Minutes - 2019 - Planning & Zoning - 11/04/2019 - RegularTHE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
November 4, 2019
Minutes
CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: WRIGHT, GUERBER, JOHNSON, MCLAUGHLIN, and SMITH. A
quorum is present.
ALL CONSENTAGENDA ITEMS ARE ACTION ITEMS. CONSENT AGENDA:
♦ Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There
will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Chairman, a Commissioner, member
of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in
a sequence determined by the Rules of Order.
♦ Any item on the Consent Agenda that contains written recommendations from the City of
Eagle shall be adopted as part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Consent Agenda
approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise.
A. Minutes of October 7, 2019.
McLaughlin moves to approve the consent agenda item as presented. Seconded by Guerber.
ALL AYES... MOTION CARRIES.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. ACTION ITEM: ZOA-03-19 — Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
Ordinance 820 — City of Eagle: An ordinance of the City of Eagle, Ada County Idaho,
amending Title 6 "Public Ways and Property", Chapter 7, Section 6, and amending Title 8
"Zoning", Chapters 1, 2 & Article 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and amending Title 9 "Land
Subdivisions", Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; providing a severability clause; and providing an
effective date.
Zoning Administrator, Bill Vaughan, provides a detailed overview of the application.
Vaughan responds to questions from the Commission.
Chairwoman Johnson opens the Public Hearing.
Craig Kvamme, 1026 West Two Rivers Lane. Kvamme expresses concerns regarding
requirements for tree removal in subdivision common areas. Kvamme inquires about who will be
approving tree removal applications, what is the evaluation criteria for tree removal, how timely
will be the processing be, what will happen in emergency situations, how will this process and
requirement be funded, and what value does this add to the community, and requests that
"subdivision common area" be struck from the requirements.
Nancy Soares, 1016 South Arbor Island Way. Soares comments about the amount of time and
effort required to implement a review of every tree proposed to be removed.
Rene Palafox, 63 South Baxter Way. Palafox states that he does not feel that 500 -feet is sufficient
for notice requirements and feels 1 -mile would be more sufficient. Palafox also states concerns
about the tree removal and City Code superseding CC&Rs. Palafox expresses concerns about the
amount of time that citizens have to provide input throughout processes.
Page 1 of 4
KAP&Z\MIN UTES\2019\PZ-11-04-19m in.doc
Palafox responds to questions from the Commission.
Steve Weston, 6126 West Piaffe Court. Weston references the written commentary provided to
the Commission earlier in the evening and states that if public hearing agendas and packets are
not available more than five days ahead of public meetings, citizens are unable to provide written
comments in accordance with the timelines outlined in City Code. Weston expresses concerns
regarding homeowners' association requirements, the parking of recreational vehicles, and public
hearing notice requirements.
Christie Weston, 6126 West Piaffe Court. Weston states concerns about the resources required for
the enforcement of the tree removal requirements, requests clarification regarding the recreational
vehicle parking requirements, and expresses concerns about homeless people.
Debra Mayhew, 1840 West Woodvalley Street. Mayhew states that she feels that subdivision
common areas should be removed from the code section related to tree removal, states concerns
about the 60 -day period outlined under the reconsideration portion, inquires about timelines for a
second reconsideration, inquires as to the removal of the 6" x 6" map requirement from the
posted notice section, and inquires about the removal of handicap parking requirements.
Mark Peterson, 1228 South Arbor Island Place. Peterson inquires as to the purpose of the zoning
ordinance amendment, and expresses concerns about the subdivision common areas being
included in the tree removal section.
Scott Keene, 567 West Two Rivers Drive. Keene expresses concerns with bureaucracy and
explains his experience removing trees from his property.
Keene responds to questions from the Commission.
Jim Lamping, 1352 North Luge Avenue. Lamping expresses concerns about subdivision common
areas included in the tree removal section, feels that it is intrusive, and offers commentary about
opportunities for citizens to provide commentary.
Rene Palafox, 63 South Baxter Way. Palafox states that he believes there is a better way than the
current opportunities to engage the City Council.
Commissioner Guerber provides commentary regarding subdivision approvals, landscaping
requirements, and the history of both in the City of Eagle.
Zoning Administrator, Bill Vaughan, provides clarification and rebuttal, and addresses concerns
raised during public testimony.
Vaughan responds to questions from the Commission.
Chairwoman Johnson closes the Public Hearing.
General discussion amongst the Commission.
Commissioner Guerber: First, motion would be the we direct staff to create some specific
guidelines on how HOAs would interact with the City in wanting to take action as far as the
removal of the trees in the common.area, but I would propose leaving that reference to
common area with the change proposed in place. I suspect probably in most cases there's
some kind of a plan in place that says, "Okay, here are trees we're going to be taken out"
instead of just doing it one little bit at a time, and if there's some kind of overall plan in
place about what trees are going to be affected, I suspect if it came in and under these
guidelines, Staff looked at it, everything would proceed without any kind of a problem. I'd
like Staff to take a look and see if caliper or other guidelines might be included in there. I
agree also with the need to include language as proposed: "Such vehicles shall be
operational and shall not be occupied for any period of time. Non -operational vehicles must
Page 2 of 4
KAP &Z\M I N UT E S\2019\PZ-11-04-19m i n. doc
be removed from the property", and I think those suggestions are in three different places
in Mr. Weston's letter. I think with some of the clarification that we received from Mr.
Vaughan, there are things in here that I think do make sense. I think we need to strike
section 3 on page 8, C-3 I guess it would be.
There were some suggestions in here about homeowners associations and things like that,
and I think elsewhere in the code it pretty much spells out what the rights and
responsibilities are of the HOAs and what falls under the City's purview.
There was a section on page 4 of Mr. Weston's letter that talked about permitting
information as far as singular driveways that can't be provided due to either the lot
configuration or whatever, and I think the mention in regard to both side streets and streets
in front clarifies that.
I don't think there's anything that we really need to insert anything in here in regard to
homelessness. I think we first started dealing with that as I recall back in the 80's when we
had some campers down just off the Boise River, just off the north channel bridge there,
and we passed some guidelines that had to do with periods of camping. In fact, I'm not sure
we allowed overnight camping because of that, and it has been added to other areas where
you might see people wanting to camp out or something like that. At least to my knowledge,
we haven't had a problem with homelessness, and I think we just need to keep our eyes
open. We do have law enforcement that responds very quickly if we've got people who are
causing problems from the standpoint of wanting to camp out on somebody's property or a
vacant lot or the street or something like that, so I don't see a reason to add that into it.
Chairwoman Johnson requests clarification regarding the motion.
Commissioner Guerber: My recommendation was to have staff create the guidelines
separate from this piece here and go ahead an incorporate the changes proposed as far as
the continued oversight of the areas that the City has had oversight of in the past.
Chairwoman Johnson: Are you recommending for approval with the proposed changes,
and additionally, to have staff develop standards?
Commissioner Guerber: Yes, and I don't know if I need two different proposals saying
"Staff will do this" and then a motion to pass this with the changes suggested, or if it can all
be done as one motion.
Zoning Administrator, Bill Vaughan, provides input regarding the process for the proposed
motion.
Commissioner Guerber: Yes, those changes would come with a different ordinance or an
amendment to this ordinance that may or may not be passed at the Council, whichever way
is easiest for the Staff to do it. But I'm talking about having a separate piece that deals with
communication and interaction between HOAs and others in regard to the removal of trees
as something separate from what we're looking at tonight.
Vaughan requests clarification.
McLaughlin requests clarification regarding the occupation of vehicles.
Chairwoman Johnson restates the motion: So you're proposing to recommend for approval
the ordinance with the changes of striking out on page 8, striking our item C-3; with adding
on page 8 also, under subparagraph 3, adding "such vehicles shall be operational and shall
not be occupied."
Commissioner Guerber: And adding to section 12, page 7 of 19, the wording in regard to
occupancy of vehicles, as well as on page 8 of 19 in subparagraph 3 and subparagraph 4.
Page 3 of 4
KAP&Z\M I N UTE S\2019\PZ-11-04-19m i n. d oc
Chairwoman Johnson: And also on page 15 of 19, Item J — "this provision shall be
permissible only upon proof that singular driveways cannot be provided due to either the
lot configuration or land topography." But then we're still back to the trees.
Commissioner Guerber: Yes.
Chairwoman Johnson: I'm just unclear on tree issue and how we address that as part of a
motion.
Commissioner Guerber: As proposed in here, wording that makes reference to "entrance
into subdivisions" would now become the same wording as exists elsewhere and would be
changed to that so that the whole code has the same.
Separately, then we need to set guidelines to clarify how interaction would take place at the
time that trees are being proposed to be removed.
Discussion.
Seconded by McLaughlin.
Discussion.
ALL AYES... MOTION CARRIES.
6. NEW BUSINESS: NONE.
7. REPORTS:
A. Commission: Commissioner Smith provides commentary regarding the number of residents
who participate in the public hearing process. Commissioner McLaughlin recommends that
residents check the City's website for meeting dates, sign up for email agendas, and attend
meetings to remain informed.
B. City Attorney: None.
C. Staff: None.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Guerber moves to adjourn. Seconded by Johnson. ALL AYES... MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
KRISA D. CARON,
CLERK OF THE MEETING
APPROVED:
TRENT WRIGH
CHAIRMAN
AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT
W W W.CITYOFEAGLE.ORG.
Page 4 of 4
K:\P&Z\MI N UTES\2019\PZ-11-04-19m in.doc
CITY OF EAGLE - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
November 4, 2019
ZOA-03-19 — Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Ordinance 8201 — City of Eagle: An
ordinance of the City of Eagle, Ada County Idaho, amending Title 6 "Public Ways and Property", Chapter 7,
Section 6, and amending Title 8 "Zoning", Chapters 1, 2 & Article 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and amending Title 9
"Land Subdivisions", Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON
�
j � � � �`�:� . Yw,.! � °r� ,� .,•,fir.-�� '"'�'
R
i.
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF FAGLE
NOV 0 4 2019
COMMENTS TO DRAFT ORDINANCE 820 File!
Raufa fo: "-
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 11/04/2019
Comments by Steve Weston, 6126 W. Piaffe Ct., Eagle ID
Section 1: Title 6, Chapter 7, Section 6 Parks Committee, Removal of Trees
Page 1 of 19:
Removal of Trees — There is a desire to strike out entrance to subdivision and replace
with subdivision common area. This is an overreach to say the least. The language for
this subsection must remain as is, "entrance to a subdivision." At this time, I do not
believe that the City has the staffing to add one more application submittal process.
Leave as is at the committee level. If the subdivision has a recorded Community
Charter, CCR's or the legal equivalent then the HOA is the lead on anything interior.
Therefore, the following language must be inserted. Tree removal and/or replacement
within the legal boundaries of a subdivision shall be controlled by that subdivision's
recorded Community Charter or CCR's or the legal equivalent thereof.
Section 2: Title 8, Chapter 1, Section 2 Definitions
Page 1 of 19:
ACCESSORY STORAGE BUILDING — Whenever this term is used within the City Code
there needs to be clarifying language that protects existing and future developments.
Include language that allows current or future Homeowner's Associations with recorded
Community Charters or CCR's or the legal equivalent to place more restrictive conditions
or definitions upon their respective associations.
Page 2 of 19:
ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE — To protect existing and future HOA's please include
language that allows Homeowner Associations with recorded Community Charters, CCR's
or the legal equivalent to place more restrictive conditions or definitions upon their
respective associations.
OFFICES, MEDICAL, AND DENTAL — The strike out and new language seems acceptable.
However, there is no provision in the new suggested language for a medical facility that
provides "sleep studies" to determine if an individual has sleep apnea. This study may
require an overnight stay. Language should be included to provide for this type of
professional service.
Page 3 of 19:
PERSONAL IMPROVEMENT — You have stricken "riding academies" and "trade schools"
from this heading. Please explain the rationale for them being stricken. I believe there
is a place for both to remain under this heading. Here locally in Eagle we have
Page 1 of 4
Dreamhaven Ranch, which helps kids with disabilities. Let's give businesses such as this
a place under Personal Improvement.
Section 5: Title 8. Chanter 2A. Section 1 Desian Review Overlav District
Page 5 of 19:
Under GENERAL APPLICABILITY of the Code you have added the following language:
"Design Review aDDlications for a change in paint color are subiect to review and
approval by the City..." The following language must be added to this section: "Except
when such property is within an HOA having a recorded Community Charter, CCR's or
the legal equivalent, that has their own design review process."
Section 12: Title 8. ChaDter3. Section 2 SuDDlemental General Provisions
Page 7 of 19:
C. Parking And Storing Of Certain Vehicles:
Page 8 of 19:
Sub Paragraph 2: Add the following clarifying language — "Such vehicles shall not
be occupied for any period. This provision is for the purpose of loading and
unloading such vehicle."
Sub Paragraph 3: You have a time restriction of "seventy two (72) consecutive
hours on any DroDerty" but the wording then allows for a longer period of time if
"the owner/lease of the property is the same as the recreational vehicle or
Dersonal recreation item." Absolutely not, as this language would allow for an
extensive time for vehicle storage, with no time limit. At the very least add the
following language, "Such vehicles shall he operational and shall not be occupied
for any period of ='ime. Non -operational vehicles must be removed from the
property." Also include language that allows Homeowner's Associations with
recorded Community Charters, CCR's or the legal equivalent to place more
restrictive conditions upon their respective associations.
Sub Paragraph 4: You have added language that allows for storage of
recreational vehicles or personal recreation items within side and rear yards.
Again, NO and at the very least add the following language, "Such vehicles shall
be operational and shall not be occupied for any period of time. Non -operational
vehicles must be removed from the property." Also include language that allows
Homeowner's Associations with recorded Community Charters, CCR's or the legal
equivalent may place more restrictive conditions upon their respective
associations.
Page 2 of 4
Section 14: Title 8, Chapter 3, Section 5 Unigue Land Uses
Page 8 of 19:
A. Accessory Storage Building:
Sub Paragraph 1: New added wording is partially as follows: "The exterior design
of the accessory storage building will be compatible with the principal
residence..." The following language should be included: "compatible" (i.e.,
exterior shall be of the same design and building material with a roof of same
design and material.').
Sub Paragraph 1, 2, and 3: Shall include additional language protecting existing
and future subdivisions. Homeowner's Associations with recorded Community
Charters, CCR's or the legal equivalent shall be permitted to place more
restrictive conditions upon their respective associations.
Page 9 of 19:
L. Home Occupation (this relates to conducting a business from a residence):
Sub Paragraph 2: Restricting HOA language should be included here also.
Homeowner's Associations with recorded Community Charters, CCR's or the legal
equivalent shall be perm3't,::�i to place more restrictive conditions upon their
respective associations.
Section 18: Title 8, Chapter 7, Section 4-5 Reauest for Hearina by Affected Persons
Page 11 of 19:
Subparagraph 3 — The first sentence of the proposed language is: In the event no action
is taken by the city council within sixtv 1601 calendar days of receipt of a reauest for
reconsideration the request is deemed denied. Such wording leaves the applicant in
limbo for not only sixty days but due to the unwillingness of the city to act leaves the
applicant out what ever expenses they have incurred but no closer to resolution. If the
city's inaction spans sixty (60) days, then the wording should be "tile request is deemed
approved." The city's inaction should never put a citizen in financial jeopardy.
Section 19: Title 8, Chapter 7, Section 8 Notice Reauirements
Page 12 of 19:
B. Neighborhood Meetings:
Sub Paragraph 1.a.: Meeting Requirements: In this section new notice distances
are being proposed. The old written mailed notices were three hundred feet
(300. The proposed distances are from 1,500 -feet to 500 -feet. Looking at
Google Earth and projecting a radius of 1,500 feet as a minimum is still
insufficient notice. Due to the typical large lot developments 1,500 feet is
Page 3 of 4
minimal. Recommend that you consider 2,500 feet as more appropriate radius
to determine properties of impact.
Sub Paragraph 1.a.: This paragraph says that the written notice goes "to all
property owners or purchasers of record owning property within the following
radius." However, it goes on to say, 'sand to contiguous homeowners'
associations and any neighborhood associations." Clarification — does the notice
go to each property owner that owns within a homeowners' association or just to
the association? The notice must go to individual property owners.
D. Published And Mailed Notice For Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment...
Within this paragraph the same issue regarding notice to property owners as
stated in comments under Sub Paragraph 1.a. above. Also recommend that you
consider 2,500 feet as more appropriate radius to determine properties of impact
Page 13 of 19:
E. Posted Notice: in this paragraph the time consideration is stated as "shall be posted
not less than ten (10) days prior to the planning and zoning commission hearing..." This
is insufficient notice if the City's goal is truly to get public input. Notice should be a
minimum of fifteen (15) days. Ten days is insufficient time for an individual to educate
himself on new issues brought forward. People also have busy schedules to work
around.
Section 22: Title 9. Chanter 3. Section 2-1 Location and Design
Page 15 of 19:
J. Driveways: Driveways which providgiflg access to not more than two (2) dwellings
traits lots shall be allowed within any subdivision provided at least one (1) of the lots has
the minimum street frontaae reauired in section 8-2-4 of this code. Comment: Please
add the following language — This provision shall be permissible only upon proof that
singular dr v,,ovays cannot be provided due to either the lot configurations or land
topography.
Section 28, Title 9, Chapter 4, Section 2-2 Guarantee of Improvements
Page 17 of 19:
B. Completion Time: Second sentence says, "The zoning administrator may authorize a
delay in the completion of pubk the required improvements, for conditions outside the
subdivider/developer control, if at a minimum, the surety is extended." Recommended
addition in red.
Page 4 of 4