, state that we did have a -- host a neighborhood meeting and we did not have a single attendee show up for the meeting. Borup: You have got all the same people here tonight. Sargent: Yes. And they all came tonight to support this. But I did get a phone call from the -- from one neighbor that lives approximately in this location on the south side and she, basically, had two issues. She was really concerned the impact to the school system. She's concerned that the schools are already overcrowded and the new subdivision will continue to aggravate that situation. But as I explained to her, in this type of development with the small lots, we tend to get 60, 70, maybe 80 percent of our buyers tend to be seniors. Out of 250 type of homes we have done like this we have only ended up with one family that had kids that were school age. 50, I told her it was probably highly unlikely that we would have much of an impact on the school system in that area. She was also -- the second thing she was concerned about is she has a fence that's sort of falling apart that's not in very good shape and I assured her that we are going to build a solid six foot fence around the perimeter. The other thing I guess I'd like to point out with the site --Wendy, could you go to the vicinity map? Yeah. This one is -- it was interesting when each of these subdivisions were built in this location, there were no stub roads put through to this property, so when we came in to acquire it from the church and Mrs. Hewett's property on the north, we basically were limited to 50 home sites in there total from off of Ten Mile Road. So, we were -- I mean so we were particularly challenged, because we ended up with having to build just a loop road to get in and out of there. Wendy, if you'd go back to the subdivision map. Also, today the church does have two accesses off of Ten Mile Road. They have an access here and they also have an access to the south of their paved driveways. The highway district has asked that one of those be eliminated, so we have elected to eliminate this one and make it emergency access only. And the church, then, will take access off of Cheryl Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 48 of 65 Lane, this new road that we are creating here. And in the ACHD report they put that the only public access to Ten Mile be off this road for this whole development that's in there. Zaremba: Excuse me. That would also be true of the new L-O in the upper left? Sargent: Yes. Zaremba: It would not access Ten Mile? Sargent: They have -- ACHD said, yeah, these lots here have to take their access off of Cheryl Lane as well. So, no, this road would be the only access to Ten Mile for this whole development. Zaremba: Thank you. Sargent: Okay. Let me see. I think Wendy covered the zoning changes that we talked about. The only, I guess, thing I'd also like to just make sure as clarification, I guess, is that on December 18th this Commission, when they were reviewing the Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision, I guess set a precedent that the quasi-public attaches solely to the current use and is, therefore, unlike a zoning designation, which more permanently attaches to the land. And as Wendy pointed out, the quasi-public is a Comprehensive Plan designation. The actual underlying zoning for this property is R-4 and we are requesting the one step up to an R-8 designation to do our planned development in this location. Zaremba: I'll have to say I agree with what you just read Sargent; Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Quoting me. Sargent: Oh. Okay. Those are all the paints I guess I'd like to point out. Any questions? Borup: You have discussed with the church to have their parcels -- at least the one where the church is on be zoned L-O and, then, the one to the south, what has been the decision on it? Same thing? Sargent: Yes. Let me -- the church is selling us this approximate property. They are retaining these two parcels. One is this is a flag lot that covers this area that goes -- 50 foot wide flag that goes to Cheryl Lane and Mrs. Hewett is retaining this portion and selling us this back portion of the property. And in both cases I have met -- I have met with the church's board, we reviewed the staff recommendation about being rezoned from R-4 to L-O and' they were fine with that designation. So, they had gone back, they did some research with an attorney ahd came back to me and said that's -- the L-0 zoning is fine. And likewise -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 49 of 65 Borup: It really makes it easier for them for any future development they do, they would just have to go through it then. This is a much easier -- in fact, they probably love it, because you're doing all the work. Sargent: I think they are appreciating that. Their one concern is that there -- because they are a church, their property tax is supposed to be tax free and, unfortunately, they are in a dispute with the Ada County assessor's office over property taxes for 2003 and it was over some filing of some documents, so they -- their biggest single concern was if got they got rezoned to -- from R-4 to L-O that they may have a property tax impact, but I think they, then, have come to the conclusion that there is -- that this problem they are having with the 2003 taxes was aone-time problem and not going to be an ongoing problem for the church . Borup: And it would be in the same category as most of the other churches in town Sargent: Exactly. So, once they came to that realization, they were fine. Likewise, I met with Mrs. Hewett and her family and her attorney and- we reviewed a number of different options for these two parcels and in the end they felt that it was best to remove -this building as a condition of approval and rezone this to L-O and she wants to retain this as income property as residential and -- Borup: But she still owns both lots Sargent: Yes. She owns -- Borup: You're just doing the residential in the back? Sargent: Yeah. We are purchasing this property from this -- from approximately this line from her, approximately that portion of the property. But her attorney and the family were fine with the L-O designation and the R-4 designation. Kirkpatrick: Oh. And, actually, an additional comment -- and we hadn't gone through this with Ron earlier, but while Steve and I were looking at the landscape plan, we noticed that they don't -- a big surprise -- we don't have the required landscape buffer along Ten Mile. There needs to be a 25-foot wide buffer with a tree every 35 feet. I think they already have the area to do that, it's just we want to make that a condition of approval that they meet buffer requirements and we had another church on Cherry where when they came in for a rezone we required them to upgrade their buffer to meet current standards. Sargent: I guess, Wendy, you're absolutely right. If you would put up the landscape plan. I think what happened is that -- yeah, we failed to show the landscaping in this portion and our intent is to have that as a 25-foot wide buffer. We have found that there is a number of trees that the church has planted there already. They have a small berm Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 50 of 65 and with the widening of Ten Mile we are not going to end up losing any of the trees, so Borup: So, we are going to be doing the buffer, then? Sargent: Yeah. So, we are going to be doing the buffer. But we are not going to lose any trees and we also are going to build a detached sidewalk from the north portion all the way to the south portion of the property along Ten Mile. Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, we also need to make sure that that landscape easement is added to the plat. Sargent: Yeah Kirkpatrick: So, that should be part of the condition. Sargent: Is it not on the plat. It's hard to tell. Kirkpatrick: We don't -- we don't think it's there. Sargent: It's intended to be there, so that's no problem. Borup: Then, I assume we are okay, they make those other changes between now and City Council, as far as other -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. Borup: -- the L-0 zone designation is what I was referring to. Sargent: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any Commissioners? Zaremba: I think we need to give the opportunity to all the audience members to -- Sargent: (brought my whole entire staff with me. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I had one more comment. We should condition that they submit revised legal descriptions for the rezones prior to City Council. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 51 of 65 Borup: That's, I guess, one of the things I was referring to. All of that, I assumed, would be done prior to City Council, but would that be good to state that in the motion? Is that what you're -- Moe: Wendy, could you do me a favor and kind of walk me through page by page, so I know exactly what all we are changing here? Kirkpatrick: Okay. Moe: And, then, I would be more than happy to make a motion. Kirkpatrick: Oh, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think you do still need to close the public hearing. I interrupted you. You need to vote. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Zaremba: I was going to say, I don't believe we actually voted. Borup: No, we didn't. Zaremba: Either that or my mind is slipping. Borup: No, we didn't. I forgot to. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: All right. Thank you Moe: Wendy, I anticipate that, basically, for the rezoning, I would just need to state the lot numbers and the designated zone that it has been changed to on those; correct? Like Lot 1 is going to go to an L-O, Lot 2 is going to sta at R-4, and 41 and 40 are going to L-O and, then, the rest of the project is a planne~ development; correct? And that's going R-8? Kirkpatrick: Correct. And, then, Ithink -- and we also want to state that they need to submit those revised legals ten days prior to City Council. But I think that could all go under number one in site-specific comments. Moe: I'm sorry. Hang on. Borup: On page six? Is that where you're reading? Zaremba: Page six. Moe: Under site specific number four? And, I'm sorry, would'~you -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 52 of 65 Kirkpatrick: Well, I think we want to go in and modify number one. Moe: Number one. I'm sorry. Kirkpatrick: Currently it says that it's accurate and, actually, we are changing it. Moe: I'm sorry. And you would say -- read it one more time. How would you -- we are just taking out accurate? Kirkpatrick: Let's see. Borup: Well, probably accurate and meets the requirements would be -- that would be removed and, then, you replace that -- Moe: Okay. Just the legal description submitted with the application to the city. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, I'd propose that we just say new legal descriptions for each zone -- each proposed zone be submitted and approved prior to City Council. I spoke with the applicant and those legal descriptions have been prepared, we just need to get them reviewed and stamped. Zaremba: So say ten days before -- Freckleton: Yeah. Ten days would be fine. Zaremba: So, Paragraph one is to say new legal descriptions will be provided ten days before City Council hearing. Moe: For each zone. Zaremba: Identifying each zone. Borup: Okay. Moe: I'm getting lost here. New legal description -- I have new legal description for each zone will be -- Zaremba: Submitted by ten days prior to the City Council hearing. Borup: That would be it on the rezone, I assume. Moe: And, then, on the plat I would just be noting the 25-foot landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 53 of 65 Kirkpatrick: Correct. So, we will want to add that under site-specific comments for the preliminary plat. Want to add that, as well as a mention of the cross-access easement between the two church lots. Moe: Just one second here. Zaremba: So, on page eight we are adding a paragraph seven on paragraph eight. Borup: Or you could change item one, maybe. Moe: And the modifications as noted. What, to include a 25-foot landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road? Borup: Yeah. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: This is under site specific comments on page seven, paragraph one. Moe: Yes. Zaremba: Yeah. That's where you are. And, then, on page eight add a paragraph seven. Moe: Hang on. Borup: For what? What would be in that? Zaremba: There was a different subject. Borup: Oh. Kirkpatrick: Number seven would be for the cross-access between the two church lots, which I believe are 40 and 41. Zaremba: The two L-O church lots. Borup: So, between 40 and 41. Kirkpatrick: Okay. And, then, also under special considerations we want to -- special consideration number one, the existing home, we probably want to go ahead and make that asite-specific condition that the existing detached garage will be removed. Moe: I'm sorry, which -- oh. Number one here? Zaremba: Still on page seven, number one. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 54 of 65 Borup: The number one would become number eight. Kirkpatrick: We could deal with this by making special considerations one, two and three, adding them all to site-specific conditions. Borup: Oh. And that eliminate seven. Kirkpatrick: Yeah. And when you do that the special consideration number one, I want to go ahead and change the proposed Lot 2 has an existing house and detached garage, because, actually, it's just an existing house and attached garage. Borup: Couldn't you say existing house and garage -- Kirkpatrick: Right. So, you could just say existing house and attached garage for the first sentence. Moe: On number one where it says existing detached garage? Borup: No. It's on Lot 2 that has it. Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Zaremba: On Lot 2 there is house and detached -- that's, actually, attached, not detached. Moe: Okay. It's attached Borup: So, just change detached to attached and that should handle it. So, items one, two and three will become seven, eight and nine? Kirkpatrick: Correct. Borup: Are you ready, Commissioner? Moe: We are going to find out. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-007 request for a rezone of 10.69 acres from R-4 to R-4, R-8, and L-O zohes for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC, 1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo, hearing date of -- the hearing date says May the 20th, 2004, and received by the city clerk's office June 2nd, 2004. Kirkpatrick: Let's correct that Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 55 of 65 Moe: With the following changes: On page six, .under site specific comments, paragraph one, change the wording to read on number one new legal description for each zone will be submitted within ten days prior to the City Council hearing. End of that. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-016, request for preliminary plat approval for 46 building lots and one common lot on 10.69 acres in proposed R-4, R-8, and L-O zones for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC, 1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road, to include all staff comments and conditions of the hearing dated May 20th, 2004, received by the city clerk June 2nd, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, under site specific paragraph one, add an additional sentence to include a 25 foot landscape buffer along Ten Mile Road. Kirkpatrick: And also want to show the easement on the plat. Moe: Okay. And, then, I'll just continue that sentence and to include and showing the easement on the plat. And, then, under -- and, then, change special considerations to the preliminary plat, items one, two, and three, change those to items seven, eight, and nine under the site specific comments, with one change under the special considerations, paragraph number one, under -- in the second sentence -- the second sentence where it says existing house and detached garage, change that to existing house and attached garage. End of motion. Zaremba: I would suggest adding anew -- what would now be numbered paragraph ten to ask for the cross-access agreement between the two church lots. Borup: That is -- Moe: That is item number three on special considerations. Zaremba: I'm sorry. It's already there. Thank you very much. Moe: So -- Zaremba: So, I second the motion without any comments from me. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 56 of 65 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-013, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot area, street side setbacks, and minimum street frontage for Tiburon Meadows Subdivision by Tiburon Meadows, LLC, 1450 and 1460 North Ten Mile Road. I don't know that there was -- oh, to include all staff comments of the hearing date May 20th, 2004 -- Kirkpatrick: Let's correct the hearing date. Moe: --and received by the city clerk June 2nd, 2004. End of motion Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Okay. We have had two additional items.. And I probably should have added that at the beginning of the meeting, but I didn't. Moe: We still have - Item 13: Public Hearing: PFP 04-006 Request fora Preliminary/Final Plat approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 14, Block 1 of Woodside Creek Subdivision No. 1 into two building lots on .32 acres in an R-8 zone for proposed Woodside Creek Subdivision No. 2 by Woodside Properties, LLC - 1115 North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Number 13. Yes. There is the answer right there. That has been renoticed, so that -- Kirkpatrick: Do we have a date that we are going to continue this to? Green: July 1st. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Zaremba: Say again? This is renoticed to July 1st, is that what happened? Borup: Well, it's been re-noticed and we can reschedule it to July 1st and it's -- it looks like we are okay on that agenda, so -- Kirkpatrick: And this should be a pretty quick hearing item. It's just a re-subdivision of an existing lot. It should go pretty quickly.