Minutes - 2007 - City Council - 12/05/2007 - Special
./
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting Minutes
December 5, 2007
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Merrill calls the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: BASTIAN, NORDSTROM, BANDY. Absent: GUERBER
A quorum is present.
2A. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending or threatened litigation I.e. 67-2345 (I)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Our Executive Session tonight is in regard to pending or threatened litigation I.C. 67-2345 (t) for
NF ACA and Lanewood.
Nordstom: we are going into Executive Session for the discussion of the Lanewood
Litigation. Seconded by Bastian. Bastian: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL
AYES: MOTION CARRIES...............
Council goes into Executive Session at 5:35p.m.
Council discusses pending or threatened litigation.
Counci[leaves Executive Session at 6:01 p.m.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Boy Scout Troop # 18 leads the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. CANVAS VOTES: In accordance with Idaho Code, Section 50-467, the City Clerk is
requesting the Mayor and Council to canvas the results of the Mayoral Runoff Election.
(SKB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Nordstrom moves to continue the Executive Session to after the Urban Renewal Agency
gives their presentation. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES.....................
City Clerk Bergmann: Statement on Runoff Election. Discussion on Challengers and Watchers
at the Runoff Election. Acknowledgement of the planning and working done by Marti Taylor
and Betty Miller for all of their help through II years of elections. Thank you to Tracy Osborn,
Sheri Horton, Mike Echeita, Planning and Zoning Department and Nichole Baird Spencer and
thank you to election clerks and judges.
I have provided you a yellow sheet which sets out the Canvassing of the Votes for the Runoff
Elections, a copy of the Canvas of Votes from the November 6, 2007, General Election in case
you wanted to compare figures on absentee voting and attendance, and I also provided you a
copy of the Media Release that we did last night. The day after the Election, before I prepare the
canvas of the votes, I do an audit of the Tally Books for each Precinct and I found two clerical
errors in the Tally Books from Precinct #501. Displays the Tally Book on the overhead
projector. We used two sets of Tally Books as they only count votes to 1,480 in each of the Tally
Books so this is the second Tally Book. Discussion on the Tally Books. If you look at the end of
the column for 100 and there is one more vote in the 110 column, when the clerks were bringing
those totals over they brought over III instead of 101. On McDavid the same situation, her
count ended at 50 and they actually put 60 over at the total. Those are the corrections I have
made.
Page 1
K:\CQUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporal)' Minutes Work AreaICC.]2-5-07spmin.doc
Discussion on the procedure of counting the ballots.
After the audit, for the canvassing of the votes tonight, Phil Bandy has 2,345 votes and 2,190
votes for Saundra McDavid. We had 4,537 ballots cast which is a 44% voter turn out. The
General Election was a 36% voter turn out. There were 420 absentee votes for the Runoff
Election and 210 for the General Election. We had 119 Election Day Registrations at Precinct
#500 and III at Precinct #501 so we had 230 Election Day Registration for the Runoff Election.
Bastian moves that We, the City Council Members of the City of Eagle, State ofIdaho,
acting as a Board of Canvassers of Election, do hereby state that the attached is a true and
complete abstract of all votes cast with the City of Eagle at the Runoff Election for Mayor
held December 4,2007, as shown by the records now on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Seconded by Nordstrom. Bastian: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE; ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
5. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED URBAN RENEWAL PLAN.
Mayor introduces the issue.
Urban Renewal Agency Chairman, Cameron Arial, 2430 Canal Street Boise, Id 83705,
introduces the Urban Renewal Agency members, gives a power point presentation, and discusses
goals of the Agency.
General discussion regarding the future revenue of the agency.
Bastian discusses the time span on the revenue spread sheet and says the Agency should choose a
shorter time. He refers to school districts, bond rates, and levies.
Nordstrom comments about the downtown area and the over all goal to be community driven.
Bastian recommends the Agency correspond with the Mayor of Caldwell about their downtown
changes.
Bandy comments on the lack of infrastructure from east to west throughout the city.
Mayor Merrill discusses the benefits in regards to use of tax dollars.
Mayor calls for Executive Session at 6:42 p.m. due to noticing time of public hearings.
Mayor reconvenes at 7:30 p.m.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT: There is none.
7. 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
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. Claims Against the City.
B. Minutes of November 13,2007.
C. Minutes of November 15,2007.
D. Minutes of November 20, 2007.
Page 2
K:\CQUNCIL\J\.lINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC -12-5-07spmindoc
E. East Hills Water Tank Contractor's Anplication for Payment No.4: Approval
of and payment and authorizing the Mayor to sign the application for payment. (VB)
F. Re-apnointment of Arts Commission Members: The Mayor is requesting Council
confirmation of the re-appointment of Linda Butler, Linda Goldman and Bill
Stephan. Their terms will expire in December 2010. (NM)
G. Findinl!:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for FPUD-02-07 & FP-05-07 - Final
Development Plan and Final Plat for Bellemeade Subdivision - Tom Ricks:
Tom Ricks, represented by Eugene Smith, P.E., with Engineering North West, LLC,
is requesting final development plan and final plat approval for Bellemeade
Subdivisioin, a 42-lot (30-buildable, I O-common, 2-existing homes to remain)
planned unit development. The 15.75-acre site is located on the north side of Flint
Drive at 312 North Park Lane and 3850 West Flint Drive. (WEV)
H. Findinl!:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for FPUD-02-07 & FP-06-07 - Final
Develonment Plan and Final Plat for Bellewood Subdivision - Tom Ricks: Tom
Ricks, represented by Eugene Smith, P.E., with Engineering North West, LLC is
requesting final development plan and final plat approval for Bellewood
Subdivision, a 2l-lot (l5-buildable, 6-common) planned unit development. The
4.90-acre site is located on the south side of Flint Drive at 3855 West Flint Drive.
(WEV)
Nordstrom moves to approve all items on the Consent agenda. Seconded by Bandy.
Bastian:Aye; Nordstrom: Aye; Bandy: Aye; ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. A-14-06/RZ-19-06/Z0A-3-06 - Annexation. Rezone and Zoninl!: Ordinance
Amendment M3 - M3 Companies: The M3 Companies are requesting an
Annexation and Rezone from RR (Rural Residential- Ada County Designation) and RP
(Rural Preservation-Ada County Designation) to R-I-DA with a Pre-Annexation and
Development Agreement for a maximum of 8, 160 units and 245 acres of non-
residential uses including commercial, office, and mixed use; a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to amend Eagle City Code Section 8-6 "Planned Unit Developments" to
allow for the establishment of a M3-PUD zone. The +/- 6,005-acre site is generally
located north of the Farmers Union Canal and Homer Road, east of State Highway 16,
west of Willow Creek Road, and south of Chaparral Road.. This item was continued
from the November 27, 2007, meeting. (WEV)
John Petrosky, 4831 Willow Creek Road, introduces five items to discuss, the two for him
to cover. He comments on the density cap and the BLM land.
General discussion regarding mitigation of land and grading.
CJ Thompson, 4831 Willow Creek Road, comments on the definition of Regional open
space. Discusses directing of traffic to State highways and refers to density of community
centers versus subdivisions.
Steve Purvis, 3939 Brookside Lane, discusses a new economic and fiscal impact analysis,
response times for both police and fire services, residential densities, different funding
mechanisms for schools.
General discussion regarding Harris Ranch, schools, funding, and time frames.
Kathy Pennisi, 3675 N. Sodoman S. Place, discusses changed language in the development
agreement, bonus densities, regional open space, funding mechanisms, school districts and
also makes reference to the South fork Landing.
Page 3
K\COUNCIL'MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-12-5-07spmin doc
Sherri Randall, 278 East Beacon Light Road in Eagle, comments on Eagle having been an
Agricultural based community. She discusses changes, zoning, lifestyles, and foothill
density allowances.
AI Shoushtarian, 1119 N. Eagle Road: I was going to not repeat what I have-- all of us have
said in the past and I want to tonight to ask you please let's take our time and review the
whole thing. I was already surprised with the one unit per two acre, and I think just all the
components are not there. Let's just take our time. This development is great but is not only
the biggest one in our city and for this City Council and ever Eagle has seen but also is one
of the biggest in the State ofIdaho. And if it takes 30, 40,50,60 meetings, that's what it
takes. Because we have to do things right. And I want to ask you please, please let's take
our time and let's see if we can work it out so that it benefits our community.
Debra Helton, 1203 Cerramar Court, discusses staff density calculations, bonus density
allowances, definitions for regional open space, and foothills zoning. She feels these
documents are not ready to move forward.
Barb Jekel, 2862 North Haven Drive, discusses bonus densities, population levels, grazing
rights, and lease agreements. She also comments on subsidized housing with back yards
versus common areas.
Joan Langdon, 4690 Hartley, comments on open space, private property, and how she is in
favor of the corridor at Willow Creek Road.
Matt Fahy, 390 West Colchester Drive, discusses the benefits of density bonuses, trip
capture, and open space.
Heidi Patterson, 5529 West School Ridge Road Boise, 83714, comments on her support of
density bonuses that add public and wildlife open space along with trip capture. She refers
to land north of Eagle and feels that M3 is doing smart planning.
Richard Allman, 1995 N. Parkforest, discusses the benefits of having sensitive developers
to work with. He appreciates the concept of open land donated by developer.
Bob Nahas, 4951 Fall Crest Lane, voices his concerns about those who are affected by
developments are not able to vote. He shares his experience and refers to Hidden Springs
being one of the first planned communities.
Applicant rebuts, Bill Brownlee, 533 E. Riverside Drive Ste 110.
General discussion regarding differences in definitions, mitigation, and water.
General discussion regarding wells.
Bill Brownlee stands for questions.
General discussion regarding phases and habitat mitigation for overall area.
Mayor calls for recess at 9:39 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 9:50 p.m.
John Church, P.O. Box 45694 Boise, discusses density and growth analyses.
Joann Butler, 251 E. Front Street, Boise, representing M3. She addresses the issues that
were brought up.
Bill Brownlee closes with a statement: I will be brief given the time of night. You know
Page 4
K:\C'QUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\C'C-12-5-07spmindoc
hopefully we're drawing near the end of this long journey that we've had together and, you
know, a lot of changes go on that are unrecognized and unnoticed and I think that everyone
in the audience here as well as those that aren't in the audience, as well as the planning
commission and the city council, we all miss the small things that occur over time. And
the reason that those small things occur vary by each circumstance but the important part is
the change has occurred and we've made significant changes to this plan. You know the
rhetoric, the letters going back and forth, the Voice of Eagle blogs, the letters to the editor
and the newspaper, the news channels, the interviews, so on and so forth and all the
innuendos and everything that fly around, once you separate all the ah, leaves and you see
what's on the ground before you is that I think that the plan that's been produced is a result
of that. And I would say I don't believe that the city other than our discussion at one time
with Nichoel when we negotiated the density at the 8,160 level has ever requested us to
make a change in density. We've always come back to the table and said this is what
we're hearing from the audience so even though we are-- some may think that we're not
paying real close attention at times and some may think that we're not taking into
consideration the testimony of the audience, there are significant changes that have
occurred to this plan as a result of that testimony and I'm thankful for that because to us
that's our sounding board. I mean if we can't present a plan to the city that's acceptable
then ultimately that plan's not going to be acceptable to the buying public, so it's a very
good checks and balances as you go through the system so I'm appreciative to that and I
continue to look forward to that help from the community to work through these hearing
processes. Hopefully they will be more streamlined in the future if we do gain approval to
become a part of your city. We do seek to become part of the city and one element that
continues to go about and even in-- and I hate to keep going back to NACF A and John, it
sounds like a contest between us and them at this moment but it's really not. But one issue
that continues to be raised and it was raised in a television interview by Mr. Petrosky as
well as most recently in his December 2nd letter and this is the letter that I'm referring to
here. On the bottom it starts under money, starting with and whether and then I go to page
2, M3's continual threats oflawsuits have any real basis. And I'm here to stand before you
today and say that if anyone can produce a public record and I'm going to correct JoAnn,
which is unusual, but we've only been here 35 times. If anybody can produce a public
record that states that anyone in my counselor myself has threatened a lawsuit to gain an
approval from this city I would like to see it, because number one I don't know why we
would all get in the rowboat together and I would take an oar to beat you over the head to
help get you to row the boat with me in the same direction. We have a 20-year relationship
or longer or shorter, but that relationship goes beyond us selling a product. We are
creating a community here that will go as long as the city of Eagle and this area exists. So
why in the world would we want to make our first move into this city be one that I'm here
threatening you to gain approval. First of all I'm smart enough to know that you guys can
tell me no, so I mean why would I want to approach things that direction? You know the
other thing I've highlighted in yellow there I think puts into perspective something else that
we need to bear in mind which is in case you are asking no we are not presently this is
John seeking money from folks, heading in the direction of a lawsuit or filing for judicial
review either would take far, far more money, on the other hand saying in a position to
exercise either or these options is advisable and desirable. Well I would hope that after
going through a process ofthis length and allowing the involvement that this city has
allowed which I will say, you know, we've done- Jeff and I have been through 26 years of
this stuff and in some of them start out with protests at city hall where people are carrying
signs and end up where you end up with a great master planned community, all of them
seem to have the same characteristic. But it's a fair process. It's a process that people get
Page 5
K:\COUNCILIJ\lIINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-12-5-07spmindoc
the ability to voice their opinion, to express their concerns, to ask the plans to reflect their
desires, but I would hope that this does not end in a circumstance that where if this city
gains approval of this project through the acceptance of our development agreement under
whatever terms that you may condition it upon, cause that's your prerogative. That the
first act would be to take the comprehensive plan in the foothills and to take the
development agreement that's been approved by the city through the countless, not
hundreds of hours but I would think its in the thousands of hours of deliberation, public
testimony, review and approval to try to bifurcate that process and to try to separate our
development from the city. So I hope that does not occur and I hope that everybody is
respective of the final decisions that the City Council makes, thank you very much.
Susan Buxton, City Attorney, comments: A couple legal questions with regard to the
situation and this document. And I do agree with Ms. Butler that under Idaho Code as well
as Idaho case law that a development agreement or contracts like this, a pre-annexation
agreement like this, could be utilized to implement a comprehensive plan. It is not necessary
that you have a separate ordinance to do so. I know no law or case that would say that.
Also, the question as to the authority with regard to this situation is found both in Idaho Code
Section 222 Subsection 150-222 Subsection 4 also Idaho Code Section 50-30 I which grants
the city power to contract and exercise all powers to perform all functions of self-government
in city affairs. So with regard to the question of is this a contract, the answer is yes and the
fact that it is a pre-annexation agreement is addressed squarely in Title 50 which is the
municipal corporations title Section 222 is the annexation section allowing cities to annex
property that is contiguous. Subsection 4 addresses the ability of the city to address consents
like this, a consent to annex even property that is not contiguous at the time the contract is
entered into and said contracts would run with the land and be binding on-- with future
landowners. So, with that if there are any questions I'll be happy to answer them.
Mayor Merrill closes the Public Hearing at 11:0 I pm.
She asks that City Attorney & Staff check definitions, levels of service, major
amendments, update economic plan of each phase and complete removal of BLM land.
Discussion regarding removal of BLM land.
Bandy feels it is valuable to retain the BLM land.
Nordstrom agrees.
Council discusses overall language and the definition of Mitigation.
General discussion regarding language of Section 1.8.
Nordstrom states he would like to see the entire document cleaned up, all the
strikethroughs dealt with.
General discussion regarding language of density bonuses, definitions for regional
commercial and community centers.
Nordstrom moves to continue A-14-06/RZ-19-06/Z0A-03-06 the Annexation, Rezone
and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, to the December 11, 2007, meeting. Seconded by
Bastian. Discussion: Time to be 6:00 p.m. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
B. RZ-18-07 - Rezone from A-R to BP-DA - Robert L. Pederson: Robert L. Pederson is
requesting approval of a rezone from A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to BP-DA (Business
Park with a development agreement) to facilitate the construction of a five (5) unit,
Page 6
K:\CQUNCIL\J\.lINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-12-5-07spmin,doc
14,341-square foot officelflex space building. The I.OO-acre site is located approximately
250' feet west of the East Hill Road and Horseshoe Bend Road intersection at 3055 East
Hill Road. This item was continuedfrom the November 27. 2007. meeting. (WEV)
C. RZ-20-07 - Rezone from A-R to R-E-DA - Colette Nvborl!:: Colette Nyborg,
represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, Inc., is requesting approval of a rezone
from A-R (Agricultural Residential) to R-E-DA (Residential Estates with a development
agreement) to facilitate the re-subdivision of a portion of Lot 15 & Lot 16 to eliminate
two (2) non-confonning parcels. The +1- 2.28 acre and +1- 2.5- acre parcels are located
approximately 1/3 of a mile south of Floating Feather on the northeast corner of the
Ballantyne Lane and Hereford Drive at 660 North Ballantyne Lane. (WEV) This item
was continuedfrom the November27, 2007, meeting. (WEV)
Nordstrom moves to continue both items 8B and 8C to the January 8, 2007, meeting.
Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Findinl!:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-OI-07/RZ-OI-07 & PP-OI-07-
Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-2-DA and Preliminarv Plat for Dwavne
Linl!el Subdivision (aka Adonai Subdivision) - Dwavne Linl!:el: Dwayne Lingel is
requesting annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition - Ada County
designation) to R-2-DA (Residential, up to two units per acre with development
agreement) and preliminary plat approval for Adonai Subdivision. The proposed 5.70
acre residential subdivision will consist of 12 lots (8 - buildable, 4 - common). The site
is located on the east side of Park Lane Road approximately 1,200-feet south of Beacon
Light Road at 2440 North Park Lane. This item was continued from the November 27,
2007 meeting. This item was continuedfrom the November 27,2007, meeting. (WEV)
Bastian moves to remand item 9A, the Dwayne LingeI Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law, back to staff. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
B. Memorandum ofUnderstandinl!: with the Idaho Denartment of Lands rel!ardinl!:
the Community Transnortation Enhancement (CTE) Grant # 07-CTE-E. (WEV).
WEV presents spreadsheet, discusses grant portions, and department of lands eligibility.
General discussion regarding total obligation.
Bastian moves to approve the Community Transportation Enhancement Grant #07, as
presented to us this evening, not to exceed $5,000, as a City contribution. Seconded by
Nordstrom. Discussion: Bill Vaughan: Also with this Community Transportation
Enhancement Grant there is a memorandum between the State and City. Nordstrom: AYE;
Bastian: AYE; Bandy: AYE; ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Bastian moves to go into Executive Session to discuss pending or threatened litigation
under Idaho Code 67-2345 (t). Seconded by Nordstrom. Bastian: AYE; Bandy: AYE;
Nordstrom: AYE; ALL A YE...MOTlON CARRIES.
Mayor calls for Executive Session at 12:01 a.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 12: 13 a.m.
10. NEW BUSINESS: None
II. ADJOURNMENT:
Page 7
K.\COUNCILIJ\..1INUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-12-5-07spmindoc
Bandy moves to adjourn. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 12:38 a.m.
".,.....,..,
....',' '" A G1. :......
..' ~ ~ <;,,
~.. 0 ......... 4'..
~~JI. e. ~
~~.. Oy.AT~... ~
=....:~ e\ ~
: U: 0 , -. :
- . ,. \ . ......
. . \oJ , 1.. .0\.0 .
:. p.-..v-. =
'\.. '.. / c:,~ ~~.:: i
~ ....-\'CORP09-:.. :Q $
'''11 S ........ :"(" ....
"" :rATE 0 .."
"'1',.. 11'1"""
Respectfully submitted:
1) R fiiA --",0 - IL- ~A-t'r7Nf1~
0/ SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE AT EAGLE CITY
HALL
Page g
K\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-12-5-07spmin.doc
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL & URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
December 5, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
A-14-06/RZ-19-06/ZOA-3-06 — Annexation. Rezone and Zoninv Ordinance Amendment M3 — M3 Companies
NAME
Leto W' �b1I
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS PHONE
E oil &if)k
S RdVM'13l I d e eve, l}-
G` -,-,) 5 c7 .J ( c,..SS W. Wiry
w ell oic/v ((1 K-1 U)
d4c6 cnci-04.0>
4 L ,c i 1P\ ; ; L c.t*. me\
1~n I Zea
; e‘N.r \1/4\1'
pr‘r 10
t° T kE L.
T,1. L 1244
-C-3 Noll
/Wp.z-J . /2-LAn Cti5 (c
ZI6 V -V tai
I(<2_V-Lica f,
Clo (1
.t-1 I;/ , 9, -3 79-,
°t36-34IS�
11
PRO? CON? TESTIFY?
v. o
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL & URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
December 5, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
RZ-20-07 - Rezone from A -R to R -E -DA - Colette Nvborg
NAME
(_,oIc th / it`7 ui (-
5,2 ;
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS PHONE
za�c. y{i
- 5 !)(/
PRO? CON? TESTIFY?
�t�
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL & URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
December 5, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
NAME
RZ-18-07 — Rezone from A -R to BP -DA — Robert L. Pederson
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY?
4ii' 1� a-
'a]t
We p 12�� � P15101-
failferk
NACFA Update: 3 "M"s
December 2, 2007
Hi AIL
This will be a "layered" update. similar to some we have distributed in the past. This first piece
deals with three very important "M"s:
1. Mayor (as in: the Eagle mayoral runoff election)
2. Money (as in: contributions to the NACFA legal fund)
3. Meaning (as in: What does it all mean for the foothills?)
In going through these three matters, I reference two related, more detailed pieces: [a] a Reader's
View written by newly -elected Eagle Councilman Mike Huffaker (attached to this email), addressing
key areas of misinformation being spread around by Bandy supporters, and which the Statesman
decided NOT to publish, and [b] NACFA's analysis of and planned testimony regarding the (we
believe) soon -to -be -approved Development Agreement with M3 (by "soon -to -be -approved" we
mean that approval is highly likely this coming Wednesday, December 5th, the day after the runoff
election -6 PM, City Hall; the deadline for written comments on this matter is Monday. Dec. 3, 5
PM; public testimony at the hearing itself will only be taken on the density bonus calculations being
proposed).
Ok, on to the 3 "M"s...
1. Mayor: 1 (along with the NACFA elections taskforce and many other NACFA faithful) believe
that Saundra McDavid should be the next Eagle Mayor.
1 put this one at the top of the list because how the foothills saga plays out in the future, starting
pretty much immediately, will depend heavily (if not completely) on the composition of the
Eagle City Council. As discussed later (item 3, below), the Foothills Plan adopted by the current
Council DOES say all the right things in general terms. However, it leaves tremendous
discretion to the City Council. If the Council chooses to "interpret" the plan in favor of
development/developers, we will get a far different result (numbers of homes, placement of
commercial, amount and patterns of open space) than if Council chooses to prioritize open space,
recreation and habitat and keep the lid on how many units are built. Given that the Mayor is the
"tie-breaker" (the deciding vote) if the rest of the Council is split, we need a Mayor who avows
the latter approach. Of the two choices, Saundra McDavid is by far the surer bet.
2. Money: Folks, we need more cash to cover the costs of our legal research and vigilance. For
reasons I hope you understand, I cannot go into detail regarding what we are finding and where
we are headed. In general terms, I can say that we are getting good advice related to
understanding and being able to intelligently monitor the City's legal position (both the legality
of what they are doing with landowners outside the City's area of impact and whether M3's
...ci izens helping to create a sustarnoo'e vision for the future of Ada County's Nor h?rn Foothil:s
continual threats of lawsuit have any real basis). We are also using the attorney to bolster our
position in the upcoming protest to M3's water rights application (i.e. the effort to protect our
groundwater supply). Beyond this. I simply must ask you to trust that we are getting good bang
for the buck
The bottom line is that we need to raise an estimated $6.000 more than we have right now.
This money is needed to [1] get us current with the attorney (he exceeded our stated budget in
his enthusiasm for doing in-depth research, and after due rounds of hand -slapping and hand -
wringing, the Steering Committee has decided we should reimburse his efforts and keep the
relationship alive), and [2] have the ability to obtain further advice related to the water rights
protest (imminent) and the City's behavior (with the latter need extending at least until the new
Council takes control in January). In case you are asking, no, we are not presently heading in the
direction of a lawsuit or a filing for judicial review—either would take far, far more money. On
the other hand. staying in a position to exercise either of these options is advisable and desirable.
So, please contribute according to your means, consistent with how you perceive the value of
NACFA's efforts over the past 5 years. I know many of you have already stretched...and 1 thank
you very much for that. Quite frankly, we need those who have not contributed at all to date to
do so now and those with the means to contribute again...we need some serious contributions to
meet the above target. Send checks to: NACFA, c/o John Petrovsky, 4831 Willow Creek Road.
Eagle, 83616. Make checks out to NACFA.
3. Meaning: Here is a "scorecard" on where we are ending up with the Eagle Foothills Plan and
M3 (perhaps you can consider this in your decision whether and how much to contribute as
requested above):
The Good ..(stemming largely from community input, involvement, and stubborn refusal to go away...)
Foothills Plan overall
• One cohesive Foothills Planning Area (special, self-serving, "different rules" planning areas
for M3 Eagle and Avimor removed)
• A Foothills Planning Area with:
- development fitting into the natural systems of the Foothills (topography, habitat, and
drainage) as opposed to the natural systems being significantly altered to allow for
development
a series of small hamlets ... urbanized development clustered and nestled into the natural
environment ... development areas separated by larger natural areas and open spaces
overall density "limited", encouraging clustering of the units into a transect plan with
urban type densities transitioning into permanent open space areas
- large scale commercial, employment, institutional uses ... located along State
Highwayl6 & 55 ... neighborhood scale services internally to the area ... emphasis on
getting traffic to the highways, not routing through Eagle
- development not to occur until land is annexed and provision of adequate public
facilities (excluding police and fire) is secured or demonstrated
an interconnected regional open space network, avoiding fragmentation, formalizing
existing recreational uses, environmentally sensitive areas & connections between them
(concept further illustrated by a regional open space overlay to establish areas that
clustering and conservation development should be used)
Cit1zens helping to create a sustainable vision for the fJture of Aaa County's ``:Cr''i•..rn FCo;r'('s
priorities for open space: slopes in excess of 25%, floodways, key habitat areas ... and
other environmentally sensitive areas, scenic viewpoints, unique features and public
lands
a effort to work with the BLM for exchange of discontinuous tracts of public land for
equal or larger tracts of contiguous ownership within the regional open space overlay ...
build onto the existing public ownerships
M3 Eagle (i.e. the first development to be considered and approved in light of the new Foothills plan—
current status as of hearing November 27—reflecting changes in response to adoption of the overall
Foothills Plan)
• "Village" (read: City) Center removed from the center of the foothills, with comparable uses
to occur along Hwy. 16
• In addition to 880 acres of dedicated regional open space, 2100 acres in the south/southeast
(contiguous with and joining large BLM tracts) is limited to no more than 126 units (average
density 1 unit per 17 acres); thus, roughly half of M3's 6000 acres is either public, regional
open space or left at sufficiently low density that habitat and visual open space values can be
retained
The Wiggle Room, the Not -So -Good, and the Downright Bad
... dependent on your point of view, and/or [2] where exercise of discretion by the Citv Council can make
or break the actual result over time). More will come on these matters in a follow-on piece.
Foothills Plan overall
• All density specifics and bonus formulas removed...replaced with "overall density 1 unit per
2 acres with options for clustering the base density into transects and density bonuses for the
creation of activity centers and significant open space areas"
• Density bonus system to be formalized in subsequent implementing ordinances...however,
first experiment is M3 (see below).
• Density bonuses to be given for open space over 20% of the site (v. the minimum of 40%
open space previously in the plan)
• Firm requirement for habitat mitigation plans at full -site scale prior to development not
included
• Bottom line: Likely development on the order of 25,000 to 27,000 dwelling units—could go
higher with "growth and development" oriented City Council, could be lower with a
Council emphasizing open space. habitat and recreation in the foothills
• Primary access routes from foothills to existing City = Linder and Willow Creek/Eagle
Roads, with Linder being the major arterial route, and an intent to de-emphasize the Willow
Creek/Eagle connection overall. Precise routes, and thus impact on existing neighborhoods,
are not defined for either, although there is clearly an intent to re-route Willow Creek Road
around existing neighborhoods (i.e. this is a struggle not vet settled. with a result veru much
subject to Council discretion, and ultimately to be decided by ACHD, which will also have
hearings)
M3 Eagle
• Minimum –5,100 dwelling units; maximum (with "mitigation") –7,200 units (the degree to
which M3 will be allowed to approach the maximum will depend veru heavily on Council
discretion)
• In flux: Councilman Nordstrom is truing get major commercial/employment uses put back
into the center...
...citizens helping to create a sustainable vision for the future of Ada County's Northern Foothills...
If I were asked to provide a summary of the pros and cons of the City's foothills plan in a couple
sentences, this would be this:
We (the community) have won very important victories in terms of the pattern of uses that will occur in
the foothills. Starting with M3, we are on our way to [1] keeping the most intense development next to the
highways (and thus we have a fighting chance to keep major traffic impacts out of central Eagle as we
know it) and [2] preserving major open space, habitat and recreation lands in the central area (in a
combination of lands open to the public and lands in conservation-oriented/large-lot subdivisions).
On the other hand, we face a level of development higher than we would prefer (much higher than some of
us find acceptable). Whether or not that development is ultimately acceptable depends heavily on (in
addition to the water supply question): [1] firmly sticking to the "patterns" set forth in the plan, and [2]
making sure that development truly does pay its way (i.e. local and regional road improvement
requirements, schools, fire stations, police stations, etc.). It is in the latter regard where major uncertainty
still exists and it appears that this Council will move forward with approvals (specifically M3) regardless
of that uncertainty. There very well may be reasonable points along the path going forward where the City
can check, confirm and adjust—even with M3. Whether and how well the City attends to these major
concerns depends entirely on the Mayor and City Council...so, I return to and end on the
importance of this election...
Thanks, and best regards to all...
JP
...citizens helping to create a sustainable vision for the future of Ada County's Northern Foothills...
December 5, 2007
Eagle Mayor Nancy Merrill
Council Members Bandy, Bastian, Guerber, Nordstrom
Concerning: M3 Eagle Pre Annexation and Develop
Presented by: Steve Purvis, 3939 Brookside Lane
nt Agreement
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the November 27, 2007
changes to the M3 Eagle Pre -Annexation and Development
Agreement.
My testimony will be limited to the need to revisit economic and fiscal
analysis due to fundamental changes in the project. (Comment #4 in
the letter provided to you by the North Ada County Foothills
Association dated December 3, 2007.)
I would hope you would agree that a revised look at the February
2007 Economic & Fiscal impact analysis is appropriate considering
the revision of the residential units number from 10689 to 7152,
coupled with the elimination of the Commercial Center and addition of
Neighborhood Centers. There also may be additional corrections due
to changes in phasing and build -out expectations that would only be
reflected in a revised Economic Analysis.
This 33% reduction in residential units, coupled with two significant
economic provisions in the agreement that did not change, raises
concerns for me about the ability of the City to adequately provide
services to this development in both the short and intermediate term.
(See Sections 2.5a and c, and Section 5.4)
Sections 2.5a and c require immediate provision of service levels to
the new development comparable to levels of service provided in the
existing City. The key words here are "comparable levels of service".
For example, in the provision of Police services this means response
times to calls for service should be the same and patrol services
provided consistent with the current level. Comparable levels of
service cannot be provided without a manned substation in the
development. However, the substation is not scheduled for
construction until year eight in connection with the first fire station.
Even if all of the year 1 revenue of $156814 (page37) was committed
to staffing a 1 person substation on a 24 x 7 basis, it would not cover
the related expenditures.
Section 5.4 provides that "no new, increased or additional impact or
development fees or costs may be imposed by City regarding the
development of the project". Assuming that you are currently
recovering the costs of such services in accordance with State Law
and that costs of services continue to increase as history tells us they
do, or that you would need/choose to impose additional impact or
other fees in the future, none of those increases or additional fees or
charges could be recovered from this development. You will probably
begin subsidizing this development almost immediately and continue
to do so until build -out many, many years later.
While these provisions only apply to services provided by the City,
the financial ramifications for the ability to provide fire services and
school facilities under these changed conditions are of equal
importance and concern. Your actions are what initiate the demand
for these services. How to provide service before the required
density is reached to support adequate and timely fire services or to
build the necessary schools is a real dilemma. The February 2007
forecast suggests that the first fire station be built in year eight, and
on a cumulative funds basis it is after year 15 before there are
sufficient funds to pay the cost of construction of new schools. That
potentially provides for substandard fire and related EMS services
and leaves more than 4900 students (year 15) without seats in an
already overcrowded school system.
It probably does not need to be reiterated, but please remember how
the forecasts are put together and have been discussed. They
compute revenues and expenditures by year and carry forward
unspent amounts from year to year and look at total revenues and
expenditures over the anticipated 20 year build -out period. That is
not how the funds will necessarily be committed and spent on an
annual basis. School bond funds may be the best example to use for
illustration. Using my 2007 Property Tax Bill, the school taxes
represented 42% of the total with 51% of that amount going to pay
bonds. The bond collections must go into a debt service fund to pay
off the bonds currently outstanding. They will not be set aside to build
schools in the M3 Development.
I am not suggesting that the forecast assumptions be redone, only
that the revised residential housing numbers, changes in commercial
space allocations and changes related to phasing of the project or
build out be considered. Only John Church, M3's economist, knows
what the devils in the details will require in completing this process. It
just seems that the changes are so significant that they warrant the
time and energy necessary to accomplish a revision and to
understand their implications.
Please have the Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis updated by
M3, reviewed by your selected economist and analyzed by staff and
yourselves on a year by year basis considering the service level
requirements/demands and cost constraints contained in the
agreement.
I will stand for questions.
Thank you.
C C Pk/Ds
CJ Thompson, 4831 Willow Creek Rd.
Boy, am 1 glad the runoff is over and we can get back to the business
at hand. Mayor -elect Bandy, congratulations. We look forward to
working with you and are gratified to see you pledge to responsive,
citizen -driven government and a continuation of the citizen committee
concept which has been the hallmark of Mayor Merrill's tenure.
Why do I bring up the election? Because it seems to me, with that
settled, we can bring our full attention to this proposed agreement and
make sure, as 1 testified last week, that we get it as perfect as we can.
This first foothills development is worth an extra hearing or two if
that's what it takes to be fully confident we've got everything covered.
1 want to thank Council for determining last week that the hearing
should be left open to take public testimony on changes that surfaced
just before that hearing. 1 find that, as of yesterday afternoon, we have
still more changes. Please allow us to comment on those changes as
well, both in writing and with testimony.
I've had time only to quickly scan yesterday's version and here's at
least one thing 1 think needs to be fixed: We now have two definitions
of regional open space, one on p. 5 and one on p.6, and they're not the
same. Page 6 talks about contiguity and public use; page 5 talks about
school sites and golf courses. The definition that works for regional
open space is the one on p. 6. I'd like to be able to read critically the
version from yesterday and I've not had time to do that.
So...as Mayor Merrill would say, let's all just take a breath on this. The
election pressure is off; we don't need to rush.
Before I begin my comments on the density bonus system being
considered, 1 want to stress again, as I've said before, that 1 am not
directing most observations to this specific application. As of last
week, the application is vastly improved. In particular, the reduced
intensity in what's now the Big Gulch Area, the downscaling and
relocation of commercial in that area closer to the highway and the
transfer of intensity to the Northern area are all most welcome. 1 also
want to thank Council for beefing up the wildlife mitigation element in
the agreement over the last week and, forgive me, 1 again suggTst
conditioning entitlements on approved mitigation measures.
What 1 believe is critical tonight when we consider bonuses is that we
are mindful of the benchmark this application sets and that we think
through its implications for full foothills development—for all the
proposals that will follow.
Frankly, there are places where 1 just don't see a direct correlation
between this proposed density system and the community values
concepts of the comp plan. And maybe I'm fuzzy -headed about the
bonus system, but 1 have a devil of a time articulating the logic behind
it. 1 told John a few days ago that it reminds of when 1 first learned to
shoot craps...the logic of these rules escapes me. That tells me that
maybe we need to do a better job matching the values assigned to the
bonuses with the comp plan.
So the comp plan describes neighborhood centers and community
centers, but we've created a new category in this development
agreement: "regional commercial." I'm not sure how the density bonus
applies to that, if at all.
The comp plan talks about the densest, most urban areas being at
community centers, which are located at the highways. But this
system awards big bonuses for neighborhood centers and that
translates to high density in places other than the highways.
The Big Gulch area illustrates the point: 1200 of the 1900 units
proposed for that location are a direct result of the 10 units/acre
density bonus for neighborhood centers. If we want the dense housing
on the highways where we have the best shot at transit, why are we
giving a bonus of only 2.5 unit/acre for the community centers there
when we're giving 10 units/acre at the neighborhood centers located
away from the main transportation routes? It seems backwards to me.
We have a comp plan open space goal to "...shift densities within the
Foothills and specific projects to achieve a minimum of 40% open
space with natural open space being the highest priority for
preservation..." If that's our goal, why are we giving any bonus for
"excess" neighborhood open space, all of which will be developed and
which likely will include golf courses, which may or may not be public
and certainly cannot be classified as "natural open space."
And if we want to preserve the unique natural features of the foothills,
why are we giving 10 times the bonus for commercial development that
we give to regional open space contributions?
l'Il be blunt here, as I'm sort of known to be: I'm just not seeing the
connection...and that makes me wonder if we didn't back into this
system. That thought makes me very nervous...because, really, we're
not talking about 6000 acres. We're talking about 49,000 acres. Less
than a sterling standard on this application raises the
possibility...maybe even the probability...that when all this building is
done we won't recognize our foothills at all.
So please...take a breath, recheck the details and, most of all, think
long-term. Consider what legacy you want to leave for those who, 20
years from now, will call Eagle and our foothills home. That legacy
begins with this application.
Thank you.
C'e 1,115/0.-t
Mayor Merrill & Members of the Council
I'm frustrated, confused and tired. I have spent hours and hours, away from
my business, reading and trying to digest, the M3 presentation, the new
Comprehensive Plan, the Pre Annexation and Development Agreement, the
Staff Density Calculations and accompanying letter.
I have no legal background but feel these documents are far more
complicated than they need to be. I really don't understand all of the Bonus
Density allowances and I would like to be able to figure out how some of
the calculations are being derived but there are just too many questions.
There isn't even a clear definition of Regional Open Space in the Pre
Annexation Agreement. Actually there are two definitions....one on page 5
and a different one on page 6. How can bonus density be figured when
definitions are unclear? It appears that there are many definitions and areas
that the M3 developers can use to their benefit to increase the density of
their project. Change it here, tweak it there and they're still looking at
densities far greater than were intended by the original foothills zoning. We
keep hearing how many units M3 has given up over the course of planning.
They haven't given up anything....they are requesting far more than what
their property is zoned for.
I know you are tired....you have spent what probably seems an eternity on
this proposal combined with all of the other issues. But in my opinion, it
does not appear that this development or these documents are ready to move
forward.
Debra & Robert Helton
1203 Cerramar Ct
Eagle, Idaho 83 616
208 938-3416
December 5th 2007
.
;
17fi •-••••
."•)1v -?17.'. . 1;;.".:;11:.
••• ;1. •
• -
•.;-• 1,":":11
/
• 1•1 t
*!i '•
: •
;i . : •
• f!; •
•
••'.• .4
j•
. .
7 ;
r •:_/1-11`
'
c •
' •• c•ti •••
On a more personal note,
I had no choice in the matter, I was born in Southern California......but I
chose to live in Idaho. In 1971 my family and I drove to Ketchum to visit
friends and that's where I fell in love. After a three day stay we returned to
the Los Angeles basin. I knew then that smog filled skies and traffic jams
weren't for me. I returned to school, made the necessary arrangements to
graduate early and two weeks after my 18th birthday I moved away from my
family, to Ketchum. What a great town... surrounded by natural beauty and a
small town sense of community. It was a struggle to make ends meet but it
was worth it to live in those surroundings. That's where I met Robert and we
both felt it was a place we'd spend the rest of our lives. But things began
changing. Developers moved in with "great ideas" for the valley. They
talked of the ways they'd improve the town with more building and in -lieu
parking....funny thing is, there is no such place as "in -lieu" and parking in
our small town became a nightmare. They built until you couldn't recognize
the simple town any longer. They drew new residents from far and wide and
the prices escalated. One day Robert & I looked around and saw that the
town had turned ugly. It had lost much of its open space, it was crowded and
there were traffic jams where once you could walk down the street and visit
with friends and local merchants. We left feeling rather deflated.
Our business kept us on the road for the next several years and then we
settled in Boise. We lived in an area where we could walk to the bank, the
grocery store and a couple of mom & pop type restaurants. It was nice
enough but still more "city" than either of us wanted so we looked around
and found our home in Eagle. Here we found some similarities to Ketchum
and once again became attached to the beauty and open space around us and
the smaller town sense of community. But we're seeing that all slip away.
We dread getting on Eagle road for the bumper to bumper traffic. Even
walking downtown has become frightful. The days of beautiful blue skies
are becoming a thing of the past. Smog is becoming commonplace in our
valley. The big developers are looking here to capitalize on our town and
with them they bring more people, traffic and smog as they gobble up our
assets. Bigger isn't always better. I realize that growth is inevitable but I
hope that the Council will corral it and see that it moves at a very slow pace.
••• :
. •
i; '.1•!;:!';
3i 1;.*:7.j ‘7i
itJ;;
.
•
•
•t')
1!
•*31 •:.: f
:
•!('
;
• ;t1,1
Th"r •:,••• •
t
• f -if 1F I..
) • •
or.
ni
1: )
Additional Property
.0k1 °\nis‘
• Section 1.7 states that in the event that M3 acquires additional property, they can expand the
development and subject the new property to the benefits and obligations of this agreement by amending
the agreement to include the new property.
• According to language that was recently added, the land does not need to be contiguous with the existing
property.
• Also, adding property may increase the pre -mitigation, post -mitigation and maximum density as well as
alter other development parameters.
First off, I am concerned that this provision will circumvent the public hearing process. No where in the
DA does it state that additional property would be classified as a "major" amendment which would
require a full public hearing.
Secondly, as you are aware, this agreement mandates that the property only be subject to the existing
laws, ordinances and impact fees in place as of the date the agreement is signed — regardless of the fact
that it will take 20 years to build out. Any additional property should be subject to laws, ordinances and
impact fees in place at the time when the property is to be added.
r Finally, we believe that in order to provide predictability and defined parameters within which M3 must
operate, the DA should only apply to the existing 6000 acres. Otherwise the densities, open space and
residential to commercial ratios become moving targets.
BLM Land Exchange
If M3's land exchange with the BLM acreage is accomplished, a new provision in the DA "envisions" 2
units/acre for unconstrained land and .2 units/acre for constrained land.
• Unclear on how this parcel would be developed. I'm not sure how this statement relates to the base
density of 3003 units, which already includes the base density for the 800 acres.
I think it would be helpful, given the fact that the exchange is the preferred outcome, if M3 prepares a
planning area for this land so we can understand what the parameters are, and what to expect.
.- Along those lines. I also think a better way to handle the exchange, which M3 is lobbying for, is to
assume it will occur and base bonuses and open space off of that scenario.
It is much more difficult to reduce entitlements and bonuses after they have been granted. The DA
should specifically address this issue.
OS Funding Mechanism
M3 claims a bonus (up to 1 0% of the total units for a regional OS funding mechanism — what the heck
does this mean???) of 650 units for a regional OS funding mechanism.
Section 2.6f states: "The developer agrees to cooperate with the City to establish and ongoing funding
mechanism" in my view doesn't qualify for a bonus".
Water Section 2.2h
This section states "It is the purpose and intent of the City and developer to have the City provide water
service to the property".
I think the citizens of Eagle would probably like to know how this is going to be accomplished. Will the
purchase of Eagle Water provide the capacity? If so, you will have to explain that to current citizens
who will be paying to finance the purchase.
South Fork Landing
Y Developers have committed 1.5% of sales to school district to mitigate impacts caused by development
Hold this up to M3 as an example of something they could do to show the community that they are
aware of the impacts of this development and are showing good faith in trying to mitigate those impacts.
M3 OPEN SPACE (OS) CALCULATIONS'
800 acre exchange2 With 880 acre
(80 acre donation) donation
Total Acreage: 6005 6005
Base Density (.5 units/acre): 3003 units 3003 units
Additional Density 1,600 units3 N/A
Minimum OS Acres: 1201 1201
Excess OS Acres: 321 321
Regional OS Acres: 80 880
Total OS Acres: 1,602 2,402
Percent OS: 26.60% 40.00%
Regional OS Bonus (Subtract out) 800 units N/A
OS Funding Bonus? 650 units 650 units
' Source: M3 Presentation 11/27/07
2 Option favored by M3 (assumes equal land value)
3 M3 PADA page 18
12/4/07 - KP