Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 18, 2003 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 101 of 119 Zaremba: I move that we amend the motion regarding CUP 03-057, to include all of the elements that were previously stated in that motion and add one more. The addition is that on Page 12 of the staff comments, Item 3, under site specific conditions, can be changed to read that usable open space for each dwelling unit may be as submitted on the latest plan. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 17. Public Hearing: AZ 03-031 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.04 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. -west of North Linder Road and north of West Ustick Road: Item 18. Public Hearing: PP 03-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 66 single-family building lots and 2 common lots on 15.04 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - west of North Linder Road and north of West Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. Are we ready to hit the last one? Staff, are we -- is this a fairly clean -- have we got a clean application here? Powell: We have been assured by the applicant. Rohm: I have got to be somewhere by 7:00. Borup: Okay. We'd like to -- it looks like most of the issues were limited to -- like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-031. Request for annexation and zoning 15.44 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and also like to open PP 03-037, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 66 single family building lots, two commons lots on the same 15.04 acres and like to begin with the staff report. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, I would like to ask for a ruling from our legal counsel. I personally recently ran for City Council in this city and the owner of this property in question, who is Mr. Stubblefield, made a monetary contribution to my campaign. I believe that I am able to judge this fairly on its merits and to be impartial. However, I would like a ruling regarding Idaho Code 67-6506 relating to conflict of interest as to whether I should excuse myself. Gabbert: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Commissioner Zaremba, I think that your disclosure of any potential conflict of i nterest p ursuant to that code p rovision is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 102 of 119 sufficient. It's a matter that you -- you will decide if it influences your opinion or -- as long as you have no financial interest in the stake of any decision making or partaking in any of this part here, then, that disclosure s hould be suffice to nullify any conflict of interest that you might have. I think you're all right. Zaremba: I will state that I have no other financial interest gain or loss in the outcome of this. Borup: Okay. I think that's the major consideration there Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the applicant has applied for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat for 66 building lots and two other lots on 15 acres of land located near the northwest corner of Ustick Road and Linder. To the north of this site is the approved Watersong Subdivision. To the west is Bridgetower, Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. Directly to the south is a future ACHD pond site. There is an existing residence on -- I believe both of these. I was out to the site this last week and I believe there is a home on this and some out buildings, as well as a home on the corner there. This site is designated as medium density residential. On the City of Meridian's future land use, mapthe requested zoning designationforthe property is R-8. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 4.4 dwelling units per acre. The net density of the subdivision is 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The single-family buildable lots in this subdivision are -- range from 6,500 square feet to 11,745 square feet. All of the lots will contain detached single-family homes. The applicant h as requested a waiver of .the requirement to cover, tile, or pipe the Creason Lateral abutting the southern boundary of the site, which is in support of and detailed in the staff report that you have in front of you. I have discussed the staff report with the applicant and I believe it is pretty clean, but I will let him tell you himself and I'll stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I had one question. On Page 9, site-specific condition for the Preliminary Plat Number 1, you're requiring that -- that two of the stub streets that are existing in other subdivisions, in fact, 6e built before this starts. I understand there needs to be access to this otherwise landlocked thing, but also it was mentioned that they do have an easement to the east over another piece of property. What I'm wondering is at the time they begin the heavy kind of construction, digging the sewers, building the roads, where they are using real heavy equipment, would you rather have them come over that easement than go through a residential subdivision? I don't have any problem later with framers and roofers and stuff coming through the subdivisions, but I'm wondering whether we might want to require that heavy equipment to do the initial infrastructure use the easement to the east. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commission Zaremba, I guess right now I can kind of give you a little more history on what's going on with Watersong. They have not -- there is no foundations even in Watersong today, so depending on timing with this subdivision, it's ideal right now that they use that northerly access that is currently a street, it's actually Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 1B, 2003 Page 103 of 119 - constructed right now, and there is a chain link fence. That would be ideal, if you ask me, for construction traffic, because you're not disturbing anyone, there are not residents in Watersong to the north today. Borup: But the street is paved? Hood: The street is paved. Yes. I was out there -- I believe it was last Friday I was out there and the street's paved. I drove up and down it and they did have some of the manholes that, you know, were uncovered, but most of the improvements are in. Again, depending on timing -- I don't know when they would be pulling building permits, but -- and I don't know the status of that easement. I don't believe you want probably construction traffic going over that. It's not going to have the weight bearing loads and that type of stuff. I mean it's just -- it's been for -- the site has been historically used for agricultural purposes and, you know, not a lot of traffic, even residential traffic, using that easement. I -- if you want to put a condition on it, I guess I would just envision that easement going away, more than anything, and, then, having to use for both construction and future residents of the subdivision, the access to the north probably before the one through Bridgetower to the west, so -- but the applicant may be able to -- Zaremba: I'm comfortable with that. I would not add that condition. Borup: Is that existing easement a gravel road or nothing? Hood: Again, the applicant may be able to -- what I saw was just a dirt gravel road, it wasn't paved or anything, just -- Borup: Well, no, I wasn't -- I knew it wasn't paved. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Boyle: Commission Members, good morning. Clint Boyle with Landmark Engineering and Planning. Business address of 104 9th Ave South in Nampa, Idaho. It's a pleasure to be in front of you at this last Public Hearing for the year. It seems like last year I was in front of City Council at their last Public Hearing, so I assume that it's a privilege to get in front of the Council or Planning Commission where I live and be the last item of the year. This particular project we have worked with staff on and I appreciate their efforts in this in .putting together the report. They have been working with us on this project. As far as the staff report, we believe that it's clean as well. We agree with the conditions that have been placed on the project and, really, the only -- the only item even came up, which is a fairly minor item, was there was some discussion about perimeter fencing on page nine under general Conditions Number 5. The item there said that it would be required to have six foot high solid fence around the perimeter of the subdivision and this developer would like the option of either doing a solid or semi- private fence around the development, similar to what maybe Bridgetower has done Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 104 of 119 with the semi-private vinyl fencing on theirs. Also with regards to that, Watersong was somehow allowed to place a six-foot high chain link fence along -- along their boundaries. If we look back at the pictures that Craig had, if he wants to put those back up, you will see their chain link fence that they placed along their boundaries, so, obviously, there was some leniency there. Borup: Was that just the boundary along the irrigation easement? Boyle: It is. Essentially, what you have right here is -- the back of the residential lots have the chain link fence and, then, they have a 22 foot wide common slash easement area for the Coleman Lateral, which has been tiled. The gravel roadway you see runs right over the top of the tiled Coleman Lateral. Then, they basically have nothing on their boundary as far as fencing within Watersong. Again, as far as any safety issues, the safety issues of have been pretty much mitigated, because of the tiling of the Coleman, you're not necessarily worrying about -- Borup: I think the chain link fence was for weed burning, was, -- is usually why -- isn't that why that came up to start with? For the other project? Hood: I believe it was probably open at the time that that chain link was put up, so the noncombustible fence was put up and, then, they probably went in and tiled it, so that is just a guess, but that seems to be -- Borup: Well, whether it was tiled or not should have been determined prior to the subdivision approval, so -- they were probably anticipating weeds along there or something for the irrigation company, but -- Boyle: And, Commissioner Borup, I mean I don't want to belabor the point, it was just the developer would like the flexibility of doing either a solid or asemi-private and I don't believe -- Borup: And what height on the semi-private Boyle: Six foot. Borup: Okay Boyle: Six foot was acceptable on that. Borup: Was that on Page 9? Zaremba: I think your Page 11, Number 5. Borup: Okay. Boyle: I don't know. It's my Page 9. Maybe I have got different numbers here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 20D3 Page 105 of 119 Borup: That helps. That is correct. Zaremba: Yes. I didn't find it on Page 9. Boyle: It's general condition Number 5 in my report. Zaremba: It's right here. It starts: Detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. A six-foot solid fence shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision. What you're saying is you would like the option of doing anon-solid fence? Boyle: Right. Zaremba: Still six feet high? Boyle: Correct. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, if you could just either ask the applicant to explain what kind of fence he really -- that he wants. I mean are we talking chain link, are we talking wrought iron, or are we talking afour-foot solid with atwo-foot lattice? Just so, staff knows what we are looking for. Borup: Yes. Boyle: The developer in the discussions that I have had with, what he's proposing from my understanding to do a six foot high solid fence along the south boundary of the project, if we can flip back to the plat, which would be along the side that is adjacent to the Creason Lateral. Again, the discussion that I have had with him as he's looking at doing some sort of vinyl fencing, it's a solid fence. The reason for that is, as staff indicated, ACHD has a future storm drain site immediately south of this that, eventually, will be used for their storm drainage facilities. Beyond that is Ustick Road. He wants to have a nice look from Ustick Road as you're looking at the project. On the other side of the project on the east-west side, he discussed semi-private vinyl fencing, again, was the discussion that I had with him, but I think what he was looking at was something similar to what Bridgetower had done with the semi-private, where it's got this -- Borup: What did they do? I think that's what staff was asking clarification on. Boyle: I don't r emember h ow m uch o f a s pacing, b ut t here i s l ike a t wo-inch s pace between the vinyl slats. Borup: And they have vertical slats. Boyle: Correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 106 of 119 Borup: And, then, above four feet or all the way, the full six foot? Boyle: Full six-foot vertical slats. Borup: Okay. Say six-foot vertical slats with spacing between. Boyle: Right. Borup: All right. Does that clarify -- is that enough? Powell: Yes. I guess we would be looking for a maximum of two inches or a maximum of six -- we are getting so many details on fences and I hate for it to be a major issue, but it seems to be later, so -- Borup: Would it help to say similar to Bridgetower? Powell: Sure. Boyle: Yes. Commission Members; I don't knowwhat the standard spacing is, you know, for a fence company on the semi private, so I would hate to -- Borup: But the spacing wouldn't be any wider than what Bridgetower has. Boyle: Similar to Bridgetower. Borup: Okay. Powell: And I think we measured Bridgetower and it was 5/8ths of an inch, so that's I wanted to clarify, because it is a little different. I just -- Borup: Okay. Powell: As long as it's not a foot I think we are okay. Borup: Similar to Bridgetower. Powell: I wouldn't use 5/8th, but just put similar to Bridgetower. Yes. Boyle: And I guess the option, again, would -- the request would be, you know, either a solid or the semi private fencing. Zaremba: Either/or. Borup: Okay. That was it? It was just that? Boyle: That wraps up my comments for the evening, unless I need to -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 107 of 119 Borup: And you're in agreement with all other staff comments as far as Zaremba: Did we resolve the tiling of the southern most ditch that it does not feed to be tiled? Boyle: Commission Members, that's resolved on my end, as long as you agree with the staff report. Zaremba: I was just trying to remember whether they had made it as a requirement or not and I agree with not tiling it for the reasons -- Borup: They said the the Coleman, not the the Creason. Zaremba: Right. Okay. There is not a condition that requires that. Okay. Boyle: And that's it. Borup: Okay. That's the kind we wanted at this hour. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Come forward, ma'am. Rath: Good morning. Borup: Good morning. Rath: My name is Joan Rath and I am the personal representative of my father's estate, which is the estate of Warren A. Watson, Senior, deceased, which is located at 1680 West Ustick Road on the corner o f Ustick a nd Linder. T he e state owns a p arcel in excess of five acres, which is called the estate's parcel, which is located immediately east of the proposed Windsong Subdivision, between the proposed Windsong Subdivision and North Linder Road. Borup: The map's up on the wall there so, you're talking this parcel right here? Rath: Exactly. The small tip just below it. We also owned the parcel that was just sold to the county, but we have retained that small tip of the property. Borup: Okay. Rath: Several weeks ago a number of survey stakes were observed on the estate's parcel located approximately five to seven feet east of the fence, which we understand to be located upon the Westerly boundary of the estate's parcel. The stakes are basically located on what we understand to be our property. These stakes are roughly parallel to the common property line between the estates parcel and the developer's parcel, which is the subject of this meeting. On Monday of this week, my attorney spoke with Mr. Stubblefield, who I understand is a principal and a developer entity. Mr. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 108 of 119 Stubblefield advised my attorney that the developer claims that these stakes represent the actual boundary between the estate's parcel and the proposed development parcel. At this time, the estate of Warren A. Watson, Senior, disagrees with this conclusion. The estate has p reviously scheduled a survey of the estate's parcel. In light of Mr. Stubblefield's statements, we have expanded the scope of this survey and the estate will attempt to get to the bottom of this potential boundary dispute. However, until this boundary discrepancy has been resolved, the estate objects to any annexation, rezoning, or preliminary plat approval for any portion of what may ultimately be determined to be the estate's parcel, even if it might be presently claimed by the developer of the Windsong Subdivision. I also have a copy of the estate's deed for this parcel and a letter that basically reiterates what I have said here this evening, if you would like to have a copy of that. Thank you for your time. Oh, one other thing. Could you point out the easement that they are talking about possibly using? Borup: I don't know if we -- we don't have a plat that shows the easement, it just said it was through the property. Rath: And where through the property did they say that it might be? Could somebody show that? Borup: Mr. Boyle, do you have some information on that? I'm sure that's on the deed that Stubblefield has as part of his contract. Hood: Ma'am, what was name again? Rath: Joan Rath. Borup: Why d on't you s tay h ere fora c ouple o ther q uestions a nd, t hen, maybe M r. Boyle can point out that while you're still here. Boyle: Again, Clint Boyle with Landmark. The location of the access easement to this property, essentially, follows the Creason Lateral, roughly, and it's in this location here and it extends from Ustick Road into the site along the Creason on the north side of the Creason. Borup: Okay. The access is from the south. I think we -- didn't we state earlier that it was from the east? I think that's part of the confusion, is I think the staff report said from the east. Rath: Okay. T hen, I would h ave a c omment o n t hat. The e asement t hat t hey a re referring to is a 1 0-foot wide access a nd it is simply acome-and-go-type easement. You will not get large equipment or anything else down through there. Borup: That was our understanding was mainly an agricultural access. Rath: And I would object to them suggesting that they might use it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing December 18, 2D03 Page 109 of 119 Borup: Okay. Zaremba: But I proposed that idea and I gave it up, so don't worry about it. Rath: ,Thank you. Borup: Ma'am, then -- so your statement was that -- Zaremba: The property line is in question. Borup: You said five feet -- the stakes are five feet -- Rath: Five feet. Borup: Five to seven feet. Okay. When is your surveyor going to have their survey done? Rath: I can't give you an exact date. The flu bug has been going around, so they are all kind of down right now, but I'm assuming it's going to be in the next couple. of weeks. Borup: They haven't given you a date when they will be there? I mean have you contracted with a surveyor? Rath: Yes. Borup: And I'm sure you understand this is probably not the first time that a fence line has been different from a property line. Rath: Oh, I understand that, but I would think that we would need to clarify where that boundary is. Rohm: To clarify where a boundary is doesn't change the legal description and so even if they have misstaked it, the property line would still be as described on both your property description and theirs, as my understanding of the property descriptions. They may have misstaked it, which your surveyor will either prove 'out that it's misstaked or that it is properly staked. Rath: And that's very possible. Rohm: But the property line itself hasn't moved any, would be my understanding. The property line is -- your east line would be their west line and it's the same description for that line. Now, where they staked it may be wrong and your surveyor will prove out one way or the other. Rath: Exactly. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing December 18, 2003 Page 110 of 119 Rohm: But as far as this application, the application uses the legal description, so the only thing that would be in error is the staking, not the legal description itself. Zaremba: I agree w ith t hat, b ut I w ould s uggest t hat a ny p lat t hat t hey m ake might include five feet on the back of some lots that shouldn't be there and, therefore, lot sizes and stuff -- Borup: That's assuming that their deed is incorrect. It's going to state a distance Rohm: The distance is going to remain the same, it's just -- Rath: If I might interject something. We have found that there are some interesting things in some of the older deeds. As a matter of fact, we did find that there was a little bit of discrepancy in the deed of the parcel that we just sold, so I wouldn't assume that any of some of these older deeds are absolutely accurate. Borup: That's a correct statement Rohm: Good point. To that it's probably best that it be resurveyed by your -- Rath: Exactly. Borup: Who had -- Powell: I did, sir. The layout of the subdivision -- we are looking at the lot dimensions. They have got -- most of the lots have about 1,000 square feet before they fall below their minimum, so there is plenty of room to accommodate a five foot discrepancy in the lot line -- or in the -- Borup: That's what I was looking at. Especially the lots along that eastern boundary. Powell: Right. The one at the north they might have to squeeze around the corner and do some -- some adjusting there, but nothing -- it didn't look like it would be anything that would substantially change the preliminary plat as it goes forward. This is a civil matter and there are -- there can be differences in where the line is actually stated on the deeds, but that is -- there are mechanisms set up for resolving that. The last step is the court system, but, you know, there is adjudication and there are all sorts of other steps before that, so the civil side of things is set up to handle that. It doesn't look like it will impact the design, so I think you could forward it tonight, knowing that that issue was unresolved. Borup: Do you understand what she's saying? If that five feet -- if their stakes did have to move over, it wouldn't affect the design of the subdivision. The roads would still stay where they are at and they would just lose five feet along the eastern portion of their lot boundary. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 111 of 119 Rath: They would lose. Yes. Borup: If that's what -- Rath: Assuming that that is correct. Borup: Right. Yes. If that was, what it came down to. Rath: But if I'm understanding you correctly, if you go ahead and forward this for approval, then, what you're saying is that there is five to seven feet of the estate's property -- Borup: No. Rath: -- that you are -- Borup: Because that's not proven. We are saying that's not our -- Zaremba: What we would say is we like this project in concept, but that particular thing needs to be resolved before the City Council would approve it. Rath: And that would be my point. As long as that is resolved prior to. Zaremba: We can recommend approval, but I don't think it can be finally annexed until that is resolved. Rath: No, it can't. Zaremba: And that would just mean we don't have any problem with the other aspects of it, but that needs to be resolved before the City Council. Powell: Chairman Borup, this is really a civil matter. We would accept the annexation, unless there was -- they need to resolve it themselves. It's not something that the city is going to step in and look to see if one way or the other -- we will annex what's been requested. It's up to them -- it's a civil matter for them to resolve. Zaremba: If the line is in dispute would we move forward with that? I can see forwarding it on to City Council, but you mean they would make a final action while the line was still in dispute? Powell: They might wait and put that on a final phase, but I think that they could. I mean it would just mean that that property would be deannexed or would just -- Rath: I don't believe that anybody has the power to take someone's title and annex it Meritlian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 112 of 119 Borup: They don't. Rath: You cannot take title. Borup: But Mr. Stubblefield would have the same contention. He's got title to his property, too. Rath: Well, I have a fence that sat there for a number of years and there have been a lot of issues that have been settled on fence lines. One just across the road from us. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, I believe that what would happen is if the county surveyor knew that there was a boundary line dispute, he would not allow it to be entered into county record until the issue was resolved, but I -- right. That's the Final Plat. That's the actual Final Plat for the project. That's quite a ways down the road from where we are tonight. Rath: Are we in that big of a hurry? Borup: Well, that's what we are saying, this is months down the road before it's going to get to final plat stage and if you can get the survey done in four months, then -- Rath: Well, but l guess that would be my question. If this is going to take some time, why are we in such a hurry to push it off for approval? Wouldn't we want to make sure that we are legal first? Gabbert: Commissioner Borup? Borup: Yes. Gabbert: May I interject briefly? I just wanted to state this Commission and the Board has certain considerations, of which you aren't expected to determine everyone's legal status and resolve all the problems. If that was the case, then, anyone that ever run an application it could say, hey, there is a dispute here, you guys can't make a decision toriight and it would kind of stall the process. I'm not saying that's what will happen in this case, but this is, really, something that isn't necessarily before this Commission to decide. I mean, obviously, it's good to bring up and whatnot, but if the conditions for approval are otherwise met, I would have -- I have a little difficulty saying hold off until this legal matter is resolved, because that kind of sets a precedent for a lot of bad actions in the future. Borup: I think what we are saying, ma'am, is the applicant has submitted a deed and a legal description and until it's shown otherwise, we have to assume that that's accurate. Rath: Well, I have a deed right here and it shows that that belongs to me, so who is right and who is wrong? Borup: You got a survey accompanying your deed? Nleridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 113 of 119 Rath: Well, I have a deed right here. Borup: And have you measured your property and you're five feet short when you went out and measured it? Rath: I have not personally measured it. I am not a surveyor. Borup: Okay. Rath: I don't survey. Borup: I think that's what we are saying. Rath: Well, I still don't understand how if somebody brings you this information, they say this is what my property is, but I'm standing before you, and saying, no, this is what the estate's property is as the personal representative, Ihave afiduciary duty to make certain -- Borup: Right. You have done the right thing and you're proceeding ahead to protect your -- Rath: Exactly. Borup: But I have seen a lot of fences go in on properties that have a stake right there and people ignore it and I'm talking five, ten feet, sometimes. Rath: Well -- Borup: So, a fence doesn't necessarily mean anything. Rath: No, but there have been courts that do rule on the fence lines, because they did just across the road. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Well, I think the bottom line is this is just a Preliminary Plat anyway and before the Final Plat is recorded, this issue that you speak to will be resolved and to move forward with the subdivision won't change that one bit. You will still have every opportunity to show your position as far as that lot line and that won't -- our action tonight won't preclude you from any of your rights and I think that's the thing that we want to convey to you. You're not losing anything by us moving forward. Rath: Okay. That's fine, but I get a littler nervous when somebody starts talking about taking title and annexing property and -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 114 of 119 Borup: But they already have title. Rath: You can't do that. Who has title? Borup: Mr. Stubblefield has title to his property already. Rath: To his property. Borup: Right. Rath: And I'm entitled to mine. Borup: Right. No. Exactly. That's all we have been saying. Rohm: Yes. Rath: Any further questions? Zaremba: If we move this action forward, it doesn't establish whether either one of you is right or wrong about the property line. Rath: I understand that. Zaremba: It really doesn't have any impact -- Rath: I do understand that. Zaremba: -- o n t he I egality o f t he property I ine. If y ou w ere s aying i t was 5 00 feet wrong, then, we would say, well, their plat probably can't possibly accommodate what they are trying to do, but I think the five feet can be resolved and whether it's in your favor or their favor it doesn't change the merits of their project, I don't think. Rath: And I understand that. Zaremba: And our decision would not have any impact on that legal decision. Rath: Okay. I understand that. You know what? It's like 1:00 in the morning and so you will have to excuse me if I'm just a little -- Rohm: Oh, no. You're fine. Rath: And, of course, I expect the same respect back. Zaremba: No. Well, you're right to bring this up, because we did not know there was such a dispute and we will make that comment when we -- Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 11 S of 119 Rath: I appreciate that. Would you like a copy of the letter that the attorney drew up and a copy of the deed? Zaremba: It wouldn't hurt for the clerk to have it. Borup: Yes. That would be good to have on the record for the clerk. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the applicant has agreed to the condition that the lots on the southeastern boundary, that the -- that this dispute would need to be resolved before the city engineer signed on the final plat. Borup: Okay. You say that applicant has already agreed to that. Powell: Yes. Borup: So, we can make that condition. Okay. Zaremba: And that happens before recording, of course. Borup: Do we -- do we have anyone else that would like to -- come on up, sir. Urkey: Good morning. It is getting late. Martin Urkey. I own the property east of this Stubblefield property and my concern is -- Borup: You own this parcel here, sir? Urkey: Yes. Yes. When I irrigate, all the water comes down to the middle and there is a waste ditch that goes through and, then, dumps into the Five Mile drain. I want to know what their plan is to address that. Then, another issue is my property is a little higher on the east side where the fence is and I have a barbed wire fence. If they are going to build, you know, their fence next to it, because I like to keep the barbed wire to keep from destroying their fence. I will have cattle running on the property. Rohm: It happens a lot. Urkey: Yes. Okay. That's all. Is that -- Zaremba: That applicant, of course, will address those, but the standard procedure is they must continue whatever water delivery or drains. They can't affect what you have had and the fence they would build would probably be on their side, which means both fences could be there. The applicant will give the final answer to that. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else? Thank you. Commissioners? Zaremba: I think we are ready for the -- unless staff has comments. I have asked the only questions I found. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 116 of 119 Borup: Okay. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I was ready to make a motion. Mr. Boyle, final comments. Boyle: Clint Boyle again. Just to address a couple of items. We were made aware of the boundary issue a few days ago, that that was a concern to those property owners immediately east of the site. We will certainly try to get that resolved in a timely manner. I have had personal discussions with the surveyor on the property. He's gone through, rechecked his work, believes that it is accurate, and certainly welcomes these property owners to hire their own surveyor to survey the site and be able to, I guess, compare notes on it, and see how things lay out there. Borup: Do you know whether --did they find any existing pins? Boyle: They did not find existing pins on -- Borup: Because the deed makes reference to an existing pin at this corner about 390 feet from the center of the road. Boyle: The existing pin that they found was in this location here. Borup: Okay. They didn't find this one? Boyle: They did not find the pin there or there. They found a pin here and I don't recall on the others. I would have to look, but I know they found this pin and I'm not sure on the other -- other sides, but they did not find the pin in this location or the other location there. Borup: Okay. Their deed makes reference to a pin here and 10 feet of the canal easement. Boyle: Right. Borup: So, you're not aware of them finding those pins, then? Boyle: No. They did indicate that they had utilized the deeds in preparing the surveys, so that was the information that they used, so as far as the area concern with this subdivision, the area should be the same size. I guess there were questions as to whether or not it was staked out correctly in the field and maybe that will change after another surveyor. They are fairly competent with their survey and where they have staked that, so I certainly don't have a problem working with these owners to get that resolved in a timely manner. As Anna indicated, the condition that prior to the city engineers signing a Final Plat that has those particular lots abutting their property, that that matter would need to be resolved and I think that's a fair condition. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 117 of 119 Borup: Does the survey start from the section line? Is that what it normally -- so, it's part of that section line right there? Boyle: Correct. Yes. It started -- and I don't recall the section corner. I'd have to look at the plat, but that's -- Borup: Southeast corner of Section 35. Boyle: Thirty-five. Right. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: Commission Members, the other comments I heard tonight from the other property owner was with regards to the waste ditch from his site and also fencing. With regards to the waste ditch, yes, we will have to accommodate h is water off the s ite. That will be piped through out site to discharge that wastewater that he has coming off of his existing field and in accordance with state code we will accommodate that wastewater that's coming off of his fields and has historically. With regards to the fencing -- and his comment was on the barbed wire fencing and we are certainly willing to work with him on that, as far as locating the fence, so that he can still have his barbed wire or coming up with something acceptable to him as far as the fencing right on the boundary line. I don't see that there is a big issue there. We can certainly work with them and accommodate what he wants, whether, you know, our fence is located just inside of his barbed wire fence or we come up with some other solution with him, we can certainly do that. If he wants to have us put up a semi private or solid fence on the boundary and, then, run a couple of strands of electric fencing on his side, you know, I mean there is different options that we can certainly look at or we could do the double fence. Borup: But you will work that out with him? Boyle: Yes. We can certainly work with him on that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: As long as he lets the residents feed the horses and cows. Borup: He's probably not that interested. Boyle: If lawn clippings are beneficial to cattle, hey, we could probably come to a real good agreement. Zaremba: There will be plenty. Boyle: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 118 of 119 Borup: Okay. Are we ready far a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearings 17 and 18 be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Okay. Good. Well, I will do the easy ones. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 17 on our agenda AZ 03- 031. Request for a nnexation and zoning of 1 5.04 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc., west of North Linder Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of -- Rohm: Is that West Ustick or East Ustick? Borup: West. Zaremba: I meant to say West Ustick. If I said something different, the correct is West Ustick. This is to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of December 18th, received by the Clerk December 15, 2003. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: M r.Chairman, I move thatwe forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 18 on our agenda, PP 03-037, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 66 single family building lots and two common lots on 15.04 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Windsong Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. West of North Linder Road and north of West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 18th, received by the Clerk December 15, 2003, with the following changes. Under site-specific comments on Page 10, we will add a Condition Number 10 that says the boundary dispute between this property and the neighboring property to the east on the south portion of this property shall be resolved before signature on the Final Plat. On Page 11, general Condition Number 5 should be changed as follows. The first sentence remains and the second sentence is modified to read: A six foot fence, delete the word solid, shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision, which will be either solid or match the perimeter fence of Bridgetower Subdivision and, then, continues, unless the city agrees in writing.. Then, we will add a new sentence to the end of paragraph five that says the applicant will work Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 119 of 119 out with the neighbor to the east on the northern portion of this applicant's property where and how that fence will be built. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you and thank you people for staying. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we adjourn. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:05 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK