March 12, 2007 - notepad

2 GEM COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING 9 Don Wilkerson, J.B., Jim Hutchins, Fred Nussbaumer, Steve 10 Ethington, Brent Jensen, and David Poole 19 Brad Hawkins-Clark - Planning Director, Dena Shaw - 20 Administrative Assistant, and David Hargraves - Prosecuting 23 Items 1 and 2 of the Public Hearing, regarding Meadows at 24 Sandhollow, are verbatim. The rest of the transcript is 5 Item No. 1 - Minor Subdivision Review: 8 C. Little Rock Estates Subdivision .Page 9 11 Item No. 1B - Wills Estates Subdivision .Page 11 13 Item No. 1C - Little Rock Estates Subdivision .Page 12 16 Item No. 1 - (Continued) A Preliminary Planned Unit 17 Development (Meadows at Sandhollow) - David Grundy 20 Item No. 2 - (Continued) A Preliminary Subdivision Plat 21 (Meadows at Sandhollow) - David Grundy .Page 39 24 Steve and Jeanette Mednicoff .Page 66 7 Item No. 5 - A Preliminary Subdivision Plat 8 (River Valley Subdivision) - Teleos Partners .Page 70 11 Item No. 1 - Items from the Public .Page 77 13 Item No. 2 - Items from the Planning Director/Administrator 16 Item No. 3 - Items from the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 19 Item No. 4 - Items from the Planning and Zoning Commission 2 City of Emmett, Gem County, March 12, 2007 4 Consent Agenda - Item No. 1A - Sharp Subdivision 6 MR. DAVID POOLE: The first items on our consent agenda are 7 the Sharp Subdivision, the Wills Estates Subdivision, and Little 8 Rock Estates Subdivision. Have any of you, gentlemen, had any 9 ex parte communication or site visit, conflict of interest in 12 (The Commission answered "no" unanimously to the chairmans 15 MR. DAVID POOLE: Do I have anybody want to pull any of 17 MR. DON WILKERSON: Can we ask a question to the staff 20 MR. DON WILKERSON: On Sharp Subdivision there was a letter 21 received concerning water delivery. To get water to Lot 1 it's 22 going to cross the boundary of lot 4. There's only a 5 foot 23 easement on both sides of the property line. Does this existing 24 dwelling on Lot 1 need to meet setback requirements? 25 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: Yes it does need to meet setback 2 MR. DON WILKERSON: I think a 5 foot easement to maintain 4 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: The plat that I'm showing, note 5 no. 3 does say that the boundary of the subdivision has 10 foot.
6 MR. DON WILKERSON: Yeah but they're bringing that 7 irrigation line east to west between lots 3 and 4 and it's only 8 a 5 foot easement on each side of the boundary line.
9 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: How long is that easement for the 12 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: If they have to replace pipe, that's 13 a long ways to carry 500 feet with any number of pipe. 5 foot 14 is a very minimal amount for an easement.
15 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: It's 5 foot on both sides and both 16 property have the right to go onto the other side. So you 18 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: It can be done.
19 MR. DON WILKERSON: One other general question these are 20 large lots, a lot of them over 5 acres. Are there requirements 22 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: They are being required to do open 23 space if they're in an R-Zone. This is an A-Zone.
24 It's private irrigation main. That's not in an irrigation 25 district. It's private easement. So if they want to widen 2 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: That would be my only concern on that 3 is the access to that underground pipe.
4 MR. DAVID POOLE: If you, gentleman, feel that Brad can 5 manage this, do we need to pull it off the consent agenda? 6 MR. DON WILKERSON: If he can manage that, I don't want to 7 pull it off. I have no reason to pull it off.
8 MR. DAVID POOLE: Do you think that's manageable for you, 10 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: You bet.
12 Consent Agenda - Item No. 1B - Wills Estates Subdivision 14 MR. DON WILKERSON: Have you verified the house setback on 15 Wills Road? It's on a quarter section. Should it be a 40 foot 17 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: It is a quarter section. The 18 ordinance does say that on sections and quarter sections it 19 would be an 80 foot total. The reason that they're showing 35 20 from center instead of 40 was based on the transportation plan, 21 which shows Wills as only needing 70 foot ultimate right-of-way.
22 You can still get a center turn lane and it's relatively flat.
23 So we weren't expecting much cut and fill on Wills. So we 24 thought the 35 would be adequate. There is a section that says 25 if the transportation plan calls out otherwise, then you can go 2 MR. DON WILKERSON: And the house meets setback 4 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: The house does.
5 MR. DON WILKERSON: What about a fire suppression system? 6 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: We sent it to the Fire Department 7 and asked for their comment and we didn't get any.
8 MR. DON WILKERSON: In your staff report here, there's a 9 question about some existing irrigation weir and the applicant 10 has stated he disagrees with the condition that he has to remove 11 it and get a new dedicated right-of-way. Have you resolved that 13 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: Yes. We just had a meeting today 14 with the County Commissioners and had talked about this issue.
15 My initial proposal was to enter into an agreement so that they 16 don't actually have to move it until the road's widened. At 17 this point, the County Commissioners haven't had a consensus 18 decision. They are leaning toward requiring everything be moved 19 out of the right-of-way at the time of the subdivision. So 21 MR. DON WILKERSON: So my thought is if the applicant is 22 not willing to agree with that condition, then this should be 23 tabled until there's an agreement.
24 On the alternative compliance on open space and buffers, 2 MR. DON WILKERSON: In your opinion, you can resolve the 3 issue by removing the weir from the new dedicated road way.
4 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: Well there's nothing for me to 5 resolve. I mean they're either going to have to remove it or 7 MR. DAVID POOLE: It's up to the Gem County Commissioner's 9 MR. DAVID HARGRAVES: I thought I'd just let you know that 10 you can recommend that it go either way and ultimately the Board 11 of County Commissioners decides.
12 MR. J.B.: I'm uncomfortable with the Wills Estates going 13 forward without that stipulation. More and more it's being 14 advocated to require all requirements before the subdivision 16 MR. DON WILKERSON: I make a motion that we pull the Wills 17 Estates Subdivision off of the consent agenda for further 20 MR. DAVID POOLE: It's been moved and seconded that we pull 21 the Wills Estates Subdivision off the consent agenda. Is there 22 any further discussion? If not, those in favor signify by 23 saying I. Opposed same sign. Motion carries.
2 Consent Agenda - Item No. 1C - Little Rock Estates Subdivision 4 MR. DAVID POOLE: Let's proceed with the balance of the 6 MR. DON WILKERSON: They show an easement for the 7 irrigation. Do we need more information on a water system? 8 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: They do have, in their 9 application, a certificate from Enterprise Ditch Company that 10 notes they have two and a quarter shares.
11 MR. DON WILKERSON: So they have two and a quarter shares 13 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: I think that was only one of the 15 MR. DON WILKERSON: Do they have some type of water system 17 MR. J.B.: The Keller report talks about the provisions 18 must be provided. Brad, are those in your control before you 19 proceed? Will that be taken care of? A water system will be 22 MR. DON WILKERSON: If you come to an agreement with the 23 applicant on the access to Lot 4, that you prefer to be off of 24 Little Rock Road versus Dewey Road and you had a letter stating 1 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: Actually, I have not had a chance 3 MR. DON WILKERSON: So do we, as a Commission, want to pull 4 this and make a recommendation that per Brad's staff report that 5 access to Lot 4 come off of Little Rock Road versus Dewey Road? 7 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: You might pull that one and make 9 MR. DON WILKERSON: I make a motion that we pull Little 10 Rock Estates from the consent agenda.
12 MR. DAVID POOLE: Been moved and seconded. Any discussion? 13 All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed same sign.
18 MR. J.B.: I move that we allow the consent agenda with 19 the one item that is left on it, which is the Sharp Subdivision 21 MR. DAVID POOLE: We have a second to that motion? 23 MR. DAVID POOLE: Any discussion on that motion? If not, 24 all those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed same sign.
5 Item No. 1B - Wills Estates Subdivision 7 MR. DAVID POOLE: Let's move to the ones we pulled from the 8 consent agenda. Will's Subdivision. Somebody want to make a 10 MR. DON WILKERSON: I make a motion that we recommend to 11 the County Board of Commissioners that the applicant be required 12 to remove the existing irrigation weir at the south east corner 13 of the property and the barb wire fence along Wills and South 14 Slope Road that will be with in the new public right-of-way that 18 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: I'm sorry that I didn't catch this 19 before you took it off, but the way that the condition is worded 20 is the developer shall remove all private encroachments located 21 within public right-of-way of Wills and South Slope.
22 MR. DAVID POOLE: So therefore it takes care of the 24 MR. DON WILKERSON: I change my motion per what Brad just 25 pointed out. The Board of County Commissioners policy is to 1 require the removal of all 5 encroachments in the private 2 right-of-way as a condition of the plat. I make that motion and 5 MR. DAVID POOLE: Any discussion on that? If not, all 6 those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed same sign. Motion 7 carries to recommend it to the County Commissioners as per staff 12 Items moved from the Consent Agenda - 13 Item No. 1C - Little Rock Estates Subdivision 15 MR. DAVID POOLE: Little Rock Subdivision. Somebody want 17 MR. DON WILKERSON: I make a motion that we recommend to 18 the Board of County Commissioners that access to Lot 4 of the 19 Little Rock Estates Minor Subdivision come off of Little Rock 20 Road via the private 60 foot road and utility easement provided 21 on the plat and not off of Dewey Road.
22 MR. DAVID POOLE: Do we have a second to the motion? 23 MR. J.B.: I believe we also discussed mandating the 24 irrigation system. According to Brad, that was unclear. So I 25 think we need to add that to your motion.
1 MR. DON WILKERSON: I'll add to the motion that the 2 applicant may provide a detailed irrigation system for the 4 MR. J.B.: That motion I will second.
5 MR. DAVID POOLE: Any discussion on the motion? If not, 6 all those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed same sign.
7 Motion carries to recommend it to the County Commissioners as 12 (Verbatim portion of transcription begins.) 14 Public Hearing - Item No. 1 (Continued) A Preliminary Planned 15 Unit Development (Meadows at Sandhollow) - David Grundy 17 MR. DAVID POOLE: We'll move to public hearing. We're 18 going to start with the -- we've got one we've continued for 19 Meadows at the Sandhollow. And it's the PUD, planned unit 20 development, for the Meadows at Sandhollow. And you got 21 anything you want to say on this, Brad, before we start, or 22 should I get Mr. Grundy up here or his -- 23 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: Mr. Chairman.
24 MR. DAVID POOLE: Yeah. Did you have any comments to make 1 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: You know, I do probably have some, 2 but I'm comfortable with that letting them begin. I think one 3 point of order is, do you want to take additional testimony? Do 4 you want it limited to the reason that you continued this 6 MR. DAVID POOLE: Thank you very much. That's a good 7 reason. In fact, you got that list here and we should stick to 8 that, okay? And under the PUD, why don't you read that for us, 9 the reasons, so that those in the audience will understand 10 because we have continued it and it's the reason that we 11 continued and we have to stay within these guidelines to avoid 13 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: Yeah. I'll grab that. There are 14 -- there's two applications on this, the Meadows at Sandhollow.
15 One is the planned unit development, and the other is the 17 You continued the planned unit development primarily for 18 discussion on domestic water supply and requested a test well.
19 They have done that, and they're prepared to provide their 21 And then the second reason had to do with amending the plat 22 and to finalizing conditions. Your first report was a 23 preliminary staff report. And so what you received tonight were 25 I think that the public had probably quite a bit of 1 opportunity to testify on the planned unit development, but I'm 2 not sure that the preliminary plat had as much opportunity. So 3 at least from staff's perspective, the planned unit development, 4 since your just making a decision on principal or not and does 5 not go on to the Board of County Commissioners, that one seems 6 like you could limit testimony on the preliminary plat. There 7 might be enough new issues that were presented in the 8 conditions, that were not a part of the first hearing, that the 9 public did not have access to for the first hearing, and there 10 might be some reasons on the preliminary plat to open it up a 12 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. So now as far as the PUD, what 13 your saying is, we've got the opportunity to make the final 14 decision on that one tonight whether we accept or deny the 17 MR. DAVID POOLE: -- of the PUD. Okay. So under those 18 circumstances, I guess is it Mr. Grundy that's going to bring 19 this information up? Second, do the domestic water supply and 21 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Yes. Thank you. 3506 West Patel Court, 22 Meridian. It was our understanding that it was continued for 23 that purpose. And we did go about and hire SPF Water Engineers, 24 who have Mr. -- Dr. Petrich, who is here tonight, has a 25 presentation on the water supply assessment and the wells that 1 were drilled, and the existing wells that we tested.
3 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: And my understanding, from what Brad 4 just said, is that Doug's comments I assume would then be 6 MR. DAVID POOLE: Yeah. So do you want him to step forward 8 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Please. If you don't mind.
9 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: So, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 11 MR. DAVID POOLE: If you can use the mike, because it's for 12 recording purposes, I would appreciate it.
13 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 14 Commission, I'm passing out two things. I'm passing out a copy 15 of our water assessment. That's the bound copy, bound report.
16 I'm also passing out a copy of the slide, a few of the slides 17 that I'm about to go through. Did everybody get one? Okay.
18 Again my name is Christian Petrich, principal engineer with SPF 19 Water Engineering. And my background in being able to provide a 20 water assessment, is that I'm a registered engineer and 22 Okay. So the components of the water supply assessment 23 that we've done include estimating water demand for 72 homes.
24 We conducted a hydro-geologic review, oversaw the construction 25 of two wells tested, or conducted three aquifer tests, and then 1 estimated potential impacts from pumping.
2 So for domestic uses, we would estimate that on average, 3 each home would be using between 200 to 250 gallons per day.
4 This is based on large scale usage in the treasure valley. I've 5 increased that a bit, recognizing that people would have -- some 6 of the people living here would have horses or other animals.
7 And so the equivalent of production required for domestic uses 8 would be approximately .2 gallons per minute, per day, if 9 averaged over a 24 hour day, or 15 gallons per minute for 72 10 homes averaged on a 24 hour a day basis, 365 days a year.
11 We would anticipate that the irrigation is going to be met 12 by surface water, using Black Canyon water. The property owners 13 have 204 acres of surface water irrigation. Some of the 14 property owners may augment that. The maximum allowable amount 15 of water, it would be 13,000 gallons a day to irrigate no more 16 than one half acre. I've assumed, for the sake of discussion 17 here, that they will be doing that. That would amount to 18 approximately 36 acres of irrigation. And this, if we spread it 19 out over an irrigation season, an aggregate would be 20 approximately 134 gallons per minute. If we combine that with 21 the average, take the average flow rate for domestic uses and 22 for irrigation on a 365 day basis, that would be approximately 23 108 gallons per minute. The aquifer, the geologic materials in 24 this area consist of sand, silt, and clay layers.
2 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: That 108 gallons per minute that's 3 given, is that based on a 24 hour period, or just when they're 5 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: That would be based, if we take -- 6 we're concerned about the long term impact. So over many years, 7 water level decline. And so what I've done here, it would be, 8 take the domestic uses and the irrigation uses -- 9 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: And combine them.
10 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: -- and combine them. Spread them 11 over a year, because that's what I'm going to look at when it 12 comes to evaluating impact. It's the long term impact that 14 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: 108 gallons per minute, times 24 16 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Yes, sir.
20 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: That would be 365 days a year. So 21 the target aquifers are going to be sand zones, ranging from 100 22 to more than 300 feet below ground surface. The geology, or the 23 stratigraphy here in this area consists of sand, silts, and 24 clays. It's the sand zones that are producing the most water, 25 and these would be targeted by individual wells in this area.
1 One of the ways that we can evaluate current conditions is 2 by looking at water levels. We were able to find water level 3 data for these wells that are shown here from the Department of 4 Water Resources. Toward the center of the diagram is the 5 property shown in yellow. If we look at water levels in this 6 area, we see that water levels have been relatively steady since 7 1969, or since the time that we're starting to obtain data. And 8 what this is telling us is that the aquifer has been able to 9 sustain the pumping that occurs in that area, and that has 10 developed in that area over the past several decades. So 11 currently water levels are relatively steady, and this is 12 consistent with ground water levels in my experience in some of 13 these areas, in Canyon County to the south, or even further into 14 Payette County, or in the Payette basin to the north. So for 15 the -- I mean, there may be local fluctuations, but water levels 17 Ground water flow direction s in this area, and if I may 18 I'm going to step up to the board here because this isn't coming 19 through very well, but this is showing a series of contours 20 representing ground water levels. And the surface water divide 21 is up in this area with surface water flowing south. Ground 22 water, represented by these contours, is flowing more or less in 23 a westerly, or north westerly direction here. And this will be 24 -- this is a copy in your report as well as your handouts. But 25 what you can see here is almost a ridge that's formed by ground 1 water mounding, and this is the result of seepage from Black 2 Canyon Canal District surface water. And so it's this surface 3 water that's a major form of recharge in this area.
6 MR. DON WILKERSON: So you mentioned Black Canyon.
8 MR. DON WILKERSON: So it's only recharge rate is only 9 really available during the irrigation season; the maximum 11 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner 12 Wilkerson, yes the recharge is occurring during the canal 13 season, but it's taking -- the recharge doesn't flow away very 14 rapidly. And because that recharge occurs, year in and year 15 out, it -- granted during the irrigation season, but that water 16 is recharging the aquifers. It's migrating, down gradient, on a 18 So we conducted three aquifer tests. And the aquifer tests 19 -- I'm going to step up to the screen again. The aquifer tests 20 consisted of one pair of wells located 31 feet apart. This is 21 an irrigation well. It was tested at a rate of approximately 79 22 gallons per minute. The owners drilled a new domestic well, or 23 drilled a new test well, excuse me, located approximately 90 24 feet from an existing domestic well here. And then there was a 25 single well test done out in this portion of the property. And 1 these locations were selected on the basis of either available 2 wells for monitoring, or site access to the site.
3 MR. DAVID POOLE: Mr. Petrich, before we go much further, 4 the recharge is coming from the Black Canyon, or part of the 5 recharge is coming from the Black Canyon canal; right? 7 MR. DAVID POOLE: Should they submit the canal, what's that 8 going to do to the recharge? Should they stop the flow, the 9 recharge, what's that going to do to the recharge of the 11 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Mr. Commissioner, there's several 12 sources of recharge. One would be the canal seepage itself.
14 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: The other one would be from the 17 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: -- irrigation itself. And so if 18 there were to be -- if the canals were to be lined, it would 19 reduce recharge in some of that area, but this has occurred in 20 other parts of the Treasure Valley. For example, the water 23 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: -- rose 80 to a hundred feet in 24 1912, or following the construction of the canal. Portions of 25 that canal have been lined, but it's still -- those water levels 1 have still maintained at that higher rate.
3 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Despite the increased use.
5 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: So this describes the three pumping 6 tests that were done. The first one, with the irrigation well, 7 was conducted at a rate of 79 gallons per minute; 32 gallons per 8 minute in that first test well; 39 gallons per minute in the 9 second test well. The maximum draw down in the irrigation well 10 was 37 feet, with 8 feet in the monitoring well that was 20 feet 11 away, or excuse me, 30 feet away. Ten feet of draw down in that 12 test well number one, with approximately .2 feet of draw down at 13 the domestic well, and we're uncertain of this just because the 14 change was so small. And then there's 21 feet of draw down in a 15 single test well. We did look at water level changes in those 16 more distant wells that were between 14, 1500 feet away. There 17 was some water level change, but so little change, it's 18 difficult to attribute to the pumping well. So -- 19 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: How much distance -- I'm just 22 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: Between the test number one you're 23 monitoring, and then the actual pumping, how much distance did 25 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: 31. In the irrigation wells it was 2 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: Apart from each other? 3 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Apart from each other.
4 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: Is that the -- I'm naive on this 5 particular subject as far as, you know, what dictates, you know, 6 too much of a draw down. What is normal ones like? What do you 8 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: It could vary. The important part 9 to remember is that water flows from sort of high level to low 10 level, and a well has to create some draw down to have water 13 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: -- that area. So in other words, 14 if you start pumping a well, it's going to form a so called 15 "cone of depression". The water in the well is going to be less 16 than that at some distance away, and that's required to have 17 water flowing in there. If there weren't a difference in 18 gradient, there would be no water flowing.
19 The draw down during pumping can be anywhere, different 20 wells, it could be anywhere from a few feet to well over a 21 hundred feet, depending on the well and the specific conditions.
22 And what we did with this, then we took these data and estimated 23 aquifer parameter values. In other words, estimating the 24 capacity of an aquifer. And we took those values and projected 25 them on, you know, projected a longer test, in essence. And I 1 think that's the important part. So we took the aquifer 2 capacity, or these aquifer parameter values, which ranged from 3 approximately 10 thousand to 30 plus thousand gallons per day, 4 per foot. That's the measure it's been used at. That is a 5 relatively high capacity aquifer. Yes there are higher. There 6 are also many that are substantially lower. We used those 7 values then to project what the pumping, what the effect might 8 be over longer period of time. So we used that value.
9 If we project one individual well, pumping at a rate for 10 365 days per year, recognizing that it cycles over time, but 11 that average rate, the effect at 500 feet away was approximately 12 0.2 feet, and that's excluding any recharge what-so-ever during 13 that 365 days. We also took a -- took or made an estiment of 14 what the aggregate pumping might be from 72 homes, using water 15 for domestic and irrigation purposes, and project ed that onto a 16 hypothetical well in the center of the property. In other 17 words, what would be the effect, the combined effect, of these 18 72 wells? So I took that aggregate rate and projected that onto 19 a hypothetical well in the center of the property and then 20 looked at what the water level change might be, and that's shown 22 So at 365 days of pumping at 108 gallons per minute 23 representing the combined irrigation and domestic at two 24 thousand feet out it was roughly 3.6 feet of draw down. And 25 this is conservative. And it is conservative for two reasons.
1 One is that we measure. We estimate this aquifer capacity based 2 on the thickness that the test wells were drawing water from.
3 It was 10 feet. One well has 10 feet screen. One well has 10 4 feet screen. One well has 15 feet of open interval.
5 In reality, people that are going to be drilling individual 6 wells are going to be spreading those wells over a large area 7 and at different depths. In other words, the capacity of the 8 aquifer in aggregate is greater than what would be seen in just 10 The second reason that this is conservative is because 11 we're excluding any kind of recharge from infiltration from 12 fields or canals in this. So this would be, in my opinion, 13 pretty much a worst case scenario, but this would be the 14 relative impact. And I would submit that 3 or 4 feet is a 15 minimal impact, even at worst, that would occur as a result of 17 And again, I just take you back to the slide, that although 18 it's not very clear here, we can see a substantial mound in this 19 area. Remember that water levels, at least in the wells where 20 we have data, are relatively stable. There are no known 21 problems currently in this area. And so with that, we would 22 conclude that the potential for developing this water supply is 23 very high. That the impacts to existing wells, to neighboring 24 wells, are going to be minimal because of the high aquifer 25 capacity, because of ample recharge in this area, and because of 1 stable water levels. And with that, Commissioners, I'd be happy 2 to answer any questions you might have.
3 MR. DAVID POOLE: Questions for Mr. Petrich.
4 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: That's correct.
5 MR. DON WILKERSON: Don Wilkerson. The irrigation people 6 that have -- actually have irrigation wells, do they have the 7 ability to increase their flow from there; like be able to pump 9 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner 10 Wilkerson, a -- you're referring to like an individual well.
11 MR. DON WILKERSON: Yeah, like this irrigation well that's 12 doing 79 gallons per minute, can they increase it to a hundred 14 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Well, the important part would be 15 the maximum impact over time. In this case, a domestic water 16 right. If somebody chooses they would like to augment their 17 Black Canyon irrigation water with this, the most that they 18 would be able to do would be half an acre of irrigation and 19 13,000 gallons per minute. Could they pump that at a hundred 20 gallons per minute? Yes, but it would only be for a very short 21 duration. In other words, that well would be -- 22 MR. DON WILKERSON: No. I'm just talking the farmers 23 irrigation well. Is this a form of irrigation, well number one? 24 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
25 MR. DON WILKERSON: Does he have the ability to put in a 1 bigger pump and pump more gallons per minute? Does he have more 2 water rights? So if he can go in there and maybe put in a 3 bigger pump and pump more water, what's that going to do to your 5 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Commissioner Wilkerson, the -- I 6 have not looked at the water rights for that Nishitani well.
7 It's my understanding, you know, and Jim Miller and/or the 8 Nishitani's were here, they'd be able to address that. It's my 9 understanding that they're able to irrigate their entire portion 10 of land with what they currently have in that lower -- in that 12 MR. DON WILKERSON: So your assuming that there won't be an 14 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: I'm unaware of any reason that 17 (Inaudible response from an unknown audience member.) 19 MR. DAVID POOLE: We'll ask you a question in a moment, 21 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: I'll defer then on that to 23 MR. DAVID POOLE: All right. Any further questions for 25 MR. CHRISTIAN PETRICH: Thank you.
1 MR. DAVID POOLE: And I guess now, if you will at this 2 point, if you could step up and -- if you could step up, and 3 give us your name and address, and we can ask questions of you.
4 MR. JIM MILLER: Yes. My name is Jim Miller and live at 5 9390 Oasis Road, Caldwell. And regarding that well, we can't -- 6 the biggest pump that's in there is as big as we can put in 8 MR. DAVID POOLE: That's all your rights allow.
9 MR. JIM MILLER: So we can no way up the gallons on that 11 MR. DAVID POOLE: So that's all your rights allow, right? 13 MR. DAVID POOLE: Thank you, sir.
15 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. I guess the next step is the amend 16 of the plat and finalize conditions, and then this situation.
17 Is it something we're saying we want to table until we make that 18 decision? Is that what we're saying? The second, No. 2, amend 19 plat and finalize conditions. These are one of the questions 21 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Well our -- Dave Grundy, 3506 West Patel 22 Court. Our -- if I'm understanding correctly, our continuance 23 last time was on the subject of the preliminary PUD and for the 24 purpose, specifically, of our doing this -- 1 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: -- investigation. The remainder of our 2 comments, and we do have comments in response, and some changes 3 we made in response to the last hearing that might be most 4 appropriately handled as your consideration of the preliminary 6 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Grundy.
7 Okay. So at this point then, it appears, gentlemen, what we 8 have to do is make a determination on the PUD.
9 MR. J.B.: Is this open to any public comment? 10 MR. DAVID POOLE: Yeah. You're right. I do apologize. Is 11 there any public comment in favor of the PUD concerning the 12 domestic water supply situation; the presentation you've already 13 heard? Anyone neutral that wants to make a comment? Opposition 14 that wants to make a comment on this? 16 (Inaudible response from an unknown speaker.) 18 MR. DAVID POOLE: About the water, yes. Okay. Step up, 19 state your name and address please.
20 MR. SHAWN STEWART: My name's Shawn Stuart. I live on El 21 Paso. I guess one, maybe, concern I was just kind of thinking 22 when the gentleman was up here giving presentation is if you 23 approve a PUD like that out there, technically you have to, if 24 another gentleman comes along down the road, you pretty much, if 25 he goes through the hoops, you have to approve it, otherwise you 1 can get in trouble, I mean, in a lot of ways. My concern, I 2 guess, was have they done a study on -- say there was 10 or 20 3 more PUD's to go out there down the road, because you know it's 4 zoned agricultural, which is a 5 acre minimum, but under what I 5 understand reading, if the planned housing development, you go 6 down to 3 acres, which seems like what they did there. So if 7 another person comes along to do that, and you got a bunch of 8 people doing that out there, how's that going to effect the same 9 scenario this gentleman was just talking about? That's 10 something I think you should consider because, you know, I'm 11 fairly new to the area, but I've talked to a lot of people that 12 have lived here a long time, and the growth that has happened 13 out here, and I've seen it where I've come from, the amount of 14 people moving in, sometimes people in your position, and I've 15 been in a planning position before, sometimes we don't think 10, 16 20 years down the road. Because I know I got in a situation 17 before where the planning board before didn't plan 10, 20 years 18 down the road and we dealt with the mess. So.
19 MR. DAVID POOLE: Thank you, Mr. Stuart.
20 MR. SHAWN STEWART: Can I make a recommendation while I got 21 the microphone so I don't waist any more time? I would like a 22 recommendation for you to consider. That far out in Gem County, 23 to either change that zoning on the PUD's, I think it's A-2 or 24 something like that, the zoning when it talks about going down 25 to 3 acres, to maybe when your that far out in Gem County, to 1 not let them do anything less than 5, like the agricultural -- 2 MR. DAVID POOLE: We are discussing the water situation.
6 MR. DAVID POOLE: Thank you, Mr. Stuart.
8 MR. DAVID POOLE: Anybody else that's neutral? Okay. I 10 MR. BRIAN SHARP: I got a comment.
11 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. On the water, right? 14 MR. BRIAN SHARP: Brian Sharp, 7370 Sagebrush Lane. I seen 15 the gentleman address surface water, briefly in regards to the 16 irrigation. It's a problem already with the waste that runs 17 through there; the tail water that runs off the pivots that are 18 currently there. I don't know if that's been addressed 19 properly. How, I mean there's a problem there currently, how 20 that's going to be solved or resolved, or if that's going to go 22 MR. DAVID POOLE: Well that has to be addressed with the 23 engineering, okay? Further on before that can go through the 24 final plat that will have to be addressed, okay? 1 MR. DAVID POOLE: Thank you very much.
2 MR. DON WILKERSON: Can I ask a question? 4 MR. DON WILKERSON: Don Wilkerson. Are your concerns 7 MR. DON WILKERSON: Are your concerns because it's 8 flooding, or excess water you just don't know what to do with, 10 MR. BRIAN SHARP: No. There's a current -- the way it 11 tails down through there right now, the pipe going under the 12 road limits how high it has to back up before it crosses the 15 MR. BRIAN SHARP: And we've experienced flooding.
16 MR. DON WILKERSON: The flooding on the east side of El 21 MR. DON WILKERSON: Is it flooding other peoples' property 23 MR. BRIAN SHARP: Yes. There's a house right there on the 1 MR. BRIAN SHARP: There's a couple places right there that 3 MR. DON WILKERSON: Okay. It is coming off the property 4 that these people are wanting to develop? 6 MR. DON WILKERSON: So if they converted the homes, it may 7 reduce the amount of runoff, wouldn't it? 8 MR. BRIAN SHARP: It -- I don't know. I don't know. I'm 10 MR. DON WILKERSON: Put in roads, and they're going to have 11 to do something with that. I guess I'm going to say they're 12 probably going to eliminate some pivots. So it might reduce 13 that amount of surface water that they're talking about.
14 MR. DAVID POOLE: Well they do have to address the waste 16 MR. DON WILKERSON: They've come out there to address the 18 MR. BRIAN SHARP: But I would think whether you water 40 19 acres at once with a pivot or you water 60 acres individually, 20 you still have a water runoff concern there.
21 MR. DON WILKERSON: But if you use -- maybe use sprinklers 22 in the yard, you're not going to have that much runoff. But I 23 see where your coming from, and like Dave says, it will be 24 addressed in the waste water issue.
25 MR. DAVID POOLE: And I think the applicant may have a, you 3 MR. DAVID POOLE: -- an answer for us. They get to rebut.
6 MR. DAVID POOLE: Thank you very much.
7 MR. DAVID POOLE: Any further comment on the water? If 8 not, then if you would like to address the water situation, the 9 two concerns we had here. For instance, the waste water and 11 MR. J.B.: Only if they want to rebut.
12 MR. DAVID POOLE: Only if they want to rebut. You don't 13 have to, but it's entirely up to you. It might aleve the public 15 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: I'll make the hassle of a rebut then.
16 Dave Grundy, West Patel Court. I know from conversation with 17 Mr. Cooms is here tonight, he has some familiarity with that 18 issue. And if you're desirous of learning more, he'd actually 19 be the gentleman to speak to about that.
20 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. There appears to be no further 21 comment. So we'll close the public hearing on the PUD, bring it 25 MR. J.B.: I'm impressed. We asked him to go out, and when 1 we were at our last meeting, we were practically at the point of 2 approving the concept. And the question came up, should we have 3 a central well or distributed wells and asked him to come up 4 with a report. This is a very sophisticated report. I think 5 it's one of the best ones we've ever seen on this committee, at 6 least since I've been here. In its thoroughness, I learned some 7 things tonight about water and flows, and didn't realize that 8 the underground water was flowing at a different direction, 9 necessarily, then some of the stuff on top.
10 So overall I'm impressed. And since they're still required 11 to get permits for the wells and they'd be put in appropriately, 12 I'm very much in favor as we were two months ago or a month ago, 13 whatever it was, to move forward with the concept and allowing 15 MR. DAVID POOLE: Further comment before we make a 17 MR. DON WILKERSON: Don Wilkerson. On the letter that they 18 presented, they're revision, and we got a new edited copy just a 19 bit ago, item 13, why were the subdivision owners searching 20 about the -- worried about the length of the roads? And it says 21 this is only -- "this is only deleted if the P&Z Commission 22 approves the Final PUD with requested block length exception." 23 Where I read the ordinance, if it's over 750 feet, it requires 24 special approval of the Fire District; is that correct? 1 MR. DON WILKERSON: If it's over a certain length.
2 MR. DAVID POOLE: J.B. Well it's a question too. Was the 4 MR. DON WILKERSON: A question I gave to Brad. To me it 5 looked like we can approve a block length exception, but I think 6 it requires a Highway District, or the Fire District.
7 MR. J.B.: Fire District. And I think the Fire District 9 MR. DAVID POOLE: Well we have a letter from the Fire 12 MR. DON WILKERSON: But the Fire District didn't really say 13 anything about length of roads in the Fire District letter.
14 MR. J.B.: Well we can certainly stipulate that they get 16 MR. DON WILKERSON: Let me see if I have another thing. It 17 looked like there was a couple issues that we need to insert 18 Commission recommendation. On items 30 and items 33 we've been 19 asked to insert Commission recommendations.
20 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: Mr. Chair, can I just ask -- these 21 conditions were intended for the preliminary plat.
22 MR. DAVID POOLE: Rather than the concept? 23 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: Right. I mean, I think that if, 24 Commission Wilkerson, if your using these as sort of discussion 25 points for the concept, then that's one thing but -- 1 MR. DAVID POOLE: They're not a reason to.
2 MR. DON WILKERSON: But these are for the preliminary plat.
3 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: But these were all -- right, for 5 MR. DON WILKERSON: Okay. I apologize. I'll wait until 7 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. Any further discussion on the PUD? 8 Back to, I guess at this point it's the water well information, 9 past the point of what we had from last time, any discussion? 12 MR. BRENT JENSEN: You know the applicant presented his 13 proposal a month ago and we had some concerns. Primarily, you 14 know, one of the big concerns from the public was the effects on 15 ground water. The other public concern was the school bus stop 16 out on El Paso. And I feel that the applicant has addressed 18 MR. DAVID POOLE: Well I think -- was that under the PUD? 19 MR. J.B.: The water is there. Was the bus stop? 20 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. Well our first determination I 21 think we have to do is whether we -- because of the PUD, they're 22 going to get some extra lock changes and so we have to either -- 23 MR. BRENT JENSEN: Yea they're going to get some higher 24 density but they have open space.
25 MR. DAVID POOLE: So as a result, we have to make a 1 determination on the PUD before we move forward.
2 MR. BRENT JENSEN: Well I would support the PUD.
3 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. Any further comment on the PUD or 4 do we need a motion whether to support or not support the PUD? 5 MR. J.B.: Mr. Chairman. Fred, are you going to make a 7 MR. FRED NUSSBAUMER: No. Go ahead.
8 MR. J.B.: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that 10 MR. DAVID POOLE: Do I have a second to that motion? 11 MR. FRED NUSSBAUMER: I second that.
12 MR. DAVID POOLE: Any further discussion? Okay. All those 13 in favor of the concept of the PUD signify by saying 'I'.
15 MR. DON WILKERSON: Don Wilkerson. I'm abstaining from 16 voting because I wasn't here at the previous meeting.
17 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. I think we still have a -- we 18 still have 4 and one abstaintion. So the motion carries.
20 (Other than Mr. Wilkerson abstaining from voting, 1 Public Hearing - Item No. 2 - (Continued) A Preliminary 2 Subdivision Plat (Meadows at Sandhollow) - David Grundy 4 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. I guess, at this point, we need to 5 go to the -- now do we -- as per your -- we're going to go ahead 6 and open the hearing part of this I think is what your 7 recommendation is. At that point we need to make a 8 determination whether to table, to let everything catch up, 9 right? Okay. So now we got the public portion of the 10 preliminary plat for the finalized conditions. So if Mr. Grundy 11 would step forward on this one, item No. 2.
12 MR. J.B.: Mr. Chairman, may I first make a comment to 13 Mr. Grundy? Mr. Grundy, the map that we received tonight has a 14 change on some roads that is not in this. I don't know if 15 you're aware of that. This does not have the road going through 17 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: I was not aware.
18 MR. J.B.: These two maps are different. This I understand 19 is just a water report so it didn't concern me, but just for 20 your information they are different.
21 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Thank you. We may -- as needed, we can 22 update that. I had communicated that prior to making some of 23 these changes. Thank you. And if you don't mind, Doug Bergey 24 of ALS will address the other issues -- 1 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: -- as they've evolved.
2 MR. DAVID POOLE: As far as the amendments go and the plat? 4 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Doug Bergey, 49 Rocky Road, Horseshoe 5 Bend. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'd like to put this up 7 MR. DAVID POOLE: And is there some way to hang it there? 9 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Okay. Again I'm using this landscape 10 plan because it's more illustrated with what I want to 12 At the previous meeting we talked about bus turnarounds, 13 access roads, different driveway configurations. There was an 14 issue with the gas company, location of the line. And Dave has 15 diligently talked to everybody in the world I think about this.
16 You can see it in the letters. In regards -- originally we 17 wanted to have a bus turnaround down here because we recognized 18 a hazard at Oasis and El Paso. We proposed one here, possibly, 20 After conversations, or investigation by Dave and 21 appropriate letters, they would like to have a turn lane right 22 here at El Paso and our road coming into the subdivision. So 23 we're going to propose that on my drawing. I think I hand-drew 24 that in on your landscape plans, trying to get it done last 25 Friday. And the School District really liked that idea of 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Will that be -- will that be 4 MR. DOUG BERGEY: No. This top of the hill is right in 7 MR. DOUG BERGEY: This would be where it flattens out.
8 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So it will be in a flat area, rather than 10 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Yes. We -- what's different on your map 11 and the water report is the addition of this road right here.
12 Originally we didn't have this road connecting to the main road 13 going into the subdivision. So we added that connection. And 14 we reconfigured the common lot through this area. And that 15 resulted in these lots becoming a little bigger.
16 The other major change is the Intermountain Gas 8-inch gas 17 pipeline running right through here. And we reconfigured these 18 lots and obtained the support from Intermountain Gas to maintain 19 the line where it is. And we put it on the back lot line or in 20 the common area, as it may occurred through here. That's the 22 The small changes we made is we added, and these are per 23 Brad's comments too, we added the pedestrian trail down to the 24 picnic area. We rerouted the equestrian. So there isn't to 25 much conflict there. We've added the landscape easement that 1 was requested, here on Lot 12, and along these lots here in 3 We're also proposing another turn lane down here at El Paso 4 and Oasis. It would be a -- the turn lane would be south bound, 5 so you could turn west onto Oasis. And then, of course, have a 6 blinking light up here at the top of the hill. We thought that 7 would mitigate the safety issues that were brought up.
8 There was some talk about the fences. Dave would like me 9 to go over these points. I won't -- over Brad's report I should 10 say. And we have a few suggestions that you -- we would like 12 MR. DAVID POOLE: Item number on those would help us.
13 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Okay. This would be Item 7, "comply with 14 subdivision ordinance 6-1 M1b - avoiding double frontage lots." 15 They were referring to these lots here and here. The biggest 16 issue is the access. We've never intended or shone access off 17 the main road. We've always shown it off the cul-de-sac road.
18 The other issue was this lot right here, Lot 7 in Block 6.
19 MR. BRENT JENSEN: Will that be addressed to the land 21 MR. DAVID POOLE: I think if you got a landscape 24 MR. DAVID POOLE: If you got a landscape easement along the 2 MR. DAVID POOLE: And so that's going to be -- that's 4 MR. BRENT JENSEN: They can't come close at all. Okay.
5 MR. DOUG BERGEY: On this lot, looking at the topography, 6 the logical access to a nice building site is right here. And 7 that logical access is this, from the top. The ground is 8 significantly steep in this area, and it probably be difficult 9 to get a road to wind up to the top to the logical building 10 site. Dave talked to the Fire District, and I think there's a 11 letter in there to the effect that they didn't care whether they 12 came this way or this way, or if there was an outbuilding down 13 here, lower to the cul-de-sac. That didn't seem to bother them, 14 and I think they stated so in their letter.
15 MR. DON WILKERSON: Don Wilkerson. But you're still 16 proposing, possibly, double access to that lot; right? 17 MR. DOUG BERGEY: To this particular lot? Yes. Mostly 18 because the owner that buys Lot 7, he may want to put a corral 19 or outbuilding down here a little. That's Dave's.
20 MR. DAVID POOLE: The size of that lot is, roughly? 21 MR. DOUG BERGEY: That's my old plat. Where is it? It's 24 MR. J.B.: It's steep in the middle, and that's not a 2 MR. J.B.: It's not a major incoming road then? 3 MR. DOUG BERGEY: No. This would be a driveway actually.
5 MR. DOUG BERGEY: And this would be a turnaround for the 7 MR. J.B.: And the other access is also off of a 10 MR. J.B.: Both of them are. No, excuse me, the other end 12 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Yes. This would be -- 13 MR. J.B.: So it's also off of a cul-de-sac. So they're 16 MR. J.B.: -- accessing off of a major road. Okay.
19 MR. DOUG BERGEY: And that's what we seek your blessing on, 21 The next item would be No. 10. Dave has wrote in the 22 language that he would like to you to approve. And the key is, 23 "applicant shall be responsible to make the necessary 24 improvements within the right-of-way." And that's discussing 25 this turn lane right here. I think the thinking was if they 1 widened El Paso to four lanes, then that would wipeout the turn 2 lane, and you might not have right-of-way to build a new turn 3 lane. Whatever the Commissioners decide, we will comply with on 4 there. We don't think they're additional right-of-way is 6 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: I had a question on the turn lane, on 7 the coming off of El Paso there, it would be on the further 8 south or was that north? Would that be going both north and 11 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: No. Up at the top.
12 MR. DOUG BERGEY: No. There'd be one turn lane on the east 13 side of El Paso right before, we're calling that Garden Glen 15 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: And then the shot coming south, 16 that's a pretty flat area there. There's not a safety hazard 17 there at all for those traffic going south? 18 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Traffic hazard would be the steep cut 20 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: Right there then.
21 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Then the design issues of working around 24 MR. DOUG BERGEY: -- and minimizing the cut -- 1 MR. DOUG BERGEY: -- on that, otherwise, steep bank.
3 MR. DOUG BERGEY: In fact, our engineer has already 4 penciled out a rough idea of how it could fit in there but we 5 have not done a design by any means. Next issue.
7 MR. DOUG BERGEY: No. 14. We requested a variance on the 8 length of this road. It was 1,040. And I think the limitation 9 is a thousand feet. There was a lot of discussion at the first 10 meeting about this little road right-of-way here. And Dave, I 11 think, would like to -- from the latest discussion I understand 12 is we would go ahead and improve that on a -- as a gravel 14 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Our preference is not to build it at 15 all. We think that it could be, in fact, a nuisance. A parking 16 lot that doesn't serve, and provided as a future accommodation 17 whenever that eastern property is platted. But the 18 understanding from Brad is that that would not be acceptable.
19 That we either have to provide financial security for it's 20 completion or actually build it. And our current position is 21 that it would be in the best interest of the subdivision to have 22 to go ahead and provide that financial security without that 23 additional cost, so that it wouldn't sit there and deteriorate.
24 MR. DAVID POOLE: So it wouldn't turn into a parking lot is 1 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Or just deteriorate.
3 MR. DOUG BERGEY: If that's it, I guess if you were to 4 consider this bill, then that would definitely -- well this 6 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay, but do you have -- 7 MR. DOUG BERGEY: And we're asking for -- 8 MR. DAVID POOLE: Asking for a variance on that 40 feet.
10 MR. DON WILKERSON: But on your road there that your going 11 to do the financial security on, you would dedicate the 12 right-of-way, just not build it at this time? 15 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Yeah. It would be dedicated right-of-way 17 MR. DON WILKERSON: Before we move on, that's my question 18 about, you want an exception because of the length of the road? 20 MR. DON WILKERSON: Okay a variance. Well it says 21 exception. But when I read the ordinance, once it gets over 750 22 feet it takes approval of the Fire District. Is that incorrect 24 MR. DOUG BERGEY: I think it's -- well.
25 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: What section is that? 1 MR. DON WILKERSON: Let me tell you what I'm looking at 2 here. I'm looking in the ordinance under page 51, requirement 3 for dead end access roads. Chapter 6, page 51. My page 51 4 anyway. Looks like it's section 11-6-3. Something that goes 5 down on provisions. I'm only wondering, but it pretty well 6 dictates -- the zoning pretty well dictates the roads 8 MR. J.B.: Don, mine says special approval. Does yours say 10 MR. DON WILKERSON: Well, but I didn't see much in 66 of 11 the subdivision ordinance that talked about the road, streets.
12 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: It's on page 44 through 47.
13 MR. DON WILKERSON: So does it address anything on the 15 MR. DOUG BERGEY: If it required us to seek the Fire 16 District approval, then I'm certain Dave would meet with them 18 MR. DON WILKERSON: Really all I'm saying, I don't think 19 it's the Commissions' responsibility. I think it's the Fire 21 MR. DOUG BERGEY: If that's the case, we would seek their 22 approval and go with their recommendations.
23 MR. DON WILKERSON: Well I addressed my question.
1 The next item we'd like you to consider, No. 19, "relocate 2 the driveway for Lot 12, Block 1." That's the driveway I talked 3 about earlier. The existing driveway is off Oasis. Dave has 4 always intended and shown the driveway coming from down below.
5 He didn't want any lot access off Oasis.
7 MR. DON WILKERSON: But isn't staff recommending that that 8 access come off of that more south road? I don't know. Your 9 map doesn't have any road names on it.
10 MR. DOUG BERGEY: That's Country Lane Way.
11 MR. DON WILKERSON: Yeah, but I think the staff report 12 requests that access to that lot will come off of north Country 14 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: That is what the staff report 15 said, but what they're showing to me is even better.
16 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. So your not coming off.
17 MR. DON WILKERSON: So your happy? Okay.
18 MR. DAVID POOLE: It's going to alleviate more problems.
19 MR. DON WILKERSON: Has that been approved by the owner of 21 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Dave is the owner of that lot.
22 MR. DON WILKERSON: Okay. That answers the question.
23 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Or will shortly be.
24 The other consideration would be No. 29, "construct a 25 minimum 5-foot tall fence along the shared property" with the 1 Chadwick's. That was a lot of discussion our first meeting.
2 And reluctantly, I talked Dave into building a fence that was 3 suitable to protect them from kids and protect the kids from 4 animals, to put a 4-foot high fence with 36 inches of woven wire 5 and then two strands of barb. Now there's been a lot of talk 6 about whether it should be barbed wire or smooth wire. And I 7 guess what we're asking you to consider is a 4-foot tall fence 9 MR. DAVID POOLE: What kind of livestock are you talking 12 MR. DAVID POOLE: 4 foot, I don't think will do it. Didn't 14 MR. J.B.: And my -- Mr. Chairman.
16 MR. J.B.: My contention, or problem with the fence was not 17 the horses, because I don't care about their horses and whether 18 or not their horses get out, it was the animals getting through, 19 dogs getting through and bothering the neighbors.
21 MR. J.B.: Being more of a nuisance to the livestock. If 22 your horse gets through, that's much easier to address. And I 23 had wanted a some sort of a solid fence, personally, but so the 24 height -- in other words, I don't think our concern necessarily 25 was about the horses, it was small things and children getting 1 through to the others was my concern.
2 MR. DOUG BERGEY: And that's why we chose the woven wire 4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I -- you know, one of the concerns that 5 the people with the horses had was that the barbed wire is not 6 real good for the horses. So in the section that has the horses 7 in it, I would suggest you use smooth wire. You know, that's 8 typical in a horse operation, and it should 5-foot high.
12 MR. BRENT JENSEN: Brent Jensen. I don't think this smooth 13 wire versus barbwire is even an issue. You know, I think -- 14 MR. J.B.: 4 or 5 feet is the issue.
15 MR. BRENT JENSEN: Yeah. I think a 5-foot fence is pretty 18 MR. BRENT JENSEN: -- for a stop fence. Yeah.
19 MR. DAVID POOLE: It's reason oppose to a 5-foot high.
20 MR. BRENT JENSEN: I would recommend barbwire, but I don't 21 think it's an issue. If the land owners want to protect their 22 horses, then they can put a hot wire inside of it.
24 MR. BRENT JENSEN: It's not an issue.
1 MR. J.B.: I got a question to Brent. So if he went 4-foot 2 woven, and then the additional wires went up to 5, or do you 4 MR. BRENT JENSEN: I don't think we need to specify if he 7 MR. BRENT JENSEN: -- woven section.
8 MR. J.B.: Something woven for the small animals.
9 MR. BRENT JENSEN: If he's got a woven section with 2 or 3 12 MR. BRENT JENSEN: That's adequate.
14 MR. BRENT JENSEN: I would think.
15 MR. DON WILKERSON: Mr. Chairman. Don Wilkerson. Minor 16 concern I have in a residential subdivision with barbwire is 17 kids crawling on it and cutting themselves.
18 MR. J.B.: So I think 5 feet is the -- 19 MR. BRENT JENSEN: Yeah, I think we want to stick to 5 22 MR. DAVID POOLE: For the land owners protection I think 25 MR. DAVID POOLE: Simply because of the livestock. David 1 you want to inject something in here, sir? 2 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: If you don't mind, yeah. If you 3 wouldn't mind, since we've gone around and around on this, it 4 would be helpful to us if we did have a very -- I appreciate the 5 5 foot and I'd rather not do 5 foot. I'd like to do four. But 6 we're comfortable doing the five. It would be helpful, if you 7 would, since there tends to be a disagreement, not just here but 8 with the public, etc., if we could resolve what you would like 9 to see on the smooth versus barb. And I'll interject one 10 perspective, which is a kid who's scratched is probably a 11 preference to a kid who's drowned or some such. And that if we 12 want to create a barrier that's somewhat discouraging, that the 13 barbwire is a -- is potentially beneficial, rather than a hazard 14 in and of itself. But having said that, whatever you want 15 basically. But if you wouldn't mind giving us some direction -- 16 MR. DAVID POOLE: Try to be more specific is what your 18 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: We would be more comfortable.
21 MR. J.B.: I just have a hard time on having to stipulate 22 the barbed wire. I don't think that's our concern. I think the 23 height is our concern. We want some woven. Some we don't care.
24 If you went with a solid fence, fine. But I don't think it's 25 our business whether or not it's barbed.
1 MR. BRENT JENSEN: We could say the industry standard is a 2 barbwire with netting fence. Smooth wire is very uncommon 4 MR. DAVID POOLE: That was item No. 29, right? 5 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Yeah, and Dave had another option.
7 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Yeah, but that was just incorporating 10 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: I just recommend, like J.B. said, 13 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: -- 5-foot fence. If they should 14 choose to put a smooth fence up, they will soon learn they'll 16 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay, gentlemen, it's 8:30. Let's don't 18 MR. DON WILKERSON: Mr. Chairman.
20 MR. DON WILKERSON: Dave said about smooth versus barb, the 21 only addition you have to do to it whether it's smooth or 22 barbed, just tie 120 to it, then you'll keep the kids off of it.
23 No matter what it is the kids are going to crawl across it.
24 MR. DOUG BERGEY: One more note on the fence.
2 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Okay. So we're going to have woven wire 3 through this boundary, all the way up to the Chadwick's, into 4 their parcel here. Here we'll propose just a barbwire fence 5 around the whole subdivision and then on the other side of the 6 canal as well, and that's for safety.
7 MR. J.B.: So you're not talking about woven wire in that 11 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Actually, may I? We just got so much to 12 -- pardon me, Doug. We've -- the comment in the staff report 13 there was specific to the, as I read it, the nursery.
15 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: So down there, that was the thought.
16 Then from there we transition, without further direction from 17 you, we would otherwise transition to a 4-foot fence, probably, 18 barbwire run up the side. And then when we got to the canal 19 we'd go back to having a section of woven.
21 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: For the safety of the kids not getting 24 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: -- to the canal.
2 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Except on the north side.
3 MR. J.B.: Exactly. All right. Thank you very much.
4 MR. DON WILKERSON: Question, Mr. Chairman. Don Wilkerson.
5 The section where you're going to the 4-foot fence, what does 8 MR. DON WILKERSON: Okay it's not BLM then? 10 MR. DON WILKERSON: Okay. Thank you.
11 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Next item we'd like you to consider 12 changing -- well I don't know. It's still in the process I 13 think. No. 31, setbacks for the existing house out here on Lot 15 MR. J.B.: We discussed that last time.
16 MR. BRENT JENSEN: Yeah. We're good.
18 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Okay. Final issue, Sandstone Way. It's 19 not labeled, but this is Sandstone Way. And I'm not showing it 20 on any of the maps that I've given you. This just came up with 21 Dave's discussion, the last couple days. He thought since we 22 were providing this connection here, that we could limit this to 23 an emergency ingress/egress for fire trucks, and graveled parts 24 of this road. And if need be, narrow down the right-of-way, 25 which would decrease the lot sizes here and here. That was 2 MR. BRENT JENSEN: So if you did that, how would you do 3 that? I mean, how -- you're going to have a -- if it's 4 available for emergency access and you're not going to have it 5 gated, so how you going to have your residents drive all the way 6 around and not take the shortcut? Just a question.
8 MR. DOUG BERGEY: There's a variety of ways, yeah. To 11 MR. DOUG BERGEY: -- is one way. We would do what ever the 12 Fire District would like us to do, because we don't intend to 14 MR. BRENT JENSEN: They need to be labeled.
16 MR. DOUG BERGEY: Emergency access only -- 21 MR. DOUG BERGEY: We show it right now as a paved road but 23 MR. BRENT JENSEN: So a right-of-way like that would be 24 used as a walking path or a bicycle path. I mean, you'd still 25 have some -- you just wouldn't have the vehicle access, and you 1 wouldn't have as wide an easement.
2 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: It creates a more private neighborhood 5 MR. BRENT JENSEN: I can support that.
6 MR. DON WILKERSON: Access for school kids to get to the 9 MR. DOUG BERGEY: I think that concludes my presentation.
10 MR. DAVID POOLE: We had questions as we went along, but 11 have we got any more questions, gentlemen? 13 MR. DON WILKERSON: Mr. Chairman.
15 MR. DON WILKERSON: It looks like we, as a Commission, need 18 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: Mr. Chairman.
20 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: There might be some advantage to 21 having public comment before you decide on that.
22 MR. DAVID POOLE: Before we make those decisions? Okay.
25 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. Having said that then, I think 1 that we got public comment in favor of these items. Please step 2 forward. None. Public comment that's neutral on these items? 3 Opposition to these items that we've discussed? State your name 4 and address please in the microphone.
5 STEVE CHADWICK: Steve Chadwick, 14421 Oasis Road. On the 6 fence, I would like to see it around the pond there, very 7 definitely 6 foot. It's in that curve right there. There's an 8 irrigation pond there right by it. Because that's got to keep 10 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay, is this the pond you use for 12 STEVE CHADWICK: It's an irrigation pond. The boundary is 13 like, within 15 feet of the pond. I'd like to see a higher 15 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. What kind of kid proof do you 16 think that would need to be, Mr. Chadwick? 17 STEVE CHADWICK: Chain-link would probably be fine.
18 MR. DAVID POOLE: And about what length would that be? Do 20 STEVE CHADWICK: A couple hundred feet would probably solve 22 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. Questions for Mr. Chadwick? 23 STEVE CHADWICK: The other thing that I really didn't 24 understand was the bus stop. 'Cause there's five Middleton 25 buses that turn from Oasis onto El Paso. And I didn't see how 1 that was going to solve our bus stop problem down there exactly.
2 MR. BRENT JENSEN: I think they've addressed that. You 3 know the buses are turning around down there now.
4 STEVE CHADWICK: No, they're going on.
5 MR. BRENT JENSEN: Okay. Those kids won't be going to 7 STEVE CHADWICK: Yeah but there's the Middleton bus stop 8 there, and that's where the problem has been.
9 MR. J.B.: But it's a pre-existing problem though.
11 MR. J.B.: And the impact that this would have, and for 12 buses, they would address for the children that would be -- 13 MR. DAVID POOLE: Within our jurisdiction.
14 MR. J.B.: -- within our jurisdiction.
16 MR. J.B.: They've addressed that.
20 MR. DAVID POOLE: So that needs to be brought before 23 MR. DAVID POOLE: Or canyon county, I guess that is right.
25 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. Any further negative input or 1 input on these items? I think we had about nine items here. If 2 not, any further comment from the applicant? 3 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Does that mean rebuttal? 5 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Okay. Thank you. David Grundy, 3506 6 West Patel Court. To address the comments that Steve made, we 7 did make an effort to work with Middleton Bus District anyway's, 8 and they didn't have much interest. I was able to coax them 9 into writing a letter to say as much, but they didn't have much 10 interest in doing something that was not in their jurisdiction.
11 He did tell me that the only way they could do it would be for 12 residences within their jurisdiction to make a petition or 14 And with respect to the Emmett Bus District, they also have 15 no desire, no interest, in fact, specifically, a disinterest in 16 going down Oasis. And their current regulations don't allow 17 them to enter the subdivision. If we ever go to a four-lane -- 18 he did say that someday they probably would, when the population 19 warranted. But the way it is now, instead of turning down Oasis 20 next year, they would likely just go straight up El Paso. And 21 the turn lane was endorsed by them. They would like to see it 22 but it was not requested, and he specifically told me they 23 didn't need it. That they -- that's what the signs and lights 25 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. And the fence issue, David.
1 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: And the fence, a couple hundred feet of 2 chain link would be fine. I would think that we'd go a bit 3 further and make it a green vinyl chain link so it's not as -- 5 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Yes. And we'd be agreeable to that.
6 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. So any further public -- oh, no 7 we've already had all that. Okay. We got to close the public 9 MR. BRENT JENSEN: One little itty bitty question for the 11 MR. DAVID POOLE: I think we can give you that. Go ahead.
12 MR. BRENT JENSEN: How come you got all the equestrian 13 easements going to the Chadwicks' fence and stopping? 14 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: Oh, pardon me. Referring to the blue 17 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: The rust color line around the perimeter 18 is a loop that goes around the outside.
20 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: The blue lines are improved because of 21 their visibility from those cul-de-sacs. So they would be 24 MR. DAVID GRUNDY: -- of appearance. And the main reason 25 to have them as connection is to break up that long route. If 1 somebody got halfway through and decided they weren't up for it, 5 MR. DAVID POOLE: Thank you. Okay. We'll close the public 6 portion of this hearing now. I think at this point we still 7 need to address those two items that Don brought up. Brad, do 8 you have some comment on those two items, 30 and 33? 9 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: Actually, Chair, I don't. I just 10 inserted -- I think, you know, the Commission needs to make your 11 recommendation on these. So I mean, that's my highlight since 12 there was discussion at the last hearing about the intersection.
13 MR. BRENT JENSEN: I think those have been addressed.
14 MR. J.B.: They have been. And we don't have the power, 16 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. Well the domestic water supply, in 17 that case, we still -- I think we heard that in the water, and 18 we need to make that insertion is what your saying at that 19 point. Okay. And so I think at this point it's probably -- we 20 still need to consider tabling this, I think, for a final.
22 MR. DAVID POOLE: Because we need to let the PUD catch up.
23 It's got to go through the P&Z and come back to us to final; do 25 MR. BRENT JENSEN: And it's recommended by staff? 1 MR. DAVID POOLE: He recommends doing it that way so we 5 MR. J.B.: Where was that recommendation? 6 MR. DAVID POOLE: Right here. And it does make sense, 7 we're just getting ahead of ourselves.
9 MR. DAVID POOLE: Okay. So under those circumstances, I 10 think we need to move forward on some kind of motion here, 11 gentlemen; if its a motion to table or what.
12 MR. J.B.: Is the applicant aware that we were probably 14 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: What was the question.
15 MR. J.B.: Was the applicant aware we were going to table 19 MR. DAVID POOLE: Well it's a suggestion from staff to do 21 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: Right. Well it's your hearing, 23 MR. DAVID POOLE: Our call, but that was the suggestion of 25 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: But the applicant is well aware 1 that this PUD tonight is only a concept only. And they have to 3 MR. DAVID POOLE: And so for us to move forward we need 5 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: They know that they're going to 6 have to come back for that final PUD before you, and the Board 7 of County Commissioners doesn't want to hold a hearing on the 8 preliminary plat without seeing the PUD with it.
10 MR. DAVID POOLE: So put it all together and what -- let it 11 catch up is what your saying. Okay.
12 MR. J.B.: So I move that we table it.
13 MR. DAVID POOLE: Do we have a second.
15 MR. DAVID POOLE: Been moved and seconded that we table 16 Item 2 to let the final of the PUD come so we can put it all 17 together once to go before County Commissioners. Any discussion 18 on that motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying 19 'I'. Opposed same sign. Motion carries.
23 (Verbatim portion of transcription ends.) 1 Public Hearing - Item No. 3 - Rezone #RZ-07-003 4 MR. DAVID POOLE: Any ex parte communications or site 5 visits? Having heard none, does Mr. Mednicoff or his 7 MR. STEVE MEDNICOFF: 2625 North Plaza. We're requesting 8 to rezone from the current A-2 to an R-3. In 1999 we did a 9 rezone from A-2 to R-3. It's 5.03 acres and we're looking to 11 (Mr. Brad Hawkins-Clark showed and explained site photos.) 12 MR. DON WILKERSON: Brad, in the staff report you mentioned 13 that 1.3 acres is non-buildable, which is the canal.
15 MR. DON WILKERSON: If he's going for a 2 acre minimum and 16 he only has a buildable of 3.73, he can't get more than one lot 18 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: That's correct.
19 (There is no public comment in favor, neutral, or against.
20 Therefore, Mr. Chairman closed the public portion and asked for 22 MR. J.B.: I would just want it stipulated that there only 23 be one building available on this lot. It is not a dividable 25 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: I make a motion that we approve this 3 MR. DAVID POOLE: Any further discussion on the motion? If 4 not, all those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed same sign.
9 Public Hearing - Item No. 4 - Variance #VAR-07-001 12 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: This is on the north side of 13 Cherry. It's in the city impact. Last Chance Ditch runs along 15 (Brad showed and explained site photos.) 16 The front setback from the house to the new right-of-way, 17 assuming the Commissioners sign the plat, is going to be less 18 than 30 feet. So what we have is a situation where the existing 19 house is fine and where we have a County Ordinance that says you 20 shall dedicate right-of-way if you're going to plat. We also 21 have an ordinance that says your house has to be 30 feet from 23 David and I have gone back and forth on this as to what 24 procedure you can use. To me, your option is either don't 25 require the right-of-way and if you don't then there's not a 1 problem. I don't think that's wise given Cherry Lane and future 2 connection with Highway 16. That leaves you with taking the 3 right-of-way and you're left with a house that is too close.
4 The only other option is to have them move the house.
5 MR. DON WILKERSON: I think this should be changed to 40 6 feet. That moves the frontage down to 24' 4" to 19' 4".
7 (Mr. David Poole asked the applicant to come forward.) 8 MS. ROBIN NUFFER: 1082 Cherry Lane. I agree with what the 10 MR. DON WILKERSON: Would you have any problems if it went 14 MS. ROBIN NUFFER: I live somewhere else but I rent that 16 (Mr. David Poole asked for input from the public.) 17 MR. ROGER BENNIE: If I'm not mistaken, the City controls 19 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: The Area of City Impact Agreement 20 says the County will use the City Subdivision Ordinance but the 22 (There were no further public comments. The Chairman 24 MR. DON WILKERSON: I think we should be more concerned 25 about the consistency of the road right-of-way then we are about 2 (The rest of the Commissioners agreed with Mr. Wilkerson's 4 MR. BRENT JENSEN: The variance will not transfer. It's 5 only for this existing structure; correct? 7 (Mr. David Hargraves pointed out that the original 8 application for a subdivision from this applicant has already 9 been recommended to the Board of County Commissioners and they 10 will have to make the decision whether to do the 40 foot or the 11 35 foot. This variance will not be going before the Board of 12 County Commissioners. Also, Mr. Hargraves states he doesn't 13 believe Gem County's Zoning Ordinance, variance findings, are 15 MR. BRENT JENSEN: I make a motion to approve this 17 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: I'll second it.
18 MR. DON WILKERSON: I'd like to make an amendment to the 19 motion that we increase the dedicated right-of-way from 35 feet 20 to 40 feet to co-inside with various subdivisions along the same 23 MR. DAVID HARGRAVES: That's not before you tonight. This 24 is a variance. You can't ask for additional right of way. That 25 information can be given to the County Commissioners somehow.
1 MR. DON WILKERSON: I'd like to make an amendment to the 2 motion that we make the setback requirements of 30 feet to 19' 5 MR. DAVID POOLE: Any discussion on the motion as amended? 7 MR. DAVID POOLE: All in favor signify by saying I.
8 Opposed same sign. Motion carries.
12 Public Hearing - Item No. 5 - A Preliminary Subdivision Plat 13 (River Valley Subdivision) - Taleos Partners 15 (The Chairman asked if there has been any site visits or ex 16 parte communications. There is none.) 17 MR. BRAD HAWKINS-CLARK: The applicant is proposing 13 18 buildable lots on 71 acres. It is zoned agriculture, A-2, which 19 is a 5 acre minimum lot size. This property is on the south 20 side of Sales Yard Road. (Brad explained and showed site 21 photos.) There is an existing private road.
22 In the Subdivision Ordinance 6-6-1F, Public and Private 23 Street Improvements 2A, when an official street plan has been 24 adopted, subdivision streets and right-of-way width shall 25 conform to that plan. Minimum right-of-way widths for section 1 and quarter line section streets shall be 80 feet. We do not 2 have an official street plan that's been adopted for this area.
3 So we have been defaulting to the section/quarter section rule.
4 So I think this should probably require a variance or change the 5 plat. There is 80 feet existing but as proposed 20 feet is 7 There is a drain that runs north east to the south west 8 through the property. They are proposing a sub-street to the 9 west at this location for when the property to the west is 10 possibly developed. In the meantime, they would do a temporary 11 cul-de-sac for emergency turn-around.
12 There's also a block length issue on this plat for this 13 cul-de-sac starting from the existing private road and extending 14 down and south. That does exceed 1000 feet. The Fire 15 Department has reviewed that. They do not have an issue with it 16 because of the width can accommodate a full fire truck 17 turn-around as long as there's no parking.
18 (Commissioners discussed the Subdivision Ordinance 20 (Brad showed and explained some site photos.) 21 The applicant is proposing individual well and septic. We 22 have comments from several agencies and those are in your 23 packets. There are some recommended conditions in here, which 24 do not address the issue of the right-of-way on Sales Yard or 25 the section line road. Those might be things to get input from 2 (Mr. David Poole requested that the applicant or their 4 MR. PAT CALWELL: 524 Cleveland Boulevard, Caldwell. We 5 agree with the staff report. We will have individual well and 6 septic. We've met with Southwest District Health and we do meet 8 Irrigation will be provided by pressurized irrigation as 9 shown on the conceptual irrigation plan.
10 All the roads interior will be dedicated public roads, all 12 We have 12 residential lots and 2 common lots. Storm 13 drains will all be retained on site. We'll meet all the 15 As far as the roadways, we are asking for two exceptions.
16 When we first met with staff, we talked about having 80 foot 17 right-of-way coming down the section line. The requirement was 18 only that it would be on the section line. Initially it was 19 going to be 80 feet and when it turned it was going to turn into 20 60 feet. After talking that over with staff, they decided that 21 didn't make a whole lot of sense with this being all developed 22 and having an 80 foot road go right into a 60 foot curve. So we 23 shrunk that down to 60 feet and made a 20 foot common lot that 24 can accommodate some irrigation.
25 The other exception would be the 1600 foot length of Grace 1 Court. According to the staff report, we are under the 2 impression that the maximum length is 1200 feet. We do, 3 obviously, exceed it either way. There will be only seven 4 houses on that cul-de-sac and that's the reason we're asking for 5 that exception. The reason we don't connect out that direction 6 is this property is kind of on an island. It's got ditches on 8 (Mr. Calwell set up a plat map for the Commissioners to see 9 and they discussed the layout of the pressurized irrigation 11 MR. J.B.: You discussed building roads to County 12 standards. Our ordinance calls for an 80 foot right-of-way.
15 (Mr. David Poole opened the meeting for public input.) 16 MR. RICK WELCH: Gem County Fire. We didn't get a chance 17 to address the water issue. We don't have any water supply that 18 I see provided in this subdivision with 12 lots. We'd like to 20 MR. PAT CALWELL: I spoke to Mr. Welch earlier today. He 21 talked about a pipe going down to that southern creek that runs 22 year round with a dry hydrant there. We would be willing to 23 work with the Fire District on any of that.
24 (Mr. Poole closed the public hearing portion and brought it 1 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: I would recommend moving this whole 2 application to next month. Perhaps the applicant may be 3 interested in coming back and applying for a 60 foot variance.
4 I would say that for us to approve this they need to apply for 5 the variance on the 1000 foot road issue.
6 (There was discussion back and forth between the 7 Commissioners regarding whether there was an issue with having 8 enough open space for the subdivision. Don Wilkerson mentioned 9 that the ordinance says there needs to be 5% open space, which 11 MR. DAVID HARGRAVES: That section (page 57, no. 9 and 10) 12 is specific to planned unit condominium subdivisions. That 14 Regarding the variance, I think the applicant would have a 15 hard time qualifying for an exception based on the testimony 16 here tonight. Section 1-12, page 5 of the Subdivision 17 Ordinance. If you look at requirement no. 3, one of the 18 findings the Commission has to make to grant an exception is 19 that because of the shape or topographical conditions, a 20 particular and unnecessary hardship to the owner would result.
21 He's testified here that he wouldn't have a problem sticking to 23 On the length of the street, (1600 foot) you could either 24 put in an access or give the exception.
25 MR. DAVID POOLE: I agree that we need to continue this to 2 MR. DAVID HARGRAVES: The ordinance says anything over 1000 3 feet has to have a secondary access. So you either have to have 5 (It was moved by J.B. to reopen the public hearing to get 6 more information from the applicant. It was seconded by Don 7 Wilkerson and the motion carried unanimously.) 8 MR. PAT CALWELL: One reason we have the 1600 foot road was 9 for the simplicity of the lots. However, if we have a 10 cul-de-sac here and a cul-de-sac here, we meet all the 12 MR. J.B.: Would that still be more than 1600 feet.
13 MR. PAT CALWELL: This cul-de-sac length would be less than 14 the 1200 and then this cul-de-sac length would also be less than 16 MR. DAVID POOLE: So you would have to readjust your plat 17 and we could continue the meeting is what you're saying. I 18 think, at this point, we've go other things we need to address 19 from the County and Fire Department before we can make a 21 (Commission and staff stated that even if the applicant 22 adds a cul-de-sac, it's not the same as adding an access, which 24 (Mr. Poole re-closed the public hearing.) 25 MR. BRENT JENSEN: I move that we continue this application 1 and we specifically want answers to these questions: We want a 2 report from the County Road Department stating a clarification 3 on the setbacks off of Sales Yard Road and a solution to the 80 4 versus 60 feet on the section line portion. We want to see a 5 solution to the fire suppression or fire water supply issues and 6 see that's approved by the Fire District. We want a solution to 7 the length of the roadway (Grace Court).
9 MR. DON WILKERSON: I amend the motion to add the 10 appropriate items on the Keller letter that need to be addressed 13 MR. DAVID POOLE: All those in favor of the amendment by 14 including the items from Keller Associates signify by saying I.
15 Opposed same sign. Motion carries.
19 MR. DAVID POOLE: So we will continue to the next meeting 21 (Mr. Poole stated that was the end of the public hearing, 22 thanked everyone for coming, and invited them to stay for the 1 Regular Meeting - Item No. 1 - Items from the Public 3 (There were no items from the public.) 5 Regular Meeting - Item No. 2 - Items from the Planning 8 (Mr. Brad Hawkins-Clark let the Commissioners know that the 9 Board of County Commissioners and the City Council have drafted 10 bylaws to create a Planning Commission. He then explained the 11 duties of the potential Planning Commission.) 13 Regular Meeting - Item No. 3 - Items from the Deputy District 16 (Mr. David Hargraves had no comments.) 18 Regular Meeting - Item No. 4 - Items from the Planning and 21 (Mr. Don Wilkerson addressed Brad regarding requiring all 22 applicants get letters from applicable districts or any other 23 place before presenting their application before the Board.
24 Brad replied by giving information about the minor subdivision 25 sign off sheet and Rick Welch confirmed that it works well for 1 them. The Commissioners stated they would like a copy of that 2 sign off sheet included in the staff reports.) 4 Regular Meeting - Item No. 5 - Adjourn 6 MR. J.B.: I move that we adjourn.
7 MR. STEVE ETHINGTON: I second that.

Source: http://www.co.gem.id.us/development-services/zoning/minutes/2007/03-12-2007.pdf