The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes - 2007 - City Council - 01/16/2007 - Special ./ EAGLE CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Minutes January 16,2007 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 5:18 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor calls the meeting to order at 5: 18 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: BASTIAN, GUERBER, NORDSTROM, BANDY. Nordstrom is absent. A quorum is present. 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:00 - 6:00 P.M. A. Pending or threatened litigation. I.C. 67-2345(1) B. Acquisition of private property. I.c. 67-2345(c) Bastian moves to go into Executive Session for the discussion of pending or threatened litigation I.C. 67-2345(1) and Acquisition of private property I.C. 67-2345(c). Seconded by Bandy. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES............ Council goes into Executive Session at 5:20 p.m. Council discusses pending or threatened litigation and acquisition of private property. Council leaves Executive Session at 6: 15 p.m. 4. DISCUSSION OF URBAN RENEWAL: Harlan Mann Mayor introduces the issue. Harlan Mann: I have a proposed consulting agreement in front of you for approval since you do not have a committee in place. I will work with the attorney and we will produce urban renewal plans. Once you have a committee in place I will work directly with the committee. General discussion on the two urban renewal areas in the City. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 5. Aoolication for oayment #7 for Guerber Park Construction. (SEB) This item was continuedfrom the January 9. 2007 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. Bastian moves to add this item to the Consent Agenda as Item #8H. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................. PUBLIC COMMENT: Lloyd Mahaffey: Provides Council an overview of the wineries in the valley. Discussion on winery areas in the Comp Plan. Discussion on an overlay district. General discussion. 6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (see above) 7. PUBLIC COMMENT: None 8. 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 Mayor, a Councilmember, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed Page] K:\COUNCIL\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC.I-16-07mindoc 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 City Council. · Any item on the Consent Agenda which contains written Conditions of Approval from the City of Eagle City Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, or Design Review Board shall be adopted as part of the City Council's Consent Agenda approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise. A. Minutes of December 27. 2006 soecial meetin!!. B. DR-104-06 - Convert Aoartment Buildin!!s Into Residential Condominiums - 727 East State Street: 727 East State Street, LLC, represented by James G. Murray, AlA with CHSQA Architects, is requesting design review approval to convert ten apartment buildings into 88 residential condominiums and construct a I,387-square foot clubhouse facility. The site is located on the south side of East State Street, approximately 160-feet west of Palmetto A venue at 727 East State Street. (WEV) C. DR-10S-06 - One Monument Si!!n for Rock Pointe Condominium Comolex _ 727 East State Street: 727 East State Street, LLC, represented by James G. Murray, with CSHQA Architects is requesting design review approval for a monument sign for Rock Pointe condominium complex. The sign will be located on the south side of East State Street approximately 160-feet west of Palmetto Avenue at 727 East State Street.D. (WEV) D. Findin!!s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-ll-06/RZ-13-06 & PP-13-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA and Preliminarv Plat for An!!Ier's Hamlet Subdivision - Rovlance Investments. LLC and RT Nahas Comoany: Roylance Investments, LLC and RT Nahas Company are requesting an annexation and a rezone with a development agreement from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a Development Agreement) and preliminary plat approval for Angler's Hamlet Subdivision, a 42-lot (37- residential, 5-common) residential subdivision. The 10-acre site is located approximately 400-feet southwest of the intersection of North Park Lane and State Highway 44, on the south side of West Old Valley Road at 4171 W. Old Valley Road. (WEV) This item was continued from the January 9, 2007 meeting. E. Aooointment of Urban Renewal Commission: (NM) F. Urban Renewal A!!reement for Consultin!! Services. (NM) G. Minutes of December 12.2006 H. Aoolication for oavment #7 for Guerber Park ConstructioD. BastiaD moves to remove Items #B and #H from the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES............. Bastian moves to approve the Amended Consent Agenda. Seconded by Bandy. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Bandy; AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................... 8H. Aoolication for oavment #7 for Guerber Park Construction. City Attorney Buxton: I request that that the payment request be approved minus $18,714.00, which is $17,242.00 for #7 A-Water Playground Equipment Installation and $$1,472.00 for # 14- Finishes. The amount to be approved is $241,192.00. Guerber moves to approve the application for payment #7 in the amount of $241,192.00. Seconded by Bastian. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES.............. ... Page 2 K:\COUNCILI.MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC -1-16-07mindoc Discussion on darkening or painting the windows on the rest rooms to prevent the view of the HV AC system. 8B. DR-104-06 - Convert Aoartment Buildin!!s Into Residential Condominiums _ 727 East State Street: 727 East State Street, LLC, represented by James G. Murray, AlA with CHSQA Architects, is requesting design review approval to convert ten apartment buildings into 88 residential condominiums and construct a I,387-square foot clubhouse facility. The site is located on the south side of East State Street, approximately 160-feet west of Palmetto A venue at 727 East State Street. (WEV) Attorney Buxton: My concern is that there are some questions that I need to review, my recommendation would be to continue this item to January 23, 2007. Brian Trottier, 1 am here on behalf of the applicant, we are the current owners of Peregrine Cove Apartments. We are converting the apartments to condominiums. I know you have a long agenda and I would rather not fly up for another meeting. Discussion on the replacement of the windows. General discussion. Discussion on stone element accents, Craftsman Style. I will have a problem doing this in the back of the building to the second floor because of all of the power lines and etc. located there. General discussion. Mayor: I would recommend that we continue this to the next Council meeting. Bastian: So moved. Seconded by Guerber. ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES............ 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. CP A-4-06 - Com orehensive Plan Amendment from Professional Office and Transitional Residential to Commercial- Lazv P Limited Partnershio: Lazy P Limited Partnership, represented by Shawn Nickel of SLN Planning, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Professional Office and Transitional Residential to Commercial. The 40-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Chin den Boulevard (Hwy 20/26) and Linder Road at 1240 W. Chinden Boulevard. (NBS) This item was continued/rom the January 9, 2007 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. General Council discussion. Bastian moves to designate this area as a MU designation. Seconded by Bandy. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................. B. CPA-9-06 - Comorehensive Plan Amendment from Transitional Residential to Professional Office - Caoital Develooment. Inc.: Capital Development, Inc. represented by Dave Yorgason ., is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment to change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Transitional Residential to Professional Office and amend the text of the Rim View Planning Area. The 7.8-acre site is generally located on the northwest comer of the intersection of Meridian and Chinden at 6615 N. Meridian Road. (NBS) This item was continued/rom the January 9, 2007 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. General Council discussion. Bastian moves to approve CP A-9-06 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Transitional Residential to Professional Office - Capital Development, Inc. as presented with all Page 3 K:\COUNCIL\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-1-16-07min.doc conditions in the documents before us. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES....... .. C. CP A-2-06/ RZ-8-06N AC-1-06/PP-9-06- Ea!!le Gateway Proiect - Cornerstone Grouo. LLC.: Cornerstone Group, LLC., represented by Walter Lundgren of Johnson Architects, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from BP (business Park) to MU (Mixed Use), a Rezone with a Development Agreement from BP (Business Park) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement), a vacation and realignment of McGrath Road through the site and a Preliminary plat for an 11 lot commerciallretail subdivision. The 9.5 acre site is located at 1601 and 1782 McGrath Road, at the southwest intersection of McGrath Road and State Street north of the Stat Highway 44 Bypass. (NBS) This item was continuedfrom the January 9, 2007 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. Bastian moves to approve CP A-2-06/ RZ-8-06N AC-1-06/PP-9-06- Eagle Gateway Project - Cornerstone Group, LLC. with all Site Specific and other conditions as presented. Seconded by Guerber. Discussion. City Attorney Buxton: Discusses the areas that are served by Eagle Water Corporation, which is not a city owned corporation and is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission and DEQ. DEQ is not allowing them to issue will serve letters for new hook ups. This application is in their service area. The City has no control over this. Bastian I would amend my motion to state: "Notification to the Developer that the PUC and DEQ is notifying Eagle Water Company that they can not provide service to the area until conditions set by those two bodies are met." Discussion. Second concurs. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................. D. CPA-3-06/A-9-061RZ-1O-06/PP-11-06 - Comorehensive Plan Amendment from Residential One to Transitional Residential. Annexation. Rezone with a Develooment Al!reement from RUT(Ada County) to R-3-DA & Preliminarv Plat Aooroval for Countrvland Estates - JLJ Enterorises: JLJ Enterprises Inc, represented by Van Elg of The Land Group Inc, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential One (up to one unit per acre) to Transitional Residential, an annexation and rezone from RUT (Ada County Zone) to R- 3-DA (up to three units per acres with Development Agreement limiting it to 2 units per acre), and preliminary plat approval for Countryland Estates, a l7-lot (12 buildable) residential subdivision. The 6.6-acre site is generally located y. mile west of Ballantyne Road and Y. north of State Highway 44 at 2556 W. State Street. (NBS) This item was continuedfrom the January 9,2007 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. Planner Baird Spencer: Provides the Council an overview of the proposed changes. Bastian moves to approve CPA-3-06/A-9-061RZ-10-06/PP-11_06 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Residential One to Transitional Residential, Annexation, Rezone with a Development Agreement from RUT(Ada County) to R-3-DA & Preliminary Plat Approval for Countryland Estates - JLJ Enterprises, Countryland Estates with all Site Specific and Standard Conditions of approval as amended by the document dated January 11,2007. Seconded by Guerber. ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES...................... E. CPA-7-06 - Comorehensive Plan Text Amendment to Establish the Chinden Terrace Plannin!! Area and Mao Amendment from Residential One to Mixed Use _ The City of Ea!!le: The City of Eagle, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to establish the Chinden Terrace Planning Area and a Land Use Map Amendment to change the land use Page 4 K:\COUNCIL\MrNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-l-16-07mindoc designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential One to Mixed Use. The +1- 57-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Chin den Boulevard (Hwy 20/26) and Eagle Road (Highway 55). (NBS) This item was continuedfrom the January 9, 2007 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. Bastian moves to approve CP A-7-06 - Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Establish the Chinden Terrace Planning Area and Map Amendment from Residential One to Mixed Use - The City of Eagle as presented in the document now before us dated January 3, 2007. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................. F. CPA-6-06 - Comorehensive Plan Amendment to chan!!e the Villa!!e Center symbol for +/- 640 located in the Villa!!e Plannin!! Area - The City of Ea!!le: The City of Eagle, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the symbol for the Village Center land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the Village Center area. The +1_ 640-acres site is approximately I-mile wide located approximately I mile east of State Highway 16 along Beacon Light Road. (NBS) This item was continuedfrom the January 9, 2007 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. Bastian moves to approve CP A-6-06 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Village Center symbol for +1- 640 located in the Village Planning Area - The City of Eagle from a square to a star. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES............ G. CP A-ll-06 - City of Ea!!le.: the City of Eagle is proposing a comprehensive Plan amendment to achieve the following: 1) Remove the business park designation from the plan and change property designated as Business Park to Mixed Use (City Wide); 2) Removal of the Chinden Bench Planning Area; 3) Land use Map change within the Moon Valley & State planning area from Residential Estates (I unit per 2 acres) to Professional Office; 4) The merger of the Soaring 2025 Plan adopted September 14,2004 and the Eagle Comprehensive Plan adopted September 4, 2004; 5) Update appropriate sections of the existing plan to ensure consistency with the proposed amendments. (NBS) This item was continued/rom the January 9, 2007 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. Planner Baird Spencer: Discusses the proposed comp plan amendment. General discussion. Bastian moves to approve CPA-11-06 - City of Eagle as presented to us in the document dated January 7, 2007 and the follow up Land Use Map presented to us dated January 11, 2007. Seconded by Guerber. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES............ 10. FINAL PLATS: A. FP-08-06 - Final Plat for Moffat Subdivision (Obsidian Subdivision) - Park Lane Develooment. LLC: Park Lane Development, LLC, represented by Eric Cronin with The Land Group, is requesting final plat approval for Moffat Subdivision (Obsidian Subdivision) a 30-10t (24-buildable, 6-common) residential subdivision. The 14.6-acre site is located on the west side of North Park Lane approximately one-half mile north of Floating Feather Road at 1835 North Park Lane. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Bill is this in substantial compliance with preliminary plat? Page 5 K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work AreaICC-I-16-07mindoc Zoning Administrator Vaughan: Yes it is. The City Staff and the City Engineer have reviewed the final plat and recommend approval. Mayor: We recommend approval of the final plat for 08-06 Final Plat for Moffat Subdivision. So moved by Bastian. Seconded by Guerber. Discussion. ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES....... Discussion on the open space lots and pathways. B. FPUD-05-06 & FP-12-06 - Final Develooment Plan and Final Plat for Bellaterra Subdivision Phase I-Ted Martinez: Ted Martinez, represented by Jason Densmer with The Land Group, Inc., is requesting final development plan and final plat approval for Bellaterra Subdivision Phase 1, a 41-lot (34-buildable, 7-common) residential subdivision. This 21. 72-acre site is located on the east side of North Linder Road approximately one quarter mile north of West Floating Feather Road. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Staff is this in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat? Zoning Administrator Vaughan: Staff and the City Engineer have reviewed this application and recommend approval. Bandy moves to approve FPUD-05-06 & FP-12-06 - Final Development Plan and Final Plat for Bellaterra Subdivision Phase 1 -Ted Martinez. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.............. C. FP-14-06 - Final Plat for Li!!hthouse Subdivision - Rinconado Develooment: Rinconado Development, represented by Sabrina Whitehead with Briggs Engineering, is requesting final plat approval for Lighthouse Subdivision, an II-lot (9-buildable, 2-common) residential subdivision. The 18.93-acre subdivision is located on the south side of West Beacon Light Road approximately V,-mile east of Ballantyne Lane at 110 I West Beacon Light Road. Mayor introduces the issue. Bill is this in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat? Zoning Administrator Vaughan: It is and staff has reviewed this application and recommend approval. Discussion on progression of the construction. Bastian moves to approve FP-14-06 - Final Plat for Lighthouse Subdivision _ Rinconado Development with the request that the plan be reviewed by the United Water engineer prior to the City signing the final plat. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES... Mayor calls a recess at 7:45 p.m. Mayor reconvenes at 7:55 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. A-06-06/RZ-06-06 & PP-06-06 - Annexation and Rezone From RUT to MU-DA residentialonl and Prelimina Plat For Gra Ea Ie Subdivision - John Wood and Tom Ricks: John Wood and Tom Ricks are requesting annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to MU-DA-Residential Only (Mixed Use Residential with a development agreement), and preliminary plat approval for Gray Eagle Subdivision, a 45 lot (41 residential, 4 common) residential subdivision. The 13.88-acre site is located on the south side of West Floating Feather Road approximately !I.-mile east of Park Lane at 3377 and 3395 West Floating Feather Road. This item was continuedfrom the November 21,2006 meeting. (WEV) Page 6 K.ICOUNCIL\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-I-16-07mindoc Mayor introduces the issue. Mayor swears in John Wood John Wood, applicant, displays overheads and provides the Council some history on Gray Eagle and provides an overview of the applicant. Mayor swears in Tom Ricks Tom Ricks, applicant, displays overheads, and plan boards and provides the Council an overview of the project. General discussion. Mayor swears in Brian McCullough Brian McCullough, 2396 West Valley High, Gray Eagle is 13.88 Acres, which is 2.81 density. Discussion on what Tom Ricks is entitled to as far as density. Further discussion on density. Planner Williams, displays overheads and provides Council an overview of the application. General discussion. Mayor opens the Public Hearing Mayor swears in Joel Barker Joel Barker, 972 N. Cove Colony Way, 1 have been asked by the Colony to provide a presentation. Distributes a copy of the Power Point Presentation and proceeds with the Power Point presentation and discussion on the same. I am spokesman for 72 families and we have come to a consensus on 4 points which are in contention with the developer. Thirty six people in the audience are in agreement of Mr. Barker's presentation. General discussion. Mayor swears in Chuck Rosco Chuck Rosco, 1400 N. Razza Way, President of Cavallo Estates, discussion on density and low impacts on existing neighborhoods. This is designed to go to Floating Feather and they are going to go through the Colonies. Wait and take a look at the whole project that they are going to present and listen to the neighbors. Mayor swears in Rod Heller Rod Heller, 2760 W. Confier Drive, I concur with the gentleman from the Colony. We weren't aware of this large development going in. 1 would ask you to continue this matter so our Homeowner's representative can be here and also that Mr. Nordstrom can be here. Mayor swears in Jeff Kline Jeff Kline, 569 N. Cove Colony Way, discussion on the traffic flow and the traffic through the Colony. We don't have sidewalks or speed bumps. I'm in support of what Joel has to say. General discussion. Mayor swears in Pat Miller Pat Miller, 959 Preakness, discussion on the traffic and how this will increase the traffic on Floating Feather. John Woods, discussion on Gray Eagle and the concept plan. We have waited six months after being before the Planning and Zoning to come before the Council. We are not trying to rush this in. We have worked hard to have this under one development instead of several developers. Discussion on traffic. Page 7 K\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-I-16-07mindoc Brian McCullough: discussion on transitional density. We think that we have compromised, they said we do not like 6 we want 1. The 6 was stricken and 3 was put in. General discussion. Mayor closes the Public Hearing General Council discussion. Guerber moves to deny A-06-06/RZ-06-06 & PP-06-06 - Annexation and Rezone From RUT to MU-DA (residential only) and Preliminary Plat For Gray Eagle Subdivision with the recommendation that it be included as part of an overall application for the Spur Ranch Development. Seconded by Bandy. Discussion. Guerber amends his motion to add: That they be credited with the cost on this project towards the overall master plan, that they have some definite guidelines from ACHD what the road designation will be, and that it will be a PUD which will allow higher density near the High School and recognize that we are talking transition. Second concurs. Discussion. Bastian makes a substitute motion that the application before us be remanded back to staff with instructions and the fees do not need to be repaid. That this application would come before the Council when the other property develops and that they bring in a unified plan, that the transition that we spoke about in the record would be 1 acre lots on the eastern side of this area, 2 houses per acre to higher density house, so the developers could plan around the high school higher density homes, and in the middle. That you develop a local road. Discussion. City Attorney Buxton: I would recommend that the Mayor call a recess so the motions and procedure can be sorted out. Mayor calls a recess at 10:50 p.m. Mayor reconvenes at 11: 1 0 p.m. City Attorney Buxton: After discussion with the applicant they agreed that a remand would be helpful. This application would come back with Spur Ranch. Bastian's substitute motion was not seconded, motion died. Guerber amends his motion to remand the application back to staff instead of a denial with direction articulated by the Council. Seconded concurs. Discussion on seeing some sort of surety or agreement between the individuals that the application would move forward and that is linked somehow. Maker of Motion concurs. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................... . General Council discussion on the direction that Council wants to give to the applicant on density, the roads and etc. Joel Baker discusses the transition. B. A-12-06/RZ-14-06 & PP-15-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA and Preliminarv Plat for the Lofts at Ea!!le River - Sea 2 Sea. LLC.: Sea 2 Sea, LLC, represented by Mark Butler with Land Consultants, Inc., is requesting approval of an annexation and a rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a Development Agreement), and preliminary plat approval for The Lofts at Eagle River, an 8 lot (7-residential, I-common), 214-unit multi-family condominiumltownhouse housing development. The 25.37-acre site is located on the south side of East Riverside Drive approximately 1500 feet west of the Page 8 K\COUNCIL\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-1-16-07min,doc intersection of East Riverside Drive and State Highway 44 at 827 East Riverside Drive. (WEV) This item was continued/rom the December 12,2006 meeting. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Jim Murray, representing the applicant, displays overheads and discusses the changes that have been made. We had a meeting with staff and provided a concept plan. Discussion on the design of the buildings and the landscaping. Mark Butler, representing the applicant, I went out with Bill and the arborist. I think Julie values the trees high and I think we need to get another opinion. Discussion on trees. General discussion. David Sterling, Toothman-Orton Engineering, discussion on the heights, and finished floors. General discussion on the heights of the condos and the townhouses. General discussion on the trees on the sites. Mark Butler discusses the elevations. Planner Williams: Discussion on the changes. General discussion. Mayor opens the Public Hearing Mayor closes the Public Hearing Further discussion on the changes to the application. Bandy moves to approve A-12-06/RZ-14-06 & PP-15-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA and Preliminary Plat for the Lofts at Eagle River _ Sea 2 Sea, LLC. with all the Site Specific Conditions of Approval and include the Conditional Use Request CU- 05-06 with all Site Specific Conditions of Approvals, staff recommendations modified and stated earlier by staff. Seconded by Guerber. Discussion. TWO AYES: ONE NAY: M()1rI()N <:ARRIEIS........................ Zoning Administrator: There are Design Review applications associated with this application as well. General discussion. Bandy I would amend my Motion to include Dr-57-06 Common Area Landscaping Residential Townhome with my original motion, there are a number of modifications to this document that have to do with the City Forester and landscaping that need to modified similar to previous discussion with height specific conditions of approval and staff recommendations and modifications. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION <:ARRIICIS.................. DR-58-06: General discussion. Bandy moves to approve DR-58-06 supporting the Board decision which was 4-0 to approve this Design Review application for Monument Sign for the Lots at Eagle River with the Site Specific Conditions of Approval. Seconded by Guerber. Discussion. ONE AYE: TWO NAYS: MOTION DOES NOT FAILS Applicant: We would be happy to lower that it is just a cap on that. Guerber moves to go with an 8' limitation. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES................. . C. PP-16-06 - Preliminarv Plat for Eal!le Creek West Subdivision - JLJ Enterorises. LLC: JLJ Enterprises, LLC, represented by Phil Hull with The Land Group, Inc., is requesting Page 9 K\COUNCILlMlNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-I-16-07min,doc preliminary plat approval for Eagle Creek West Subdivision, a 1 14-lot (98-buildable, 16- common) subdivision. The 32.7-acre site is located approximately 1,640 feet north of State Highway 44, on the west side of North Linder Road at 839 North Linder Road. This item was continuedfrom the December 12,2006 meeting. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Guerber moves to continue PP-16-06 - Preliminary Plat for Eagle Creek West Subdivision - JLJ Enterprises, LLC to the January 23, 2007 City Council meeting. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..................... D. CU-09-06 - Mobile Office for The Landin!! Community Center and Continuation of Nonconformin!! Use - The Landin!! Community Center: The Landing Community Center, represented by Russ Phillips with Insight Architects, is requesting conditional use permit approval to install a 1440-square foot mobile office for The Landing Community Center and to allow the site to remain nonconforming with the provisions ofTitIe 8 Chapter 2A. The site is located on the southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Mission Drive at 296 North 1st Street. This item was continuedfrom the January 9,2007 meeting. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Mayor opens the Public Hearing Mayor closes the Public Hearing Guerber moves to approve A-12-06/RZ-14-06 & PP-15-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA and Preliminary Plat for the Lofts at Eagle River - Sea 2 Sea, LLC. including all ofthe findings and recommendations from Planning and Zoning. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..................... 12. NEW BUSINESS: A. Ordinance No. 553A (Brutsman): An Ordinance Annexing Certain Real Property Situated In The Unincorporated Area Of Ada County, Idaho, And Contiguous To The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Eagle, To The City Of Eagle, Idaho; Establishing The Zoning Classification Of Said Real Property Described Herein; Amending The Zoning Map Of The City Of Eagle To Reflect Said Changes; Directing That Copies Of This Ordinance Be Filed As Provided By Law; And Providing An Effective Date. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Guerber moves, pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-902, that the rule requiring Ordinances to be read on three different days with one reading to be in full be dispensed with, and that Ordinance #553A be considered after being read once by title only. Guerber reads Ordinance #553A by title only. Seconded by Bastian. ALL A YES: MOTION c:ARRIlCSl............... Guerber moves that Ordinance #553A be adopted. Seconded by Bastian. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES............... B. Ea!!le Water Cornoration (not Citv of Earde owned svstem) Moratorium: (NM) Mayor introduces the issue. Attorney. I would recommend tabling the moratorium to the first meeting in February in order to gather more information from DEQ. Page 10 K\CQUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-l-16-07min.doc Mayor discusses the gates and the gutters at Guerber Park. Council concurs to install the gates and the gutters as proposed for Guerber Park. 13. REPORTS: No reoorts City Engineer Report: City Clerk/Treasurer Report: Zoning Administrator's Report: City Attorney Report: Public Works Director Report: Mayor and Council's Report: 14. ADJOURNMENT: Guerber moves to adjourn. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES... ... . . . ..... Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 1: 1 0 a.m. Respectfully submitted: .1 (L r,+. '<--~~ SHARON K. BERGMANN CITY CLERK/TREASURER APPROVED: ...... ~. .....GLE...... .... ~ .', ...... ~ ~.......... .. ....,., .: C... d,...tE ... ~ ~ I o~ .. : ;.... " ,\ 0 : . L.. ~ ~ ...... _ ......'t' ~......._. ..... 0 · _v-....= ! u u , ~'r- PI < E \ ~ .~~.sl " INCO"~. ~ , 0.... ..... STA1~,...."" '............ Page II K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-I-16-07min.doc EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET A-06-06/RZ-06-06 & PP -06-06 - Annexation and Rezone From RUT to MU -DA (residential only) and Preliminary Plat For Gray Eagle Subdivision - John Wood and Tom Ricks January 16, 2007 6:00 n.m. NAME IV IAAJ AAA 77. r -f -Or/ ('' i,' j;1474:' � ! /7E5 S \k `OCL � \ D,- Cc A2 i N /C; ) /V/ 02 : k4w/v4 Zrarl `- C 1 /r, e 0.A ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE ?e/'. ti e: 0/6-, cv`o, ' 646tL. ifl ',zy ("70-z•-• 7J&Lf /?) 9-i'ci-)r; 972 ('E 0etvk)i C./cdt 93.8-- 590g iA1C( V. i\d. 2.2_ o, L,itu, - L- , I'C :-‘6,IN I . y3 ft c73`7-(30? 70 ". t. G-- v C t/Gc. „A, lel C.< L '7 i311�- e--467ce .5 1 `t L_17`i G LC/ e /y C e y L C, /,-•.� v 'C. R/ // F-3 4/ Gt L95. 7 W C 4"-- cv,- y 646**. E l� eti kY r LLcc , 7 5 tiII. d"J, Nc(- 1)-(1- c�0C. V17°; ..��da, 0,),„, Page 1 of 11 \COLJNCILIAGENDA\CCSIGNUI' WI'D TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON C4: "` UA) ems-% re COLA EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET PP -16-06 - Preliminary Plat for Eagle Creek West Subdivision — JLJ Enternrises, LLC January 16, 2007 6:00 p.m. NAME ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE Page l of H:\COUNCIL\AGENDA\CCSIGNUP. WPD TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET A-12-06/RZ-14-06 & PP -15-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU -DA and Preliminary Plat for the Lofts at Eagle River - Sea 2 Sea. LLC January 16, 2007 6:00 p.m. NAME ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE Page l of H:ICOUNCIL\AGENDA\CCSIGNUP. WPD TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET CU -09-06 - Mobile Office for The Landing Community Center and Continuation Landing Community Center January 16, 2007 6:00 D.M. ADDRESS/ NAME TELEPHONE 16-14 z 1.:.:. 0 � 1 Page l of H:I000NCILIAGENDAICCSIGNUP. WPD of Nonconforming Use - The TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET A-06-06/RZ-06-06 & PP -06-06 - Annexation and Rezone From RUT to MU -DA (residential only) and Preliminary Plat For Gray Eagle Subdivision — John Wood and Tom Ricks January 16, 2007 6:00 p.m. NAME ADDRESS/ TESTIFY TELEPHONE 6/.9 3.63f Page l of H:I000NCILIAGENDAICCSIGNUP. WPD YES/NO? PRO/CON ( i -f. -0' 7 II c INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning Administration To: Mayor Merrill and City Council Members From: Michael Williams, PCED, Planner II Subject: PP -16-06 Eagle Creek West Subdivisi n Date: January 16, 2007 Attachment(s): Email to Bill Vaughan from Jim Jewett, date stamped by the City on January 16, 2007. Copy To: The applicant is requesting this item be continued to the January 23, 2006 City Council meeting date. Page 1 of 1 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20061Eagle Creek West me2.doc Bill Vaughan From: Jim Jewett [JimJ@mail.jljenterprisesinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:27 PM To: Bill Vaughan Subject: EC West Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED & FILED 1 CITY OF EAGLE File' HOW 10: Bill, Due too some personal conflicts with Phil it would be in our best interest to defer the our City Council hearing till next week. Thanks, Jim 1/16/2007 INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning Administration To: Mayor Merrill and City Council Members From: Michael Williams PCED, Planner II Subject: A-06-06/RZ-06-06 & PP -06-06 Annekation and Rezone From RUT to MU - DA (Residential Only) and Preliminary Plat for Gray Eagle Subdivision Date: January 16, 2007 Attachment(s): Copy of correspondence from Colleen Cline date stamped by the City on January 16, 2007. Copy of transcribed testimony regarding the Park Lane Planning Area from the Eagle City Council meeting of September 7, 2004, from Colleen Cline date stamped by the City on January 16, 2007. Copy To: John Wood, 1601 Floating Feather Road, Eagle, Idaho, 83616 Page 1 of 1 K \Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2006\Gray Eagle mc6 doc City of Eagle Council Members Letter for the January 16, 2007 Meeting TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR, FtECEiVED & FILED 1 CITY OF EAGLE JAN 162007 My name is Colleen Kline, and I reside at 569 N. Cove Colony Way in the Colony Subdivision. I am writing this to state my opposition to roads and the development going in behind our subdivision. I am the homeowner who will be affected the most. Our property is off of Breanna and will adjoin the new subdivision. Our address is 569 North Cove Colony Way. From the proposal our beautiful one -acre lot will have roads on all three sides of our property. There is no way that when I built our dream house and designed it that I would have chosen to have a piece of property with a main road in front of our house, on the side of our house, and now being proposed behind our house. This absolutely cannot happen. I saw a proposed unplatted proposal with this road in it. Mr. Ricks and Mr. Woods are developing this property together behind us, although they are dividing it up and not proposing it at the same time. I believe the reason Mr. Woods is proposing Gray Eagle Subdivision first is so that he can get his subdivision in, and then the only place for the connector road to go is along by the Colony. I propose that before any of this property is developed that the connector road is decided upon first and then go from there. I propose that the connector road go in behind the high school. This could then be used for the high school. They can design it exactly like they have by Eagle Middle School. I also propose that the language be cleared up in the record as far as transitioning lots. We have already lost the one -acre lots that were in the Comprehensive Plan for all of this land behind The Colony to the high school. Now, we would like to see clear language on transitioning. The proposed Flint Acres has three houses proposed behind Colony homes existing. I don't care how much testimony Mr. Woods and Mr. Ricks put in the record about them helping the community and smaller lots are better. The only reason either one of these developers wants smaller lots is because they make more money, period. I would like to see a division of the land be one-third of the land three lots per acre next to the high school and connector road; one-third of the land half acre lots in the middle; and one- third of the land one acre lots next to The Colony. I also would like it made clear in the record that the one acre lots behind The Colony be lined up with our lots so they are only one house behind our existing homes. I think The Colony homeowners would all be very happy with a development similar to The Colony behind our house with two rows of one -acre lots. A major concern for me is the road going from Breanna adjoining in this subdivision and looping around in this and not being a main, fast road. I have heard testimony in the record about how The Colony was supposed to be this main connecting road. Well, that might have been in the plans before, but we are a residential area that is being treated like a main road. We do not have sidewalks, curbs. Our kids are forced to be on the roadway to play and ride their bikes, walk to school, wait for the bus in the road, so I feel that the Council and the City have a responsibility now to fix this road and make it safer. I have learned from experience that after the fact there is nothing that can be done. On Breanna, I would like to have a proposed loop around be in a cul-de-sac to help with traffic. 1 have contacted the ACHD, the City of Eagle, the police with the traffic issues. We have had people miss the corner because they are going too fast around the corner and ran 75 feet into our yard. A 30 -foot RV was going too fast around the corner and high centered their RV on our neighbor's rocks because they took the corner too fast and had to call a tow truck. Last year a high school student high centered his pickup on the rocks by the community pool going too fast around a traffic circle that was supposed to slow traffic down, he had to call a tow truck. Our road has become a major thoroughfare with people cutting across our residential neighborhood driving so fast they cannot make the corners. This is a safety concern. I have almost been killed on our road rollerblading with my daughters and having a truck come around the corner and going too fast and almost hitting us way on the other side of the road. I contacted the police, nothing was done. I have contacted ACHD to get speed bumps, stop signs, anything to help, they won't do anything. They say there is not enough traffic to put in a stop sign. So this is a big concern and the City Council needs to make this a number one issue about designing this road and worrying about traffic. It doesn't matter what our subdivision was supposed to be. We are a residential area, and we need to be treated as such. So I would propose that the City Council put in the major connecting road by the high school, and design the roads and work with The Colony about the road design. This should be done with the developers, but we have attended their meetings and they do not want any input from us. Also I would like to make it very clear that Mr. Ricks has had issues with his irrigation ditch leaking and has been unresponsive to needs in that regard. So he has not been a very good neighbor. So I am asking the City Council to deny the Gray Eagle Subdivision, and decide on where this road is going to go. Putting the road by the high school is the best solution for all. If the road is designed where it is going to go, then the people buying their property in Gray Eagle and Spur Ranch and Flint Estates will be informed buyers knowing what they are buying, unlike The Colony homeowners, who bought one -acre lots with the land behind them proposed as one - acre lots and now having to worry about houses being built on top of us. I appreciate the Mayor and Council Members' time and effort. I am a court reporter and have worked with many of the city agencies in the area. And the reason we built our house in Eagle was because the City of Eagle does value the homeowners. The decision for me to move here came because of the lawsuit about the trees across the street from McDonald's that the City would not let them cut down. I told my husband this is where we need to build our home. So I do appreciate your time and effort. Thank you, Colleen Kline EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN RE: PARK LANE PLANNING AREA, ) City of Eagle EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ) rnmprehensa.ve Plan RECEIVED & FILED ) CITY OF EAGLE JAN 1 e 2007 Fite: Route to• EXCERPT OF TESTIMONY OF THE CITY OF EAGLE COUNCIL MEETING TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 TRANSCRIBED BY: COLLEEN P. KLINE, CSR No. 345 Notary Public ►. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 THE EXCERPT OF TESTIMONY TAKEN OF THE CITY OF EAGLE COUNCIL MEETING, IN RE: PARK LANE PLANNING AREA, was taken before MAYOR NANCY C. MERRILL, and the City of Eagle Council Members, located in the city of Eagle, Idaho, on September 7, 2004, in the above -entitled matter. 3 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Having said 2 that. There is a big part of me that's pretty 3 sad that we can't figure out a place to put this 4 musical conservatory. And it's down to that same 5 old thing about, "Not in my backyard. Put it 6 somewhere else." And as long as it's kind of out 7 of my sight and out of my mind, it's okay. 8 The issues that everybody raised more 9 or less are community issues. And when you talk 10 about traffic impact, you talk about school 11 impact, you are talking about something, that as 12 the City grows, you have to face every day in 13 your life. And as a citizen, we face them every 14 day that -- 15 MS. SEDLACEK: Is there a way to be 16 able to go back into a residence -- is there a 17 way to amend it? 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Pretty much 19 steer us when we go into those issues. And when 20 we try to develop what we consider to be a 21 complimentary community, it's sometimes becomes a 22 matter of you've got to go ahead and do what your 23 gut tells you, and what's the best move, in spite 24 of the ability of the schools, and the road 25 systems to keep up with you. Because if you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 don't have people, and you don't have demand, they are not going to build more schools, and they are not going to build additional roads. It's a tough situation, but that's just the way it is. Having said that, I don't know that I personally feel -- and I'm the one that probably incited people like Mr. Butler to try and find different uses for this property. Because I felt like that area on State Street was something that was going to be very difficult to find a fit going forward as we envision the growth of this area. And I still am a believer that on the area that touches State Street, that it should be at least a mixed-use designation. I am concerned that this project is just a little too mixed for the area, all things told. Although I will tell you that when we first started looking at this area of how we're growing, we've got to look at different kinds of uses and find different places to go. I live right down the street from where this is proposed, and that is not driving my decision at all. But I think that my personal 5 opinion is that at this point -- MS. SEDLACEK: But it's going to be 4.8 -units acres per acre, but I think that was a -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Well, clearly, I think that was a generalization. I don't believe those are half -acre lots. Clearly, those are not half -acre lots. We can come up with a minimum lot size in that area. I need a calculator to do the division. UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: I may address that, if you allow me to. On page 34 of 56 pages of the Comprehensive Plan, about three-quarters of the way down, it says, land uses north of Flint Estates designate a transition increases of residential density ensure from east to west ensuring compatibility with the one -acre lots in The Colony Subdivision, and increasing in density not to exceed six -units per acre near Eagle High School. So I think the proposal in the draft is that we go from a one -acre density up to a six -unit -per -acre density near the high school, and presumably north of this area, this corner here, is the high school property, Park Lane. 6 1 And so that's even more dense than what we're 2 considering, either in the Development Agreement 3 or testimony this evening. 4 And so I think the owner indicated that 5 he would like to see a density transfer of a 6 minimum of four -units per acre on the most dense 7 area, up to one -unit per acre up near The Colony. 8 MAYOR MERRILL: Go ahead, Bill. 9 MR. VAUGHAN: Were you wanting further 10 clarity on the density issue? Okay. 11 Consideration for new item 2.10, something to the 12 effect of the assisted -living facility proposed 13 on Lot 8, Block 2. I can read this, and slow 14 down also for taking note purposes, or I could 15 also help with the motion as we get to that 16 point -- shall be limited to one story, maybe 17 include a maximum height. 18 And then item 2 point -- 19 MR. GUERBER: Ms. Mayor, if I may, 20 would you back up, Bill, and go over each item in 21 the Development Agreement. The townhouses, or 22 whatever you'll be putting in there, any kind of 23 a range as far as the value, or the selling 24 price, whatever, on those townhouses in that 25 area? 7 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Yes. 2 MR. GUERBER: Thank you. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Really 4 rough, the townhouses and single-family homes, we 5 guess 150 to 250,000. 6 MR. GUERBER: Well, this is always the 7 enjoyable part of being on the Council when you 8 get to this point where you get to deliberate 9 these kinds of things. And tonight, I'm not sure 10 I've heard a whole lot of things that I haven't 11 heard in many cases in the past. And I think 12 they are very legitimate: About the need to 13 transition. The impacts on me. I like the 14 concepts, but, you know, put it somewhere else. 15 People who -- high density in Star has no impact 16 on State Street if it's built in Star instead of 17 being in Eagle. My vehicles don't increase the 18 amount of traffic on State Street now that I've 19 moved out here. 20 But I think we all legitimately, I 21 would think, understand that what has really 22 impacted us out here from the standpoint of many 23 of those things has been the fact that every one 24 of us wanted to live out here, and every one of 25 us contributes to that. 8 1 And we've had people in the past who 2 have often said, "Well, now that I'm here, let's 3 cut it off. And nothing else happens now, 4 because I like it just the way that it is." And 5 I think we all understand that, it ain't going to 6 be that way either. And it isn't going to be 7 that way either, because it hasn't been that way, 8 and we're going to continue to grow here. And I 9 think it's critical for us to appropriately plan 10 what we have, I think, in many ways appropriately 11 planned for Eagle. 12 I was the Mayor when we began the real 13 revamps of the Comprehensive Plan back in the 14 late '80s and kind of created the vision of what 15 we wanted Eagle to become. And unfortunately, we 16 thought we were really visionary at that point in 17 time when we went all the way out to Linder Road 18 on what we thought should be happening with 19 Eagle. 20 The sad part is that wasn't visionary 21 at all, because now we're looking at saying, 22 let's go to Highway 16, because what we see what 23 is Eagle becoming. And the heck of it is that 24 what we've done is such a good job up to this 25 point in time, that everybody wants to live out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 here, and we've created our own grief to a certain extent. I'm not sure what I would change from the standpoint of doing what we did to make ourselves attractive. I much would rather be able to say, "That's a darn good place to live," instead of, "Luckily we screwed it up bad enough where nobody wants to live here." So we're not growing. I knew that this area along the so-called, you know, Park Lane or Park Road area that we were looking at at this point in time was going to be the most difficult of all the things we looked at in the Comprehensive Plan, because it went basically in an area that is changing the way under the proposals that we had envisioned Eagle at one point in time. That was going to be kind of like where the western edge of where development was going to take place. And, you know, we kind of looked at five, and ten -acre, and 40 -acre farms from that point on, at least that's the way it was 10, and 15, and 20 years ago. But that's not the way that it is. And that's not the way that the development is going to take place. 10 1 So I think it's really critical for us 2 to look at this area, and to understand that it 3 is going to transition, in some cases, I think, 4 to higher densities out further to the west of 5 than perhaps of what we had envisioned and what 6 we are seeing at this point in time. 7 And the unfortunate part of that is the 8 fact those people like The Colony and others on 9 that western edge right now are kind of caught in 10 between things where they thought things were 11 going to be lower density, and now it looks like 12 we're going to see some things change that could 13 bring higher density out in that area, different 14 kinds of development, commercial in some cases, 15 and perhaps even industrial further on down 16 toward 15, although I'm not talking heavy 17 industrial. I'm talking Hewlett-Packard kinds of 18 industrial, or something like that. 19 But that area is indeed in a 20 transition. And I think tonight we're really 21 looking at having to try to figure out what is 22 the appropriate way to be able to handle that. 23 And to a certain extent, what is the transition. 24 I mean, does something different than you have to 25 be a half mile away in order to be an appropriate 11 1 transition? Does it have to be, you know, in 2 your backyard where the transition maybe goes 3 from acre, to a half acre, to, you know, quarter 4 acres, or something like that as you go one 5 additional block, or a quarter of a mile, or 6 whatever, further on down the road. 7 And I guess I'm looking at this as 8 being a transition from the standpoint that those 9 people who currently have property, who have made 10 an investment based on what they really believed 11 was going to be taking place will be as impacted 12 as little as possible. But I think no matter 13 what we do, there will be impacts. 14 And my belief, I guess, in how I would 15 like to ultimately see this happen is to see that 16 those -- that The Colony, for example -- and I 17 know we haven't reached a point where we're 18 talking about a whole lot of other land in 19 there -- but certainly in those areas, I think if 20 you've got one acres, we've always talked about 21 the fact that your neighbor behind you is going 22 to have one acres. There would be one -acre lots. 23 But maybe across the street from them, you start 24 dropping down those densities. Because the 25 people who develop in the future are going to 12 1 know what's going to be there. The people who 2 are there today shouldn't be adversely impacted. 3 And I think the critical aspects in my 4 mind with this is how do you do that transition? 5 I think it's the school it's an appropriate use 6 through that area. I think setbacks and the 7 buffers -- I think what people ultimately 8 discover is that the world doesn't come to an end 9 every time we make a derision and something 10 starts happening. That's been my observation 11 from what people have discovered from the point 12 when they've come in and testified, as I saw 13 happen up in the Eagle Ranch area, for example. 14 "I always thought that was going to be an open 15 field when I bought this house. And now suddenly 16 you are putting houses behind it just like mine." 17 So I think that, you know, these things 18 are going to happen. And I think once those 19 things are built, people discover that, you know, 20 that it's okay to have neighbors in back, as long 21 as it's in a reasonable manner. 22 And I'm talking a transition from 23 Colony with one acres down to lower 24 densities -- or to higher densities, and other 25 higher densities as you move away from those 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 sites. You know, I don't know if this makes any sense. Maybe I'm talking a big circle. But I guess maybe I'm talking philosophy rather than something specific as I'm looking at this, but I really think -- I'm most concerned about going to 4.8. It just kind of blows me away when we get over that far, and I'm not sure -- I guess, right now, what seems to me would be appropriate in that area over there. But I think that is too high. I'm just not certain what isn't too high, I guess, at that. And I'm still contemplating that. And I want to hear what other people have to say before I really know where I'm going to go with that. MAYOR MERRILL: Stan. MR. BASTIAN: I listened carefully to the testimony this evening. I recognize that the folks in The Colony Subdivision are very what -- they very much like the 2002 Comprehensive Plan and the one -unit per acre designation for that area. The folks in the Flint Estates Subdivision basically were agreeable to the 14 1 proposal, at least some elements of the proposal, 2 with greater density along State Street, not 3 residential, but mix -use designation for that 4 property, particularly south of the drain 5 ditch -- or the canal, rather. 6 There is some who very passionately 7 argued for a music conservatory, and see this as 8 an opportunity for something like that of great 9 worth to the City and to the community to have a 10 place where individuals who want to learn music 11 skills and be performers to have an opportunity 12 to do that. 13 I understand that if that happens that 14 basically if we're to pencil out for the 15 developer -- and I'm not sure if that's the thing 16 that we should put the greatest weight on -- but 17 as I understand it, it has to have some 18 additional density for that to work and provide 19 the property for the music conservatory at a 20 reasonable and, I guess, a very much reduced 21 price, so the music conservatory can happen. 22 Well, that's what I understand about 23 the testimony. There is testimony about the 24 impact of traffic, and the connection of one of 25 the sub -streets in The Colony to development to 15 1 the west of them. And I share that concern. I 2 would not want to have lots of traffic now going 3 through The Colony where we determined it would 4 be rather rural with only a ribbon of concrete to 5 hold the road in place and no sidewalks. So 6 that's a concern to me about how we can resolve 7 that issue. 8 The issue of the conservatory and 9 traffic from Park flowing into Flint Drive and 10 then down, you know, to take lessons or other 11 kind of traffic that may impact the area, that's 12 also a concern, because we stated in the 13 Comprehensive Pian that we wanted Flint Drive to 14 remain a residential street. 15 So I don't know how to resolve that 16 issue in what we do here, unless we just simply 17 don't allow that road to develop to the north, 18 and just stub it off, and it doesn't have a 19 connection to Flint Drive. And in the future, as 20 the mix -use property develops to the west of 21 this, that there be some other avenue or way of 22 making that connection. 23 The ultimate question is: What is best 24 for the citizens of Eagle? What makes a quality 25 community? I've been on the Council now 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 since -- well, for -- this is what, my 13th year, I think. And I've seen a lot of growth. I've been here since 1979. Lynn Sedlacek has been here all her life here. Born here, I believe. MS. SEDLACEK: Born here. MR. BASTIAN: Bom here. You know, I remember the days when I could pull off the roadway where the traffic coming across the bridge on Eagle Road was only a one-way steel bridge, and wait until the truck would come across, and then we would pull over and go across. You know, it was quite rural and quite a lovely community. Then we had communities like Redwood Creek, and they brought a huge out cry of the citizenry of how dare we put such a high-density area close to five -acre parcels, and just very vicious public testimony. You all were very civil tonight. That was not very civil when that occurred. But we approved Redwood Creek anyway. And then when the proposal was to have The Colony Subdivision folks, then Redwood Creek came out in large numbers opposing at least the density that was proposed initially. 17 1 So I think as communities are impacted, 2 that is parts of the community are, the folks 3 most impacted, of course, come out and voice 4 their opposition to something they see as 5 negative. 6 Getting back to the question of 7 quality. I think that the homes that are being 8 proposed are high quality, design is spectacular, 9 very nice. The conservatory will be a very 10 beautiful building, and set of buildings, enhance 11 the quality of life, I think, for many people in 12 the City of Eagle. 13 State Street is going to become a 14 four -lane highway; two one direction, two the 15 other. That's going to happen. Whether we make 16 this decision tonight or not, that will happen. 17 As Star and Middleton and Caldwell folks travel 18 that highway, it's going to get much -- it's 19 going to change. 20 I remember going down Eagle Road when 21 it was just a two-lane roadway, and just farm 22 trucks, and not a very dense population. It was 23 a wonderful road. Now look at it. 24 I do favor a transitional density here. 25 I think that that works up against State Street. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 I think it works in the sense of getting a nice facility like Rivendell. 4.8, I think, is a bit high. I'm not sure where we should come down on that. Design review has suggested maximum two -units per acre, and that would scuttle that whole project and move it to some other place where I don't know where it would end up. Right now, that's all I have to say. MS. SEDLACEK: Madam Mayor, Members the Council, I very much would like to make this school happen. Where I'm having -- and I do support the mixed-use zoning along State Street. Where I'm having trouble is the lot that sticks up in the middle of Flint Drive. I would like to see Flint Drive stay residential. So I would like to see if we can figure out a way to make that happen. I think that as far as the Development Agreement is concerned, on page 3 of 7 of the Development Agreement, where it talks about the following uses shall be prohibited, I would like to see banks and financial institutions with drive -up services and the flex space also go back to being prohibited. is that? 2.9? 20 1 as much as I want the school to happen. I agreed 2 that that's not a trade-off to increase the 3 density. I firmly believe that the people that 4 bought in The Colony, did their homework, and 5 checked it out, and bought knowing, or thinking 6 that they had the security of knowing what the 7 zoning was around that. I'm not going to betray 8 that. And so I can't go over two -units per acre. 9 I would prefer to leave it one -unit per one acre. of 10 So that's where I'm leaning right now. 11 MAYOR MERRILL: Lynn, you talk about 12 the school area. If you take the school area out 13 of there -- 14 MS. SEDLACEK: I'm thinking that we're 15 going to have to get rid of probably the assisted 16 living center, and bring both the school down and 17 the rest of the campus. 18 MAYOR MERRILL: Next to the highway? 19 MS. SEDLACEK: Next to the highway. 20 MAYOR MERRILL: I don't think that 21 would work for the school for their -- 22 MS. SEDLACEK: Well, you know, I've 23 struggled with the school ever since I first 24 heard about it, because it's a beautiful concept. 25 I think it's needed. I think it would be a 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Which page MS. SEDLACEK: 3 of 7. UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: 3 of 7 and UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: 3 of 7 and 2.7. I would like banks and financial institutions with drive -up services and also the flex space to be prohibited. So that would remove 2.9. We would not allow that even with the conditional use. As far as the density, again, I would like to see the mix -use stay just along State Street, and that both sides of Flint remain residential. The residential density, I think you all know, I have a hard time going above two -units per acre. So I would like to see, just a throw out for discussion, an overall density not to exceed two -houses per acre. If the assisted living area goes away, and we go strictly with residential, then I would definitely want the transition to be the same size as The Colony, which I believe is one -acre lots or an R1 designation. So I can't go with that high of density 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 benefit. I think it would be a plus. I think it would work well with the Camille Beckman project. However, with what's presented to us was that the school was looking for kind of rural, back -to -nature type of setting, and that works good for the school. But the school does not necessarily work good for that kind of a setting, and the people that are already there. If they moved into their home, and have a residential home where they've probably have put a big investment in, and they want the quiet, rural setting, they probably don't even want to hear classical music, or I don't care how nice the music is, they don't want the traffic. They don't want to hear that outside noise at night. That's my belief. So I think it needs to come down to the school. And if there is going to be any buffering, if it is indeed going to be able to be buffered so it's not a bother to the neighbor, then perhaps the road can be buffered so it's not a bother to the school. MAYOR MERRILL: So do we need a motion here? MS. SEDLACEK: Madam Mayor, I'll try. 22 1 I love this. You make everybody mad. 2 Madam Mayor, I move that we approve 3 CPA-3-03RZ-803 with the following modifications: 4 That the mix -use designation stay only along the 5 streets that front -- only along the lots that 6 front State/Highway 44 and the ones as depicted 7 on Exhibit, I believe, B along Park Road. That 8 the overall density not exceed two -units per acre 9 in the mix -use designation. 10 If the assisted living center goes 11 away, it would be a transitional density not to 12 exceed an overall of two -per acre, but one -acre 13 lots against The Colony. 14 And the Development Agreement, the 15 prohibited uses would include banks, financial 16 institutions with drive -up services and the flex 17 space. That 2.9 be stricken. And I'm not going 18 to try and keep track of the numbers, so help me 19 out here. 20 That the condition listed as 2.13, that 21 the last sentence be stricken. It will state, 22 Lot 6, Block 2 shall be permitted to be developed 23 or -- excuse me -- I don't want that there, 24 because Lot 6, Block 2 is the one that sits up in 25 the -- that the musical arts school must be in 23 1 the mix -use area along State Street. And that if 2 it does not develop, it will be allowed with a 3 transitional residential with an overall density 4 not to exceed two -units per acre. That there be 5 a minimum of a 40 -foot building setback from 6 Highway 44. 7 MAYOR MERRILL: Assisted living 8 one-story. 9 MS. SEDLACEK: The assisted living, if 10 it is built, not exceed one-story units. 11 MAYOR MERRILL: Six -feet wide asphalt 12 or concrete sidewalks along State Street. 13 MS. SEDLACEK: And six -feet wide 14 asphalt or concrete sidewalks along State Street. 15 MAYOR MERRILL: Okay. There is a 16 motion. Is there a second for discussion? 17 MR. NORDSTROM: Second for discussion. 18 Are we debating two separate issues here, again? 19 One is an application asking for a Comprehensive 20 Plan amendment. The other part of the discussion 21 is how we see going forward ruling on this 22 particular area we call the -- 23 MAYOR MERRILL: This is what we're 24 looking at right now, this Rivendell application 25 and Park Hampton, which is that development. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 That's part of this right now that we're looking at. It's the CPA 03RZ7-3. That's the only thing we're looking at right now with the Development Agreement. MR. NORDSTROM: I understand that. But I took some of Lynn's comments and part of her motion based on the area and not the application, I guess, is where I'm going with it. MAYOR MERRILL: I think what she was dealing with, Scott, was the residential part of that next to Park Lane. MR. NORDSTROM: Okay. MS. SEDLACEK: Yes, my motion was specific to this application. What complicated it was, number one, where the school is seated now or sited right now, I don't want that to be mix use. And that's probably an area that we need to discuss, because I would like to make the school happen. I think the density is too high. I've always thought the density was too high, even in the visioning sessions. I have to tell you, it was the people that wanted to develop the property, and the people that wanted to sell the property for development are the ones that wanted 1 the higher density. 2 I knew you people are out here. 3 didn't know what took you so long to show up and 4 say something about these proposed densities, 5 because it's been going on since we started the 6 Comp Plan -- when? 7 MAYOR MERRILL: Last January. 8 MS. SEDLACEK: -- Last January. So 9 anyway, it's spilled milk. So I have issues with 10 the lot that sits right in the middle. I don't 11 know that we should make that mix use. 12 And then the densities that we show on 13 the residential portion is in Exhibit B. I don't 14 have a problem with that. But if some of the mix 15 use suggested now, such as the assisted living 16 center goes away, then I think we have to address 17 possible residential densities for the entire 18 area under the mix -use zoning. Now, I think we 19 need to address how that's going to carry 20 forward. 21 MAYOR MERRILL: So, Lynn, what are you 22 proposing then for where Rivendell is and will no 23 longer be, what are you thinking that should 24 happen with that? 25 MS. SEDLACEK: I think it should stay 25 I just 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 residential. MAYOR MERRILL: The R2? MS. SEDLACEK: An overall density not to exceed R2, with transitioning over to bigger lots with bigger lots. And I don't anticipate a five -acre lot next to a five -acre lot. I would say maximum density probably two -units per acre, and not to go lower than a one- or a two -acre lot. MAYOR MERRILL: Steve. MR. GUERBER: I'm not bothered by the Rivendell portion of the proposal. I guess, because, number one, I think Mr. Woods' relatives are the ones that are impacted on the north. So I don't look at that as having impact when you are the developer, and the developer's relatives, and you feel comfortable with that. And I think that there are buffers and setbacks and landscaping built into this that buffers those impacted on various sides by this specific project. I think it's an appropriate usage of that land down there. If I had my druthers, yeah, I guess it didn't go all the way up to Flint, but I'm not all that bothered by it, I guess, in looking at 27 1 the overall concept. 2 MS. SEDLACEK: Because of the buffering 3 ability. 4 MR. GUERBER: Because I think there 5 is -- yes, because the buffering and the 6 ability -- I mean, even on the gentleman to the 7 west that would be impacted by it to have the 8 cottages there that, I think, are going to be 9 fairly low densities, fairly low usage. And the 10 setbacks that are involved in it, and the 11 landscaping that would take place on the back 12 side of those, I don't think there is going to be 13 a tremendous amount of impact on that. 14 I also think that over a period of 15 time -- and I don't know what that period is -- 16 I think we will not see five -acre lots in that 17 area. I think that there will ultimately be a 18 transition. 19 And I think as other development takes 20 place around there, with one -acre lots or 21 whatever, these fives are going to go away. And 22 I think it's only call that, you know, at some 23 point in time somebody is going to say, you know, 24 I'm going to move away, and I'm going to make 25 some money. And I'm going to split this five 28 1 acres into two -and -a -half, or ones, or whatever 2 it is that they are going to do. 3 So I think we're going to see this 4 transition to something that's going to look 5 different than this. And I think we need to make 6 decisions that look into the of future what's 7 ultimately going to happen. And what to do now 8 that is going to ultimately make sense later on, 9 but maybe doesn't in the minds of some people at 10 this point in time. 11 As I said, I think the densities on the 12 townhouses are higher than I would like to see. 13 I think at the same time, half -acre townhouses 14 don't make a whole lot of sense to me, I guess. 15 I mean, go all the way over to, you know, 16 two -units per acre from the proposed 4.8 goes to 17 the other end of the spectrum, I guess, in my 18 mind. And I'm thinking that a 3 or point 2, or 19 something 3.2165 would be something that I would 20 feel, I guess, more comfortable with. 21 I think the fact that this is a half 22 mile away from The Colony, for example, which is 23 what we've heard about primarily, people in The 24 Colony aren't going to see this development on 25 Park Lane from the standpoint of visual impact on 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them and things. And when we look at what's being proposed in the Comprehensive Plan, we're looking at higher densities on the other side of Park Lane. So going into that transition, I guess, doesn't bother me at this point in time, I guess, as far as this proposal. And I guess to a certain extent, yeah, we've got somebody holding a gun to our heads saying if we can't have adequate densities, then the school doesn't take place. But I think if we had the capability of being able to make decisions about what ought to be happening in Eagle, and we didn't have to, you know, look at the economics of it, it would be a whole lot easier. But I think in this case, we do look at some trade-offs, and say, you know, the proposal here puts an isolated area away from where everybody is right now by a half mile. And in return for allowing this higher density in an area that I think is going to develop with some higher densities in commercial and those kinds of things, that's a better spot than something down in the middle of an area that may have one -acre 30 1 lots all around it, or something like that. 2 So going to a 3, or 3.2, or something 3 like that in return to what I think is going to 4 be a real addition to Eagle, and just one more 5 reason that people are going to say, that's a 6 really unique community, and it's an appropriate 7 place for things like that to happen, I think I 8 am comfortable with. 9 MS. SEDLACEK: However, if the assisted 10 living facility goes away, that would be 11 developed as residential. 12 MR. GUERBER: Well, if that assisted 13 living goes away, then they are not in -- as I 14 understand it, they are not in compliance with 15 the Development Agreement, and they would have to 16 come in and tell us what they are going to do 17 there instead of that, instead of just saying 18 automatically it becomes something else. 19 If it doesn't develop as a music 20 cultural school with cottages and related 21 ancillary uses, generally as shown in Concept A 22 and B, then basically they have to come back to 23 us. And my observation is from the attachment, 24 there is an assisted living facility there. And 25 if that doesn't develop accordingly, then they 31 1 are going to have to come back and tell us what's 2 going on, and why it didn't happen. 3 MS. SEDLACEK: Per Section 4.1. 4 MR. GUERBER: Per 2.13. I mean, that 5 seems to say -- 6 MAYOR MERRILL: We did the same thing 7 as the assisted living as this. 8 MR. GUERBER: Isn't the assisted living 9 in this overall area? 10 MS. SEDLACEK: Only on the concept map. 11 MR. GUERBER: It is in the exhibit, 12 though; is it not? It's in the exhibit. You 13 know, it's on the right-hand side, as I look at 14 the exhibit; Exhibits A and B. 15 MAYOR MERRILL: What you would have to 16 do is you would have to add a 2.16 talking about 17 the assisted living shall be limited to 18 one-story, and then also put it into the same 19 thing that shall be developed only as a -- 20 MR. GUERBER: I mean, it speaks only to 21 the music cultural art school. But it should 22 also, I would think, say and the assisted living 23 center. Because I'm looking at the map right 24 there, and it has group homes and assisted living 25 center on the right-hand side. I look at that as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 a part of this overall living center here. And if they don't put that in there, and they want to put something else, they've got to come back to us, because they are in violation of this agreement. MAYOR MERRILL: One of the things I think that's really important if you do this, Council, is that many times we've have concepts come to us, and they tell us this is a conceptual plan only. We're hanging all of our -- we're putting all our eggs in one basket with the idea that this will be developed as presented. And what you want to make sure is that that concept plan is exactly -- MR. GUERBER: Exactly. If it isn't developed like this, then they have to come back in, and say, you know, here's why we're not developing it that way, or here's what we want to do instead. And then we go back in to the public hearing process, and go through and see what we've done at this point in time as far as development of what should go on that site. MAYOR MERRILL: Scott. MR. NORDSTROM: Well, again, I just will reiterate the fact of what everyone else has 33 said. I think that the frontage road on State Street needs to be mix use. I think the overall impact of the density is too high, and I think we need to moderate it, which I think, we're trying to do with Lynn's proposal. I think this is a tremendous gift to the City, as far as being unique in the way we try and have different offerings in this City. So I just hope that we haven't completely annihilate the developer's opportunity to find a way to make this work. MAYOR MERRILL: Any further discussion? Stan. MR. BASTIAN: Well, I don't know. Yes, I have some thoughts. And I think if we go a minimum of two -units per acre, the Concept Plan as presented certainly will not develop. MR. NORDSTROM: A maximum of two. MR. BASTIAN: A maximum, excuse me, of two -units per acre, I don't think -- I would be surprised if the music conservatory could work. Maybe it can. I don't like the high density there. I think everything south of the undeveloped Flint acres should be mix -use as Lynn 34 1 proposed. The conservatory going up into the 2 north of that area, I think for most folks, is 3 not going to be a big problem. But the property 4 immediately to the west with that parking lot 5 fronting that property could be a problem. 6 MAYOR MERRILL: That could be changed. 7 MR. BASTIAN: And I think that concept 8 could probably be changed. But I think what 9 we're proposing here tonight is basically a 10 concept. And the concept is we're looking at the 11 maximum density we want to allow in this area. 12 And we want to make a transition from that to 13 one -acre lots along The Colony Subdivision. 14 So the question is: Is two -houses per 15 acre the kind of thing we want to see there in 16 the maximum density. And I know that across the 17 street there is going to be commercial 18 development, more mix -use offices. It kind of 19 makes sense to have the development possibly 20 similar to Red Leaf Heights, and that's like 21 three units per acre, I think. 22 So I would be willing to go to that 23 kind of mix; three -units per acre all the way up 24 to -- I mean, all the way down to one -unit per 25 acre as a transition. You would see quality 35 housing, but you are not going to see the unique proposal that we have before us this evening: the small cottages and bungalow -type houses would go away. And I think Rivendell Conservatory would go away as well. But if that's what we want collectively, I suppose that's the way we should vote. MS. SEDLACEK: I don't know if that's what we want. That might be the result. But, again, we have to decide whether, you know, how important is the density to us. This is an area where we've stood strong through a lot of adversity over the years, and I think it has paid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 off. So, Madam Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR MERRILL: The question has been called for. All those in favor? THE COUNCIL: Aye. MAYOR MERRILL: Opposed? THE COUNCIL: Nay. MAYOR MERRILL: Thanks. Well, I don't want to lose Rivendell. I think Rivendell is one of those things that we saw when Camille Beckman 36 1 came through with our last Comprehensive Plan, 2 and we were discussing densities, and what was 3 going on out here. 4 I have seen -- I wish I had the disk 5 tonight for everybody to see it. It is a 6 beautiful opportunity for this community. It is 7 what we have been trying to do is put together a 8 cultural center for people for performing arts, a 9 place for our kids to be. I go and watch grand 10 kids try to go to their dance recitals, and they 11 have to go two nights clear over to Nampa and 12 Caldwell out of the valley, and it takes all of 13 those tax dollars out of here. 14 One of the things we were looking at 15 with this Comprehensive Plan that drove us to 16 this was the thought that what was happening in 17 the counties surrounding us was increasing our 18 density. I did a little calculation on that. 19 If we follow this new Comprehensive 20 Plan based upon the densities that are out here, 21 and we've already eliminated some on the Chinden 22 area up there, we would have increased the 23 population in the next 20 to 30 years plus by 24 18,000. 25 That seems huge. It seems huge when we 37 1 were at 4,000 to think that we were going to be 2 where we are today up to 16,000. However, if we 3 didn't do anything out here, and just allowed it 4 to happen as the County has allowed it to 5 develop, it's nearly four times the density of 6 what the City of Eagle would approve, and it 7 comes up between 60 and 72,000 in population. 8 That's a big difference. So we became very 9 proactive into what's happened out here. 10 The next thing that we had to look at 11 is if we put all these people out here, how are 12 we going to sustain them? What is our tax base 13 going to be? Do the taxes rest on the residence, 14 on the backs of the residences, or do we start 15 looking at some commercial and some businesses in 16 this area that can sustain the folks that live 17 out there to decrease the number of trips per day 18 that they have to go into the city to work? 19 Perhaps they can find some jobs out here and work 20 in this area and not have to travel so far. 21 We looked at the densities around the 22 schools for the same reason. For the kids that 23 could walk and be involved in those communities 24 around the schools without having to put buses on 25 it. 38 1 I sit on the executive committee for 2 the ValleyRide, that's the alternative 3 transportation for the valley, when we try to 4 figure out what are we going to do with traffic 5 in the future for this whole Treasure Valley. 6 And we're looking at corridors, and looking at 7 State Street, and Eagle Road, and 55, and 8 Fairview, and Franklin Road, and Overland for the 9 future. Way out here, what are we going to do to 10 move people through this valley without grid 11 lock? 12 And so as we went through this 13 visioning plan, that became a big part of this is 14 to situate folks in an area, in an isolated area, 15 a more condensed area where they could actually, 16 after we're gone and our kids are gone, hop on a 17 transit and get clear into Boise, and go to Boise 18 State University, or to the hospital, or to 19 downtown, or get up to Eagle Road and do the same 20 thing. 21 So we looked at these increased 22 densities. And my thought is, and I've always 23 been -- I can justify taking the same number of 24 lots on those acreages if they were going to be 25 one -per acre, and I could squish them into some 39 1 smaller lots if I could have some bigger areas, 2 which was something else I wasn't increasing the 3 number of people in this city. 4 And I think, I'm not real crazy about 5 the half acres. And I certainly can't go with 6 the 4.8 no matter what happens. I think that a 7 compromise is the three. And I don't want to 8 lose the Rivendell. I think that that is going 9 to be a beautiful addition. And as far as 10 property values, it will increase property values 11 for any property that lives along there. 12 So, you know, I agree that we should 13 try to keep the Rivendell. I guess the vote is 14 two to two with the half -acre lots is what we're 15 looking at. And I would vote nay on that. 16 Which brings us back to another vote 17 for denial at this point. The City attorney. 18 (City attorney inaudible.) 19 MAYOR MERRILL: So then at this point, 20 if there were another motion made it could not 21 happen at this point? 22 MR. NORDSTROM: No, it can. 23 MR. GUERBER: It should, or it dies 24 without a decision. 25 MAYOR MERRILL: All right. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 MR. GUERBER: So I'll make it. I'm going to basically propose the same thing that Council Woman Sedlacek had proposed changing two items: The first being allowing the density of up to three lots per acre, and the other being allowing the Rivendell as proposed, including the -- what is that goofy L -shape piece north of -- MAYOR MERRILL: Lot 6, Block 2, the assisted living. MR. GUERBER: And follow her motion in regard to the assisted living center limitations. The sidewalk, curb and gutters, the 40 -foot setback from Highway 44, and striking the line, the second line in 2.13, and the limitations on bank and financial institutions. MS. SEDLACEK: And the one-story for -- MR. GUERBER: Yes, and the one-story, which I think I mentioned the wording in regard to the assisted living center being one-story. (City attorney inaudible.) MR. GUERBER: That the development would be in substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan in regard to transition and concept. 41 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Second. 2 MAYOR MERRILL: Discussion, Scott. 3 MR. NORDSTROM: So under a designation 4 like that, how do you see the lots feathering 5 both ways from Park Lane to the border of The 6 Colony. 7 MR. GUERBER: I see it transitioning 8 the same way Lynn explained it, with one acres 9 adjacent to The Colony, and halves between this 10 and the three -per acre ones -- 11 MR. NORDSTROM: Are we concentrating -- 12 MR. GUERBER: -- In this area. And 13 actually this motion doesn't affect what happens, 14 I guess, in the rest of the area, because we are 15 going to look at that later on when we really 16 designate what's going to happen to that area, at 17 least that's my understanding. We're just 18 speaking to what happens to only those two 19 particular lots that are being developed that are 20 in this proposal. 21 MAYOR MERRILL: Let's make sure it gets 22 out to all of the affected parties that might be 23 the best way to do that. We would love to be 24 able to work with the homeowners' association 25 presidents of each of these subdivisions. We're 42 1 trying to get them registered, and get them in 2 here so we can do that. 3 Okay. We have a motion, and we have a 4 second. Any further discussion? Lynn. 5 MS. SEDLACEK: Madam Mayor, I believe 6 R3, that's high density. And we don't even know 7 if that's enough. It's still a concept. 8 MR. GUERBER: That's fine. If it's not 9 enough, then we won't see the project. 10 MAYOR MERRILL: Motion and then 11 seconded. All those in favor? 12 THE COUNCIL: Aye. 13 MAYOR MERRILL: Opposed? 14 THE COUNCIL: Nay. 15 MAYOR MERRILL: Motion carries. Okay. 16 MS. SEDLACEK: Madam Mayor, there is a 17 lot of confusion, even on my part, as to whether 18 or not we did make -- this is what happens when 19 you go until 2:00 in the morning like we did last 20 time, or 1:00 in the morning. 21 MAYOR MERRILL: I think it was 1:30. 22 MS. SEDLACEK: Whatever. 23 MAYOR MERRILL: 2:00 when I got home. 24 MS. SEDLACEK: Have we voted? There is 25 a lot of people here still concerned about the 43 1 property between the high school and The Colony. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: No, we 3 haven't looked at that yet. 4 MAYOR MERRILL: Staff is telling me 5 that we did, and that we approved it. 6 MS. SEDLACEK: Staff is telling me that 7 we did, and we approved it. We did it when we 8 looked at the Ricks' property and when we looked 9 at this entire area. And I don't think a lot of 10 us were concentrating on this. I think we were 11 concentrating on the area west of Park. I know I 12 was. 13 And in my motion, and I believe I made 14 the motion, I didn't address the fact that we 15 allowed, I believe, six -units per acre 16 transitional. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Well, we 18 still can debate that, because it's in the next 19 item in the agenda; isn't it? 20 MAYOR MERRILL: The Village planning 21 area is the next area on the agenda. 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Where is 23 tonight's agenda? 24 MS. SEDLACEK: Madam Mayor, how do we 25 ask for a clarification from staff? 44 1 MAYOR MERRILL: Yes, staff, please. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: You went 3 over the Park Lane planning area last time, and 4 then I'll let you go from there. You actually 5 took testimony, closed testimony. And then a 6 motion was made by Lynn, and it was approved 7 three/zero. 8 MS. SEDLACEK: But the motion addressed 9 this area over here. But this is where I made a 10 change. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKERS: Yes, the 12 motion only addressed changes in that area. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: A point of 14 order, please. 15 MAYOR MERRILL: Okay. Thank you. City 16 attorney. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Let me ask 18 this question first before the attorney responds. 19 We still have before us CPA -2-0-4, the western 20 sub area plan. We have been acting on pieces and 21 parts of this, but we still have to adopt a whole 22 plan, as I understand. At the point we do that, 23 can't we not -- can we make changes to the plan 24 as we adopt the final version? 25 (City attorney inaudible.) 45 1 FEMALE CITY ATTORNEY: Madam Mayor, 2 Members of the Council, there is two approaches 3 you can take. A motion was made, and a decision 4 was made on that section. You may either reopen 5 for reconsideration and do that now, or you can 6 postpone it if you wish to reopen it and 7 reconsider your decision. 8 You may obviously do that. You are in 9 a legislative capacity. Nothing has been 10 published. Because the resolution talks about 11 adopting the Comprehensive Plan Amendments as a 12 group, you can go back and do it then. It may be 13 more efficient, given the testimony that you've 14 already heard tonight, if you wish to go back and 15 reconsider your decision, you can certainly vote 16 to reconsider that. 17 If, in the event you decide to do that, 18 you may or may not wish to allow additional 19 testimony. You've heard a great deal of 20 testimony tonight. You can take that into 21 consideration. You can certainly allow more 22 testimony. That's going to be strictly within 23 the consideration of the Council as to how you 24 wish to proceed, and what you feel is in the best 25 interest of the City and the folks that have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appeared to testify. UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Madam Mayor, my preference would be to vote to reconsider the Park Lane planning area as presented in the document subject title CPA -2-0-4 western sub area plan. And I have one particular item that I would like to change, and that is density not to exceed -- and it says in this document -- six -units per acre near Eagle High School. I would like to be consistent with the decision we just made, and make that three -units per acre near Eagte High School. MAYOR MERRILL: Not to exceed. UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Not to exceed -- that Is not three -units per acre, but not to exceed three -units per acre. And if we can do that, that's what I would like to do. MR. GUERBER: Madam Mayor, before you do that, I need to make note of the fact that last week when you were considering that and making the decisions, I was sitting in my car with my cell phone in Island Park trying to find a right spot where I could actually pick up a cell, which I did, until the cell phone finally died. And I was connected -- no, I was not connected at this point. I was connected on about the first four Items, and this was not one of them, and I had lost you by that point in time. So I'm going to abstain from your consideration and discussion of this issue. FEMALE CITY ATTORNEY: Madam Mayor, you would first need to make a motion to reopen and reconsider. UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: And I think that has been made by the Mayor. MS. SEDLACEK: Madam Mayor, I would move that we reopen and reconsider the Park Lane planning area. MAYOR MERRILL: Is there a second? UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Second. MAYOR MERRILL: All those In favor? THE COUNCIL: Aye. MAYOR MERRILL: The motion carries. Now, what we can do is we've heard testimony tonight on how you feel about this area. If you want to go back over that all over again, we can do that again, or we can go ahead and have the Council start deliberating and discussion on that. It's up to you folks. If you are ready for them to make a 46 48 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decision, I believe they are ready based upon your testimonies that we've heard previous. We've already had a presentation of what Is being proposed out in this area, so... UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Could we put it together and make a quick summary for the people that are not here? MAYOR MERRILL: Would you like to take a little break and do that? UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Let's do that. MAYOR MERRILL: Sure. Let's take a quick five -minutes, again, and then well re -group. (A recess was held.) EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN RE: PARK LANE PLANNING AREA, EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ) City of Eagle ) Comprehensive Plan ) No. CPA -2-0-4 EXCERPT OF TESTIMONY OF THE CITY OF EAGLE COUNCIL MEETING TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 TRANSCRIBED BY: COLLEEN P. KUNE, CSR No. 345 Notary Public 50 1 THE EXCERPT OF TESTIMONY TAKEN OF THE 2 CITY OF EAGLE COUNCIL MEETING, IN RE: PARK LANE 3 PLANNING AREA, was taken before MAYOR NANCY C. 4 MERRILL, and the City of Eagle Council Members, 5 located in the city of Eagle, Idaho, on September 6 7, 2004, in the above -entitled matter. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX Testimony of Joel Barker Testimony of Steve Ricks Testimony of Linda Thomas 51 52 1 MAYOR MERRILL: Okay. I would like to 2 open this public hearing and public testimony for 3 this part of the Park Lane Planning Area in the 4 Comprehensive Plan, the CPA -2-0-4, City of Eagle. 5 UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Madam 6 Mayor, with regard to this particular topic, I 7 know that you voted to reopen and reconsider. 8 The only difficulty is that there were people who 9 attended the last hearing, who provided testimony 10 and listened to your decision at that time, those 11 individuals would not -- unless they are 12 personally present tonight, would not have any 13 information about that. 14 You certainly may go ahead and proceed, 15 but I did want to have you look at who testified 16 that night, and find out if any of those 17 individuals are here. 18 MAYOR MERRILL: The people that 19 testified are -- give me one second as I flip 20 through my book. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Why don't 22 we go ahead with the testimony. 23 MAYOR MERRILL: Okay. Let's take your 24 testimony while we go through that. So let's 25 swear again. 53 1 JOEL BARKER, PAGE 2 first duly sworn to tell the truth relating to 5 3 said cause, testified as follows: 10 4 MAYOR MERRILL: State your name and 17 5 address, please. 6 MR. BARKER: Joel Barker, 917 North 7 Cove Colony. I am a resident of The Colony, and 8 also a member on the homeowners' association 9 board. And I have been coerced to now speak for 10 this group. 11 And in our five-minute discussion, our 12 concerns are the density, the transition, and the 13 access points. Because it is our understanding 14 there are currently two stub roads on the western 15 edge of The Colony Subdivision that go into this 16 property on the west, that now, based upon what 17 has occurred in the approval of the multi -use 18 area on the southern portion, we basically now 19 landlocked this portion between Eagle High School 20 and The Colony. And we see two access points to 21 that land through The Colony, which could raise 22 issues with further density. 23 It appears to us, in our very quick 24 review, based upon what occurred earlier this 25 evening, that that would require then, that any 54 1 other access points would be off of Floating 2 Feather to the north, because we've now blocked 3 it off to the south. And so, again, access 4 points when most traffic is coming off of State 5 Street, that there would be a significant amount 6 of access into this property. 7 We believe -- we understand the 8 multi -use need for State Street. We do 9 understand the move towards up to three on this 10 piece of property next to Park Avenue, because 11 west of Park Avenue, it is going to become more 12 commercial. We already have Eagle High School 13 there, and the activity in that property. 14 But since we are now talking about a 15 property that is between Eagle High School and 16 The Colony over to the north by Floating Feather, 17 we really would believe that the density in this 18 property should remain at one unit per acre 19 because of the access points, and to be 20 consistent with our property, and the properties 21 across the street on Floating Feather and 22 maintaining that consistency. 23 So thank you very much. 24 MAYOR MERRILL: Thank you very much. 25 UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Madam 55 1 Mayor, for clarification, because we did make 2 some motions and we did make some modifications 3 to that area, I ask for reconsideration just 4 specifically for the area between The Colony and 5 the high school. 6 MAYOR MERRILL: Okay. 7 UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Are we 8 clear on that? 9 MAYOR MERRILL: Yes. 10 UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Are we in 11 agreement on that? 12 MAYOR MERRILL: Yes. Is everybody okay 13 on that, just in that area? 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: And, Mayor, 15 I also would like to point out that we approved 16 this at a density not to exceed six units per 17 acre near Eagle High School, and that's a 18 concem. Because what the representatives in The 19 Colony are saying this evening is we would like 20 to keep it at one unit per acre maximum density, 21 which is significantly different than the maximum 22 density of six units per acre. We just wanted to 23 hear this, so that we could lower that density to 24 a more reasonable number. 25 MAYOR MERRILL: Okay. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: I can tell you who testified, and what they testified towards. MAYOR MERRILL: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Do you want me to do that? Is that the best way to do it? MAYOR MERRILL: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Steve Ricks, he testified dealing with the professional office designation off State Street and Park Lane. Pete Centarino testified concerning 11 -and -a -half acres at Park and State for commercial designation. Kathy Nahas testified in support of Pete Centarino's request. Mark Butler testified wanting to limit service commercial to three acres at State and Park with the availability of food and drive-throughs. Was it Tim Theis -- I'm sorry. Tim Theis spoke in support additional commercial development along State Street. Thad Rogeny testified in support of the music academy and commercial at the corner of Park and State. Matt Siren testified about traffic concems in a generalized area with the increase of densities 57 1 in the area. 2 That was all the public testimony in 3 that area. 4 MAYOR MERRILL: Okay. So everyone 5 that -- Mark Butler is here, Mr. Siren is here, 6 Mr. Ricks is here. So I do not believe there was 7 anybody that testified about this density on this 8 location; is that correct? 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: I did with 10 the mixed use. 11 MAYOR MERRILL: But not on this 12 particular property here. So I think we're safe. 13 UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: The policy 14 in question -- if I can go further, ma'am. If 15 you could mark on the exhibit, so we're all 16 clear, the exact area that you are talking about, 17 and that could be just part of the motion. 18 MAYOR MERRILL: Can that be part of the 19 motion, Mr. Motion Maker, would you amend your 20 motion in what to reconsider, and identify just 21 that area, Mr. Motion Maker? 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Yes. 23 UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN SPEAKER: Okay. The 24 area north of State. Madam Mayor, I move that we 25 reconsider the area north of State and east of 58 1 the high school, and west of The Colony 2 Subdivision, south of Floating Feather. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: And I 4 second that motion to reconsider. 5 MAYOR MERRILL: There is a motion and a 6 second. All in favor? 7 AUDIENCE: Aye. 8 MAYOR MERRILL: Motion carried. 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: I abstain. 10 MAYOR MERRILL: And one abstention. 11 We've heard from the adjoining property 12 owners from The Colony. Is there anybody who 13 would like to speak to this issue? 14 Mr. Ricks, go ahead. 15 STEVE RICKS, 16 first duly sworn to tell the truth relating to 17 said cause, testified as follows: 18 MAYOR MERRILL: Thank you. 19 MR. RICKS: Tom Ricks. I reside at 20 1515 North Park Lane. John Wood didn't stick 21 around, and I apologize to him, because I am 22 probably the one who initially got a raft for his 23 application. 24 I'm the owner of that ground right to 25 the west of The Colony. And right now it's in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 pretty hay field, and they are working in irrigating, which I enjoy doing. It's interesting how history has repeated itself. I, like Council Guerber, participated in the Horizon Task Force in the late '80s, and was part of the hot bed of the Comprehensive Plan in 1993. It's very similar to how it is resulting tonight. As you remember, for those of you who were on Council, and, Steve, were you Mayor at that time? The Horizon Task Force came up with a series of envisioning sessions very similar of how we did this since January, and basically, it was comprised of groups of citizens from all over the area of Eagle getting together and envisioning something that would be good for Eagle. All the area that paralleled Highway 44 going west, and also Eagle Road, and some other areas that were high density and potential traffic areas were designated as higher density, and residential areas also, just because that's where the utility companies, as you remember, wanted to be. And as we went out towards Linder Road, 60 1 that was at one time even designated as high as 2 R-4, four to the acre, until these public 3 meetings came, and basically the people from 4 Redwood Creek -- not to downgrade you, 5 Scott -- came out in force and basically said 6 that's not what they wanted. They didn't see 7 that even as the entities basically said that's 8 what would be ideal for that area. 9 And so in a series of compromises and 10 whatnot, the compromise being that the Comp Plan 11 of 1993 was formulated with the designated 12 densities as they are now. We are in the same 13 situation right now where entities and other 14 people envisioning sessions have said that higher 15 densities should be -- or not should be, but 16 would be probably more capable of being in areas 17 along major transportation facilities, and also 18 that's where the utilities would be. 19 I guess as a property owner, and then I 20 have probably a couple of hats, and also 21 developer, and farmer. And as you know, part 22 ownership/developer in Countryside Estates, it's 23 interesting to see the people out of The Colony 24 and the people over at Redwood Creek enjoy the 25 things that we put in over there as far as parks, 61 1 parking areas, and whatnot for them to enjoy. We 2 don't mind that. 3 If you go over there at Countryside 4 about 7:30 in the morning where it hooks into 5 Redwood Creek, there is a big avenue of people 6 coming from the west to the east enjoying the 7 things that we put in. 8 And like I said, that's fine. We put 9 them in for public use. They are being used. 10 But it's things that they don't have. But we put 11 them in, because we got a little bit higher 12 density over there, and we are able to afford to 13 put those things in. For one acre lots, the 14 economics don't allow you to put in a whole lot 15 of amenities. And so you stick with basically 16 roads that don't have sidewalk, or don't have 17 curb. And basically, just a borrow ditch that 18 ACHD hates, because the property owners never 19 maintain them the way they should. 20 But when you have a little higher 21 density, you are able to do sidewalks. You are 22 able to do curb and gutter. You are able to do 23 drainage the way it should be handled, instead of 24 borrow ditches, things just work a little better. 25 You are able to provide swings, parks, amenities 62 1 the things that people in the subdivision 2 involve. People from The Colony and Redwood 3 Creek come and enjoy those things that we 4 provided. Fine. That's great. We're glad to be 5 of service to the citizens of The Colony and to 6 Redwood Creek. In order to afford those things, 7 you have to have a higher density. 8 Behind the high school, if you want to 9 consider it is a high school, it is basically an 10 R-40 or R-45. That's what's over there. It's 11 probably the largest high school in the state. 12 You have 2,300 students that attend there. So if 13 you want to carefully layout the close density, 14 you are at an R-45. 15 So is it really something that we 16 should maintain all the way over to the high 17 school? Is it an R-1 where you have such a mass 18 density there in the high school. I don't think 19 it makes sense. The utilities are there. The 20 transportation facilities are there. That's a 21 hub. It's a hub for activity, and it will 22 continue to be a hub for activity. 23 A little bit on transportation. We are 24 plugged into two areas that are the -- into the 25 east part of The Colony, as far as plugging in 63 1 for ACHD roads. There is two other possible 2 accesses that we can use, although I really don't 3 want to use the private road that goes along West 4 Nephi into the seminary building, although we 5 could force that if we had to by contract. 6 That would not be passable, because you 7 would open up that whole area to basically high 8 school traffic, and that probably would not be 9 the best. We do have the possibility -- but we 10 do have a possibility of providing access up to 11 Floating Feather. 12 MAYOR MERRILL: Lean a little bit 13 closer there. 14 MR. RICKS: So that would eliminate 15 part of that problem going into The Colony, which 16 I think it probably would. As you watch the 17 traffic flow out of The Colony and out of Redwood 18 Creek, a lot of people go into Floating Feather 19 and then out, because of Highway 44. And if you 20 watch them in the morning, that is the traffic 21 flow, they go to Floating Feather, and then they 22 go either west or east. And we have the 23 capability of probably providing other access 24 point up to Floating Feather, which would 25 probably eliminate their concern as far as the 64 1 traffic going into their subdivisions. 2 I would just like to not caution the 3 Council, but ask the Council if they would maybe 4 consider a little bit of increased density along 5 there along the high school. It makes total 6 sense. One -acre lots are privacy lots. We found 7 that out in Countryside. It is a special 8 critter. It's special type of buyer. That buys 9 one acre lots. They like their privacy. They 10 like their peace. You don't get that right up 11 next to a high school when you have drums playing 12 at ball games going on up until 10:00 at night. 13 It's a not a privacy lot any more. And so the 14 marketing capability of marketing one -acre lots 15 up to next Eagle High is going to be extremely 16 tough. So I think those are some of the 17 considerations you need to take into account when 18 you designate this area. 19 I don't mind the R-6 acre. That is a 20 little high. We didn't say anything, but it was 21 a little high. We wanted to do patio -home type 22 situations back there that I think would 23 contribute to that area. If that's not what the 24 people want, that's fine. We can do something 25 else. But I think it needs to be something other 65 1 than one lot to the acre. Those would be almost 2 impossible to market. That's probably all I have 3 to say. 4 MAYOR MERRILL: Thank you. I 5 appreciate that. Raise a hand? Yeah. 6 LINDA THOMAS, 7 first duly sworn to tell the truth relating to 8 said cause, testified as follows: 9 MAYOR MERRILL: State your name and 10 address, please. 11 MS. THOMAS: Linda Thomas, 2746 West 12 Wind Drive in The Colony. I understand the 13 difficulty of marketing a large lot next to a 14 high school. High schools are noisy. And I'm 15 not for saying that they must all be one acre 16 lots. That would be unrealistic to expect anyone 17 to move into a one -acre home next to the high 18 school. 19 However, I would remind the Council 20 that not -- that the small lots in the area are 21 one acre, because across the street, across 22 Floating Feather, those are two acre and larger 23 lots. So when we're looking at one -acre lots, 24 those are not the biggest lots in the area at 25 all. 66 1 MAYOR MERRILL: Thank you. 2 Okay, Council. Anything from staff 3 additional on this area? Then we'll look for 4 Council for discussion. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Mayor, if I 6 may go first. 7 MAYOR MERRILL: Yes. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: I think 9 that the resolution of the previous matter before 10 the Council with a transition from a highest 11 density of three acres -- three houses per acre 12 transitioning to one house per acre next to The 13 Colony makes sense. I would like to have that 14 same density opportunity here in the community 15 that would be just north of the area we approved 16 with three houses per acre as the maximum density 17 transitioning to one house per acre near The 18 Colony on the east of that property. 19 I think that that would provide 20 sufficient opportunity to vary house sizes, and 21 enable a developer to provide amenities that 22 would be needed in this kind of a development. I 23 think it would work. 24 MAYOR MERRILL: Is that motion. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: That's not 67 1 a motion. I'm going to allow Scott to make the 2 motion if he would like to. 3 MAYOR MERRILL: So you are saying the 4 overall density, the maximum density would be not 5 to exceed three units per acre, and it would 6 transition from higher density over to the high 7 school to approximately one -acre lots along The 8 Colony? 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Correct. 10 MAYOR MERRILL: Scott. 11 MR. NORDSTROM: Just a point of 12 clarification, if we could look at the map again. 13 Are we also talking about the acreage north of 14 the high school in this discussion? 15 MAYOR MERRILL: No, that was to remain 16 one acre. Just the yellow. 17 MR. NORDSTROM: That stays the current 18 designation, which is? 19 MAYOR MERRILL: One. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: That's up 21 on the bench; isn't it? 22 MAYOR MERRILL: Yes. See the 23 elevations drop up there. 24 MR. NORDSTROM: I make a motion that we 25 amend our previous decision for the Park Place 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 Planning, Park Lane Planning area that the paragraph that reads, that the land uses north of Park Lane Estates designate a transition increase of residential density ensure from east to west ensuring compatibility with the one -acre lots in The Colony Subdivision, and increasing in density not to exceed -- I'm striking six, and changing it to three acres per acre near the Eagle High School. UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Seconded. MAYOR MERRILL: Further discussion? Hearing no discussion, all those in favor. THE AUDIENCE: Aye. UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Abstain. MAYOR MERRILL: Three ayes, the motion is carried. So that's done. Go home. Please go to sleep for us. (The proceedings concluded.) 69 1 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 I, COLLEEN P. KLINE, CSR No. 345, Certified 4 Shorthand Reporter, certify: 5 That the foregoing proceedings were 6 transcribed by me from a copy of the City of 7 Eagle taped recording of the proceedings; 8 That the foregoing is a true and correct 9 record of all testimony given, to the best of my 10 ability; 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I set my hand and seal 12 this 2nd day of September, 2006. 13 14 15 16 17 18 COLLEEN P. KLINE, CSR 19 Notary Public 20 P.O. Box 2636 21 Boise, Idaho 83701-2636 22 My commission expires September 17, 2011. 23 24 25 (C-•/— /b-01 Page 1 of 1 Barb Cerda From: Jim Murray [jim.murray@cshga.com] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 3:24 PM To: Barb Cerda; Bill Vaughan Cc: Lisa Holyfield (E-mail); Lisa Holyfield (E-mail 2); Aaron Harrigfeld Subject: Rock Pointe Condominiums Attachments: 5thFloor_1228150912_001.pdf Barb, Sorry for the late arrival of this letter. In summary, we are asking that SSC #16 be further clarified by DR Board Member MacDonald (specifically the first sentence) and if the DR Board wishes to discuss this with us (as applicant) this evening, we are prepared to participate. We cannot stress the importance of maintaining the schedule of moving this DR application before the January 9th City Council meeting. The Holiday schedule, coupled by the absences at the last DR meeting have placed this pressure on tonight's meeting. We will bring copies of this letter as well as a supporting photo survey tonight and are prepared to discuss this particular SSC. Thank you in advance for your time. James G. Murray, AIA CSHQA C.W. Moore Plaza 250 South 5th Street Boise, Idaho 83702 (208) 429-4090 (Direct) (208) 343-4638 (Fax) (208) 869-3306 (Cell) E -Mail: jim.murray@cshga.com PRIVILEGED!CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this message. The information in this e-mail correspondence is intended for me use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, duplication, tcitribolion or the taking of any action in reliance on this correspondence is strictly prohibited. If you received this correspondence in error, alease notify the sender by redly e-mail. :)none or !ax anc destroy any and all copies of the correspondence. Thank you. 1/3/2007 VV Moor_ Fla. -1 150 _i 5th Sti i Boise ID 83702 208 3414635 lay' 208 3=13 1858 December 28 2006 Via .PDF to Barb Ceuta, City of Eagle City of Eagle Design Review Board Eagle City Hall 660 East Civic Lane Eagle, Idaho 83616 Re: DR -104-06/727 E. State LLC Rock Pointe Eagle, Idaho Project No. 02239 000 Ladies and Gentlemen: As you know, we represent 727 E State Street, LLC ("727 E. State") in its proposed conversion of the Peregrine Cove apartment building into a condominium project called Rock Pointe The Design Review Board's (the "DR Board") December 28 agenda includes the adoption of recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law for Rock Pointe. It is very important for the scheduling of this project that you forward your recommendations to the city council on December 28. However, there are a couple of considerations that we want to bring to your attention for your discussions_ For the record, 727 E State has indicated to CSFIQA that upon first approaching this project with staff agreed to submit a design review application for Rock Pointe based on discussions with the city staff that the city would not require extensive exterior remodeling that would be unduly expensive or would compromise the existing building envelopes With the exception of constructing the new clubhouse, 727 E State is simply changing the ownership structure of existing buildings from apartments to condominiums For that reason, 727 E. State maintains that the project is not a "development" that would trigger mandatory design review for the existing buildings. Therefore, we believe 727 E. State's participation in design review for this project is voluntary, and we believe 727 E. State is entitled to have its condominium plat processed whether or not it participates in design review. Nevertheless, 727 E State wants to work with the DR Board and the City to improve the appearance of these buildings. We previously brought to your attention our concerns about the ambiguity of site-specific condition 16, which requires 727 E State to add rock facing to the vertical elements of the project pursuant to a design to be approved by staff and a member of the DR Board. We have met with the staff and Board Member MacDonald to determine the intent of this provision, which we now understand would require full height rock facing on the exterior vertical elements of all the buildings. We wanted to be sure this is the intent of the DR Board prior to forwarding this to the city council If it is not, we ask that you clarify the matter in your findings on the 28". people who listen - design that speaks boise • sacramento • los angeles www cshqa com City of Eagle Design Review Board December 28, 2006 Page 2 of 2 If the full DR Board supports the rock -facing requirement, we wanted you to be aware we will raise significant concerns about this requirement to the city council. We also have significant concerns about the requirement for installing the exterior window trim on over 300 windows and doors. These requirements add significant construction costs to this project and can create the potential for future water leakage and damage of the existing building envelop. However, we understand the DR Board has already made its decision and is now simply documenting it by adopting findings and conclusions. Therefore, we are prepared to take up these issues with the city council. We appreciate your time and effort on this matter and are prepared to discuss this with you on the 28'x', if the DR Board desires to. Thank you. Sincerely, James G. Murray, AIA Applicant Representative Q:1:006W6239 D41RC1I D3 DOCU MENTS1FINDINGSL ETTEROO DOC Sharon Bergmann Page 1 of 1 From: Sharon Bergmann Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:27 PM To: City Council Grp; Susan Buxton (seb@msbtlaw.com) Subject: FW: Temporary Gates at Hill Road Park Phase II Sharon K. l3rrgnutnn C.M.C. City Clerk/Treasurer City of E1g(c, Idaho P.U. l3ox 1520 208.939-6813 ext. 202 Original Message From: Rebecca [mailto:kj@kjcorporation.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:04 PM To: Sharon Bergmann Cc: 'Jim Murray' Subject: Temporary Gates at Hill Road Park Phase II Sharon: C 1' At the Tuesday night City Council meeting, it is my understanding, that the City of Eagle would like K -J Corporation, Inc. to block off traffic to Hill Road Park until construction is complete. We are planning to install temporary chain link gates at each entrance of the parking lot lust off of Hill Road. We hope this will alleviate vehicular traffic into the park. We will also be posting signs on the gates stating that the "park is closed until construction is complete". Please let me know if this meets with the City's approval, at such time we will begin installation of the gates Thanks Jack Young K -J Corporation, Inc. 2316 N. Cole Road Suite D Boise, Idaho 83704 Phone: (208) 378-8713 Fax: (208) 378-9367 1/10/2007 INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning AdministrationGI To: From: Subject: Date: Attachment(s): Copy To: Mayor Merrill and City Council �� Nichoel Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP, Planner III `\ CPA -11-06- City of Eagle January 11, 2007 Map of land use changes per January 9, 2006 Discussions Please review the attached map in reference to the changes to the NE comer of State Street (Hwy44) and State Highway 16. . Page 1 of 1 K 1Plaooiag DephEegk A,,,,.1. CPA120061CPA--11.06 me3.doe Mixed Use Buisness °ark Commerical Residential Two Profe sional Office Resi entialljstates State & -Iwy 16 Area Including Mixed use and Buisness Park INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning Administration qb To: From: Subject: Date: Attachment(s): Copy To: Mayor Merrill and City Council Nichoel Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP, Planner III,.... 0 CPA -3-06- Countyland Subdivision January 11, 2007 Development Agreement per January 9, 2006 Discussions Please review the revised development agreement in reference to the change in the zoning designation from R -3 -DA to R -2 -DA and condition 2.12 concerning the restriction of swales within the planter strip. Review of the application files shows that .132 cfs of irrigation water for the development. Staff has requested that they provide the city copies of he current shares for the property from the Ballantyne Ditch Company. Page 1 of 1 K:1Plaoaiag DeptlEagie App onACPA120061CPA-3-06 ine2.doa Recording Requested 13y and When Recorded Return to: City of Eagle P.O. Box 1520 Eagle, Idaho 83 616 January 16, 2007 Version DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT For Recording Purposes Do Not Write Above This Line This Development Agreement, made and entered into on the date as indicated herein, by and between the City of Eagle, a municipal corporation in the State of Idaho ("Eagle"), by and through its Mayor, and JLJ Enterprises, Inc. ("Applicant"). WHEREAS, the Applicant is the owner of record of certain real estate located at 2556 W. State Street, Eagle, Idaho, ("Property"), as specifically defined in the attached legal description (Exhibit A) which is the subject of an application for Rezone identified as Rezone Application No. RZ-10-06; and WHEREAS, the proposed development includes properties within an area currently zoned RUT(Rural Urban Transition); and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires an R -23 -DA (Residential Three Two with a development agreement) zoning classification to develop a twelve (12) lot residential subdivision on the above described property, which is herein referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council of Eagle have determined that allowing an R--3-2 zoning designation for the Property must be limited with a development agreement to prevent undue damage to, and to otherwise be in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, the existing uses on the site and the community; and WHEREAS, the intent of this Development Agreement is to protect the rights of Applicant's use and enjoyment of the Property while at the same time limiting any adverse impacts of the development upon neighboring properties and the existing community and ensuring the Property is developed in a manner consistent with Eagle's Comprehensive Plan and City Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to the use restrictions and other limitations set forth herein upon the use and development of the Property and has consented to an R3R2-DA Page 1 of 7 I. K:1Plannina DeDtlEaale Anolications\SUBS120061Countrvland DA2.do 1 (Residential Three Two with a development agreement) zoning designation for the Property with the requirements set forth in this Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has previously provided Eagle with an affidavit agreeing to submit the Property to a Development Agreement pursuant to Eagle City Code Section 8-10- 1(C)(1); and WHEREFORE, the Applicant and the City of Eagle desire to resolve the issues and concerns that have arisen and for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, it is agreed as follows: ARTICLE I CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT 2.1 The development shall contain no more that twelve (12) residential units. 2.2 The development shall not exceed 1.82 units per acre. 2.3 All development within the Property shall be consistent with the Design Guidelines and generally consistent with the Concept Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Concept Plan"). The Concept Plan attached hereto describes the general nature and relative location of certain elements for Countryland Subdivision. The intent of the Agreement is to allow sufficient flexibility at the time of detailed planning and platting while still maintaining the general intent of the Concept Plan with the requirements set forth in this Agreement. 2.4 All buildable lots along the western property line adjacent to Timberland Estates Subdivision shall be a minimum of 17,000 sq. ft. in size. 2.5 All lots located along the western property line adjacent to Timberland Estates Subdivision shall comply with the height and area regulations for the R-2 zone contained in ECC 8-2-4. 242.6 All lots located along the eastern property line adjacent to Countryside Estates Subdivision shall be a minimum of 12,223 sq. ft. in size. 2.7 All lots located along the eastern property line adjacent to Countryside Estates Subdivision shall comply with the height and area regulations for the R-3 zone contained in ECC 8-2-4. 276-2.8 The applicant shall obtain a license agreement from ITD to allow the right- of-way ightofway between this property and the edge of pavement along State Highway 44 Page 2 of 7 K:1Plan.ning DeotlEasle AanlicationslSUBS120061Countrvland DA2.doc and the interior streets to be landscaped prior to the City of Eagle signing the fmal plat. 27-7-2.9 A letter of approval shall be provided to the City from the Eagle Sewer District indicating that the property has been annexed into the Eagle Sewer District's service boundaries and approving the fmal construction plans prior to submittal of the fmal plat application. 278-2.10 All structures (shops, barns, sheds, etc.) within the required setbacks for the R-3 zone shall be removed prior to the clerk signing the final plat. Demolition permits shall be obtained from the City of Eagle Building Department prior to the removal of the structures. 279-2.11 The septic system for the existing house located on Lot 5, Block 2 shall be abandoned prior to the city clerk signing the final plat. Proper permits shall be obtained from prior to the removal of the septic system and copies provided to the City of Eagle. 2.12 The landscape strip located between the curb and sidewalk shall not be used to store, treat, or convey stormwater. All runoff shall be routed through pipes or curbing to the designated storm treatment and containment areas. 2.13 The existing well for the existing house located on Lot 5, Block 2 shall be disconnected from domestic use and certification from United Water of Idaho of connection to a municipal system prior to the city clerk signing the fmal plat. 2.11 2.14 Lot 3, Block 1 shall be developed so to eliminated access to State Highway 44 and all access to the development shall be taken from W. Skywood Drive. ARTICLE II AFFIDAVIT OF PROPERTY OWNERS 3.1 An affidavit of all owners of the Property agreeing to submit the Property to this Development Agreement and to the provisions set forth in Idaho Code Section 67-6511A and Eagle City Code Section 8-10-1 shall be provided and is incorporated herein by reference. ARTICLE II DEFAULT 4.1 In the event the Applicant fails to comply with the commitments set forth herein, within thirty (30) days of written notice of such failure from Eagle, Eagle shall have the right, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies, to cure such default or enjoin such violation and otherwise enforce the requirements contained in this Development Agreement or to terminate the Development Agreement following the process established in Eagle City Page 3 of 7 K_1Plannine Dent\Eag1e Anulications\SUBS\20061Countrvland DA2.doc Code Section 8-10-1. 4.2 If required to proceed in a court of law or equity to enforce any provision of this Development Agreement, Eagle shall be entitled to recover all direct out-of-pocket costs so incurred to cure or enjoin such default and to enforce the commitments contained in this Development Agreement, including attorneys' fees and court costs. ARTICLE IV UNENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS 5.1 If any term, provision, commitment, or restriction of this Development Agreement or the application thereof to any party or circumstances shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this instrument shall terminate and the zoning of the property shall revert to the A -R (Agricultural Residential) zoning designation unless the portion of this instrument determined to be invalid or unenforceable is re -negotiated in good faith between the Applicant (or other appropriate party) and Eagle as an amendment to the Development Agreement processed in accordance with the notice and hearing provisions of Idaho Code Section 67-6509, as required by Eagle City Code Section 8-10-1. ARTICLE V ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER 6.1 After its execution, the Development Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder at the expense of the Applicant. Each commitment and restriction on the development shall be a burden on the Property, shall be appurtenant to and for the benefit of the Property, adjacent property, and other residential property near the Property and shall run with the land. This Development Agreement shall be binding on the Applicant and owners, and their respective heirs, administrators, executors, agents, legal representatives, successors, and assigns; provided, however, that if all or any portion of the development is sold, the sellers shall thereupon be released and discharged from any and all obligations in connection with the property sold arising under this Agreement. The new owner of the Property or any portion thereof (including, without limitation, any owner who acquires its interest by foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise) shall be liable for all commitments and other obligations arising under this Agreement with respect to the Property or portion thereof. ARTICLE VI GENERAL MATTERS 7.1 Amendments. Any alteration or change to this Development Agreement shall be made only after complying with the notice and hearing provisions of Idaho Code Section 67-6509, as Page4of7 K:1Planning Dent\Eaale Annlications\SUBS\20061Countrvland DA2.doc :.' .. required by Eagle City Code Section 8-10-1. 7.2 Paragraph Headings. This Development Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by both parties hereto. Titles and captions are for convenience only and shall not constitute a portion of this Development Agreement. As used in this Development Agreement, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates. 7.3 Choice of Law. This Development Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho in effect at the time of the execution of this Development Agreement. Any action brought in connection with this Development Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction located in Ada County, Idaho. 7.4 Legal Representation. Both the Applicant and Eagle acknowledge that they each have been represented by legal counsel in negotiating this Development Agreement and that neither party shall have been deemed to have been the draftor of this agreement. 7.5 Notices. Any notice which a party may desire to give to another party must be in writing and may be given by personal delivery, by mailing the same by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested postage prepaid, or by Federal Express or other reputable overnight delivery service, to the party to whom the notice is directed at the address of such party set forth below; Eagle: City of Eagle 310 E. State St. Eagle, Idaho 83616 Owner: JLJ Enterprises, Inc. 1560 Carol Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Or such other address and to such other persons as the parties may hereafter designate. Any such notice shall be deemed given upon receipt if by personal delivery, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the United States mail, if sent by mail pursuant to the foregoing, or twenty- four (24) hours after timely deposit with a reputable overnight delivery service. 7.6 Effective Date. This Development Agreement shall be effective upon the signing and execution of this agreement by both parties. 7.7 Termination. This agreement terminates upon completion of Conditions of Development or after 7 -years after the Effective Date, whichever occurs first. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Development Agreement. Page 5 of 7 K:1Plannine Deat\.Eagie Aoolications\SUBS120061Countrvland DA2.doc :.' DATED this day of , 2006. CITY OF EAGLE, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Idaho By: ATTEST: Sharon K. Bergmann, City Clerk Nancy C. Merrill, Mayor Page 6 of 7 K:IPlannina DentlEaale Aoolications\SUBS120061Countrvland DA2.doc :. STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss. County of Ada) On this day of , 2006, before the undersigned notary public in and for the said state, personally appeared NANCY C. MERRILL, known or identified to me to be the Mayor of the City of Eagle and the person who executed the foregoing instrument on behalf of said City and acknowledged to me that said City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: My Commission Expires: By: STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss. County of Ada) Chad Moffat, Managing Member On this day of , 2006, before the undersigned notary public in and for the said state, personally appeared , known or identified to me to be the managing member of Park Lane Development , LLC. Owner of the property referenced herein. and the persons who executed the foregoing instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: My Commission Expires: Page 7 of 7 I K:1Plannina DeDt\Eaale Anolications\SUBS120061Countrvland DA2.doc nod -Bees Photo Index — Coronado CA Craftsman 1. Newer construction utilizing shutters that match the accents colors on the fascia 2. Older residence showing distinctive features and stone accents 3. Older beach bungalow that used Craftsman features in the renovation 4. Classic old Craftsman from early 1900's 5. New construction using Craftsman style and elements A .a • i1 • • K blvllitvttdki The next item is the requirement that we add decorative trim around all 268 of the existing windows. To accomplish this, we would have to cut brittle 12 year-old siding and hope that we can repair any breakage, open up each building envelope an average of 27 times and hope that we do not create any water intrusion problems where none now exist, and then reseal all of the new joints we are creating. Our issue with this is that we can accomplish virtually the same thing — a more aesthetically appealing window by using decorative Craftsman shutters that only require us to drill 4-8 holes with a high speed drill to mount each shutter. In our opinion, the requirement that we add trim to the 268 windows carries much higher risk than reward. We feel the risk of damaging the building envelope and the possibility of future water intrusion far outweigh the aesthetic improvement to the buildings. Many of the other Craftsman elements we have already incorporated into the project have far greater visual impact on the aesthetics without taking unnecessary construction risk. V Last, the requirement that we add a vertical stone element to all four sides of the first floor of the existing buildings is very puzzling to us. We have thoroughly examined the city's own list of Craftsman elements, numerous academic articles on the Craftsman architectural style, and visually viewed almost 100 examples of classic Craftsman in residential settings and we have concluded that this requirement is not compliant with the city's design manualor true Craftsman style. Where stone is used as a vertical element on the face of a residential building, it almost always appears on just the front face of the building and ends below the first floor window frame. Other typical uses of stone are to accent porches, in exposed chimneys, and as a wrap around supporting columns. We are prepared to add stone in appropriate locations that are consistent with our goal of transforming these older plain buildings into something more in line with a pure Craftsman look, but we do not feel it is appropriate to add the amount of stone specified in this condition. In conclusion, we feel that the first two requirements in this site specific condition are not practical or feasible and that the third requirement is not compliant with the Craftsman style we are attempting to create. We ask council to adopt all of the recommendations of Design Review except for this site specific condition and ask that this condition be removed for the reasons presented. We are dealing with older buildings that we did not design or build and we have made a good faith effort to meet the city's new architectural elements in planning this project. I have been told by Mr. Murray that we have satisfied a majority of the elements listed in the city's manual and given what we are starting with we think that should be enough to move this project forward. We look forward to obtaining your approval tonight so that we can finalize our condominium plat and begin work on the project as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and attention. Are there any questions? — • 7.••••• P•117.-- - • ^ • ••- at!"- . •"; ',',',.• "- -, "_•-• - ' ‘, -,‘,' v.,, ,t,:,-etit. r„-',..4,..,:'-' 1!4,Y,4".,"f- ..: ;•', er• . . ': 44, 4,4:Ahr,...,',AL-t.....7.-.Akatiegig;i?•15.r, ,_, ...i.„_...,...,•,•,,, :•;•—,., , ., ,•,,• • •.- . - • - . -.: -• 1' '!:.,„1...,inA.'"‘$14' " v-ar:',. v. ik, ',:•'7'14ii, .,.„. s•, c • - • • - ,q o 4., . . • k), if , • . Ilk . • • t .• ' • ..::: 4` 't 21” 4.4 r Ij n- HOWARD •1TECT ;5.6496 • 7 7: e 'b r 1 - zs, -7 a,., f ,,, f k- L City Council Review January 16, 2007 • 2 . ;.! • .4 ; • ' - le Colony Concerns • Lack of Master Plan • Density • Mixed Use Designation • Collector Road Location "I would just like to not caution the Council, but ask the Council if they would maybe consider a little bit of increased density along there along the high school. It makes total sense. One acre Tots are privacy lots. We found that out in Countryside. It is a special critter. It's special type of buyer that buys one acre Tots. They like their privacy. They like their peace. You don't get that right up next to a high school when you have drums playing at ball games going on up until 10:00 at night. It's a not a privacy lot any more. And so the marketing capability of marketing one acre lots up next to Eagle High is going to be extremely tough. So I think those are some of the considerations you need to take into account when you designate this area." Mr. Tom Ricks September 7th, 2004 Motion "I make a motion that we amend our previous decision for the Park Lane Planning area, that the land uses north of Flint Estates designate a transition increase of residential density from east to west ensuring compatibility with the one acre lots in The Colony Subdivision, and increasing in density not to exceed three homes per acre near the Eagle High School." gvIr. ,Scott Woristrom September 7th, 2004 This motion was seconded by Mr. Stan Bastian, voted and carried that same night. t Summary • Master Plan • Density in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (define "transitional residential") • Residential Zoning (not Mixed Use) • Location of the Collector Road determined