Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 6, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 3 of 85 Zaremba: All right. We are ready to get right into the Pubic Hearing portion of our meeting for tonight and let me start with describing our procedure for those of you who don't come to our meetings very often. The applicant and our professional staff have already spent quite a bit of time together going over each application and each subject and we begin our presentation with our staff giving us an overview -- us and you an overview of where the project is, what the project is, how it complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinances that affect it. They are neither advocating, nor -- they are neither for or against the project, they are just describing how it does or does not comply with the rules that we all must follow. Following that, the applicant will be given 15 minutes for them and their staff or any other supporting people that they need to either answer any questions raised by the staff or describe anything else they think we need to know about the project. Following that is when we open it up for public testimony, all of you. We ask that you keep your remarks concise, if you would. We end up going pretty late sometimes and, please, confine your remarks to about three minutes. We do make an exception to that. If there is a spokesman -- and an example would a president of a homeowners association, who has other people in the audience for whom he or she is speaking, we do allow the spokesman ten minutes and, then, we ask that other people just respond that they have been spoken for. We appreciate that. Then, after all the public testimony has been given, we ask the applicant to have been taking notes during that and come back up and respond to anything that they can help us resolve that's been raised. And, then, theoretically, we close the Public Hearing, discuss it, and make our recommendation to the City Council, where, again, there will be a Public Hearing, but, theoretically, with more issues solved. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 18, 2005: AZ 05-033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.02 acres to R-8 zone for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from August 18, 2005: PP 05-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 21 single-family residential building lots and 7 common area lots on 2.91 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from August 18, 2005: CUP 05-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit I Planned Development to allow reduced lot sizes, setbacks, frontage and minimum ground floor square footage for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road: Zaremba: Okay. With that being said, I will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-033, PP 05-032, and CUP 05-036. All of these relate to Banff Subdivision and there have been some revisions since we talked about this last time, so we will ask for the staff to give us a report, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 4 of 85 Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this subdivision is off of Linder Road, just north of Waltman Court. The site is 3.02 acres for the annexation, which is to the centerline of the road, 2.87 acres for the preliminary plat. The applicant has submitted an amended plat as shown here. With this they have tried to address the connections to the north by putting in the modified Snoopy design for the correction at the western portion of the property, as well as there is two lots missing from this design that were included with the previous analysis of Banff Subdivision. With that staff is still recommending denial based on the fact that this is still too dense and does not fit into the character of the neighborhood. The second fact of the matter is that this is not an in-fill subdivision and doesn't qualify for this type of higher density. The narrowness of the site also precludes a little bit of a development potential of the area. The property to the north and south, it's going to be difficult to develop for them as well. And so, generally, the design of the site does not adequately address a lot of the comprehensive issues for too many houses near too low density of lots at -- at this time. If you have any questions of staff, I'll feel free to answer them, but staff is still recommending denial of this design. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions at this point? Okay. Thank you. We will have the applicant come forward, please. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Happy to be back in front of you again tonight. Last time we met there were basically seven items that I needed to take care of. Kind of had a laundry list of things to take care of and just to review what those were and, then, I'll address Joe's comments. The first thing was is we needed to figure out the boundary survey. If you remember, Jerry Hihath, the neighbor to the south, came and testified that there was a problem with the boundary survey and after the meeting got in contact with Jerry, Jerry and I went out and met on the site one evening with the surveyor from W.H. Pacific. We found out where all the pins were. We walked the site together and, then, we walked the back of the property together and it turns out the boundary was accurate. Mr. Hihath said that his dad and one of the Van Hess family had actually walked that off with a 12 foot tape measure many years ago and that's where they put the fence and that fence was within about three inches of what the opinions were, so he thought that was kind of funny that they came that close with a 12 foot tape measure way back when. The second thing that we needed to take care of is that when we last met you guys felt that the project was a little bit too dense and some of the discussion was centered on that, was taking out two more lots. As you remember, the first time we had this design we had 21 lots, as it says on the overhead. Then, we reduced it down to 18 and, then, we got two more taken out since the last time we met down, it's down to 16, and that's what's represented on this map in front of you tonight. We have taken one from the north and one from the south. And during that discussion we talked a little bit about this open space, what should happen to this open space. There was some discussion about not reducing this open space. It was reduced by less a thousand feet, but over 2,000 feet was added at the other end and that was just to make these wider and to add a wider lot on the corner right here. So, that was one of the discussion items. The third item was talking about the redevelopment of the property to the north. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6,2005 Page 5 of 85 Staff had asked us to modify this hammerhead with the Snoopy. We tried to do what staff has asked us to do, I recognize in the staff report that the staff would like to see this modified again. We, like in the past, we have had no problem providing access to that property to the north and we feel that the layout that we presented to you at the last hearing, that staff has someplace still, had to give it back to the city at that time, to give this 66 foot wide piece of property four lots in the future. That was to provide access at this point for two lots and access down on the east end for two lots. And that was discussed and I think there wasn't a whole lot of other ways to develop that piece of property. We did try again to meet with those people, had the real estate agent go out and say we'd like to purchase this property or purchase a portion of the property. They are not interested in selling. One of the things you had asked us to do was to try to work with them. The fourth item was you wanted to make sure that the plat reflected a 15-foot rear setback line around the perimeter. At that time when we submitted the last plat it said ten feet and we have corrected that to now say 15 feet around the perimeter. On the planned development you could not have a reduced perimeter setback and so we fixed that on this plat. The fifth item was open space. Talked about that a little bit. Did not reduce the open space. In fact, we have added more open space to this project since we last met. There was discussion about the fire department restricting parking on this street to have no parking and there was some discussion at that time as to what the fire department would allow and we have modified the street section to be 29 feet from face to face and so there would be parking allowed on one side of the street. The seventh thing you asked us to do was to hold another neighborhood meeting, which we did, we held another neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago. We met with the property owners to the north side of this -- not the immediate north, but the large home with the cul-de-sac lot. And we met with the Hihaths again, that's the property owners to the south, and the Laceys, the owners of this house -- or staying in this house were there. We had a meeting at their house. Sat down and discussed this and general consensus wast is this layout's better than what the previous layouts have been. And so after we had that discussion, there was a little bit more discussion with the Hihaths as to what they want to do with their property in the future. They recognize that their property to the south is going to redevelop in the future at some point and what happens with this property affects them. Joe mentioned that it would be very hard to redevelop the property to the south if there is a stub street at this location and just a differing of opinions there. With us and staff, I guess, we felt that this location for the stub street is appropriate, because it allows for the depth lots to be appropriate as it comes down. If we were to put it in the middle it would basically guide their development more so than what this is. This puts the access road down. It's a deep enough lot that they can come in and back down it, they don't have to drag a street directly down to Waltman. A couple other things that were of concern at that time. Joe, could you go forward on this -- from this slide? There we go. Some of the discussion items that we also talked about at that time -- there has been a few revisions -- that this is the only access in and out of this property and since that time the Planning and Zoning staff has met with the City Council to discuss an alternative access out of this property. And, basically, all these properties to have a secondary access out. They have met with the property owner that will provide an emergency vehicle access out of this area that would provide a secondary emergency vehicle access and they have met with this person and he has Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6,2005 Page 6 of 85 agreed to provide an emergency vehicle access with that site. And so Steve Siddoway, under the direction of the Mayor, went out and did that. So, that's been taken care of. So, there will be a secondary emergency vehicle access off of Linder and Linder would not be the only way back out to Franklin and the only way out of the subdivision. Again, these are a little bit smaller than you have got in the surrounding area, but it's the first property to come in on this side of the road without a whole lot of density -- without a whole huge lot and that's because there are existing county lots. This piece of property is going to be developed in the future. The property kitty-corner from this has redeveloped to 5,000 square foot lots. We are asking for 4,000 square foot lots and larger. There is not a great difference in the sizes from the subdivision kitty-corner to our subdivision. I think we have tried to address all the comments that you have made and you asked us to work with. I'd ask if you have any questions of us at this time, see if there is any public testimony, and, then, I can finish my comments after your questioning, if there is anything that needs to be covered at that point. Ask for your approval tonight. We are thankful for the opportunity we have had to work this out and to meet with the neighbors and discuss these things. I think we have come to a point now where the neighbors can work with this and, hopefully, the city can, too. Ask if you have any questions at this time. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. McKinnon? Okay. Thank you. We will move on to public testimony. And, actually, nobody signed up for these issues, but there is an opportunity, if anybody failed to sign up and has something to add, this would be the time to do it. I see nobody moving. Okay. In that case, there is really no notes or comment for Mr. McKinnon to make. Staff have any further comment? Guenther: We were hoping that Steve could confirm that the emergency access has been taken care of, but we haven't -- we don't have that information confirmed. We know that he has been addressing the issue. Zaremba: You're referring to Steve Siddoway? Guenther: Steve Siddoway on the emergency access. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Commissioners, any question or discussion? Newton-Huckabay: If he hasn't confirmed that emergency access, that doesn't prevent us from making a recommendation on this, does it? Guenther: No. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: My opinion on that would be that the emergency access they are working on needs to go forward whether this project happens or not. It doesn't just affect this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6,2005 Page 8 of 85 Rohm: That would probably -- Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: That would probably be preferential, but it's my feeling that this parcel cannot be held in -- and I don't mean this to sound derogatory -- but hostage to the adjacent properties and they have contacted them and tried in good faith to move forward and include those properties in development and the neighbors have chosen, for whatever reason -- and they have the right to deny at this time to develop, but it's my feeling that this parcel, if, in fact, they are ready to move forward, shouldn't be denied based upon their neighbor's lack of interest. That's my position. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I feel the lot sizes probably are smaller than maybe would be desirable there. This is in the Comp Plan designated as medium density, three to eight units. They are five and a half. I mean so far as that aspect, it's right in there, which would be expected. But to me probably the biggest thing -- maybe we should have said something at the last meeting, rather than saying you need to do this, this, this and this when they come here and comply with it all and, then, we say, well, sorry, even though you did everything we asked you to do. Zaremba: I did make a similar statement at the last meeting. Borup: Right. Okay. And I -- yeah, I'm concerned about the long term. I mean Linder is not going to be the traffic that Eagle is. I mean unless we get interstate access and that's not in the plan. It's certainly going to be heavily traveled, but more so than now. But I don't know if it's quite in the same category. I mean it would be nice that -- Zaremba: It will at least be an arterial and we generally try to limit access to arterials. Borup: Right. I understand. But still in my thinking, maybe something should have been said last time, if there were additional things that should have been on their list to work on. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I would probably mirror somewhat of Commissioner Borup's comments in regards to -- the lot sizes and whatnot, I know the last meeting when we had discussed this, we did ask for some increases in sizes and such and, yes, the applicant has done pretty Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 9 of 85 much what we had discussed in our last meeting. I would like to have seen some lots just a little bit larger than they are at the present time. But, at the same point, when we discuss access points and whatnot, I'm not so sure that I'm opposed at all to having an access point off Linder at this point. If, in fact, that entire area does develop, I would anticipate it would be good to have two access points, one to Linder and one to Waltman, and basically this is the -- basically the center point of that and he is somewhat noting access to both of the other lots through that. So, if anything, I think he has come forward and taken care of pretty much everything we had discussed in our last meeting, other than I still feel I would have liked to have seen some of his lots sizes a líttle larger, because of the fact it is in the R-8 zone. But other than that I have no problem with this project. Borup: Just an additional comment on that lot size. Yeah, I'd like to see them larger, too. I think the widths are a proper size for what they are planning in there. It's the depth, in my mind, that's the problem and this site really doesn't accommodate deeper lots. Moe: Yeah. That's true. Borup: Unless the street went down one side, then, they would be really deep. Moe: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: I guess it's my turn. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Do we think -- is it because of these lots down here -- I mean, obviously, these ones around it, but are those likely to redevelop at some point -- so that these lots here and these lots here that are what -- so concern us about the area around it? As far as the density. Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, typically with a planned development we see a transitional nature of lots and this site just is not large enough to be accommodating a planned development. That's, essentially, what staff's -- one of staff's concerns with this site is. Yes, the lot sizes in here are approaching 10,000 square feet. These are approaching 10,000 square feet and above. These are similar size. And there is the one portion down off of the interstate that is 5,000 square foot lots. All of the subdivision in here is one acre or better lots. And the general nature of the neighborhood is roughly the three to three and a half dwelling units to the acre. The 5,000 square foot lots down here were done under a planned development and they were also given many amenities for additional open space and the things that are accompanying a planned development for reduction of lot size, lot widths, and building size. So, that is one of the other concerns that we brought out in the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Was the lack of amenities? The lack of amenities? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6. 2005 Page 10 of 85 Guenther: No. The lack of transitional nature between these 4,000 square foot lots and lots that are approximately twice the size of those. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I don't really have anything of substance to add to the comments that have already been made. Zaremba: I will ask of staff -- I guess this sort of puts you on the spot -- it appears that I'm going to be outvoted on this and that the Commission, as a group, essentially, is going to recommend approval to the City Council. Are there conditions that should be added that were not -- staff continued to recommend that this be denied and did you include conditions for approval? Guenther: We do not have conditions of approval, so we would -- if the board -- if the Commission's recommendation is for approval, we would need to be directed in order to provide conditions of approval. Public Works has not made comment on this at all and they need to have the opportunity to review this site for their concerns. With that, the motion that was made at the last hearing was not to provide conditions of approval, but to see the revised design as per your comments of the last meeting. So, conditions of approval were not prepared for this meeting, because we weren't directed to provide conditions of approval. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I intend to go with the staff's recommendation of denial on this. I think this is a really complicated planning problem here and I don't feel comfortable moving it on myself. So, if there is a question of whether or not you're going to be out voted -- Zaremba: As much as I'm happy to hear, we are at this point anticipating a two to three vote, which would pass it, so we still need to -- unless we have other discussion. Newton-Huckabay: I didn't get the feeling that Commissioner Moe was in favor of it. Moe: Mr. Chairman, question of staff. Public Works has not reviewed this project? Guenther: Public Works has been -- has received a transmittal for this project, but they have not given planning staff any conditions of approval to incorporate into the staff report. Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open and Mr. McKinnon appears to want to respond. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 11 of 85 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have had this for a long time and we've had numerous discussions, we have sat down with Public Works and we sat down with P&Z. These aren't new issues. They have been discussed. The issues with Public Works. There are some comments from Public Works, obviously, no conditions of approval, because it was a recommendation for denial, and they would have to work some up for that. But we have had numerous discussions about the lift station that's up there and how that would work, the depth of the sewer and there is some things that we have discussed. It's been in the city's hands and we -- you know, it was a month and a half ago, two months ago, that we met last to discuss this and so there should have been adequate time to be able to take a look at it. A couple things to keep in mind with this project that Joe mentioned. One of them is that this is too small for a planned development and, obviously, we agree with that. The only way to make things work under the old ordinance was to do a planned development for a project like this and that was one of the reasons you guys adopted the new Unified Development Code was to quit having to do a planned development on every single project. To put this in perspective, if we were to withdraw this application, bring it back to you with paired housing, we would not have to ask for a planned development on this project. Four thousand square foot lots are the minimum lot size in the R-8 zone. Fifty feet of frontage or 40 feet of frontage if you do a paired housing. This could come back to you with paired housing, meet the minimum standards for all the requirements and would not have to come back as a planned development to you. We felt -- and we discussed this last time -- was that a paired product is not as nice as a detached product. A detached product was more agreeable to the neighbors. They felt that that was better than having duplexes or attached housing on this site. But this would meet all the requirements for the R-8 zone under the new Unified Development Code. And so this was not -- this would meet all the side setbacks, front and rear setbacks of the new Unified Development Code for the R-8 zone, which would comply with the medium density designation on the Comp Plan which is three to eight units per acre. This falls right in the middle of that. Your comments about having a single solitary access on Waltman would create some additional concerns. You would be creating another cul- de-sac situation with only one access out. You would have to provide emergency vehicle access out onto the Linder Road area, plus there is an existing house there. There is a number of existing houses that front onto that. Ada County Highway District cannot remove those access points and so there will be one access point to the existing house that would remain there forever in perpetude. However, we have included on the site plan a driveway that would come around the backside of that house and so you're still limiting it to one access point. We provided the one access point to the south with a stub street, which would be able to provide those together. As you have worked in the City of Meridian -- if we could start over with a blank slate in the City of Meridian and have somebody come in and master plan the entire community, it would look vastly different than it does today. One of the problems that you run into in planning a project is you can only work with those things that you're given. You can't say I'm going to take all these additional pieces of property and we are going to hold onto them until we can assemble everything. It doesn't always work that way. We have worked with the property owner to the south. The property owners to the north don't want to work with us. We have tried as best as we can to provide access for them in the future to be able Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 12 of 85 to redevelop that piece of property. To the south ACHD required us to put a stub street in for increased connectivity. City staff did not want a stub street to the south. They don't want that to be interconnected. If you remember there was a lot of discussion at the last hearing that the city staff did not want these two parcels interconnected, they'd rather have it end and not have it connect. We met with ACHD and ACHD said, yes, you will interconnect these two pieces of property and we picked the best spot for redevelopment for the property to the south in the future. We have worked with that property owner. He recognizes that in the future they will be redeveloping this piece of property. Another thing to keep in mind is the transitional nature of this property. Transition was talked an awful lot about by staff. We are not bumping up against this subdivision or this subdivision or transitioning to this subdivision or this subdivision. We have got two pieces of property that are residential in nature right now that we are transitioning to and we have one that's a school site. A school site does not have a requirement for a transition. To the north you have residential property, which will be one neighbor, which would be the existing house, you will have a driveway that comes in behind it. And on the south you have a large piece of property that will develop in the future at a density that will be much higher that it is right now. So, we have done the best we can with this piece of property, with the design that we have. We can't comp plan the entire thing, because we don't have access to those people and have access to a street, unless we wait for that property to come in. We'd ask that you approve this prOject. It will allow the interconnectivity in the future. We believe that the lot sizes meet and exceed the requirements of the current code. When this was submitted the Unified Development Code was not -- was not applicable, because it had not been adopted by you or the City Council at that time, so we had to go the planned development route. We are not asking for anything that's not allowable under the existing code, other than we would like to have detached housing, rather than paired housing to accommodate the neighbors. With that I'd ask if you have any additional questions and I can sit down. Zaremba: Commissioners? Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: My question is of staff. If Public Works hasn't submitted comments or direction associated with this proposal, how can we move forward with a recommendation of approval if we don't even know what their comments might be? Guenther: Commissioner Rohm, prior to Mr. McKinnon standing up, my second portion to that comment was that if you wanted to recommend approval, we could have conditions of approval for you at the next hearing. Rohm: Thank you. I don't see how we can act on it either direction without comments from Public Works. I think if Public Works comes back and says, you know what, this just won't work, then, that adds substance to existing staff report. But if Public Works Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 13 of 85 comes back and says this is the way this will work with the development as proposed, then, at least we have something we can get -- go yea or nay on, but my -- Borup: We can go yea or nay right now. Rohm: -- personal opinion is that from the last time that this was heard, that we would have had Public Works comments as part of the staff report tonight and I would hope that we could get that next time. Borup: Or maybe tonight? Rohm: If we can table this and give Public Works an opportunity to kick it around and, then, provide additional testimony after you -- I don't like to put you on the spot, quite honestly. Cole: Commissioner Rohm? Zaremba: My opinion on that would be that there are probably engineering drawings that he needs to sit in his office and look at and I'm not sure that-- Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mike. Cole: Thank you. Since this staff report was a recommendation for denial, there have been no conditions placed on it by Public Works, Fire Department, Parks, Sanitation. To place conditions of approval on a project that has been recommended for denial is not the standard. I think that Joe could explain this better as the planner. This is pretty standard practice on projects that are recommended for denial not to have conditions of approval placed on them by the agencies. With that being said, Public Works has sat down with the applicant, we have discussed issues, we have reviewed the project, we don't have our conditions for approval here tonight. I see no outstanding issues with this as we have reviewed it, we just do not have something formalized, wordified, and typed and in place at this time. Zaremba: And my assessment of your statement is continuing this until the end of this evening would not solve that problem. Cole: No, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6,2005 Page 14 of 85 Rohm: I don't think that it would be fair to this development to deny it without having seen the balance of input from staff, including the Public Works, and I think that we gave Mr. McKinnon a laundry list last time they came before us, of which they have addressed all the issues and, ultimately, that doesn't necessarily guarantee approval, but I think that they have gone a long way to meet us halfway and I would like to recommend that we continue this one more meeting and get comments from the balance of staff and other departments, so we can have a complete report to act upon at the next meeting. I think that's the right thing to do. Zaremba: Just for the sake of discussion, considering the way I'm pretty sure I'm going to vote, I think it would just be stringing the applicant along. So, we will take a vote. If a motion is made to continue this -- my preference would be to close the Public Hearing and move for denial. I am not going to make a motion, however, as the chairman. And I will entertain the first motion that comes to the microphone. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing -- Zaremba: If you want to continue it -- closing it would mean we are going to vote to deny it tonight. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue public hearings AZ 05-033, PP 04-032, and CUP 05-036. Zaremba: To October 20th? Rohm: To the next scheduled -- regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Zaremba: As part of that motion, do you wish to direct staff to prepare conditions for approval? Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and second. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Thank you for the second. Now we have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Nay. We have two in favor and three against continuing. That motion does not carry. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. THREE NAYS. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6,2005 Page 15 of 85 Zaremba: The chair would entertain a substitute or alternate motion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number PP 05-032, AZ 05-033 for Banff Subdivision, as presented in the staff report dated September 27th, 2005, with the site plan dated June 14th, 2005, and preliminary plat dated September 15th, 2005. Zaremba: One comment, discussion on the motion before we hear a second. In fact, if we are moving to deny, the preliminary plat is something that we deny outright, not a recommendation to the city. The other two would be a recommendation. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? If you're going to make a motion, you need to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: That's true. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-032 and AZ 05-033. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Motion to close the three public hearings. All in favor say aye. opposed? Any Newton-Huckabay: Do I need to repeat my motion for denial? Zaremba: Wait just a minute. Let's confirm. I believe we had three ayes and two nays; is that correct? Moe: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. So, the public hearings are closed. Mr. Baird, you appear to -- okay. You looked anxious to say something. Baird: Well, actually, just -- Zaremba: You're just listening closely. Baird: No. I just wanted to confirm for the record that the chair and the people who were making the vote on this interpreted the motion to include all three public hearings. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 16 of 85 Zaremba: Yes. To close. Baird: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: My mistake. Sorry about that. Zaremba: Okay. I believe I would do them one at a time. Newton-Huckabay: Recommend denial one at a time? Zaremba: Yes. And on the preliminary plat it's not a recommendation, it's an actual motion. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: One moment. We have a question from the clerk. No? Okay. Sorry. Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend denial to the City Council -- oh. I move to deny -- and this is the PP; right? The preliminary plat? PP 05-032. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion to deny PP 05-032 and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? It appears that that vote was also three to two in favor. Three in favor, two against, so that motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number AZ 05-033 for Banff Subdivision, as presented in the report, dated September 27th, 2005, with the site plan dated June 14th, 2005, and preliminary plat dated September 16th, 2005. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? It appears we have three in favor and two opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS: Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number CUP 05-036, for Banff Subdivision as presented in the staff report, dated September 27th, with the site plan dated June 14th, 2005, and Preliminary plat dated September 16th, 2005. End of motion. Borup: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 17 of 85 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed? We have three in favor and two opposed. That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Item 7: Item 8: Item 9: Continue Public Hearing from September 15, 2005: AZ 05-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Continue Public Hearing from September 15, 2005: PP 05-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 200 building lots and 21 common lots on 38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Continue Public Hearing from September 15, 2005: CUP 05-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single family detached residential units and single family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Zaremba: All right. Thank you all very much. The next items on the agenda I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039, all relating to Irvine Subdivision and entertain a motion to continue those to October 20th, '05. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Let's see. I move the public hearings on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05- 039, be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning to October 20th? Is that correct? Zaremba: Yes. Moe: End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.