►
From YouTube: Ada County P&Z Hearing – July 14, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Start
today's
meeting
with
a
roll
call-
brenda
blittman,
is
here,
commissioner
burch
here,
commissioner
exton
here,
commissioner
wickstrom
is
absent.
Commissioner
brown
here
and
commissioner
coulson.
B
A
And
mr
danielson
we'll
we'll
stand
for
questions.
This
is
an
item
that
was
tabled
from
our
last
meeting.
So
I'll
go
ahead
and
let
you
do
whatever
spiel
you
do
right
now.
C
Zcc
dash
d-a-v
and
you're
tabled
it
to
this
public
hearing
to
allow
for
staff
to
do
revised
findings
to
reflect
your
decisions
decision
at
that
june
23rd
public
hearing.
So
the
findings
have
been
revised
to
reflect
the
commission's
decision
and
I'll
stand
for
end.
The
things
are
ready
for
you
to
sign
to
for
you
to
approve
and
sign
off
on
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
A
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
digging
deeper
into
the
archives
under
number
5-1.
You
identified
a
parcel
that
was
in
that
neighborhood
that
had
been
actually
approved
in
april
of
2020.
So
that's
nice
to
to
see
in
the
minutes.
What
are
there
any
questions
from
any
of
the
commissioners.
A
If
there
are
no
questions,
we'll
go
ahead
and
proceed
to
the
to
the
vote
is
or
a
motion
from
the
commissioners.
Madam
chair,
commissioner
exton.
Since.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Is
there
a
commissioner
that
wants
to
propose
a
motion
for
this
project?
A
Thank
you
very
much.
It's
moved
that
we
recommend
approval
of
this
project
to
the
ada
county
commissioners.
Is
there
a
second
for
that
motion
very.
E
A
It's
been
seconded
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion.
Please
say:
aye
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed,
so
let
the
records
reflect
the
four
commissioners
voted
for
the
motion
and
one
commission
abstained.
Our
next
item
is
202
103209
and
it's
got
a
staff
recommendation
that
we
table
it
until
august
11th.
Is
there
a
motion
from
the
commissioners?
A
B
A
Any
opposed,
please
say
aye
and
let
the
minutes
reflect
that
all
the
commissioners
voted
to
table
the
next
project
august
11th,
2022..
The
third
item
is
two
zero.
Two
two
zero
zero
one.
Two
two
and
the
staff
has
noted
that
that's
been
withdrawn.
So
I'll
just
confirm.
Do
we
need
to
do
any
sort
of
action
on
a
withdrawn
motion?
I'm.
A
Fine,
we'll
just
acknowledge
it
has
been
withdrawn.
Project
number
two:
zero:
two:
two:
zero:
zero;
eight
two
five:
it's
also
been
a
staff
recommendation
and
withdrawn.
So
we'll
just
let
the
minutes
reflect
that
that
project
was
withdrawn.
A
A
G
So,
madam
chair
commissioners,
this
is
a
rezone,
a
development
agreement
and
a
property
boundary
adjustment
to
rezone
18.38
acres
from
the
rural
residential
district
to
the
rural
urban
transition
district,
the
rut
they
are
creating
two
legal
parcels
with
the
five
acre
minimum.
The
property
is
located
at
9,
500
and
95.50
10
mile
road.
G
G
H
I
Don't
mouse
to
drive
my
presentation
at
short,
suite
but
good
evening,
commissioners
for
the
record,
I'm
katie
miller,
bailey
engineering,
1119,
east
state
street
eagle,
idaho,
83616
diana
did
a
great
job.
It's
pretty
simple
application.
The
owners
of
the
property
do
want
to
do
a
property
boundary
adjustment
and
I
almost
feel
like.
I
Can
we
go
to
the
next
slide?
The
application,
the?
What
we're
asking
for
is
in
reverse
order,
so
they
wanted
to
start
with
the
property
boundary
adjustment
which
led
to
the
rezone
from
rural
residential
to
rut,
because
the
boundary
adjustment
that
they
wanted
to
make
was,
over
the
two
point,
two
and
a
half
acre
maximum
that
lies
within
the
rural
residential.
I
Therefore,
we
had
to
go
to
the
rut,
so
the
annexation
or
the
rezone.
Sorry
no
annexation.
The
rezone
is
simply
for
them
to
be
able
to
get
the
property
boundary
adjustment
to
obtain
the
5.89
parcel
that
they
want
to
have
leaving
a
remainder
of
probably
about.
I
think
it's
12.34
acres,
so
that's
that's
kind
of
it.
That's
where
we
stand.
I
The
property
again
is
in
cuna
in
the
county
to
the
north
of
us
is
city
of
cuna
and
to
the
east
of
us
is
city
of
cuna
with
an
r6
medium
density,
residential
zoning
district
to
our
west
and
also
to
our
south
is
still
county
property.
I
So,
oh
just
so
they
make
that
clear
if
you
care
to
look
at
it.
So
the
red
box
that
you
see
is
the
existing
eight
point
or
point.
Eight
nine
acre
parcel
and
the
18
would
be
around
that.
What
they're
asking
for
is
to
do
the
property
boundary
adjustment
which
would
entail
that
yellow
portion
there
so
everything
along
10
mile
and
then
a
little
bit
of
frontage
along
hubbard
on
the
south
boundary
and
then
the
12
acres
would
be
to
the
west
or
to
the
east.
I
There
is
one
there
that's
currently
residing
on
the
eight
micro,
nine
acre
parcel
the
modular
home
will
be
removed
as
a
condition,
because
it's
not
compliant
with
the
property
boundary
adjustment,
and
it
would
make
it
a
legal
parcel
illegal
parcel.
Thank
you
so.
A
Okay,
I
don't
think
we
have
any
questions.
Thank
you.
Is
there
anybody
else
that
would
like
to
talk
about
this
project.
I've
got
a
peach
peterson.
A
Okay,
okay,
any
other
anybody
online.
B
A
A
I
D
It's
all
good,
based
upon
the
findings
of
a
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
contained
here
and
in
the
testimony
from
the
public
hearing.
I
would
like
to
move
to
recommend
approval
of
project
202200910.
A
D
I'm
sure
one
thing
I
just
really
appreciate
is:
it
seems
like
a
very
straightforward
and
also
well
thought
out
application.
You
know
getting
it
all
into
compliance
at
the
same
time
with
what
they
want
to
do
kind
of
in
one
foul
swoop.
So
I
appreciate
that.
Thank.
A
A
And
I
see
that
we've
got
gary
lee
on
webex
when
and
he's
the
applicant
he's
representing
the
applicant
correct.
Okay,.
C
Is
a
conditional
use,
master
site
plan
application
for
a
gravel
pit?
The
property
is
located
at
84
45
west
mile
creek
road
and
contains
approximately
80
acres
in
the
rural
preservation
district.
The
subject
property
is
bisected
by
west
10
mill,
creek
road.
The
gravel
pit
is
on
the
north
side
of
the
property
of
the
on
the
north
side
of
the
road.
Excuse
me,
the
surrounding
area
includes
blm
range
line
to
the
north
and
east
agricultural
land
to
the
south
and
west,
and
also
rangeland
to
the
west
as
well.
C
C
Therefore,
the
applicant
has
applied
for
a
new
conditional
use
of
mass
recycling
application
to
continue
the
operation
of
the
gravel
pit.
Approximately
60
to
70
percent
of
the
extraction
has
already
occurred
on
the
gravel
pit.
The
iowa
department
of
lands
has
an
approved
reclamation
plan
for
the
pit.
C
C
The
waiver
of
landscaping
requirements
was
granted
through
the
the
previous
master
site
plan
for
the
gravel
pit
staff
finds
that
the
that
waiver
of
the
landscaping
requirements
is
still
warranted
because
the
reclamation
plan
will
require
for
the
gravel
pit
to
be
re-vegetated
and
the
gravel
pit
is
not
an
irrigation
district
or
has
irrigation
water
rights.
C
None
of
the
neighboring
property
owners
have
provide
comments
on
this
application.
There
are
no
agency
objections
to
the
project
as
well.
Staff
is
recommending
for
this
application
to
be
approved
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
and
finds
that
the
application
complies
with
a
county
code
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
D
Was
wondering
if
you
could
address
the
question
in
the
late
exhibit
exhibit
number
30
about
condition
29
with
the
meandering
edge.
It
seemed
like
there
was
just
kind
of
that
little
bit
of
confusion
on
what
the
meandering
edge
was
related
to.
C
So,
with
a
specific
use
standards
for
a
gravel
pit,
if
you,
if
the
pit
is
going
to
be
reclaimed
back
as
a
pond,
then
you'd
have
to
have
a
random
miranda
edge.
So,
in
the
case
of
this
pit
right
here,
this
pit's
not
going
to
be
become
a
pawn,
and
so
with
condition
of
a
pearl
number
29
could
be
taken
away
because
there
is
not
going
to
be
a
pond
on
the
property.
Okay.
Thank
you.
A
H
H
Well,
she's
been
working
with
kelly
over
the
last
20
years
on
the
operation
and
I
think
she's
she's
happy
with
the
way
things
are
going.
She
didn't
really
have
any
negative
comments.
A
A
Shaking
heads
no
questions,
mr
lee,
if
you
have
any
more
comments
you
want
to
give
us
now
would
be
the
time
to
to
give
them
to
us.
A
E
Based
upon
the
findings
and
fact
and
conclusions
law
contained
here
in
this
testimony
from
the
public
hearing,
but
the
commission
approves
project
two
zero:
two:
two:
zero
one:
zero:
three:
three
c:
u
msp,
subject
to
the
conditions:
approval
attached
in
the
exhibit
a
and
master
site
plan
dated
august
24th,
2001.
D
A
A
Okay,
anybody
else,
so
I'm
going
to
call
for
the
vote,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
all
those
opposed,
please
let
us
know
so
the
minutes
reflect
that
all
five
commissioners
voted
for
this
project
approval.
Thank
you
very
much
and
we'll
now
move
on
to
the
next
item,
which
are
the
minutes
and
I'm
gonna
to
point
out
that
I
I
read
the
minutes
and
where
it
talks
about
clark
world
llp,
that's
the
correct
project
number,
but
the
description
is
a
little
bit
different.
F
Yeah,
chairman
commissions,
we'll
replace
it
with
the
agenda
description
from
the
june
23rd.
I
think
that
was
just
a
simple
typo.
Oh.
A
And
you
know
what
we're
trying
to
get
up
from
the
last
time
to
this
time,
so
I
I
get
it
so
so
I
looked
at
the
commissioners
for
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes.
Madam.
D
A
Burch,
it's
been
moved
and
seconded
to
approve
the
minutes,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
and
let
the
minutes
reflect
that
four
commissioners
voted
for
the
minutes
and
one
commissioner
abstained
and
is
there
anybody
that's
objecting
to
the
minutes,
so
I
think
we're
done
woo.
So
now
we
want
to
hear
the
really
cool
stuff
that
happened
at
the
border
county
commissioners.
E
F
To
go,
you
know.
Obviously,
this
agenda
today
could
have
been
a
lot
busier.
We
had
several
items
tabled
or
withdrawn,
but
yeah
in
terms
of
what
happened
with
the
board
last
night.
Again,
several
items
tabled
there
too.
That
seems
to
be
kind
of
the
move
these
days,
but
so
there
were
six
total
items,
three
on
unfinished
business.
One
was
a
subdivision
private
road
and
easement
vacation
out
off
of
victory
road
that
was
tabled
for
some
additional
work
needed
by
the
developer,
to
figure
out
some
stuff
with
a
existing
residential
neighborhood
to
the
east.
F
That
has
a
drain
field
that
impacts
their
property.
This
is
that
calla
lily
subdivision.
I
don't
know
if
you
recall
that
one
yeah
they're
still
figuring
out
what
to
do
with
that
drain
field
and
septic.
For
the
project
item
number
two
was
a
cell
tower
appeal.
This
was
the
cell
tower
on
beacon
light
road.
If
you
recall
there
was
a
silo
facility,
I
believe
it
was
to
the
west
of
the
proposed
project
that
was
going
to
come
down
and
create
a
gap
in
coverage,
so
you
approved
it.
F
F
They
want
they're,
actually
requesting
staff
to
hire
a
third
party
consultant
to
verify
the
propagation
studies
that
were
included
in
the
application
make
sure
they
understand.
What's
going
on
there,
that's
actually
been
something
that
the
board's
been
asking
staff
to
work
on,
we've
been
preparing
some
recommendations,
potentially
for
an
update
to
our
ordinance
or
an
update
to
our
application
submittals
so
that
we
can
get
them
additional
information.
But
this
one
kind
of
brought
all
that
to
a
head
and
so
they're
asking
us
to
go
hire
a
third
party
consultant
to
review
those
propagation
studies.
F
There
are
also
some
other
questions
about
lost
property
value,
potential
sighting
of
the
project
on
blm
land.
Some
in-depth
questions
about
the
telekinesi
telecommunications
act
of
1996..
So
there
will
be
multiple
staff
members,
including
our
legal
team
involved,
with
kind
of
getting
some
more
information
for
the
board
over
the
next
60
days.
But
mid-september
is
when
they're
gonna
hear
that
one
again,
do
you
have
any
questions
on
that
one?
Before
I
move
on
to
less
exciting
items,
I
guess.
F
Okay,
there
was
also
a
apartment
project
which
involved
a
zone
change
development
agreement,
master
site
plan
vacation.
This
was
that
matrix
construction
project
that
you
all
saw
on
cloverdale
road,
a
while
back
that
was
tabled
due
to
some
ada
county
highway
district
comments
that
came
in
past
the
11th
hour.
Personally,
from
my
opinion,
that
kind
of
are
jamming
up
that
developer
a
little
bit
so
he's
pausing
for
30
days
to
go
work
out
things
with
them
that
one
was
tabled
last
night
as
well.
F
There
was
this:
was
the
loan
item
approved
and
signed
last
night?
This
was
a
vacation
for
an
accessory
structure.
There
was
an
easement
on
a
property,
a
10-foot
utility
easement
that
a
structure
had
been
built
into.
They
came
to
our
office
for
a
building
permit
somewhere
else.
This
was
discovered
and
the
process
to
resolve
that
is
to
vacate
that
easement.
So
that
was
successfully
done.
That
was
off
of
venture
place.
F
Next
item
was
a
building
permit
zoning
certificate
denial,
it's
kind
of
a
unique
situation.
You
guys
never
see
these,
because
all
appeals
go
straight
to
the
board,
but
a
gentleman
had
a
substandard
lot
in
the
rp
zone.
Typically,
those
were
40
acre
parcels.
He
had
a
20
acre
parcel
lots
of
research
went
into
it.
Basically,
the
parcel
was
created
illegally
back
in
1983,
unfortunately
by
his
relatives,
and
he
inherited
the
property
and
was
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
make
it
buildable,
and
so
he
was
denied
a
building.
F
Permit
and
part
of
that
process
is
a
zoning
certificate
as
well,
and
so
anybody
can
appeal
those
staff
decisions
and
so
that
staff
decision
was
appealed
staff.
This
was
my
project
and
I'll
kind
of
jokingly,
say
it's.
The
first
project
I've
recommended
denial
for
here
at
the
county.
Since
I've
been
working
here,
I
recommend
the
denial
the
board
opted
to
overturn
it
and
approve
it.
So
now
he
has
a
building
permit
and
can
move
forward.
F
We've
done
that
a
few
times
over
the
history
of
the
county,
and
so
that
was
just
another
example
of
that
and
then
finally,
there
was
the
apartment
project
on
maple,
grove
and
lake
hazel
that
you
guys
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
the
board
heard
that
last
night
and
we
only
had
a
few
members
of
the
public
there.
This
time
raised
similar
concerns.
F
The
board
was
relatively
supportive
of
the
project.
However,
they
did
have
outstanding
questions
about
ada
county
highway
districts,
probably
the
major
thing
being
that
cross-access
that
they
were
recommending
we
put
on
the
project.
I
think
our
board
interpreted
that
as
they
had
to
put
cross-access
on
the
parcel
they
don't.
That's
always
the
land
use
jurisdictions,
authority
so
anyways.
That
was
one
outstanding
question
and
then
there
was
another
outstanding
question
as
to
when
that
roundabout
was
going
to
be
built.
F
So
they've
tabled
it
for
30
days
for
brent
to
go,
get
that
info
and
come
back,
so
poor
brent
has
been
riding
that
horse
for
a
long
time.
So
hopefully,
this
next
meeting
will
be
the
last
meeting,
whatever
the
decision
is,
but
yeah
that
was,
that
was
the
hearing
last
night.
So
any
so
questions
looking
at
favor.
E
And
that
approval
to
let
all
those
people
go
through
the
subdivision
to.
F
No,
no,
that
wasn't
the
proposal.
The
proposal
was
to
take
access
to
maple
grove
yeah.
No,
they
recognized
the
issue
with
letting
that
traffic
funnel
through
that
residential
neighborhood.
Despite
that
being
a
chd
policy
to
require
a
development
to
take
access
off
of
the
lower
capacity
roadway,
which
is
what
you
know
that
oboe
avenue
would
have
been
so
no,
it's
all
going
to
go
out
to
maple
grove,
but
yeah.
E
Time
kicking
around,
they
split
the
when
they
came
back
the
second
time
they
came
in
first
with
the
parcel
as
one
then
they
said
they
were
just
gonna,
buy
the
south
parcel
and
not
the
north
parcel
and
but
they'll
end
up
buying
the
north
parcel,
because
they're
gonna
and
then
they're
gonna
grant
themselves
cross
access
to
it.
So.
F
Yeah,
it
was
a
22
project
reduced
down
to
12
units.
It's
got
some
weird
things
going
on:
there's
a
sewer,
only
one
sewer
connection
allowed
for
that
southern
parcel.
So
the
northern
parcel
I
mean
I
whatever
happens
with
that.
Northern
parcel
is
interesting
because
whoever
buys
that's
got
a
lot
of
things
to
figure
out
so
anyways.
That
was
that
was
the
hearing
and
we'll
see
you
guys
in
two
weeks.
F
I'm
sorry
I
wish
it
was
a
month,
but
yeah
we'll
see
you
guys
in
two
weeks,
hopefully
as
quick
as
this
meeting,
probably
not
but
but
yeah.
That's.
F
Thank
you
and
you,
chris
brown
you're
here
next
two
weeks.