Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 7, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 4 of 70 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Recommendation: VAC 04-007 Request for a Vacation of irrigation easements in Block 1 of Stokes berry Subdivision on the east 10 feet of Lots 2, 3 & 4; the northerly 10 feet of Lot 2; the southerly 10 feet of Lot 3; the northerly 5 feet of Lot 3; and the southerly 5 feet of Lot 4, by Properties West, Inc - west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: The next item is a recommendation, not consisting of a Public Hearing, but it's VAC 04-007. This is a request for a vacation of irrigation easements, Block 1 of Stokesberry Subdivision, a project by Property West. I'd like to begin with the staff report. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this is Stokesberry Subdivision. To remind you, it's just south of Carol Subdivision off of Eagle Road. The school is directly to the west. They came in for a re-subdivision a number of months ago, you may remember, and they realized at a later date that they needed to vacate the easements just for irrigation, so that's the request before you tonight. Staff has no reason to think that you should not vacate this easement. Borup: Okay. Commissioners? Thank you. Any additional questions or comments from Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I think it's fairly straight-forward and anybody who might have any interest in the easement has signed a letter saying that they don't have any interest in the easement. I think that's pretty clear. Borup: It's just cleaning up the plat, really. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of VAC 04-007. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Since I'm making comments this evening, I will add to the comments that the planning director has pointed out to me that when we make a recommendation, we don't need to read the entire paragraph, that just commenting -- referencing the file number is sufficient to carry it forward, since it's been well noticed and agenda-ed and everything else, so that's why I didn't read the whole thing. Rohm: We will all work towards that. Might slip up from time to time, though. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 5 of 70 Borup: That will get us out even earlier. Newton-Huckabay: I'm guessing about 45 minutes. Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 04-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a music academy and other future uses as allowed in the C-C zone for Garland & Use Goff by Garland & IIse Goff - 1233 North Main Street: Borup: Okay. Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-036. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a music academy and other future uses allowed in a C-C zone for Garland & Use Goff. This is at 1233 North Main Street. Like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Mae: Mr. Chairman, I think is that not one that's going to be -- a request for a continuance? Borup: I'm sorry. I started talking before I opened up my file. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, there should be an e-mail from the applicant where they were asking for it to be postponed until the first hearing in November. Borup: Okay. So, let's -- well, we did need to open it anyway, so that the hearing is open. There is a request for a continuance, so we need to decide on a date. Zaremba: Early November, the first date would be the 4th, if that's what they are asking for. I don't know how our schedule is on the 4th. This probably is not going to be a lengthy one, even when we get to it. So, I have no problem suggesting that we continue it to the 4th of November. Newton-Huckabay: I agree with that. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the Public Hearing on CUP 04-036 to our regular scheduled meeting of November 4th, 2004. Mae: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? We do have a fairly full meeting, but I think we will be -- we should still be okay. There is three or four subdivisions on it, but most of them are commercial subdivisions. So, all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.