Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 1, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 9 of35 Borup: Six, We have six actual separate items. I mean, you know, ten numbered, but six -- six actual because of, you know, several on the same one. One of those is a text amendment and most of the others are small subdivisions. Some commercial. Rohm: Sometimes small, doesn't necessarily mean short. Zaremba: It doesn't make it easy. You're talking on the 29th; right? Borup: Yes. No. The 5th. August 5th. Zaremba: Oh, I'm not considering adding anything to the 5th. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Personally, I think that would give us good cause to go ahead and meet on the 29th and, then, we can -- Zaremba: We can do the workshop. Rohm: -- do our workshop and hearing this for this applicant and, then, we are kind of taking care of two things and moving forward in a positive direction. That seems appropriate to me. Borup: That's one way to force us to come to the workshop. Rohm: Bingo. That's what I was thinking. Borup: All right. Zaremba: All right. I can make a motion along those lines, then. Mr. Chairman, I move that we table AZ 04-011 and PP 04-017 and CUP 04-015 to our meeting of July 29th and that that meeting date requires all types of re-notice. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 04-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.82 acres from RT to C-C zone for proposed Wrinkleneck Project by Wrinkleneck Partners, LLC - Northwest corner of East Overland Road and South Locust Grove Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 10 of35 Borup: Okay. I don't know we had any -- do we even have anybody here for this one? We didn't. Oh, you did. Okay. The 29th will be the new date, which looks like that would be the earliest that we would be able to get it in. Okay. Next item, No.9, has requested deferral. Zaremba: If we defer that to September 2nd, which I believe was suggested, does that need re-noticed also or can -- Borup: We just wondered what time frame is going to work. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I did talk with the applicant -- well, I received an e-mail from the applicant and they are close to having their Conditional Use Permit application complete, but it's not been submitted to our office to my knowledge, so we really would like to have the Wrinkleneck annexation and the Maverick Conditional Use Permit together, since it's the same property. If the Commission is open to it, I think I would say it's to assume that we would receive it within a week and so, therefore, it would take, you know, at least the 45 days, so you would be safe to put it at the earliest on the second meeting in August, but probably the first one in September. And if by -- for some reason the Conditional Use Permit is lagging further than that, you could either hear it on the September meeting or you could continue it again. Borup: Do we have any idea how we are doing on the second meeting in August? We don't even have -- I mean that would just be the number of applications coming in, so I assume all those that we thought were going to be on the 29th we are going to be shifting into August? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Both August meetings have very full agendas. Borup: Okay. So, it sounds like September probably makes more sense, then. Is that a motion that -- Zaremba: September 2 sounds good to me. Are we opening this hearing and continuing it or are we tabling it like the other one and it would require re-notice? Hawkins-Clark: Staff's recommendation we be to open it and continue it, I think. Borup: I think that makes sense on this one, rather than going through the trouble to re- notice. Okay. Zaremba: If you care to open the Public Hearing. Borup: Yeah. I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 04-012 at this time. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 04-012 to our meeting of September 2nd, 2004. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1,2004 Page 11 of35 Moe: Second. Borup: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Item 11: Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-B zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. - South of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Public Hearing: PP 03-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for B1 building lots and 11 other lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-B zone for Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. - South of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Public Hearing: CUP 04-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced lot frontages, lot sizes and block lengths that are less than the 500 foot minimum in a proposed R-B zone for Salisbury Subdivision No.2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. - South of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: Thank you. Okay. Next public hearings are AZ 03-036, request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-B zones for the proposed Salisbury Subdivision No.2, by Earl, Mason, & Stanfield and Public Hearing PP 03-012, request for preliminary plat approval of B1 building lots, and Public Hearing CUP 04-016, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduced lot frontage, lot sizes, and block lengths. I'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman. Staff -- we outlined a lot of background on this application since you have spent quite a bit of time with it in the past, so I -- unless you would prefer, I was just planning to kind of hit a few of the highlights and, then, allow the applicant to basically address the Commission with some of the modifications, but in a nutshell what happened is that this Commission recommended approval of Salisbury Subdivision No.2 in February of this year and after the hearings at the Council, the Council recommended denial of both the annexation and the preliminary plat and I included in the report the reasons for those denials. Then, at the request of Mr. Wood, the developer, the Council decided to not adopt the findings for denial and, instead, was convinced that there had been enough discussions with the neighbors in the area that they wanted to give them another shot, but because of the additional lots and some street configuration changes, the difference in the plat was enough that they weren't comfortable proceeding, so they remanded it back to you. So, I think in a nutshell that's what has happened. There have been several discussions and there is a little six-page letter -- I don't know if you got it in your packets, but that basically goes through the various ends and outs that the developer took, particularly with Salisbury Subdivision.