Minutes - 2007 - City Council - 12/18/2007 - Regular
~~
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Minutes
December 18, 2007
Council President Guerber: Mayor Merrill is out of town.
PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA: 6:30 n.m. - 7:30 n.m.
I. City Attorney Buxton: Tonight on the Agenda is the Velodrome documents in regards to
Construction Management. You have before you is the Award of Bid which we will be
discussing later in the meeting. Discussion on the Contract negotiation.
I do need an Executive Session tonight to discuss existing litigation.
General discussion on the LID process and the current litigation. The assessment roll is being
put together by your Engineer.
2. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: No report
3. Facilities - Mike Echeita: Yesterday the new maintenance man started. We are getting started
on his schedule.
Kasey and I attended the pre-construction meeting for the widening of Floating Feather. The
utility companies will be doing their work. General discussion.
Update on the water tank. The contractor is trying to get done by end of this month.
We have a couple of citizens that would like the city to purchase some yield signs for downtown
by Subway. I have discussed this with the Sheriffs Department. Star has some of these signs
downtown and it has slowed people down at the crosswalks. The cost is approximately $3 11.00
a piece and we would need two. General discussion. Council concurs to purchase the yield
signs.
4. Zoning Administrator's Report: No report
5. Mayor and Council's Report:
Sandy: I have been participating in the Compass Meetings and Treasure Valley Partnership.
Discussion on the Air Quality Board Meeting.
Bastian: Reports on the Library Board Meeting. Discussion on circulation which continues to
grow with our population. The number of library cards has increased. They have met with Mr.
Niblett and are pleased to work with him on the expansion of the Library.
Nordstrom: Reports on the Sewer Board Meeting. They are advancing on their sewer treatment
site. I met with Senior's Board and they were excited in being part of the grant that would help
them pave the rear parking lot. We have a grant writer working on this. The grant could be in
the 40% range.
City Engineer Report: No report
Public Works Director: No report
Guerber: I'm wondering if we could have the Executive at this time instead of later tonight.
Bastian moves to go into Executive Session for the discussion of pending and threatened
litigation, I.C. 67-2345(t). Attorney: The Executive Session will be on the Charney case, the
Lanewood case, the LID matter, and the water rights litigation. Seconded by Nordstrom.
Page 1
K\CQUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC -12-18-07min doc
Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES................. ..
Council goes into Executive Session at 6:55 p.m.
Council discusses the Charney case, the Lanewood case, the LID matter, and the water rights
litigation.
Council leaves Executive Session at 7:26 p.m.
REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 7:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER: Council President Guerber calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Merrill is in Switzerland on vacation.
2. ROLL CALL: BASTIAN, GUERBER, NORDSTROM, BANDY. All present. A quorum
is present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Sharon Bergmann, City Clerk, leads the Pledge of
Allegiance.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
5. 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 Al!:ainst the City.
B. Aoolication for Beer & Wine license: Seasons Deli & Catering Inc. are
requesting a beer and wine license for onloffpremises consumption, to be lIsed at
1117 E. Winding Creek Rd. # 150 Eagle, 10. (SKB)
C. Findinl!:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-14-06/RZ-19-06/Z0A-3-06-
Annexation. Rezone and Zoninl!: Ordinance Amendment M3 - M3 Comoanies:
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-l-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 +1- 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. (NBS)
D. Findinl!:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CU-14-07 - Parkinl!: Garal!:e
and Heil!:ht Exceotion Request for Eal!:le Colonade - Tri City Meats: Tri City
Meats, represented by Bob Niblett with Niblett & Associates Architects, is
requesting a conditional use permit for the construction of an 84-space parking
garage and a conditional use height exception for a 58-foot high mixed-use building
Page 2
K.\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC' -12-18-07min.doc
and a 58-foot high parking garage for the Eagle Colonade project. The O.91-acre site
is located on the south side of West State Street approximately \34-feet west of
Eagle Road at 45 West State Street. (MJW)
E. Preliminarv Plat Extension of Time for The Lofts At Eal!:le River
Subdivision CPP-15-06) - Sea 2 Sea. LLC: Sea 2 Sea, LLC, represented by James
G. Murray with CSHQA, is requesting an eighteen (18) month extension of time for
the preliminary plat approval for The Lofts at Eagle River, an 8 lot (7-residential, 1-
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 intersection of East Riverside Drive and State Highway 44 at
827 East Riverside Drive.
F. Preliminarv Plat Extension of Time for Ootimist Business Park Subdivision
CPP-04-04) Jade. LLC: Jade, LLC, represented by Darin Taylor with Taylor Land
Planning, is requesting a one-year extension of time for the preliminary plat approval
for Optimist Business Park Subdivision, a 17-lot (15- buildable, 2-common)
commercial subdivision. The 9.81-acre site is located south of Hill Road and on the
west side of Horseshoe Bend Road at 9551 & 9555 Horseshoe Bend Road. (MJW)
G. Letter of Al!reement between City of Eal!:Ie and Idaho Power Comoanv
rel!:ardinl!: the financinl! of funds for the burial of the distribution lines aIonl!:
Floatinl!: Feather Road between Eal!:le Road and Edl!:ewood Lane. (WEV)
Bastian removes Item #5C from the Consent Agenda.
Bandy removes Item #5G from the Consent Agenda.
Bastian moves to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Seconded by Nordstrom.
Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL A YES: MOTION
CARRIES........... ...
5C. Findinl!:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-14-06/RZ-19-06/Z0A-3-06-
Annexation. Rezone and Zoninl!: Ordinance Amendment M3 - M3 Comoanies: 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-l-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 +1- 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. (NBS)
Planner Baird Spencer: Staff asked that you remove this from the Consent Agenda. You have a
document before you in regards some minor changes. Discussion on the changes.
Bastian moves to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-I4-06/RZ-19-
06/Z0A-3-06 - Annexation, Rezone and Zoning Ordinance Amendment M3 - M3
Companies with the corrections presented to us this evening. Seconded by Bandy. ALL
AYES: MOTION CARRIES..............
5G. Letter of Al!:reement between City of Eal!le and Idaho Power Comoanv rel!:ardinl!: the
financinl!: of funds for the burial of the distribution lines alonl!: Floatinl!: Feather Road
between Eal!:le Road and Edl!:ewood Lane.
Bandy: I would like the City Attorney to address this issue.
Page 3
K\CQUNCIL\,\1INUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC.12-18-07mindoc
City Attorney Buxton: Provides Council an overview of the initial agreement with Idaho Power
to increase the franchise fee agreement to enable the City to bury distribution lines. Discussion
on the Settlement Agreement. My request would be to go forward to work with Idaho Power to
finalize this Letter Agreement and keep in mind that Idaho Power will be going forward with the
burial of the lines on Floating Feather. General discussion.
Bandy moves to continue Letter of Agreement between City of Eagle and Idaho Power
Company regarding the financing of funds for the burial of the distribution lines along
Floating Feather Road between Eagle Road and Edgewood Lane to the January 8, 2008
City Council meeting. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES............
Bastian moves to amend the Agenda by adding the following to the Agenda: that Item #7
New Business be heard next on the Agenda, add as Item #E. Ordinance No. 594, add as
Item #F. Resolution No. 07-37 and add as Item #G. Purchase of Yield Signs for Downtown
crosswalks. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES...................
6.(7.) NEW BUSINESS:
A. FP-I0-07 - Final Plat for Lonesome Dove Subdivision - Lonesome Dove. LLC:
Lonesome Dove, LLC, represented by Kevin McCarthy with Rennison Fodrea, Inc., is requesting
final plat approval for Lonesome Dove Subdivision, a lI7-10t, 22l-unit (10 I-single-family, 120
multi-family (contained within 3-lots), 4-commercial, and 9-common) mixed use subdivision.
The 4l.20-acre site is generally located on the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and State
Street at 1505 Riverside Drive. (MJW)
Council President Guerber introduces the issue.
Planner Williams: The plat is in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat. Discussion on
tree mitigation. Discussion on the water company provider. General discussion.
Bastian moves to approve FP-I0-07 - Final Plat for Lonesome Dove Subdivision -
Lonesome Dove, LLC with the recommendations on Page 3 of 4 and the additional
recommendations as stated by Planner Williams this evening. Seconded by Nordstrom.
ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES......................
B. FP-13-07 - Final Plat for Arts West Subdivision (formerly SymDhony Subdivision)-
Eal!le Island Crossinl!:. LLC: Eagle Island Crossing, LLC, represented by Pamela Hall with
Timberline Surveying, is requesting final plat approval for Arts West (formerly Symphony)
Subdivision, a 21-lot (17-commercial, I-access and 3-common) mixed use subdivision. The
16.05-acre site is generally located 1,320 feet east ofN. Park Lane on the north side of State
Highway 44 at 3300 & 3450 W. State Street and 3415 W. Flint Drive. (MJW)
Council President Guerber introduces the issue.
Planner Williams: Provides Council an overview of the application and it is in substantial
compliance. Displays overheads and discusses the collector.
Nordstrom moves to approve FP-13-07 - Final Plat for Arts West Subdivision with all of
the final stall recommendations and other input on the final plat agreement. Seconded by
Bandy. ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES.................
C. Review and consideration ofVelodrome Construction Manal!:er Contract. (SEB)
Council President Guerber introduces the issue.
Page 4
K\COUNCIL\1-UNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-12-18-07min.doc
City Attorney Buxton: We received 6 proposals and we did interviews of the top two and Wright
Brothers was selected. I have before you a Notice of Award that needs to be approved tonight.
Discussion on the negotiations of the Contract.
Robert Grubb, Wrights Brothers, Project Manager, we have entered into negotiations of the
standard contract and we are currently reviewing the project. We will provide on site
management for this project. General discussion.
Discussion on how donations for work and materials is handled.
Bastian moves to approve the Notice of Award dated 12/18/07 to Robert Grubb with
Wright Brothers for the Idaho Velodrome and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign
the agreement. Seconded by Nordstrom. Discussion. Amend the Motion to state the
Council President and the City Clerk sign the agreement. Seconded concurs. Bastian:
AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES..................
D. Review and consideration Concessionaire a!!:reement: (SEB)
Council President Guerber introduces the issue.
City Attorney Buxton: I would request that we table this to the January 8, 2008 City Council
meeting. Provides Council an overview of the agreement.
Dave Beck, President of the Velodrome Association, we have been working hard on this
agreement and it is remarkably complex. Provides Council an overview of the terms of the
agreement.
Bandy moves to continue Review and consideration Concessionaire agreementJo the
January 8, 2008 City Council meeting. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES.............. .
Further discussion on the agreement.
E. Ordinance No. 594: 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 LA W; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Planner Baird Spencer: Provides Council an overview of the proposed Ordinance.
Bastian 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 #594 be considered after being read once by title only. Bastian reads Ordinance
#594 by title only. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES................
Bastian moves that Ordinance #594 be adopted. Seconded by Bandy. Bastian: AYE;
Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.........
G. Approval of Crosswalk vield si!!:ns for downtown:
Council President introduces the issue.
Discussion on the purchase of the yield signs for downtown.
Page 5
K\COUNCIVMINUTESITemporary t>,{;nutes Work Area\CC -12-18-07min.doc
Nordstrom moves to authorize the Mayor to meet with the Facilities Manager and decide
how many of the Crosswalk Yield Signs to purchase. Seconded by Bastian. Discussion.
Markers are approximately $311.00 each plus shipping. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE;
Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..................
F. Resolution No. 07-37: A Resolution of the City of Eagle, Ada County, Idaho, approving
second amended agreement for legal services between the City and Moore Smith Buxton &
Turcke, Chartered; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same; and providing an
effective date.
City Attorney Buxton: This is an amendment to our professional contract. Discussion on the
changes to the contract. We need an increase of fees in regards to legal representation on the
LID litigation.
Bandy moves to approve Resolution No. 07-37. Seconded by Nordstrom. Discussion.
Bandy amends his motion to add "request that the Council President and City Clerk sign
the agreement". Second concurs. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE;
Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..................
7.(6.) PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. A-16-07 & RZ-23-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA - SB/LH Land
Company (Flack/Carlock). LLC: SBICH Land Company (Flack/Carlock), LLC, represented
by Ashley Ford with WRG Design, Inc., is requesting an annexation and rezone from RUT
(Rural Urban Transition-Ada County Designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use development
agreement in lieu of a PUD) for a Mixed Use Development including +/- 231.7 acres of
residential use (single-family and multi-family units) and +1- 55.9 acres of commercial uses. The
287.6-acre site is located at the Northeast corner of Beacon Light Road and State Highway 16.
(MJW) This item was continuedfrom the December 11, 2007 meeting.
A I. Findin!!:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Annexation and Rezone from
RUT to MU-DA - SB/LH Land Company (Flack/Carlock). LLC: SBICH
Land Company (Flack/Carlock), LLC, represented by Ashley Ford with WRG
Design, Inc., is requesting an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban
Transition-Ada County Designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use development
agreement in lieu of a PUD) for a Mixed Use Development including +1- 231.7
acres of residential use (single-family and multi-family units) and +1- 55.9 acres of
commercial uses. The 287.6-acre site is located at the Northeast corner of Beacon
Light Road and State Highway 16. (MJW)
Council President Guerber introduces the issue.
Planner Williams: Provides Council an overview of the application and staff recommendations
on the newly proposed concept plan. Displays overheads and discusses the concept plan.
Ashley Ford, WRG Design, Inc., representing the applicant, provides Council an overview of a
new concept plan, transition and the overall application. ·
Council President Guerber opens the Public Hearing
Council President Guerber: You are still sworn in from last week's meeting.
Joan Langdon, 4690 Hartley, reads a letter from Jay and Sharon Curtright into the record.
Council President swears in Pat Mink
Pat Mink, 3047 Deerfield Ct., I'm concerned how people are going to get and out of this
Page 6
K \COUNCIL\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC.12.18.07mindoc
subdivision. Where would the main entrances be? There are too many houses. I'm also curious
about the commercial.
Council President swears in Ken Langdon
Ken Langdon, 4690 Hartley Road, displays an overhead of a chart on density and discusses
density. Discussion on irrigation water. General discussion.
Mary Taylor was sworn in at last week's meeting.
Mary Taylor, 3410 Hartley Lane, It is scary that this got through Planning and Zoning.
Discusses high density. Discussion on whether or not the developer has the money to finish the
project. Discussion on the roads. I would recommend that this project be postponed and sent
back to the drawing board.
Council President swears in Ken Hamilton
Ken Hamilton, 4210 Double S Lane, these developers always work with the City but it is
secondary to work with the people that these developments develop. Discussion on density and
growth.
Council President swears in Mark Marchesini
Mark Marchesini, 3700 Highway 16, we buried my brother last week, we moved out here when
this was just a little dump water town. I have lived on what was left of my family farm for 25
years. I have seen the change that is happening in this area. I have never met the developers
representative. I trust that you will make a good decision.
Joan Langdon, 4690 Hartley, displays her map. Discusses the Farmer's Union Ditch Company.
Discussion on the density.
Council President swears in Lyda Fry
Lyda Fry, 4122 Homer Road, discusses development of the roads and frontage roads. Discussion
on growth in the area.
Jay Friday was sworn in at last week's meeting
Jay Friday, 1528 N. Sunup Way, I testified previously, discussion on the commercial
development, and size of the lots. Is the floodway being used for open space? This isn't what I
envisioned to the area.
Phillip Fry swears himself in.
Phillip Fry, 4122 Homer Road, I'm upset again. We just spent a year developing the comp plan.
Discussion on the density of the proposed development. General discussion.
Council President swears in Tammy Schuyler
Tammy Schuyler, 2874 N. Hartley, displays a map of her property. I agree with everything that I
have heard previously. Discussion on the density close to her property. Discussion on lot sizes.
Discussion on the Meridian Schools District letter declining property for a school.
C.J. Thompson was sworn in at last week's meeting.
C.J. Thompson, 4831 Willow Creek, this development is not anything that any of us that worked
on the comp plan thought would be proposed for this area. This needs to be sent back to the
drawing board.
Council President swears in Mark Butler
Page 7
K:\COL'NClL\MrNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC.] 2-18-07mindoc
Mark Butler, 1640 Washam Road, discussion on a floating village center. Look closely at the
comp plan and provide transition. Flack was being courted by Star. I think you have been put in
precarious position trying to oppose these developments going to Star or Ada County.
Kathy Pennisi was sworn in at last week's meetings.
Kathy Pennisi, 3675 N. Saddleman Place, I testified last week, I agree with most of the
testimony tonight. I also worked on the comp plan. The large acre lots make Eagle special.
There is nowhere in this area that has the large acre lots. People expect that this area is sacred.
Council President swears in John Moody
John Moody, 3382 in Star, this is the first meeting I have been to. I have not seen the lTD study
addressed. Discusses the ITD easements along Highway 16 and frontage roads.
Council President calls a recess at 9:45 p.m.
Council President reconvenes at 9:55 p.m.
Ashley Ford, representing the applicant, we have approached this with the best of intentions. We
are proud of our project and we do stand behind the project. Discussion on the developer who is
going to develop this project. We can fund this project. Discussion on density. Discussion on
the Meridian School District letter. Discussion on meeting with a Fanner's Union Canal
representative. We do believe this is the best use of the property and the best density for the
area. We will continue working with all of the agencies. If you feel tonight that you can not
approve use we would ask that you table this matter so we can work with the City on your
concerns. General discussion.
Council President closes the Public Hearing
Planner Williams displays the Comp Plan map and shows the location of the property. Provides
an overview of the application for the Council. General discussion.
Discussion on the Village Center.
Discussion on the applicant working with the staff on reevaluating density and moving forward
with this project.
Further Council discussion.
Nordstrom: I would like to say something, just a parting shot I guess, a long time ago I got
involved in City government, its been about nine years now, and when we first started thinking
about how we would operate and manage the land use planning which is specifically what seems
to be the biggest task that everyone tackles on the City Council when in fact we have a lot of
other responsibilities too but this is what seems to draw all of the attention. We thought about an
area that never went past Linder Road and hardly went past Beacon Light and then all of a
sudden we started getting found out about, this was back in the mid '90's, people started figuring
out and they wanted to grow communities but they didn't want to cooperate with Eagle's
regulations and development plans and the guidance and the statutes that we had so they decided
that the could go to the County and they could figure out a way around it, build on our borders,
connect to Eagle and we didn't have any in say in that as a community so we took it upon
ourselves to try and expand our area of impact, we actually recognized it way back 20 odd years
ago when we filed with the County for an area of impact of extension, never got it, kept fighting
the battle all of these years. It has always been sort of a natural edification that maybe it went all
the way to Highway 16 depending on who you drew your bearings from, a lot of the old timers
used to say that. I pray for the day that we can finally get this land use issue off from the table
and the County Commissioners are finally talking about doing it. I encourage the next Council to
Page 8
K\CQUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary !\1inutes Work Area\CC-12-1 &-07min.doc
become an advocate for trying to get the boundaries of Eagle defined once and for all and then
take advantage of the history of the great land planning and the expectations that have made this
community what it is over the last 20 years as a result of an effort of pro-active planning, of
making sure that our regulations and our statutes and everything else was just a kick or two
above anybody else because we always had a different idea than everybody else. When I first got
in City government they used to make fun of us, they used to say Eagle you are all out here, you
have your own vision and you are making a poor use of land, you don't know what you are doing
and you are being elitist and all of those things. Now listen to you guys, its not elitist any more
it's the average. It is amazing how this thingjust evolves. I just wish 5 or 6 years ago all that
area in the western planning area that we think about to day that all of those people didn't sell the
land and all of the people that you know didn't buy the land and are ready to develop it. There
have been tremendous fortunes made out there as a result of the diligence of this community and
the way it has grown, I think it is irresponsible for any body to stand up to the City of Eagle, I
welcome public involvement, but I think it is irresponsible when you don't give credit for what
has been here as a foundation to get us to where we are today. WE are a third of the density of
Meridian, we are a fourth of the density of Boise, we planned it that way, we intend to keep it
that way. Two years ago you could walk down the street and people would say Thank You for
doing this job, for taking care of the City, for making it special. Then all of this land use broke
loose, and all of a sudden its like you never were the guy you were, you changed, your in some
body's pocket, your motivated, your growth crazy, I haven't got a dime in this game, none of
these people up here do, never have. I find it interesting as I observe, there are a lot of new
people moving in as a result of being the third fastest growing area in the County, I didn't ask for
it, nobody asked for it, some of you came here as a result of it. So let's not loose perspective
because what I see any more is a whole bunch of folks who got here late that are becoming very
active and very vocal and haven't yet taken the time to study the back ground of how be got from
10 years ago to today and unless you invest in the history and learn the lessons that go along with
it on how we got here, don't be so quick to judge because it is not right. This is the best planned
community in this valley and maybe in this State and I think they deserve credit for it. The secret
of this is not us. It is the staff that we have. This diligent group of people that have turned us
into a well oiled planning machine and it has worked really good and we were able to handle the
growth of the third largest growing area in the country in spite of everything. So it is really not
as bad as you think, the judgments aren't' as rash as you think, the politics are getting a lot edgier
than they ever, ever used to be. All I can tell you is make sure you know your subject before you
go to town on it that is all I ever ask. I just wonder in the apathetic world that we live in when it
comes to public involvement that when you hear from the folks who come and speak sometimes
you have to sit up here and you have to make a judgment, and that is are those 100 people the
ones that are speaking for the 23,000 that live in this City, that is the dynamic question that you
have to ask yourself when you sit here and keep a balance. We are all humane and we are going
to do the best job that we can based on the set of events that we have. The reason that we are
able to turn out the product that we do is a result of having a system that works and by the time it
gets to us it's been pretty well feathered out, we have to make our judgments, but this works so
don't discount it ever because it is the foundation. What you are going to find, even the new
folks that are coming on board are going to find, that a whole bunch of this job is dictated by
statute, by property rights, cy the Constitution of this State, and by what you are dictated to do by
law with modification under the tenant of what you have in place as a plan and as a rule. You
can't change that and if you try to change that it is going to cause this City a lot of harm. All you
can do is keep trying to be proactive, make sure you are making good judgments, know the
foundations of the plans there to work from and keep going forward. It's a lot different than it
was four years ago.
Bastian moves to remand A-16-07 & RZ-23-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-
Page 9
K:\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\('r -12.] 8-07mindoc
DA - SBILH Land Company (Flack/Carlock), LLC back to staff so staff and the applicant
can work together to bring this forward for future action. Seconded by Bandy. Discussion.
ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.....................
Council President cal1s a recess at II :00 p.m.
Council President reconvenes at 11: 15 p.m.
B. A-04-07 & RZ-04-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA - CMH
DeveloDment: CMH Development, represented by Walter Lindgren with Johnson Architects, is
requesting an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition - Ada County
Designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) for a Mixed use
development including +1- 15 acres of residential uses at 5.0 units per acres and +1- 4 acres of
non-residential uses including +1- 7 acres of winery facilities and +1- 7 acres of retail commercial
uses. The 31.17-acre site is generally located north of Beacon Light Road and south of Palmer
Lane, west of State Highway 16, north of the River Birch Golf Course. (NBS)
B I. Findin!!:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-04-07 & RZ-04-07 -
Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA - CMH DeveloDment: CMH
Development, represented by Walter Lindgren with Johnson Architects, is
requesting an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition - Ada
County Designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) for a
Mixed use development including +/- 15 acres of residential uses at 5.0 units per
acres and +/- 4 acres of non-residential uses including +1- 7 acres of winery
facilities and +1- 7 acres of retail commercial uses. The 31.l7-acre site is generally
located north of Beacon Light Road and south of Palmer Lane, west of State
Highway 16, north of the River Birch Golf Course. (NBS)
Council President Guerber introduces the issue.
Council President Guerber: I need to disclose that until October I was employed by one of the
owner's in the development company and I will rescue myself and only do the administration on
this item.
Walter Lindgren, Johnson Architects, representing the applicant, displays overheads and
provides Council an overview of the application.
Planner Baird Spencer: Displays overheads and provides Council an overview of the application.
General discussion
Council President Guerber opens the Public Hearing
Council President swears in Jay Friday
Jay Friday, 1528 N. South Way, President of Farmer's Union Ditch Company, discussion on the
clean out ditch that runs across the River Birch Golf Course. I have an agreement that they wil1
maintain that ditch. I will need a maintenance agreement.
Walter Lindgren, discusses the maximum non-residential development. We are struggling with
what is really going to happen out there. There is general concern to have flexibility in the
Development Agreement.
Council President closes the Public Hearing
General Council discussion.
Bastian moves to approve A-04-07 & RZ-04-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-
DA with the Development Agreement for the Winery at Eagle Knoll and that the
Page 10
K:\COL'NC'IL\MINUTES\Temporary Minules Work Area\CC .12.18-07mindoc
Development Agreement be modified as follows: The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law Page 14,3.4.2.1: The first sentence shall read "Non-residential mixed land uses shall
be a minimum of twenty-five percent of the Property. Strike out "and a maximum of 12.69
Acres"; The uses listed in 3.4.2.2. include a fuel service station and a boutique hotel with a
maximum of 20 guest rooms, the fuel service station shall be allowed only if a hotel is
constructed. Bastian modifies the motion to not include a fuel service station; 3.9.: Shall
read "Streets shall be stubbed and cross out "north and" so it will read "Streets shall be
stubbed west to Pollard Lane"; 3.10.4. Discussion. The applicant shall provide a modified
site plan showing an increase buffer between the existing River Birch golf course and the
residential use on the south of this site. Seconded by Nordstrom. Discussion. Bastian
Amends the Motion to include the language "draft this as a pre-annexation agreement".
Second concurs. Bastian Amends the Motion to include in the Development Agreement the
Applicant is to get approval from the Farmers Union Canal for any easements or spillways
contained on the site. Second concurs. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.....................
C. A-17-07 & RZ-24-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA - CMH
Development: CMH Development, represented by Walter Lindgren with Johnson Architects, is
requesting an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition- Ada County
Designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement in lieu of a PUD) for
Village Gateway, a mixed use commercial development including a hotel site, retail and
restaurant uses, and a convenience store with a fuel station. The 10.65-acre site is located on the
southeast corner of Beacon Light Road and State Highway 16. (NBS) This item was continued
from the December 11, 2007 meeting.
CI. Findin!!:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-17-07 & RZ-24-07-
Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA - CMH Develonment: CMH
Development, represented by Walter Lindgren with Johnson Architects, is
requesting an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition- Ada
County Designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement in
lieu of a PUD) for Village Gateway, a mixed use commercial development
including a hotel site, retail and restaurant uses, and a convenience store with a
fuel station. The 10.65-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Beacon Light
Road and State Highway 16. (NBS)
Council President Guerber introduces the issue.
Walter Lindgren, Johnson Architects, representing the applicant, displays overheads and
provides an overview for Council.
Planner Baird Spencer, displays overheads and provides Council an overview of the application.
General discussion.
Council President opens the Public Hearing
Council President closes the Public Hearing
General Council discussion.
Bastian moves to approve A-17-07 & RZ-24-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-
DA - CMH Development with the following changes to the Development Agreement: Page
9 of 13, 3.4.3 shall read "The total square footage of retail and commercial on the site shall
be limited to 31,000 sq ft plus a +/- 150 room hotel or not to exceed a community
commercial center; 3.4.4. add to the end of the sentence "unless as developed as a
community commercial center"; Page 10 of 13, 3.9.1. shall read "A landscape strip along
State Highway 16, striking out "A seventy five (75) foot wide", shall include a minimum ten
Page I]
K\C'OUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minute~ Work Area\CC -I 2. 18-07min doc
(10) foot high berm/wall combination with extensive landscaping to provide a buffer per
city code; 3.9.2. Strike out "A fifty (50) foot wide" and add "combined in a single item
consistent with city code" to the end of the sentence; 3.12 the word "sites" should be
"sited"; and with the conditions and the previous rezone and annexation that we provide an
opportunity within a two year period for the developer to gain contiguity with the City of
Eagle and if that fails to happed you have the opportunity not to be annexed by the City of
Eagle. Seconded with Bandy. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..............
7.C l. Nordstrom moves to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-17-07
& RZ-24-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA - CMH Development with all
necessary changes made tonight with any and all agreements attached to this. Seconded by
Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES...............
7.BI. Nordstrom moves to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-04-
07 & RZ-04-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA - CMH Development as
presented with all apparent changes. Seconded by Bastian. ALL A YES: MOTION
CARRIES....................
D. CPA-OI-07/RZ-07-07/PP-09-07 - ComDrehensive Plan Text Amendment. Rezone and
Preliminarv Plat for Mill Park Villal!:e Subdivision - State Park. LLC: State Park, LLC,
represented by Paul MacDonald, AlA, ofDFD Cornoyer Hedrick, is requesting a Comprehensive
Plan text amendment and a rezone with development agreement from A-R (Agricultural-
Residential) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement in lieu of a PUD), and
preliminary plat approval for Mill Park Village Subdivision, a 5 lot (17-residential units and 12-
commercial buildings contained on 5-lots) mixed use subdivision. The 11.25-acre site is located
on the northeast corner of Park Lane and State Highway 44, on Lots 1,4, and 9, Block 2, of the
Amended Plat of Flint Estates, at 3950 W. State Street. (MJW)
Dl. Findinl!:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CPA-OI-07/RZ-07-07/PP-09-07
_ ComDrehensive Plan Text Amendment. Rezone and Preliminarv Plat for
Mill Park Villal!e Subdivision - State Park. LLC: State Park, LLC, represented
by Paul MacDonald, AlA, of DFD Cornoyer Hedrick, is requesting a
Comprehensive Plan text amendment and a rezone with development agreement
from A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development
agreement in lieu of a PUD), and preliminary plat approval for Mill Park Village
Subdivision, a 5 lot (l7-residential units and 12-commercial buildings contained
on 5-lots) mixed use subdivision. The 1l.25-acre site is located on the northeast
corner of Park Lane and State Highway 44, on Lots 1,4, and 9, Block 2, of the
Amended Plat of Flint Estates, at 3950 W. State Street. (MJW)
Council President Guerber introduces the issue.
Mark Butler, representing the applicant, displays overheads and provides Council an overview of
the application. General discussion. All of the conditions are fine with us.
Andy Urstead, representing the applicant, we are in complete agreement with staff's conditions
of approval. Discusses P&Z testimony. Discussion on the Prairie Style design.
Planner Williams: Displays overheads and provides Council an overview of the application.
General discussion.
Council President opens the Public Hearing
Council President swears in Al Shoustarian
Page ]2
K\COUNClL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-12-18-Q7min,doc
Al Shoustarian, 19 N. Eagle Road, discusses why he has ran for City Council. Discussion Mark
Butler being an employee of the City at one time and then coming back before the City as a
planner representing developers and his disapproval of this practice. Discussion on the right in
and right out. I didn't hear anything about the density and the traffic it is going to generate.
Council President swears in Tom Ricks
Tom Ricks, Park Lane, I am the neighbor to the north that Mark referred to. As far as the overall
project I am in agreement. I think they are doing a marvelous job. I am not in favor of the 8'
wall, I want an increase in landscaping with a 6' wall. General discussion.
Mark Butler discusses traffic. ACHD has approved our plan. All of the information with regard
to traffic has been submitted to lTD. The permit has not been issued yet. Discusses the accesses
further to the east. General discussion. Discussion on the commercial and residential density.
General discussion.
Council President closes the Public Hearing
Bastian moves to approve CPA-OI-07/RZ-07-07/PP-09-07 - Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment, Rezone and Preliminary Plat for Mill Park Village Subdivision - State Park,
LLC with the following changes to the Development Agreement: 3.4. next to last of the line
"the bldg footprint shall be no larger than shown on the concept plan date stamped by the
City on November 29, 2007; 3.9. Unstrike 6 and strike 8'; 3.12. strike that all together so
the developer can present a design of their choice without having to conform to the idea of
reducing the parking area; and all Standard and Site Specific Conditions as proposed.
Seconded by Bandy. Discussion. Bastian amends the motion to include a 48" buffer
between the drive thru and Highway 44. Second concurs. Discussion by Planner
Williams: Staff would ask that you leave 3.1.2. As that allows us to address parking areas
not be concentrated and strike Condition No.7 of the Site Specific Conditions as that
specifically address the ninety percent turning of the buildings. Bastian accepts change and
Second concurs. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES...................
DI. Bastian moves to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CPA-Ol-
07/RZ-07-07/PP-09-07 - Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, Rezone and Preliminary
Plat for Mill Park Village Subdivision - State Park, LLC. Seconded by Bandy. ALL
AYES:
7. NEW BUSINESS: ALL ITEMS MOVED BY MOTION TO BEFORE THE PUBLIC
HEARINGS.
A. FP-I0-07 - Final Plat for Lonesome Dove Subdivision - Lonesome Dove. LLC:
Lonesome Dove, LLC, represented by Kevin McCarthy with Rennison Fodrea, Inc., is requesting
final plat approval for Lonesome Dove Subdivision, a lI7-10t, 22] -unit (10 I-single-family, 120
multi-family (contained within 3-10ts), 4-commercial, and 9-common) mixed use subdivision.
The 4l.20-acre site is generally located on the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and State
Street at 1505 Riverside Drive. (MJW)
B. FP-13-07 - Final Plat for Arts West Subdivision (formerly Symphony Subdivision)-
Eal!:le Island Crossin!!. LLC: Eagle Island Crossing, LLC, represented by Pamela Hall with
Timberline Surveying, is requesting final plat approval for Arts West (formerly Symphony)
Subdivision, a 21-lot (17-commercial, I-access and 3-common) mixed use subdivision. The
] 6.05-acre site is generally located 1,320 feet east ofN. Park Lane on the north side of State
Highway 44 at 3300 & 3450 W. State Street and 3415 W. Flint Drive. (MJW)
Page 13
K.ICOUNCIL\!vIINUTES\Temporary :\1inutes Work Area\CC' -12-18-07min.doc
C. Review and consideration ofVelodrome Construction Manal!:er Contract. (SEB)
D. Review and consideration Concessionaire al!:reement: (SEB)
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
A. Pendinl!: & Threatened Iitil!:ation I.C. 67-2345(t)
MOVED BY MOTION TO PRE-COUNCIL.
Nordstrom moves to request Legal Council to go after legal fees against Charney in his
litigation against the City. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION
<:ARRIES...............
City Attorney Buxton: Discussion on the Dry Creek Flood Agreement.
Bastian moves to approve the Dry Creek Flood Agreement between the City and Ada
County and authorize the Mayor to sign. Seconded by Bandy. Bastian: AYE: Guerber:
AYE: Nordstrom not present to vote; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES.........
9. ADJOURNMENT:
Bandy moves to adjourn. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYE: MOTION
CARRIES.. .
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 2:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted: ...',,,...........
R .... Of EA Of.. '"
".," ~\ ........./: '-".
.: ~.. -. "..
i f::-... ..ORA 7'~... '';.
-StAR~.QBER~~~~ : v! o~' \i< ~
: : v,.' _: :
CITY CLERK/TREASURER :. '" ~:;;: :
... \ ~Gl""V"".O:
~ . \:J J,.; Q....... III
~ .....tIt. ~"".. ~: ~
..", ..rOR.po..,......^~ :'
*', ~J't ....... \. v,....
'.... -i T EO\' .....
"",.....",,'
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT EAGLE
CITY HALL
Page 14
K.\CQUNCIL\I\-UNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-12-18-01min doc
(c
5C+
INTER
OFFICE
City of Eagle
Zoning Administration
To: Mayor Merrill and City Council Members
From: Nichoel R. Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP, Planner III
Subject: A-14-06/RZ-19-06/ZOA-03-06 — Annexation and Rezone from RR (Rural
Residential- Ada County Designation) and RP (Rural Preservation -Ada County
Designation) to R -1 -DA (Residential with a development agreement) with a Pre -
Annexation and Development Agreement— M3 Companies, represented by Bill
Brownlee
Date: December 18, 2007
Attachment(s): Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Law
Copy To: M3 Companies, Attn: Gerry Robbins
Attached is an updated copy of the Findings of facts and Conclusions of law for the above referenced
applications the following items have been changes:
Page 2, Paragraph D - HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
This site was also subject of a comprehensive plan map and text amendment application (CPA -05-
06). The Eagle City Council on November 20, 2007, denied voted 4 to 0 not to include the
applicant initiated comprehensive plan text and map amendment into the Eagle Comprehensive
Plan.
Page 3, Paragraph K - AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES:
The development agreement requires the developer to provide for its proportionate share of public
infrastructure which proportionate share will be established through coordinated planning as
contemplated by the planning unit master plan process described previcio:I of atilities-and-sew ees
.g of the—property. within the
proposed development agreement.
Page 21-22, PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL Paragraph B, C, & D:
B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by eleven (11)
(not including the applicant/representative) stating support for the City's proactive
planning, efforts to control development to the north of the City, the integration of the
Eagle Wine District Overlay in the plan and the applicant's support of the City's new
comprehensive plan.
C. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by ten
Page 1 of 2
K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-1406-0611 RZ-19-06.06 me 4.doc
(101 ne-ene stating concerns that the densities and bonuses proposed were to high. to
mann or unclear impacts to infrastructure, the desire to see development wait until
implementing ordinances are in place, that the City should not be planning for the
foothills.
D. Oral testimony neither in favor or opposed to the proposal was presented by nine (9).
stating general concern about growth. the provision of water services. reauesting further
review of the economic and environmental impacts of the development.
Page 2 of 2
K:1Plamiing Dep1\Eagle APP IRZIA120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-0606 me 4.doc
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MA i" Y r.R OF A ZONING ORDINANCE )
AMENDMENT, AN APPLICATION FOR )
ANNEXATION AND REZONE FROM RR )
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND RP (RURAL )
PRESERVATION) TO R -1 -DA (RESIDENTIAL )
o V i i n A PRE -ANNEXATION AND )
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR M3 EAGLE )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06
The above -entitled zoning ordinance amendment and rezone upon annexation applications came before
the Eagle City Council for their action on the following dates:
November 20, 2007
November 27, 2007
December 5, 2007
December 11, 2007
The public hearing was closed on December 5, 2007. On Decemberl 1, 2007, the Council made their
recommendation. The Council, having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly
considered the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law;
FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. PROJECT SUMMARY:
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 -1 -DA (Residential with a development agreement) with a Pre -
Annexation and Development Agreement for a maximum of 7,153 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 +1- 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.
B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 24, 2006 and
deemed complete on August 23, 2006.
C. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission was published in the Valley Times in accordance with the requirements of
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City Code on September 11, 2006.
Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three -hundred feet
(300 -feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67,
Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on September 8, 2006. The site was posted
in accordance with the Eagle City Code on September 18, 2006, 2006. Requests for
agencies' reviews were transmitted on September 8, 2006, in accordance with the
Page 1 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
requirements of the Eagle City Code.
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle City Council was published in
accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City
Code on October 22, 2007. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners
within three -hundred feet (300 -feet) of the subject property in accordance with the
requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on October 22,
2007. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on October 22, 2007.
D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
This site was also subject of a comprehensive plan map and text amendment application
(CPA -05-06). The Eagle City Council on November 20, 2007, voted 4 to 0 not to include
the applicant initiated comprehensive plan text and map amendment into the Eagle
Comprehensive Plan.
E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS:
See Above.
F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
Existing
COMP PLAN ZONING
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
Rural Preservation
(Ada County)
RP (Rural Preservation -Ada
County designation) RR -
(Rural Residential — Ada
County)
Proposed Foothills Residential R -1 -DA (Residential One with
Development Agreement)
North of site Foothills Residential
South of site Foothills Residential/ RP (Rural Preservation -Ada
Public/Semi Public County designation) RR
(Rural Residential — Ada
County)
East of site Foothills Residential RP (Rural Preservation -Ada
County designation) RR
(Rural Residential — Ada
County)
RP (Rural Preservation -Ada
County designation) RR
(Rural Residential — Ada
County)
RP (Rural Preservation -Ada
County designation) RR
(Rural Residential — Ada
County)
West of site
Rural Preservation
(Ada County)/
Public/Semi Public
LAND USE
Range land
Master Planned Community
including residential, office
and retail uses
Range land
BLM Land
Range land
State Highway 16, Hillsdale
Estates, range land
Page 2 of 23
K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Scenic Corridor Overlay along State Highway 16
and Willow Creek Road.
H. TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 6,005 +/- acres
I. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT AND REZONE:
See justification letter dated April 24, 2006 and amended on August 23, 2007, provided
by the applicant's representative (attached to the staff report).
J. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(if applicable):
See justification letter dated April 24, 2006 and amended on August 23, 2007, provided
by the applicant's representative (attached to the staff report).
K. AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
The development agreement requires the developer to provide for its proportionate share
of public infrastructure which proportionate share will be established through coordinated
planning as contemplated by the planning unit master plan process described within the
proposed development agreement.
L. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists.
M. SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES:
See the environmental assessment submitted with this application
N. NON -CONFORMING USES: None are apparent on the site.
O. AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached. Comments which
appear to be of special concern are noted below:
ACRD Letter date stamped 9/13/06, 10/13/06, 2/6/07, 3/16/07, 4/25/07, 5/7/07, 9/11/07
City of Eagle - Building Department Letter date stamped 3/16/07
COMPASS Letter date stamped 10/16/06
DEQ Letter date stamped 9/20/06
Eagle Sewer District Letter date stamped 9/25/06
HDR (City Consultant) Letter date stamped 8/10/06, 3/9/07
Holladay Engineering Letter date stamped 9/28/06, 2/8/07
Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game Letter date stamped 9/29/05, 10/12/06, 12/5/06
Idaho Dept. of Lands Letter date stamped 8/15/07
Idaho Power Letter date stamped 9/19/06
ITD Letter date stamped 9/26/06, 2/6/07, 3/20/07, 11/9/07
Joint School Dist. #2 Letter date stamped 10/26/05, 11/27/06, 2/7/07, 4/2/07, 12/4/07
Thompson Engineers (City Consultant) Letter date stamped 12/4/06, 3/21/07
LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: The City received letters from 33 different citizens and
groups, some provided multiple letters. Further, some letters addressed the M3
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA -5-06) and those letters were included in the CPA
Page 3 of 23
K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
packet. All letters are attached to the Planning and Zoning Commission staff report and are
incorporated herein by reference. Additional letters were received from the following
NAFCA Letter dated December 3, 2007
Kathy Penissi dated December 3, 2007
Allison Gilbreath dated December 3, 2007
Dave and Chris Fisher dated December 3, 2007
Sheri Randall dated December 3, 2007
Idaho Smart Growth dated December 3, 2007
Jim Banducci dated December 3, 2007
Robert and Debra Helton dated December 3, 2007
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: (staff analysis is in italics)
1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT:
The Eagle Comprehensive Plan establishes three findings that must be considered for the
adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
• Under the "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" Section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c)
(3)) within the 2000 Comprehensive Plan the applicant must show, "the condition or
situation which warrants a change being made in the plan."
The M3 property is currently located north of the City's planning boundaries and is a
new area for consideration for the City to expand. The City has, over the past three
years, had concerns with urban style development occurring in unincorporated Ada
County in the form of Planned Communities. Under the current Ada County Code, a
planned community can occur anywhere within the unincorporated county upon 640
acres located outside of an area of impact. Due to the large property ownerships in the
Foothills north of the City, the City has begun the process of review development
opportunities and constraints within this area to evaluate their impact on the existing
City. It is staff's opinion that conditions have changed significantly since the adoption of
the Soaring 2025 Plan in 2004 that the foothills area should be considered as a future
unique development area within the probable boundaries of the City of Eagle. Further,
with the City undertaking the North Eagle Foothills Plan this application should be
treated as a specific area plan that provides greater specificity and guidance to the
development that will occur in this portion of the Foothills.
• The "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (4))
seeks to identify "the public benefit that would occur from such a change in the
an.,"
The public benefit of the applicant's proposal is that it would allow for the City of Eagle
to guide and review development that will impact the overall design and infrastructure of
the City (for land use, parks and interconnectivity).
• The "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (5))
Page 4 of 23
K:1Planning DeptEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
asks for "An explanation of why no other solutions to the condition or situation
which warrants a change in the Plan are possible or reasonable under the current
policies of the Plan".
The options for the developer are to develop in unincorporated Ada County under the RR
and RP zoning designations (10 & 40 acres parcels) or file for a county planned
community application (which may look similar to this application) but under the
jurisdiction of Ada County. The current City of Eagle plan does not provide
development options for this property and comprehensive plan amendments is required
Overall, does the proposed application meet or exceed the purpose and vision of the
Eagle Comprehensive Plan?
• Purpose of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan is to promote the health, safety, and general
welfare of the people of the City of Eagle and its Impact Area as follows (2000 Eagle
Comprehensive PIan 1.1)
a. To protect property rights and enhance property values.
The application, as proposed, will significantly enhance the value of the
applicant 's land and greatly expand the city limits. There is some concern about
the impacts that the proposed development will have on properties located to the
south of the site within the existing Area of Impact (AOI). These approval of this
application will include temporary impacts to schools, roads and groundwater.
The most sensitive of these impacts are groundwater and roads.
b. To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the people at
reasonable cost.
The proposed development agreement addresses the applicant's responsibility to
provide and pay for the extension and provision of public facilities within the
development. One of the most contentious issues has been the provision or ability
to condition off site roadway improvements that are the result of this development
or accelerated by this development.
c. To ensure that the economy of the City of Eagle and its Impact Area are protected
and enhanced.
The applicant is proposing to include 245 acres of commercial that will provide
nearly 4,000 new jobs to the City of Eagle. Increasing both the tax base and the
employment options within the City.
d. To ensure that the important environmental features of the City and its Impact
Area are protected and enhanced.
The applicant's submittal shows over 1,400 acres of the site with slopes in excess
of 25%. This is equal to 23% of the total site area. The applicant is proposing to
grade 410 acres of the 1400 acres. Staff is concerned about frying to establish a
maximum density to these areas without first defining a grading standard in the
development agreement that provides a measurable intensity of the extent of the
mass grading we can expect on the site.
Page 5 of 23
K:1Planning DeptWagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
Letters receivedfrom the Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) and the
City's consultant, HDR, indicates that the habitat analysis within the site is
cursory and additional detail as to exact location and proposed mitigation of the
existing habitat needs to be completed. Though some habitat areas may be
mitigated, others may need to be preserved within the open space plan. Without
further details, it is difficult to determine if appropriate areas have been retained
or if additional open space or mitigation are necessary. Per IDFG map dated
December 5, 2006, the Southwest and Southeast planning areas have been
delineated as containing important habitat.
A portion of the M3 site has been identified as floodway. Existing development
practices within the City of Eagle do not provide residential densities for
floodway. Without an approved floodway delineation for the site, the development
agreement should provide a mechanism for the reduction of density for the future
floodway delineation.
The Eagle Comprehensive Plan and ECC 9-5-8 define the Eagle Foothills as an
area of special concern requiring the completion of a detailed environmental
assessment, including a detail of specific impact change, impact and mitigation,
prior to the establishment of development rights. One possible solution to the
gross residential density issue is to provide a one (1) residential unit per five (5)
acres for areas of special concern as set forth in Eagle City Code § 9-5-8.
Additional density in those areas would be granted phase by phase when specific
mitigation/development standards can be reviewed and approved by the City. We
would be open to discussing some other formula but need something to recognize
the need to address these areas in the Development Agreement.
e. To encourage urban and urban -type development within the incorporated city.
f. To avoid undue concentration of population and overcrowding of land.
The maximum density proposed within modified the application is 1.3 units per
acre. The base density of the Eagle Area of Impact is calculated at 1.3 units per
acre. This area include uses from commercial, multi family, industrial to
residential estates similar to the uses found on the M3 site.
The Development Agreement delineates 245 acres of non-residential uses in
addition to the 8,160 maximum dwelling units requested. This intensity of non-
residential uses will result in the creation of nearly 4,000 new jobs. We need to
get a better understanding of how these commercial ratios relate to the overall
density request.
Regarding commercial density, does it also include offices uses, retail, or
hospitality? Our concern is that the commercial square footage proposed exceeds
the existing commercial square footage per household. As an example, the
proposed commercial is approximately 80 square feet higher per household than
the Western Area at 120 square feet per household. We expect and desire the
commercial square footage to be far denser in the downtown core than in any
other commercial use areas in the City. We need to review this issue and
determine whether we are properly zoning the area and whether it is feasible for
such density that far away from the downtown core.
Page 6 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
g.
To ensure that the development of land is commensurate with the physical
characteristics of the land.
h. To protect life and property in areas subject to natural hazards and disasters.
See Item "d" above
i. To protect fish, wildlife, and recreation resources.
The proposed development site includes an extensive series of informal trails that
have been used by hikers, bicyclists and equestrians for years. Though it is
recognized that this is private land through the development process formalization
of regional trails should be incorporated into the development agreement. See the
attached map of existing informal trails on the site; the applicant's trail proposal
is also attached.
In addition to the formalization of trails on the site the applicant has proposed to
dedicate880 acres of land contiguous to the City's proposed regional park to be
included and managed together for public use.
To encourage local school districts to participate in the community planning and
development process so as to address public school needs and impacts on an
ongoing basis.
Please review the agency comments an e-mail received from the district on April
2, 2007.
How does the M3 proposal meet the "Vision for the City of Eagle" (2000 Eagle
Comprehensive Plan 1.3)?
b. known as a highly livable town that successfully balances many of the rural
elements of its heritage with growth;
The overall density proposed within the M3 application is 1.3 units per acre with
245 acres of non-residential uses. The gross density of the existing city is 1.3 units
per acre.
The project includes uses including multi family housing to 5+ acre lots. The
Mixture and overall intensity of the development is similar to the existing City.
c. interconnected with user-friendly pathways and roadways;
See the open space and trail discussion above
One of staff's concerns is how to interconnect the existing roadway system into the
foothills providing an efficient system for emergency services and local trips.
Some connectivity should be required through northerly extension of existing
roads but, there should be some limitations on the amount of traffic entering
existing residential areas. Regional trips should be forced/directed to the State
Page 7 of 23
K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
Highway system to reduce the impacts to the north/south routes feed into the
regional transportation system (Hwy 44, 20/26). See attached map of staffs
recommended northerly extensions. (Please bear in mind that the extension of
these streets are off site improvements and must be addressed as to who's
responsibility it is to complete and permit and when the improvements must be in
place. Staff recommends northerly connections into the project be along Hartley
Lane, Linder and limited access t o N. Eagle Road/Willow Creek All connections
north into the area across the proposed City Recreation area shall include a
wildlife/recreation crossing to be approved by the City, ACHD, Idaho Fish and
Game and the BLM.
d. economically strong with a distinct downtown economic center;
The M3 Development establishes a single clear community core with smaller
neighborhood centers spread through out the development. Regional types uses
are located adjacent to Hwy16 to capture regional trips from Emmett, Payette and
similar locations.
e. providing diversified employment and housing opportunities for all economic
groups;
The M3 development includes housing opportunities ranging from multi family
rental units to large lot ranchettes. The development provides a broad range of
housing opportunities for the community and the City of Eagle.
f. an environmentally aware community with distinctive open space, parks and
outdoor recreation;
g.
See the open space and trail discussion above
an economically strong city, that fosters local businesses and clean industry;
Though the site is large enough to foster a new employment center for the City of
Eagle there has not been a clear understanding of a specific type of employer or
industry that the applicant would like to pursue in the area further the City has not
been contact by any larger employer looking to locate within the proposed
development.
h. a unique community that maintains its rural residential feel in the midst of the
Treasure Valley.
Though portions of the site contain a rural feel other take on a more urban
feeling:
Rural
Southern Residential Area: .5 units/Acre & 47.6% open space
Southwestern Residential Area:. Sunits/acre & 10.8% open space
Non Rural
Community Core: 6.00 units per acre, 117 acres of non-residential uses
including a 500 room hotel
Page 8 of 23
K:1Planning DeptEEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
Northern Residential Area: 2.5units per acre, 37% open space (includes
2 golf courses)
Highway Mixed Use Business Park: 88 acres of non-residential uses
i Sustainability at build out (2025): Ensure the ability for the city to continue to
fund, improve and support itself, including infrastructure and parks, without the
use of building permit fees, impact fees and zoning fees.
Though non-residential uses represent only 4% of the gross area of the
development it represents nearly 10% of the buildable area. The desire
was to include uses that support the proposed development and that are in
scale with the residential and scenic nature of the Foothills.
Identify "Activity Centers": Identify areas that due to the nature of existing uses,
future uses and/or transportation corridors will lend themselves to increased
activity and non-residential use so to preserve larger areas as primarily residential
neighborhoods.
The proposed development has identified two activity centers for the development:
Highway Mixed Use Business Park: 88 acre commercial & mixed
use/office area. This center is located at the proposed permanent access
for the development along State Highway 16. Staff concerns about this
area are based in the design of the overall area more than the overall
intensity of the uses. This area should be treated as a gateway to the City
and should be highly landscaped and architecturally pleasing.
Community Core: 6.0 units per acre and 117 acres of non-residential
uses including a 500 room hotel. This area is 3 mile long by 1 mile wide
center that runs through the middle of Big Gulch. Per the Army Core of
Engineers Big Gulch is designated as a floodway and riparian area. Staff
is greatly concerned with the size and intensity of the uses in this area.
The Community Core contains approximately 1/3 of the total units and
the majority of the non-residential uses.
k. Preserving Regional Transportation Corridors (State Highway 16 & 44): Preserve
the function of regionally significant roadways through the City while ensuring
compatibility with land uses and design standards of the City.
Per the Applicant's transportation analysis the following improvements need to be
constructed for the site. Projects identified by asterisks (*) are those that
according to the applicant's analysis, are necessary to accommodate the existing
Comprehensive Plan and existing traffic but due to traffic impacts from this
development this development projects with asterisks may need to be constructed
sooner to mitigate the impacts of this proposal.
• Widen SH 44 to 5 lanes between Ballantyne & SH 16 *
• Widen SH 16 to 2 to 2 thru lanes in each direction with turning lanes at
intersections *
• Widen Beacon Light to 3 lane between SH 16 & SH 55*
Page 9 of 23
K:1Planning Dept\Eagle ApplicationslRZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
• Widen Floating Feather to 5 lanes between Eagle Road and SH 55*
• Widen Linder Road to _lanes between SH 44 and Floating Feather and
to 3 lanes between Floating Feather and Beacon Light*
• Upgrade SH 16 to interstate with 2 thru lanes in each directions
• Construct interchanges at SH 44, Beacon Light and the site access on SH
16
• Construct overpass at SH16 and Floating Feather
• Upgrade Beacon Light to lanes between SH 16 and SH 55
• Upgrade SH 55 to 6 lanes north of SH 44 to Brookside Lane
• Signalization of eight (8) additional intersections:
o Beacon Light & Park Lane
o Beacon Light & Ballantyne
o Beacon Light &Eagle
o Floating Feather &Palmer
o Floating Feather &Linder
o Floating Feather & Park Lane
o Floating Feather & Ballantyne
o Floating Feather & Eagle
o Hwy 55 & Dry Creek*
Staff recognizes that the on-site improvements and the construction of the roads as
proposed will be phased with the build out of the development. The development
agreement should provide a proposed schedule of improvements by phase, unit and trip
count for each of the above improvements. Though a TIS has been completed for the
overall development individual TIS' should be submitted by phase showing how the
individual improvements are being meet or need to be re prioritized prior to approval of
each phase.
The transportation impacts for this development require significant off-site improvements
that may not occur in the timeline necessary for development. Phases should be limited
by the completion of improvements both on and off-site. Though staff recognizes that an
amendment to the Long Range Regional Transportation Plan will be necessary it is
important to note that priority will not automatically be granted to the Foothills projects.
As the Foothills expand and develop it may be necessary to establish and extraordinary
impact fee to fund the significant improvements specific to the State Highway System and
the additional unplanned impacts to the local system to ensure a proportion share of the
roadway improvements is bore by each land owner/developer.
The proposed impacts from the development will significantly change the transportation
system with in the Eagle areas. Significant concerns have been expressed about the
intensification of Beacon Light Road west of Eagle from 3 lanes to 5 as well as the
impacts to Eagle Road south of Floating Feather.
1. Increased Employment Opportunities: Identify areas that will provide
significant employment opportunities to the residents of the City of Eagle
thereby allowing the City to be a place to live, work, and recreate.
See item "j" above
Page 10 of 23
K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
B. ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: (staff analysis is in italics)
• ECC Section 8-1-2 OPEN SPACE:
A common area platted as a separate lot, provided within a recorded easement, or
dedicated to and accepted by the City. The area shall be substantially open to the
sky, exclusive of streets, buildings and other covered structures, and shall be
designated and intended as a useable and convenient amenity to any proposed
development. Wetland areas, drainage ditches, irrigation ditches, and similar
features shall not be considered as a part of the minimum area of open space
required.
The applicant proposes the inclusion of 40% of the site as open space including
14% regional open space and 26% community open space. Four of the five sub
areas includes a minimum of 10% open space, the only sub -area that does not
meet this threshold is the highway mixed use area that currently does not include
residential uses.
• ECC Section 8-2-4 (G): A decrease of minimum lot size in a subdivision may be
allowed if there is an offsetting increase of the same square -footage in open space
and a planned unit development is applied for and approved.
Due to the size and scale of the development the off setting increase in open
space will be reviewed at the submittal of preliminary panning units to ensure
that the appropriate offset has occurred for each phase.
• ECC Section 8-2-4 (I): Minimum lot frontage, the portion of a lot front adjacent to a
public or private street, for all residential zoning districts shall be 35 feet.
Minimum lot dimension will be reviewed as part of the development agreement
for the project.
• ECC Section 8-2A-7 (J) (4)
Major Roadways: New residential developments, including, but not limited to,
subdivisions and multi -family developments, shall be buffered from streets
classified as collectors, arterials, freeways, or expressways, to protect residential
communities from noisy, potentially dangerous, high speed roads. The "buffer
area" shall be defined as the distance from the outside wall of the lowest story of
any single-family attached or detached dwelling and the right of way line of the
roadway. The lowest story must be screened from the view of any street
classified as a collector, arterial, freeway, or expressway. This buffer is required
either on individual lots or as an easement, or as part of the common open space
owned and maintained by a homeowners' association. Any landscaping proposed
to be within the public right of way shall not be included as a part of the buffer
area required below. The height for berming/fencing, as noted below, shall be
measured from the elevation of the final grade of the adjacent roadway
(measured at the centerline) to the top of the proposed berming/fencing. The
required buffer area width, plantings, and fencing are as follows:
a. Any road designated as an urban or rural collector on the Ada County
long range highway and street map:
Page 11 of 23
K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
A minimum of thirty five feet (35') wide buffer area (not including right
of way) shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred
(100) linear feet of right of way: four (4) shade trees, five (5) evergreen
trees, and twenty four (24) shrubs. Each required shade tree may be
substituted with two (2) flowering/ornamental trees, provided that not
more than fifty percent (50%) of the shade trees are substituted.
A minimum five foot (5') high, maximum eight foot (8') high, berm,
decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly
designed concrete wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within
the buffer area. The maximum slope for any berm shall be three feet (3')
horizontal distance to one foot (1') vertical distance. If a decorative block
wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall
is to be provided in combination with the berm, a four foot (4') wide flat
area shall be provided for the placement of the decorative wall.
Chainlink, cedar, and similar high maintenance and/or unsightly fencing
shall not be permitted.
b. Any road designated as a minor arterial on the Ada County long range
highway and street map:
A minimum of fifty feet (50') wide buffer area (not including right of
way) shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred (100)
linear feet of right of way: five (5) shade trees, eight (8) evergreen trees,
three (3) flowering/ornamental trees, and twenty four (24) shrubs. Each
required shade tree may be substituted with two (2)
flowering/ornamental trees, provided that not more than fifty percent
(50%) of the shade trees are substituted.
A minimum five foot (5') high, maximum eight foot (8') high, berm,
decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly
designed concrete wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within
the buffer area. The maximum slope for any berm shall be three feet (3')
horizontal distance to one foot (1') vertical distance. If a decorative block
wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall
is to be provided, in combination with the berm, a four foot (4') wide flat
area shall be provided for the placement of the decorative wall.
Chainlink, cedar, and similar high maintenance and/or unsightly fencing
shall not be permitted.
c. Any road designated as a principal arterial on the Ada County long
range highway and street map and/or any freeway or expressway:
A minimum of seventy five feet (75') wide buffer area (not including
right of way) shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred
(100) linear feet of right of way: six (6) shade trees, ten (10) evergreen
trees, four (4) flowering/ornamental trees, and twenty four (24) shrubs.
Each required shade tree may be substituted with two (2)
flowering/ornamental trees, provided that not more than fifty percent
(50%) of the shade trees are substituted.
Page 12 of 23
K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
A minimum ten foot (10') high, maximum twelve foot (12') high, berm,
decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly
designed concrete wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within
the buffer area. The maximum slope for any berm shall be three feet (3')
horizontal distance to one foot (1') vertical distance. If a decorative block
wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall
is to be provided, in combination with the berm, a four foot (4') wide flat
area shall be provided for the placement of the decorative wall.
Chainlink, cedar, and similar high maintenance and/or unsightly fencing
shall not be permitted.
Prior to the submittal of the first planning unit the applicant is required
to submittal of a master Streets and circulation plan for the development
that details each of the standards above.
• ECC Section 8-6-1: PURPOSE "PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS":
It shall be the policy to guide a major development of land and construction by
encouraging planned unit development (PUD) to achieve the following:
A. A maximum choice of living environments by allowing a variety of housing
and building types and permitting an increased density per acre and a reduction
in lot dimensions, yards, building setbacks and area requirements;
The proposed application provides a wide variety of housing options and
building types ranging from multi family rental units to 5+ acre ranchettes.
Though the Zoning of the property is R -1 -DA -P the max overall density is 1.3
which reflects that ability to reduce some lot sizes and provide increased density
for the provision of a master planned community that addresses all types of
housing.
B. A more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas and, if permitted as
part of the project, more convenience in the location of accessory commercial
uses, industrial uses and services;
The proposed development will provide a minimum of 40% of the site as opens
space with 14% being regional open space and 26% being community open
space, serving the immediate development. Non-residential uses and services are
provided across the development totaling 240 acres. The location of these retail,
office and employment uses will allow for the creation of approximately 4,000
jobs and ensure the ability to get basic daily services within the development.
C. A development pattern which preserves and utilizes natural topography and
geologic features, scenic vistas, trees and other vegetation and prevents the
disruption of natural drainage patterns;
The applicant and staff have agreed to a graduated density for the project that
will limit he initial entitlements for the site to unconstrained areas and through
more detailed analysis and agency review the ability to development more
intensity when the impacts are deemed to be mitigated. These additional studies
include a wildlife mitigation plan, LOMA for the FEMA Floodway designations,
a City approved grading plan and standards, and the completion of the analysis
required under ECC Section 9-5-8.
D. A more efficient use of land than is generally achieved through conventional
development resulting in substantial savings through shorter utilities and streets;
Page 13 of 23
K:IPlanning DeptlEagle Applications1RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
and
The foothills are a complex land form and traditional utility services and
development practices do not provide a practical means of development. The
applicant is proposing a significant increase in the minimum open space
standard, 40% versus 10%, to address the increased constraints found on the site
as well as working with existing service providers to use new techniques for
Idaho and the Treasure Valley for wastewater and re -use.
E. A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation and
community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
See Discussion above concerning the Comprehensive Plan
• ECC Section 8-7-3-3 CONDITIONAL USES "PUBLIC SITES AND OPEN
SPACES" Public sites and open spaces shall conform to the following:
B. Natural Features: Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees,
water courses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable assets) shall be preserved
in the design of the development.
Similar to legacy and other large projects the applicant is proposing to develop
site specific development standards that address the arid, non -irrigated,
environment within the foothills. The submittal, review and approval of these
standards must be completed prior to the submittal of the first planning unit.
C. Special Developments: In the case of planned unit developments and large-
scale developments, the Council may require sufficient park or open space
facilities of acceptable size, location and site characteristics that may be suitable
for the proposed development.
See discussion of open space above.
• ECC Section 8-7-3-5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
D. Conditions Of Permit: Upon the granting of a conditional use permit,
conditions may be attached to said permit including, but not limited to, those:
1. Minimizing adverse impact on other development;
2. Controlling the sequence and timing of development;
3. Controlling the duration of development;
4. Assuring that development is maintained properly;
5. Designating the exact location and nature of development;
6. Requiring the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services; and
7. Requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in this Title.
Similar to the Legacy and other large projects the applicant is proposing to
develop site specific development standards to be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the city prior to the submittal of the first planning unit.
Page 14 of 23
K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
C. DISCUSSION FROM STAFF REPORT:
According to the Eagle City Code 8-7-5D the following standards must be addressed in order to
receive a zoning ordinance amendment:
• Is the request in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan and the existing
Eagle City Code?
With regards to the request to amend ECC Section 8-6-2, The Eagle Comprehensive Plan
and City code gives distinct guidance on the design and compatibility of uses within the
City of Eagle ensuring that all development is unique but contains similar qualities and
standards of design. Is there a compelling reason for this application to have separate
and unique standards from the rest of the City? For this application it is understood that
the standards and lot sizing proposed do not easily fit the existing code. With the
completion of the Eagle Foothills Sub -area Plan it is anticipated that new zoning codes
will be developed for the situation the applicant is concerned about. At this point, staff
does not support the use of a development agreement in -lieu of a PUD. The
development agreement the appropriate tool to be used at this time to provide additional
guidance and development control, but the PUD should still be used to review individual
plat as to compliance with City Code and the development agreement while still
providing maximum flexibility for future changing conditions.
Comprehensive Pan Policy Questions to be considered:
1) What density of residential uses should be planned for?
2) Should residential density be calculated as a gross calculation or should non-residential
uses be removed? The current plan excludes residential densities for commercial, office,
open space and retail uses.
3) How should the density in the Foothills relate to the overall density of the existing city?
In Staffs opinion it is very difficult to establish densities in previously unplanned areas and
the existing densities of the City must be consulted to determine the existing thresholds.
Existing Eagle Comprehensive Plan Densities
2000Plan 1.04 units per acre gross
2025 Plan 1.80units per acre gross
Overall 1.26 units per acre gross
Since 1999, the City of Eagle has identified the Foothills as an area of special concern noting
the desire to protect steep slopes, habitat, scenic qualities and recreational uses as key areas
of concern. Staff was initially concerned with the gross density proposed. Though the
density of 2 units per acre originally proposed seemed comparable to the densities in the
Western Area Plan, 1.8 units per acre, the number of physical and environmental constraints
within the Foothills required a different way of calculating the base and maximum densities
for the project.
After discussions with the applicant it was agreed that the initial density of the project should
reflect the amount of work that still needs to be completed to delineate floodways, habitat
and steep slopes. Staff recommends an overall density of 1.7 units per acre (as requested by
Page 15 of 23
K:1Planning Dcpt\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
the applicant)for unconstrained lands and 1 unit per 5 acres for areas for areas with slopes in
excess of 25% and critical habitat areas and no density for the existing FEMA designated
floodway equaling an base density of .94 units per acre or 5,641 units.
Base Density w/ Constraints
Acres
Non -
Residential residential Units Density
Northern 2,720 40 3,814 1.38
Highway 88
Southwestern** 407 48 0.12
Community
Core 519 117 1,277 2.01
Southern 2,114 502 0.24
Totals 5,760 245 5,641 0.94
A complete planning area constraints table is attached to this staff report.
Staff recommends including into the development agreement the ability to request increased
densities for the project at the time of preliminary plat if mitigation plans are approved by
Idaho Fish and Game, slope and grading standards as well as floodway designations are
submitted and found favorable by the City at the same time.
Density after mitigation*
Acres
Planning Area Residential Non-residential Units Density
Northern 2,720 40 4,551 1.65
Highway 88 -
Southwestern** 407 - 638 1.57
Community
Core 519 117 1,422 2.24
Southern 2,113 - 1,549 0.73
Totals 5,760 245 8,160 1.35
* Assumes a city approved grading standard & plan, assumes a LOMAR approval, & an
Approved Habitat Mitigation Plan from IDFG
4) Should the applicant be required to restrict or limit the uses within non-residential areas
through the sub -area planning process similar to the Soaring 2025 Plan? The 2025 Plan
within each sub —area discussed the desired mixture of uses and removed use that were
less desirable or more intensive.
5) Should the applicant delineate the acres/square feet of non-residential uses in the Mixed
Use and Village Center areas? The Soaring 2025 Plan established 3 levels of commercial
Page 16 of 23
K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A12006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
centers (neighborhood, community & regional. (Page 53 of 57 of the Western Area Plan)
The applicant has addressed the overall mixture of uses within the 6 sub -areas (complete
text of the sub -areas is attached):
1. Community Core - 636 acres representing 10.5% of the site. The area is to be
developed with maximum residential density of 6 units per acre including 117
acres of non-residential uses including: office, business, civic and neighborhood
commercial.
2. Northern Residential Area — 2,760 acres representing 46% of the site. The area
is to be developed with a maximum density of 2.5 units per acre and 40 acres of
non-residential uses, primarily neighborhood commercial uses. Other uses
within the area include potentially 2 golf courses in conjunction with the open
space and homeowners amenities.
3. Southern Residential Area — 2,114 acres representing 35% of the site. The area
is to be developed with a maximum density of 0.5 units per acres (clustered)
including a 20 acre public equestrian facility.
4. Highway Mixed Use/ Business Park - 88 acres representing 1.5% of the site.
The area is to be developed as a of Mixed Use and commercial business park.
Though no residential uses are show to date a maximum residential density of 6
units per acre could be allowed in this area
5. Southwestern Planning Area — 407 Acres representing 6.7% of the site. . The
area is to be developed with a maximum density of 0.5 units per acres, primarily
large lots with fencing restrictions.
6. Eagle Regional Park —800 acres east & west of Willow Creek Road, part of the
Southern Planning Area, to be dedicated to the City for connectivity of the
existing City of Eagle Regional Park.
The current request for non-residential uses within the development is 245 acres or one
(1) acre of non-residential uses for every 33 households within the development. Staff
recommends a reduction calculation similar to the one used in Legacy be included into
the development agreement by planning area, establishing a process that for every acre
of non-residential uses designated an equal number of units per acre are removed, as
used in calculating the base density of 5,760 units. (See planning area constraints table is
attached to this staff report)
6) When should applicants enter into water MOU with the City and file for water rights
with IDWR? Per Eagle City Code 6-5-23(c) as a condition of annexation and or
development a land owner shall secure sufficient municipal water rights to serve the
project.
The applicant has made application with IDWR for approval of a municipal water right
to serve the site. It is unclear how long it will take for this right to be approved by
IDWR and a timeline should be included into the development agreement to allow
entitlements to only be acted on once IDWR approval is in place and to be lost if
approval is not granted.
7) How should mass grading be regulated within the City? Currently the City of Eagle does
not have a hillside development ordinance nor do we issue grading permits for
development within the City.
The applicant's submittal shows over 1,400 acres of the site with slopes in excess of
25%. This is equal to 23% of the total site area. The current development proposal
Page 17 of 23
K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
includes a request to grade 410 of the 1,400 acres. Due to the unstable soils in the area
staff has identified slopes in excess of 25% slope as a constraint and recommends a base
density of 1 unit per 5 acres for these slopes. Staff recommends a complete grading plan
be submitted by the applicant and the adoption of city grading standards prior to the
allowance of any grading on the site.
8) If "gross density" is used for comprehensive planning purposes how/when in the
development process should the density of individual development areas be regulated?
Should the Comprehensive plan address the relationship between land capability
(floodway, slope, etc.) and density?
See items "1-3" above
9) Should the City regulate single family and multi -family uses at the comprehensive plan
level? The 2000 Comprehensive Plan contains a zoning matrix which correlates to the
zoning designations in ECC 8-1-2 which limit multifamily units in A -R through R-5.
10) Should sub -area planning areas be regulated in size? Sub -planning areas were
established in the Soaring 2025 Plan to enable the City to better discuss the integration
of uses within specific areas of the City. The Soaring 2025 sub -planning areas were
limited to approximately 2,000 acres.
The most recent submittal by the applicant shows specific types of uses within the sub-
areas that provide further guidance as to the types of uses and lot dimensions that will be
included in the project. These lots standards will be reviewed and included as part of the
development agreement.
11) How should the comprehensive plan direct open space preservation? During the
Community Visioning the public expressed a desire for regional open space should
conservation easements, dedication to the City, or HOA's be used to retain and manage
open space?
The proposed development includes 1,281 acres of community open space (25%) and
880 acres of regional open space (14.7 %). The applicant proposes the use of a
homeowners association and private entities (for the golf courses) for the maintenance of
the community open space. The applicant proposes to dedicate 880 acres of regional
open space to the City. Though the City has a desire to work with developers to
formalize a regional open space network within the foothills long term funding and
maintenance should be considered. The use of transfer fees, land trusts and endowment
have been used by joint public/private partnership in similar circumstances to establish a
predictable source of funding for large open space areas.
The applicant informed the City that they have made application with the BLM for
exchange of the 880 acres of open space adjacent to the proposed city park for the 815
acres adjacent to their Highway Mixed Use/Business Park sub -area along Highway 16.
This exchange would result in the reduction of open space by 14%. Staff though
supportive of the exchange, does not feel that the publicly owned BLM property should
benefit an individual development. Staff would like to see a redesign of the project to
maintain 25% community and 14% regional open space, if approved. Further, the
development agreement should include a density reduction calculator for the affected
areas if the BLM exchange is approved. The inclusion of the 815 acres would require an
amendment to the development agreement.
Staff would like to know what percentage of the community open space is contained
within the proposed golf courses on the site. During the approval of the Legacy
development the development agreement required a minimum of 15% of each phase be
Page 18 of 23
K:\Planning Dept'.Eagle Applications1RZ&A12006 A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
included as community space so that the open space was easily accessible regardless of
location in the development.
Further, during the legacy development approval it was established that at least 50% of
all dwelling units, 65% of all lots less than 5,000 sq ft, and 50% of all lots less than
8,000 sq ft shall abut open space. Similar standards should be established for the
community open space within the project and be placed as standards within the
development agreement.
• As a part of the conditional use for this development the applicant is requesting the potential of a
height exception within the community Core. Exceptions in the City have included the Hilton
Garden Inn (maximum height of 42 -feet) and the Legacy Academy Building. Staff recommends
that the use of a height exception be built into the development agreement once a visual impact
analysis has been doe to ensure that the height exception does not result in the ridgelining or
creation of visual impacts to the existing city as detailed in the Foothill Visual Assessment
completed by the City. Staff recommends that the visual assessment be reviewed by staff and the
design review board prior to being submitted to the planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council for consideration with individual planning units.
• Eagle City Code 8-6-6-3, requires all final development plans be reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission as well as the City Council. In the case of M3 the Planning and zoning
commission shall review preliminary PUD "planning units" for compliance with this approval
and the proposed development agreement as well as final development plans. This is partly to
allow for additional City Review for flexibility needed for long-range and large PUD's.
• If The applicant proposes to use private road the following analysis should be complete with the
master transportation study for review and approval by the City prior to the submittal of the first
planning unit:
1. Unique or special circumstances exist with respect to the proposed use, design,
location, topography, or other features of the development or its surroundings such
that private streets will serve to enhance the overall development;
2. The private street provides safe and effective movement of both vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, sidewalks and parking;
3. The private street provides adequate access for service and emergency vehicles;
4. The private street does not adversely affect access or good transportation planning to
adjacent property and to the area travel networks;
5. The private street does not land lock adjacent property due to topography or parcel
layout;
6. Other than to provide emergency access, the private street does not connect one
public street to another, encouraging travel through the development served by the
private street;
7. The use or alignment of the private street does not interfere with the continuity of
public streets; and
8. An appropriate mechanism has been established for the repair and maintenance of the
private street, including provisions for the funding thereof.
Page 19 of 23
K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A12006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED VV i i nii l THE STAFF REPORT:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
Staff recommends denial of the zoning ordinance amendment since the proposal is not consistent with the
Eagle Comprehensive Plan, and since the use of annexation/development agreements, currently available
under Eagle City Code, can be used to achieve the same end.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Staff recommends a comprehensive plan designation of "Foothills Residential" and the inclusion
of the text of the six (6) sub -areas as land use sub -areas under Chapter 6 and a comprehensive
plan map amendment for the site:
Foothills Residential:
A unique combination of land uses within the Eagle Foothills that strives to balance
residential, non-residential, and open space use to create hamlets of development that situate
urban development within the natural environment without overcrowding or significantly
altering the natural features found on the site.
Residential densities should be calculated to commensurate with the existing land conditions
land with lands with slope in excess of 25% and habitat receiving a maximum density of 1
unit per 5 acres.
ANNEXATION AND REZONE:
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and rezone from RP (Rural Preservation) and
RR(Rural Residential) to R -1 -DA for M3 Eagle with conditions to be placed within the
annexation/development agreement as provided within the staff report
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application first came before the Planning and Zoning Commission
on September 27, 2006, additional hearings, including public testimony, were heard on the
following dates:
October 16, 2006
October 30, 2006
November 13, 2006
December 12, 2006
February 12, 2007
April 9, 2007
April 19, 2007
April 23, 2007
May 14, 2007
May 17, 2007
June 6, 2007
June 25, 2007
July 9, 2007
Page 20 of 23
K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
The public hearing was closed on July 9, 2007 with the Planning Zoning Commission
holding a work session on July 23, 2007. The Commission made their recommendation
on August 27, 2007.
B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by six (6) individuals who indicated that the proposed development supports the
growth in Eagle, preferences for Eagle to review/approve development in the Foothills, and
felt it was a quality development.
C. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by eighteen (18) individuals expressed concerns about transportation, water,
schools, economic impacts and wildlife.
D. Oral testimony neither in opposition nor in support to this proposal was presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission by twelve (12) individuals who had concerns about
transportation, water, schools, economic impacts and wildlife.
COMMIISSION DECISION:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
The Commission voted 5 to 0, to recommend denial of ZOA-3-06. With their concerns and
reasons shown within their Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law document, dated November
5, 2007. .
ANNEXATION AND REZONE:
The Commission voted 5 to 0, to recommend approval of A-14-06 & RZ-19-06 for an annexation
and rezone with a development agreement from RR (Rural Preservation— Ada County
designation) and RR (Rural Residential — Ada County Designation) to R -1 -DA (Residential One
with Development Agreement) for M3 Eagle, with conditions to be place within a development
agreement shown within their Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law document, dated
November 5, 2007.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the applications came before the Eagle City Council for their action on the
following dates:
November 20,2007
November 27, 2007
December 5, 2007
December 11, 2007
Public testimony was taken, and the public hearing was closed on December 5, 2007. The Council
made their decision on December 11, 2007.
B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by eleven (11) (not
including the applicant/representative) stating support for the City's proactive planning, efforts to
control development to the north of the City, the integration of the Eagle Wine District Overlay in the
plan and the applicant's support of the City's new comprehensive plan.
C. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by ten (10), stating
Page 21 of 23
K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-I9-06-06 ccf ftnal.doc
concerns that the densities and bonuses proposed were to high, to many or unclear impacts to
infrastructure, the desire to see development wait until implementing ordinances are in place, that the
City should not be planning for the foothills.
D. Oral testimony neither in favor or opposed to the proposal was presented by nine (9), stating general
concern about growth, the provision of water services, requesting further review of the economic and
environmental impacts of the development.
COUNCIL DECISION:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
The Council voted 4 to 0, to recommend denial of ZOA-3-06. They felt that the use of
development agreements (ECC 8-10) was a sufficient regulatory tool to meet the needs of the
City and developers and that additional code changes were not necessary at this time.
ANNEXATION AND REZONE:
On December 11, 2007, the Council voted 4 to 0, to recommend approval of A-14-06 & RZ-19-
06 for an annexation and rezone with a development agreement from RR (Rural Preservation—
Ada County designation) and RR (Rural Residential — Ada County Designation) to R -1 -DA
(Residential One with Development Agreement) for M3 Eagle, with the development agreement
attached here to and incorporated by reference as "Exhibit A":
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 24, 2006, and deemed
complete on August 23, 2006.
2. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was
published in the Valley Times in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho
Code and the Eagle City Code on September 11, 2006. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to
property owners within three -hundred feet (300 -feet) of the subject property in accordance with the
requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on September 8, 2006. The
site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on September 18, 2006, 2006. Requests for
agencies' reviews were transmitted on September 8, 2006, in accordance with the requirements of the
Eagle City Code.
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle City Council was published in accordance
with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City Code on October 22,
2007. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three -hundred feet (300 -
feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code
and Eagle City Code on October 22, 2007. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City
Code on October 22, 2007.
3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed rezone (RZ-19-06) with
regard to Eagle City Code Section 8-7-5 "Action by the Commission and Council", and based upon
the information provided concludes that the proposed rezone is in accordance with the City of Eagle
Comprehensive Plan and established goals and objectives. Further:
Page 22 of 23
K:1Planning DeptTagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
a. The requested R -1 -DA (Residential with a development agreement) zoning designation is
consistent with the land use designation contained in the Eagle Comprehensive Plan adopted
by the Eagle City Council by Resolution 07-36 on November 27, 2007;
b. The information provided from the agencies having jurisdiction over the public facilities
needed for this site indicate that adequate public facilities exist, or are expected to be
provided as conditioned within the development agreement, to serve any and all uses allowed
on this property under the proposed zone;
c. The proposed R -1 -DA zone (Residential with a development agreement) is compatible with
the RR zone (Rural Residential -Ada County) and RP (Rural Preservation -Ada County) zones
and land uses to the north, south, and east since these sites are designated as Foothills
Residential with in the Eagle Comprehensive Plan and are anticipated to develop with similar
uses;
d. The proposed R -1 -DA zone (Residential with a development agreement) is compatible with
the RR zone (Rural Residential -Ada County) and RP (Rural Preservation -Ada County) zones
and land uses to the west of the site since these areas are currently dry land ranches and may
be developed in Ada County with similar uses;
e. The land proposed for rezone is located within a "Hazard Area" or "Special Area" as
described within the Comprehensive Plan, however, protection, mitigation and/or removal
from these areas is expected to be provided as conditioned within the development
agreement, and;
f. No non -conforming uses are expected to be created with this rezone.
DATED this 18th day of December 2007.
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
Nancy C. Merrill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sharon K. Bergmann, Eagle City Clerk
Page 23 of 23
K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc
Page 1 of 1
Sharon Bergmann
From: Heather Hyde
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 9:26 AM
To: Tracy Osborn; Sharon Bergmann; Crystal Skinner
Subject: FW: Additonal Documentation
From: Gerry Robbins [mailto:GRobbins@m3comp.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:11 PM
To: Heather Hyde
Subject: Additonal Documentation
Here is the attachment to what Bill Brownlee gave the council on Wednesday evening.
12/11/2007
Reader's View:
Separating Myth from Fact in the Eagle Mayoral Runoff
By: Michael Huffaker, Eagle City Councilman -elect
Date: November 30, 2007
Status: The Statesman chose not to publish this...
Forwarded to NACFA network and placed on NACFA website December 2, 2007
The truth and ethics are both taking a beating in Eagle politics. As an unfortunate side effect of a
hotly contested mayor's race, various myths have emerged about Saundra McDavid, the Preserve
Eagle campaign, and the issues facing Eagle residents.
I am writing this editorial as a response to those myths and direct it to all Eagle residents, our
friends, both those who support and do not support Ms. McDavid and the Preserve Eagle
campaign.
Myth #1: Saundra McDavid and Preserve Eagle Favor "No Growth"
Response #1: Not true. The Preserve Eagle carnpaign bases its platform on three issues: (1) a
better plan to manage growth; (2) more open and responsive City government; and, (3)
preservation and enhancement of Eagle's quality of life. Preserve Eagle's two primary concerns
regarding growth are increased density development and development which does not pay its
way. For example, in West Eagle during the last two years, many higher density subdivisions
representing hundreds of homes have been approved in areas that have traditionally been low
density. The City Council approved these subdivisions despite opposition from hundreds of
Iocal residents who were the most affected by these decisions. The residents were dismissed as a
vocal minority who did not truly represent the sentiment of Eagle. The results of the November
6 election indicate otherwise.
Myth #2: Saundra McDavid and Preserve Eagle Oppose Private Property Owners'
Rights to Develop in the Foothills
Response #2: Not true. Ms. McDavid has advocated that Eagle should be involved in the
planning process in the Foothills. Again, the concerns are (1) density and (2) growth which does
not pay its way. The developer M3 is currently requesting to build over 7,000 homes in the
Foothills. If the other developers who are currently interested in developing in the Foothills are
given similar density allowances, the total buildout of the Foothills would be approximately
25,000 units, twice the arnount recommended by the Eagle citizens' committee. In addition,
because of loopholes currently existing in Idaho law, developers such as M3 are not bound to pay
for their impact to roads outside of their developrnent. So, while we are adding thousands of cars
to the already overly crowded rural highways and streets of Eagle, M3 will not be required to
make any improvements to Highway 16, Highway 55, Willow Creek Road, Linder Road, Beacon
Light Road, Floating Feather, nor any of the other Eagle streets it impacts. In the upcoming
State legislative session, at least one bill will be proposed to create a funding mechanism to help
resolve this problem. Would it not be wise, thoughtful, responsible and better managed growth to
allow that to occur first rather than approve developments without these commitments to improve
road infrastructure? Saundra McDavid and the Preserve Eagle platforrn want to make sure
developers pay their fair share. I would hope those in the real estate business in Eagle, in their
desire to be a good neighbor and member of our community, would embrace this concept as well.
Mvth #3: Saundra McDavid and Preserve Eagle Will Always Vote as a Bloc
Resnonse #3: Not true. A variety of issues will arise before the City Council on which we are
sure to have different opinions. As to development, we share the same philosophy, but have no
pre -arranged conspiracy to vote the same on every single development application. This is a
misguided and misleading allegation as the current City Council has voted 4-0, in essence as a
bloc, by unanimously approving almost every development application in the last two years.
Mvth #4: Saundra McDavid and Preserve Eagle Have Only Negative Things to Say
About Eagle
Resnonse #4: Not true. We love Eagle. That's why we moved here and want to continue living
here and serving our community. We also appreciate the effort and hard work of the current
Mayor and City Council to try to make Eagle a great place to live. Our candidacy and platform is
not based upon any personal attacks on the character or devotion or our current City leaders, but
rather our concerns that their growth agenda (1) could be better managed and (2) favors
developers rather than the current residents of the City of Eagle.
Mvth #5: Saundra McDavid and Preserve Eagle Have a Secret Agenda to Dismiss
Current City Staff Employees
Resnonse #5: Not true. This has never been expressed or intended by any of the Preserve Eagle
team. We admire the excellent work and dedication of the City staff and look forward to learning
from them and working with them. It is very disappointing that this rumor was not only started,
but then was spread throughout City Hall, and was given further credence by publication in the
Statesman.
Other myths and misinformation have been spread by independent groups via illegal push polls,
but these deserve no response. My friends, I appeal to everyone to discontinue the personal
attacks, inflammatory rhetoric, and diversionary tactics. We are above this type of politics and
must immediately put it behind us. I urge Eagle voters to carefully consider the candidates'
stances on the issues. 1 am voting for Saundra McDavid because I believe her vision of Eagle's
future is best for Eagle and represents the voice of the people of Eagle.
Michael Huffaker
Eagle City Councilman -elect
FOR MAYOR
Phil Bandy
Votes
Precinct
#500
1504
Saundra McDavid 1 1402
Total # of Voters
#500 -
#501 -
Registered Voters
STATE OF IDAHO )
City of Eagle )
ss.
Votes
Precinct
#501
841
790
2,906
1,631
4,537
DECEMBER 5, 2007
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CANVAS OF VOTES
RUN OFF ELECTION FOR MAYOR
Held December 4, 2007
Total
Votes
Cast
2,345
2,192
10,279 44% Voter Turn Out
We, the City Council Members of the City of Eagle, State of Idaho, acting as a Board of Canvassers of election, do hereby state that the
attached is a tr e and complete abstract II votes cast within the City of Eagle at the Runoff Election for Mayor held December 4, 2007, as
shown by ecords _ w on f i e City Clerk's Office.
Stars= - stian, Co cil Member
04- b r, --f)
Steve Guerber, Council Member
strom. Council Member
2
Phil Bandy, Council Mber
I, Sharon K. Bergmann, City Clerk of the City of Eagle, State of Idaho, do hereby certify that the ttached is a full, true and comple ceE;Cl4••..
of the Canvas of Votes for the candidates therein named as shown by the record of the Board of Canvassers filed in my office tlt4ttr 4 Ar••�
day of December, 2007. C.),oQ`
K�
••
� • •
Sharon K. Bergmann, City Clerk/ Treasurerc'eN �o;• o
•••„1rEO�,',,.
�••....Is'$.
Before I get to the Canvassing of the Votes I would like to make some general
comments about the election.
The mood of the runoff election was much nicer than the general election,
especially at the City People seemed much more relaxed, had a
better attitude and in general were a lot nicer to the election workers.
Voting was steady throughout the day at both precincts.
The ballot counting started at 1:00 p.m. and that worked really well.
Out of the 11 elections I have presided over, this is the first election that we
have had Challengers and Watchers.
Saundra McDavid had at total of 7 Challengers, 3 at 500 and 4 at 501 who
worked in shifts throughout the day and 2 Watchers, one at each precinct.
Phil Bandy did not have Challengers and had 2 Watchers, one at each precinct.
Precinct 500 had a problem with some of the Challengers and I had a problem
with a Watcher at Precinct 501.
All and all the process with Challengers and Watchers went fairly smoothly.
The Secretary of State's office took the Idaho Code Section covering
challengers and watchers and put the roll of Challengers and Watchers in a
format for the layman which I provided to both candidates a head of time and
the Election Judges provided the same info the Challengers and Watchers and
asked them to read it if they had not previously had the chance.
I need to acknowledge a few people who deserve recognition and a great big
thank you for a job well done.
I have two ladies who started out 11 years ago with me on my first election,
which was the Recall Election, and they have stuck it out with me through all of
the various city elections, their names are Betty Miller and Marti Taylor. They
are my Judges of Election at Precinct 500. I need to give a lot of credit to these
two ladies as through out the years before each election we have met and
discussed ways to improve our process and since every election is different we
have met to discuss the problems we may have encountered and how to improve
our process for the next election. I credit these ladies for the efficient election
process that has been developed over these years. I am forever indebted to
them and owe them a debt of gratitude and a great big Thank You, it would be
hard to run an election without them.
Two other people that it would be had to work with out are, of course, my
Senior Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer, Tracy Osborn, and my Deputy City Clerk,
Sheri Horton, over the years we have created a great team at the City Clerks
Office, and I really depend on them during this election process and in just
running the Clerk's office in General. They are super and a big Thank You to
Tracy and Sheri for their dedication and hard work.
I would also like to acknowledge the help that Mike Echieta provided us during
the Gen and Runoff Election. He has been "our Man". He has set signs out, set
up tables, chairs and voteamatics, has been available at all times on election day
to run between precincts and just be our general back up for anything that we
have needed. A big Thank You to Mike.
A thank you also goes to the PZ department as they were on hand at both
elections to answer questions on properties that were annexed into the City
which was a big help to the election workers and facilitated our new residents so
they could vote for the first time as residents of the city. Also, a big Thank You
to Nichole Baird Spencer who volunteered to stay until 8:00 p.m. on each
election day to answer the annexation questions for us.
And of course the Clerk's Department wouldn't be able to prepare, set up and
conduct these elections without the total support from all of the staff at City
Hall. It is so great that we can work together as a family providing support
where and when it is needed.
And last but not least a Huge Thank You to all of the Election Clerk's and
Judges, many of whom were new to us at the last two elections, the election
process could not function with these wonderful people who take time out from
their busy lives to volunteer to work. All of the citizens of Eagle owe them a big
thank you.
Now to the Canvass of Votes
I have provide you the Canvas of Votes form from yesterdays Mayor's Runoff
Election (in yellow), a copy of the Canvas of Votes form, a copy of the Media
Release from last night, and a copy of the Canvas of Votes from the November
6th General Election in case you want to do some comparisons.
I need to point out the following:
Today I audited the Tally Books from both precincts in preparation of tonight's
Canvas of Votes.
I found 2 clerical errors in the Tally Books from Precinct #501.
The total of votes cast in Precinct #501 for Phil Bandy is 841 instead of the 851
as released last night.
The total of votes cast in Precinct #501 for Saundra McDavid is 790 instead of
the 800 as released last night.
The total votes from Precinct #500 and #501 for Phil Bandy is 2,345.
The total votes from Precinct #500 and #501 for Saundra McDavid is 2,192
Making Phil Bandy the new Mayor for the City of Eagle winning by 153 votes.
If you like I can display the Tally Book for you and show you where the error
was made.
Recount — within 20 days from canvas of election.
P ems
660 - //y
5o1, -J1
&J---'2jbL)2 A/a2V,
ago
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
CPA-01-07/RZ-07-07/PP-09-07 - Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment,
Rezone and Preliminary Plat for Mill Park Village Subdivision - State Park, LLC
December 18, 2007 7:00 p.m.
NAME
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET
CPA-01-07/RZ-07-07/PP-09-07 - Comnrehensive Plan Text Amendment,
Rezone and Preliminary Plat for Mill Park Village Subdivision - State Park, LLC
December 18, 2007 7:00 n.m.
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET
A-04-07 & RZ-04-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU -DA —
CMH Development
December 18, 2007 7:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/
NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
A-04-07 & RZ-04-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA —
CMH Development
December 18, 2007 7:00 n.m.
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET
A-17-07 & RZ-24-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU -DA —
NAME
CMH Development
December 18, 2007 7:00 a.m.
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
A-17-07 & RZ-24-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA —
CMH Development
December 18, 2007 7:00 a.m.
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
A-16-07 & RZ-23-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU -DA —
NAME
SB/LH Land Company (Flack/Carlock), LLC
December 18, 2007 7:00 p.m.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
51 fro►. and .S ac 7/ 3G Cu . Vic -co,\ L� `9�,�� tad -Q
Y'I i f j'h I J 1 1 I
1
r, ' LjN
tV7 c=.ti ItiOi JC ccs
y: ACIP:e4 e
3L1
g 2 t o Vo v, 6 6. S L�►: -y I G S
LOA fw 4(2.2_-l�rv&z
Q-Ao.xit
4F-(2•\-(
MAL bi'IEc�
YES/NO? PRO/CON
*..5
4/21)
Y,5
Co`evk p (t, t
4:f C_c
Yt6/
N�c�J
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
A-16-07 & RZ-23-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU -DA —
SB/LH Land Comnanv (Flack/Carlock), LLC
December 18, 2007 7:00 a.m.
(ATt4(Si
c,6.66 may10,-
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET
A-16-07 & RZ-23-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU -DA —
SB/LH Land Company (Flack/Carlock), LLC
December 18, 2007 7:00 D.M.
NAME
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET
A-16-07 & RZ-23-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA —
SB/LH Land Comnanv (Flack/Carlock), LLC
December 18, 2007 7:00 p.m.
•lk
CROOKED RIVER RANCH - Another quality community by Union Land Company
112 OF
FUTURE
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Location: Eagle, Idaho
Total Lots: 345 Residential Lots
County: Ada
345 single family detached residential lot subdivision for delivery to
various homebuilders. Located on Eagle and Linder Road in Eagle,
Idaho.
www.unionlandcompany.com • 208.938.8577
Building Partnerships
for Success
FARMERS UNION CANAL
Cc
-.TTA.— Cis+ PLED
OCT 2 if j007
Route to. =IJ
File.
_I
•
•
Vv' RICJA STI1
N MERLOT PL
w
I R
DESIGN
1173 E Winding Creek Drive
TeL 208246.8300
G
1 N C.
Eagle, ID 83616
Fax 2082468320
W BEACON LIGHT RD
VICINITY MAP
TERRA VIEW
A REYNEN & BARDIS COMMUNITY
CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO
N PALMER L
Ir
W N!LD ENG LN
--0
r
PROJECT SITE
AL
PROJECT NO. CTH6387
DATE: 10-24-2007
BY: RPH
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
SHEET NO. VICINITY
I would like to address the "density" issue.
Fourteen years ago we purchased 15 acres in the "country". We liked the peace and solitude this
afforded us and assumed we could live here for decades as the land around us was zoned for no more
than one residence per 10 acres. And of course no worries about growth because we were about 6
miles from Eaglet
So what is this developer looking to put in our backyard? It is not Eagle, as Eagle is about 6 miles east of
us. So, I guess this is "New Eagle." Last week I listened to nearly 3 hours of discussion on how the city
needed to approve a new parking garage, retail space and condominiums to "invigorate" the downtown
area. If you want to kick start growth downtown, why move it 6 miles west of downtown?
The developer talks about a density of about 2.8 + units per acre. The way they are allowed to do this is
very misleading. If you look at the density based on actual "residential" area the numbers are more like
this:
5.2 units/acre in Residential IV (this is the least dense)
6.0 units/acre in Residential III
7.1 units/acre in Residential II
And 12.1 units/acre in Residential I. I am assuming these must be very small houses, apartments or
condominiums and must be at least two stories. And they are sharing driveways! This means parking
on the streets!!! The same streets we will be forced to drive down pulling large horse trailers and RVs.
And, if this is approved, plan on these horse trailers and RVs being parked on the streets too because if
stop signs or lights are not placed to stop the traffic on Beacon Light, at one of more of the egress
points, those vehicles could be sitting there waiting to exit "New Eagle" for several minutes at a time.
My taxes continue to increase and the value of my property as a "horse property" (for which we spent
thousands of dollars setting it up) will be drastically decreased if this planned "New Eagle" is approved.
I have listened to testimony on this development for many, many hours and have yet to hear anyone in
favor of this plan except the developer. Those of us most affected by "New Eagle" don't get to vote so
our property values and lifestyle is in your hands. Please vote accordingly.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this issue.
Ken Hamilton
4210 Double S Lane
Eagle
,r
.•••-
( t • •
1
•
t' • .
Ri
1
•
' • .
• •
•-•••••
L ;
.•11111.•
c
yy,
•-•••••---,' de'
;
. •
1
Jay & Sharon Curtright
7130 W. Beacon Light Rd.
December 18, 2007
RE: Reynen & Bardis Development, Terra View
We moved from Boise out to the country in Ada County three years ago so that
we could have a beautiful place to live with wide open spaces for our family to
enjoy. We chose a location on Beacon Light Road for its setting and quiet living,
but also because we loved being close to Eagle and its small town, country feel.
It is also a central location close to where we work and easy to get to Boise,
Nampa and other parts of the Treasure Valley.
Eagle is different from the other communities. The houses in our area are
beautiful and have plenty of acreage to garden, grow an orchard, or ride horses.
Eagle's charm and open space was defiantly a draw for our family.
We currently have acres of potato fields to the west and thousands of head of
cattle to the south. We knew these aspects of country living would not last
forever, but we never imagined that they would be replaced by such a high
density of homes. Eagle has the distinction of being one of the most prestigious
and affluent cities in Idaho.
- Why would you proceed to destroy its beauty and status by
building "inner city" style housing in Eagle?
- Why approve developments that have such a high density,
small Tots and lack of open space?
If we, and other current Eagle residents, wanted to live in a community where
people live in such close proximity to their neighbor, we all would have chosen to
live in one of many of the neighborhoods with a similar centrality, in Meridian or
Boise. But we wanted to be in a place that had a great reputation, beautiful
surroundings, and before this year, a long term plan that including keeping the
foothills area north of Beacon Light Road as a low density zone.
We are happy to have new neighbors, but we would ask that the developments
that are created maintain the country feel of this area with lots of open space and
low density housing.
If you are truly a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, we
certainly hope you will consider the feelings and comments of your current
residents, with as much weight as you are giving to the out of state developers
that are looking build in the beautiful city of Eagle.
Thank you!
c � �E C �
TERRA VIEW SUB
QUESTIONS
KE'YN. Lcloi1
atele
C c /,2-7'" 7
1. I am concerned that the density does not fit their number of lots. Their lot density is twice
the number of houses that they want. I propose that they change the size of the lots to fit the
number of houses in their plan. That would mean to at least double the size of the lots.
Twelve homes per acre are way too high for an area so far from the downtown core of Eagle.
In fact the density is so great that they have proposed that some lots have a shared driveway.
In my list of lots, it does not even include the multihousing portion. That needs to be
addressed also.
2. I have a feeling that they want to put in the aprox. 600 homes now and then put in another
600 homes next year.
3. There is nothing shown in their plan to accommodate schools, police, fire or recreation, such
as parks, soccer fields, or bike and walking paths. Infrastructure should be planned before
deciding on the number of homes. Will the tax dollars generated by this development pay for
the needed infrastructure or are they planning to have on having the rest of the taxpayers pay
for this plan.
4. The next thing is the problem of the head gates on Hartley and the bridge cost. This could be
a fairly costly change. The bridge would have to be widened and all the head gates moved
and piping put in place and I have a serious doubt that they could do all that and have the
water function properly.. I think that this problem could be solved by having the access to
M3 go north from Palmer and just west of the Hanson's property eliminating any change to
the irrigation and the bridge.
5. As a Farmers Union Ditch Board member I would like to recommend the water engineer for
the SB/CH (Flack-Carlock) property meet with the Board of Directors for the Farmers Union
Ditch, because under the current plan, the head gates may need to change. The way the water
was dispersed traditionally in the past will not work for this new development. Especially
the area on Hartley between Robert Hansons and the former Flack property. There is often
water over the road from a leaking lateral pipe. It looks as if the 3 shares of water designated
through head gate 104 going to the Jackson under Beacon Light Road will be cut off.
7
TERRA VIEW SUB
Formerly FLACK -OARLOCK PROPERTY
ACRES LOT SIZE SQ. FT. #LOTS/AC #OF LOT
27.2 42X85 3,570 12.2 337.99
44.7 55X110 6,050 7.2 321.84
41.6 65X110 7,150 6.09 253.34
47 75X110 8,250 5.28 248.16
161 acres TOTAL LOTS=1161.28
DENSITY IS 7.21 LOTS / ACRE
106 105
1
•
Hansen
POND
SB/CH (Flack/Carlock)
Reynen-Bardis
Palmer connection
To Jackson property
South of Beacon Light
, XNGDON
P64
One Lane
Bridge
104 103 102
11,.to-'4
floos-8
Hartley Rd.
measuring weirs
TO: J& M Land
Hartley Sub.
ORDINANCE NO. 594
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.
WHEREAS, the City of Eagle, Idaho is a municipal corporation organized and operating under
the laws of the State of Idaho and is authorized to annex to and incorporate within the boundaries
of the City contiguous real property in the manner provided by Section 50-222, Idaho Code; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the real property situated in the unincorporated area of Ada County
and particularly described in Exhibit "A" of this ordinance has requested, in writing, annexation
of said real property to the City of Eagle; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City, pursuant to public notice as
required by law, held a public hearing on July 5, 2006, as required by Section 67-6525, Idaho
Code, and made a recommendation to the Mayor and Council; and
WHEREAS, the Eagle City Council, pursuant to public notice as required by law, held a public
hearing on September 11, 2007, on the proposed annexation and zoning for the real property
described in Exhibit "A" as required by Section 67-6525, Idaho Code, made findings and
determined that the requested annexation should be granted and that a zoning classification of R-
4 -DA, R -2 -DA, and MU -DA for the property described in Exhibits "B", "C", and "D", is
appropriate to meet the requirements of Idaho Code, Eagle City Code and the Eagle
Comprehensive Plan and should be granted.
Page 1 of 3
K:ICOUNCIL\Draft Ordinances\Ord 594- Hormacchea.doc
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EAGLE, IDAHO, as follows:
Section 1: The Eagle City Council hereby finds and declares that the real property particularly
described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is contiguous to
the City, that said property can be reasonably assumed to be used for the orderly development of
the City, and that the owner of said property has requested, in writing, annexation thereof to the
City.
Section 2: The real property, all situated in Ada County, Idaho, adjacent and contiguous to the
City, particularly described in Exhibit "A" and as generally shown on Exhibit "E", attached, is
hereby annexed to the incorporated territorial limits of the City of Eagle, Idaho.
Section 3: The City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the
public health, safety, and welfare of the City of Eagle and the residents and property therein that
the real property particularly described in Exhibit "B" and generally as shown on Exhibit "E",
attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is hereby removed from the RUT (Rural Urban
Transition) District classification and is hereby included in the Residential (residential four
dwelling units per acre with development agreement) District Classification R -4 -DA all pursuant
to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Eagle. The City Council further finds and determines that
said zone change is in accordance with the Eagle Comprehensive Plan and relevant City Codes.
Section 4: The City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the
public health, safety, and welfare of the City of Eagle and the residents and property therein that
the real property particularly described in Exhibit "C" and generally as shown on Exhibit "E",
attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is hereby removed from the RUT (Rural Urban
Transition) District classification and is hereby included in the Residential (residential two
dwelling units per acre with development agreement) District Classification R -2 -DA all pursuant
to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Eagle. The City Council further finds and determines that
said zone change is in accordance with the Eagle Comprehensive Plan and relevant City Codes.
Section 5: The City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the
public health, safety, and welfare of the City of Eagle and the residents and property therein that
the real property particularly described in Exhibit "D" and generally as shown on Exhibit "E",
attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is hereby removed from the RUT (Rural Urban
Transition) District classification and is hereby included in the Mixed Use (mixed use with
development agreement) District Classification MU -DA all pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Eagle. The City Council further finds and determines that said zone change is in
accordance with the Eagle Comprehensive Plan and relevant City Codes.
Section 6: The official Zoning Map of the City of Eagle, Idaho, is hereby amended to reflect the
foregoing change in zoning classification.
Section 7: From and after the effective date of this Ordinance, all property and persons within
the boundaries and territory described above shall be subject to all ordinances, resolutions, police
Page 2 of 3
K \COUNCIL\Draft Ordinances\Ord 594- Hormaechea doc
regulations, taxation, and other powers of the City of Eagle.
Section 8: The City Clerk is hereby directed to file, within ten (10) days of passage and approval
of this Ordinance, a certified copy of this Ordinance with the offices of the Auditor, Treasurer,
and Assessor of Ada County, Idaho, and with the Idaho State Tax commission, Boise, Idaho, as
required by Section 50-223, Idaho Code, and to comply with the provisions of Section 63-2215,
Idaho Code, with regard to the preparation and filing of a map and legal description of the real
property annexed by this Ordinance.
Section 9: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage, approval,
and publication as required by law. In lieu of publication of the entire ordinance, a summary
thereof in compliance with Section 50-901A, Idaho Code, may be published.
DATED this 11th day of December 2007.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
Nancy C. Merrill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sharon K. Bergmann, Eagle City Clerk
STATE OF IDAHO )
ss.
County of Ada )
On this day of , in the year , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared _ and
, known to me to be the MAYOR and CITY CLERK of said municipal
corporation that executed this instrument and the persons who executed the said instrument on
behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year
first written.
, Notary Public
Residing at:
My Commission Expires:
Page 3 of 3
K \COUNCIL\Drafl Ordinances\Ord 594- Hormaechea doc
Eagle City Hall
660 E. Civic Ln./P.O. Box 1520
Eagle, Idaho 83616
(208) 939-6813 (ext.201) fax (208) 939-6827
To: City Council
CC: City Clerk
From: Tracy E. Osborn, CMC
Date: December 18, 2007
Re: Additions to the agenda
A memo from the Deputy City Clerk
Please add Resolution No, 07-37 Second Amendment to legal services agreement to the
Agenda.
service with ct smile!
RESOLUTION NO. 07-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, APPROVING
SECOND AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY AND
MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE SAME; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of retaining the law firm of Moore Smith Buxton &
Turcke Chartered, of Boise, Idaho as City Attorney to the City and amending the Legal Services
Agreement between the parties.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EAGLE, Ada County, Idaho, as follows:
Section 1: The Second Amended Agreement for Legal Services between the City and the
law firm of Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke, Chartered, of Boise, Idaho, a copy of which is
annexed hereto and by reference made a part hereof, is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City
Clerk are hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
execute the same on behalf of the City.
Section 2: This Resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and
approval.
DATED this day of December 2007.
CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
By
ATTEST:
Sharon K. Bergmann, City Clerk
Nancy C. Merrill, Mayor
K:ICOUNCIL1Resolutions\draft resolutions107-37 second amendment to legal sery contractdoc
SECOND AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made the 18th day of December 2007, between the CITY OF
EAGLE, an Idaho municipal corporation, (the "City"), and the law firm of MOORE SMITH
BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED, 950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 520, Boise, Idaho 83702
(the "Attorneys").
WHEREAS, the City is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the
general municipal laws of the State of Idaho and desires to retain the services of Attorneys to
serve as city attorney to the City; and,
WHEREAS, Attorneys are attorneys at law duly licensed and practicing in the State of
Idaho are experienced in the provision of the type of legal services desired by the City, and
desire to serve as city attorney to the City.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein,
the parties agree:
Section 1: The following paragraph is amended as follows:
SECOND: The basic retainer fee payable by the City to Attorneys shall be $3,500.00 per
month, plus any actual, documented out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Attorneys on behalf of
the City, including but not limited to, long-distance telephone charges, copying expenses, and
travel, payable in the month following the performance of the services rendered by Attorneys.
Attorneys shall bill the City for payment of the basic retainer fee and expenses in the manner
provided in paragraph THIRD below. For the basic retainer fee, Attorneys shall provide at least
thirty (30) hours to the city per month including attending regular or special meetings of the City
Council, regular or special meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, office hours at
City Hall and other legal services requested by the City.
Section 2: The following paragraph is amended as follows:
THIRD: Attorneys shall also, when authorized and requested by the Mayor and/or City
Council, perform the following additional legal services for the City.
(a) In addition to the meetings and telephone calls referred to in paragraph SECOND
above, render routine legal advice at City Council or other meetings or by telephone to
the Mayor, City Council members, and other City employees designated by the Mayor or
City Council, on matters pertaining to the performance of their official duties.
(b) Represent the City in all suits or actions at law in the courts of the United States
or the State of Idaho to which the City shall be a party, except where the City retains
special counsel, or tenders defense of the matter to an insurance carrier.
(c) Draft or review all ordinances, resolutions, contracts, leases, deeds, or other legal
instruments or documents.
(d) Provide legal research and render written legal opinions to the Mayor, City
Council, or other agents or employees of the City as directed.
(e) Attend meetings of other boards and commissions of the City, and other
conferences and meetings as directed, in addition to those meetings referred to in
paragraph SECOND above.
For any of the foregoing services, Attorneys shall be compensated at the hourly
rate of $190.00 for Shareholders; $165.00 for senior associates; $150.00 for associates
and $55.00 for legal assistants; and the regular hourly rate for the attorneys of the firm as
may be assigned to the matter. These hourly rates may be amended from time to time by
resolution of the City. Services of Attorneys may be provided by other members or
associates. Attorneys shall submit a bill for services for the preceding month, including
any reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Attorneys on behalf of the City, the
City for payment prior to a regular monthly meeting of the City Council, and the City
shall approve the same and cause such bill to be paid expeditiously; provided, that,
should Attorneys fail to submit bill for services prior to a regular City Council meeting,
the City shall not be relieved of its obligation to pay the same, but shall not be required to
act upon said bill until its next regular or special City Council meeting.
Section 3: Except as modified herein, all terms and conditions of the October
26,2005 First Amended Agreement for Legal Services shall remain in full force and
effect. In the event of any conflict between the Legal Services Agreement and this
Amendment, this amendment shall control.
Section 4: The Second Amended Legal Services Agreement shall be in full force
and effect as of December 18, 2007.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands the date and year first above.
ATTEST:
CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
Nancy C. Merrill, Mayor
K:ICOUNCIL1Resolutions\draft resolutions\Res 07-37 attachment.doc
Sharon K. Bergmann, City Clerk
M000RE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE
Susan E. Buxton, Shareholder
K:ICOUNCILIResolutions\draft resolutions\Res 07-37 attachment.doc
12-18-07; 3:07PM;Ada Commissioner
:2082877009 # 2/ 4
Cc- 7
AGREEMENT NO.
DRY CREEK FLOOD STUDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN
ADA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EAGLE
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of
2007, by and between the City of Eagle, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as
"City") and the County of Ada, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, (hereinafter
referred to as "County").
WHEREAS, City has entered into a Cost Sharing Agreement for Planning
(hereinafter "Cost Sharing Agreement") with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, as
authorized in Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-
251) as amended, toward the completion of a floodplain study for Dry Creek in Ada
County; and
WHEREAS, City is participating in the study cost-sharing by contributing an
amount not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the program, as authorized by
Section 319 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-640), and
codified at 42 USC 1962d-16; and
WHEREAS, County has the authority and is willing to participate in the
cost-sharing with the City;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. County shall contribute Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars as a one-
time contribution to meet City's share of study costs under Cost Sharing Agreement.
2. City shall make County's contribution available as part of the City's
federal match under the Cost Sharing Agreement.
3. City shall provide to County satisfactory evidence of the completed
work or services described in the Cost Sharing Agreement, within a reasonable time.
4. The period of agreement shall be from the date of the last party to sign
through September 30, 2007.
DRY CREEK FLOOD STUDY AGREEMENT BETWEENADA COUNTY AND THE
CITY OF EAGLE -- PAGE 1 OF 3
n:lemergency mgmtlada county -eagle agreement for dry creek study.doc SRV200704276
1 -1a -u,; :s:U/NM;Aaa c.:ommissioner
;2082877009 # 3/ 4
5. City shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify County against all
claims, actions, proceedings, costs, damages, and liabilities including attorney fees, arising
out of, in connection with, or resulting in the use of the grant funds including, without
limitation, the selection, delivery, possession, use, operation, or return of any property
purchased with the grant funds and the acts and/or omissions of any staff or board member
or agent of Grantor.
6. This Agreement and its performance shall be construed in accordance
with and governed by the laws of the State of Idaho, with venue in the Fourth Judicial
District, Ada County.
7. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties.
IN WITNESS THEREFORE, the parties have executed this Agreement on
the day first written above.
Board of Ada County Commissioners
By:
By:
By:
ATTEST:
J. David Navarro, Ada County Clerk
Fred Tilman, Chairman
Paul R. Woods, Commissioner
Rick Yzaguirre, Commissioner
DRY CREEK FLOOD STUDY AGREEMENT BETWEENADA COUNTY AND THE
CITY OF EAGLE — PAGE 2 OF 3
n:lemergency mgmtlada county -eagle agreement for dry creek study.doc SRV200704276
72-18-07; 3:07PM;Ada Commissioner
CITY OF EAGLE
By:
ATTEST:
Eagle City Clerk
Nancy C. Merrill, Mayor
;2082877009 4 4/ 4
DRY CREEK FLOOD STUDY AGREEMENT BETWEENADA COUNTY AND THE
CITY OF EAGLE — PAGE 3 OF 3
n:lemergency mgmtlada county-eagleagreement for dry creek study.doc SRV200704276
Mayor: Nancy C. Merrill
August 28, 2007
Ada County Commissioners
Ada County, Idaho
200 W. Front Street
Boise, Idaho, 83702
CITY OF EAGLE
P.O. Box 1520
Eagle, Idaho 83616
939-6813
Re: Invoice for partnership in Planning Assistance Grant
Members of the Commission,
Council: Stanley J. Bastian
Phil Bandy
Steve Guerber
Scott Nordstrom
The City of Eagle, welcomes Ada County as a partner in matching Federal
Planning Assistance funds to evaluate the flood hazards affecting the residents of the Dry
Creek Drainage. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers representative, Debbie Willis, will be
completing a scope of work for the project within the next week. The Walla Walla
District will then finalize the project and all partners will receive notice.
As the fiscal year come to a close, some agencies have dedicated this projects
matching funding from current budgets. Please accept this letter as invoice to fund the
grant in the amount of Ten -Thousand Dollars ($10,000) payable to the City of Eagle,
Idaho.
This planning assistance grant has been made possible by the cooperation of your
public agency and will distribute federal funds to the mutual benefit of all persons of Ada
County.
Respectfully,
Michael Mongelli M
Building Official
CC: Mayor Merrill
City Council Members
File
K'Btnldsng DgnlFlood leners1cost shut Invoice dry crock doc
vl VS