Loading...
Minutes - 2008 - City Council - 03/11/2008 - Regular EAGLE CITY COUNCIL Minutes March 11,2008 PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA: 6:00 o.m. - 7:30 o.m. A. Orientation and Tour of the Eagle Public Library: Please meet at Eagle Public Library 100 N. Stierman Way. Tour of library facilities and overview of library services conducted by Library Director Ron Baker and staff. B. Mayor and Council's Report: Moved to end of the meeting. C. City Engineer Report: Moved to end of the meeting. D. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: Moved to end of the meeting. E. Zoning Administrator's Report: Moved to end of the meeting. F. City Attorney Report: Moved to end of the meeting. REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Bandy calls the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: GUERBER, HUFFAKER, SHOUSHTARIAN, SEMANKO. All present. A quorum is present. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Greg Smith leads the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: 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 Against the City. B. DR-93-07 - Stora!?:e Facilitv for Stora!?:e 55 (Phase II) - Jeffery Mower: Jeffery Mower, represented by Mike Fairchild, Architect, is requesting design review approval to construct a 39,800-square foot storage facility for Storage 55 (Phase II). The 2-acre site is located on the south side of East Hill Road approximately 540-feet the east of State Highway 55 at 2871 East Hill Road. (WEV) C. DR-Of-08 - Multi-tenant Office Buildin!! - The Forum at Ea!!le. LLC: The Forum at Eagle, LLC, represented by James Gipson with Gipson Associates, are requesting design review approval to construct a 6,750-square foot two story multi-tenant office building. The 0.62-acre site is located on the southwest corner of South Echohawk Lane and East Hill Road at 207 North Echohawk Lane within Picadilly Village Subdivision (Lot 12, Block I). (WEV) D. DR-03-08 - Automotive Seryice Facilitv for Oil Can Henry's - Rob Ha!!!?:ett: Rob Haggett is requesting design review approval to construct a 2,842-square foot automotive service facility for Oil Can Henry's. The 0.60 I-acre site is located on the west side of North Horseshoe Bend Road approximately 370-feet north of State Highway 44 at 3088 East State Street. Page I K \COUNClUMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area"-CC-03.1 1-08min doc E. DR-04-08 - One Buildine: Wall Si!!n for Oil Can Henrv's - Rob Hae:!!ett: Rob Haggett is requesting design review approval to construct a building wall sign for Oil Can Henry's. The O.601-acre site is located on the west side of North Horseshoe Bend Road approximately 370-feet north of State Highway 44 at 3088 East State Street. F. Aporoval of Aoolication for Payment No.7 - East Hills Water Tank: (VB) G. Approval of Permit for Possession and/or Consumotion of Alcohol Beverae:es: Michelle Crapo is requesting an open container permit to be used at Merrill Park on May 31, 2008 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No glass containers will be allowed and alcohol shall be consumed in the shelter only. (TEO) H. Arbor Dav Proclamation: A proclamation declaring April 25, 2008 as Arbor Day in the City of Eagle.(PB) Semanko moves to amend the consent agenda to add the minutes of February 26, 2008 and March 6, 2008 as items 5 I and 5 J. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. I. Minutes of February 26, 2008. J. Minutes of March 6, 2008. Guerber moves to add and Executive Session for threatened and pending litigation in context to the L.I.D with Eagle River and the water rights litigation that the City is involved in as item 9 and moving adjournment to item 10. Seconded by Huffaker. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES. Guerber would like item SA removed from the consent agenda. Huffaker has additional items he would like removed for clarification and discussion as well. Huffaker moves to removed items 5A, B, C, D, G and H from the consent agenda. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. A. Claims Against the City. Guerber asks this item be acted on later to give the Council time to review the claims against the City. B. DR-93-07 - Storae:e Facility for Storae:e 55 (Phase II) - Jefferv Mower: Jeffery Mower, represented by Mike Fairchild, Architect, is requesting design review approval to construct a 39,800-square foot storage facility for Storage 55 (Phase II). The 2-acre site is located on the south side of East Hill Road approximately 540-feet the east of State Highway 55 at 2871 East Hill Road. (WEV) C. DR-OI-08 - Multi-tenant Office Buildin!! - The Forum at Ea!!Ie. LLC: The Forum at Eagle, LLC, represented by James Gipson with Gipson Associates, are requesting design review approval to construct a 6,750-square foot two story multi-tenant office building. The 0.62-acre site is located on the southwest corner of South Echohawk Lane and East Hill Road at 207 North Echohawk Lane within Picadilly Village Subdivision (Lot 12, Block 1). (WEV) D. DR-03-08 - Automotive Service Facility for Oil Can Henrv's - Rob Hae:!!ett: Rob Haggett is requesting design review approval to construct a 2,842-square foot automotive service facility for Oil Can Henry's. The 0.60 I-acre site is located on the west side of North Horseshoe Bend Road approximately 370-feet north of State Highway 44 at 3088 East State Street. Page 2 K:\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC.OJ-1I-O&min,doc Huffaker ask staff to explain the process as to the review of applicant compliance to the site specific and standard conditions of approval. Zoning Administrator, Bill Vaughan reviews the process, and assures Council that City Planners and the City Forester perform site inspections to ensure compliance with the landscape plans and site specific and standard conditions of approval. Discussion. G. Aooroval of Permit for Possession and/or Consumotion of Alcohol Beveral!es: Michelle Crapo is requesting an open container permit to be used at Merrill Park on May 31, 2008 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No glass containers will be allowed and alcohol shall be consumed in the shelter only. (TEO) Huffaker comments that this application form states that the purpose of the permit is for a graduation party. His request is that an additional language to ensure that no alcohol is served to minors. Discussion. H. Arbor Dav Proclamation: A proclamation declaring April 25, 2008 as Arbor Day in the City of Eagle.(PB) Huffaker comments on the proposed Arbor Day proclamation language and inquires as to the uniformity to national Arbor Day proclamation language. Discussion. Semanko moves to approve the remaining consent agenda items 5 E, F, I and J. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. Huffaker moves to approve consent agenda items 5 B, C, D and H as they are presently consituted. Seconded by Semanko. ALL AYE.. .MOTION CARRIES. Huffaker moves to approve consent agenda item 5G with the amendment that there be some additional language, or understanding, that no alcohol be served to any minors at this function and also directing staff to look into including such language in all furture applications for permit for possession and/or consumption of alcohol beverages. Seconded by Shoushtarian. Discussion. Huffaker amends to specify language recommended by City Attorney for future permits to be "Permitee is reminded that no minors be served alcohol at this event or this permit may be immediately revoked by the City or the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Second concurs with amendment. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Order l!rantin!! apoeal for AA-I-08 - Tiny Rose LLC. reoresented by Mike Setv. (WEV) This item was continuedfrom the February 26, 2008, meeting. Mayor introduces the item. City Planner II, Mike Williams reviews the order granting appeal and the history associated with the appeal. Semanko moves to approve the order granting appeal for AA-I-08 - Tiny Rose LLC, represented by Mike Sety. Seconded by Huffaker. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. B. Findinl!s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-OI-07/RZ-OI-07 & PP-OI-07 _ Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-2-DA and Preliminarv Plat for Dwavne Lin!!el Subdivision (aka Adonai Subdivision) - Dwayne Linl!el: Dwayne Lingel is requesting annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition - Ada County designation) to R-2-DA Page 3 K:\COUNCIL\MINlITES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC -03-1] -08min doc (Residential, 1.7-units per acre with development agreement) and preliminary plat approval for Adonai Subdivision, a 12 lot (8-buildable, 4-common) residential subdivision. The 5.7-acre site is located on the east side of Park Lane Road approximately 1,200-feet south of Beacon Light Road at 2440 North Park Lane. (WEV) This item was continuedfrom the February 26, 2008, meeting. Mayor introduces the item. City Planner II, Mike Williams states that the applicant's representative has requested Council approval of the findings of fact, at which point the applicant would like to submit a modification to the development application. Zoning Administrator, Bill Vaughan states that once the findings and facts and conclusion of law are adopted and subsequently signed by the Mayor then the application is finalized. The applicant at that time could go ahead and execute the development agreement and move forward with the final plating process. In this instance, because the applicant chooses to make changes to the approved application, they will submit an application for modification to the development agreement and/or any conditions to the plat and that will start a new hearing process through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council as if it were a new application. The underlying information from these applications will come through with the modification, so you will see in legislative format, the changes the applicant is requesting. Huffaker inquires why the applicant cannot do this without the approval of findings of fact and conclusions oflaw. Vaughan states that procedurally it goes against the process that is already exists in Eagle City Code Title 8 and 9, which establishes the application processes once the Council makes a decision, then the decision is finalized through the adoption of findings of fact and there isn't anything, procedurally, between a final decision on a land use application and the adopting of the findings. The code goes on to explain that ifan applicant seeks a modification to that which was approved, it outlines another process that one would need to go through. That is what the applicant is going to embark upon. Staff is trying to follow the code as closely as possible. There is not an avenue to make changes between a final decision and the adoption of findings. Discussion. City Attorney, Susan Buxton provides statutory clarification regarding the processing findings of fact. Guerber states that it was his understanding that the approval of findings of facts and conclusions of law was actually a reflection of the process that was followed and how the City got from the beginning to where we are right now, it is a record of our activities to reach a point in time that finalized a decision. By approving the findings it is stating that all of that information is correct and that is the record on how we got to this point. What happens from this point on, whether the applicant withdraws it, asks for a modification or anything has nothing to do with the fact that this document is only a record of proceedings up to the point where the Council made a decision. Discussion. Heath Clark 251 E. Front Street Boise, Idaho. Mr. Clark represents Mr. Lingel and states he does understand that the applicant can withhold their signature on the development agreement and that would prevent the Council from executing the annexation. It the applicant's desire to not change any of the lot lines or common areas there are actually very few elements of the preliminary plat they want changed. Nothing visible on the plat itself will be changed they simply want to modify some of the conditions of approval that were attached that required them to do an offsite requirement, which was the joint irrigation agreement, so in other words the changes are fairly minor in terms of procedure, but for the purposes of the project itself it is a major thing. Discussion. Page 4 K\COUNClL\l\.1INUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-1 ] -08mindoc City Attorney, Buxton's review of this is that the applicant must bring their own water rights to the table for irrigation and they could have pulled them, and that is what we asked them to do, they now they don't want to so they have a different system they want to use to provide the irrigation to that same piece of property. They have demonstrated that they have adequate water rights for both irrigation and potable water. The water rights volume is not the issue it is just the system being separate and how they will use an offsite pond for the delivery of that irrigation water. Discussion. Semanko moves to approve 6B Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-OI-07/RZ- 01-07 & PP-OI-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-2-DA and Preliminary Plat for Dwayne Lingel Subdivision (aka Adonai Subdivision) -subject to the condition that we hold in abeyance the annexation and rezone until the modification application has been heard and decided, and that the Mayor be authorized to sign. Seconded by Guerber. THREE AYE...ONE NAY (HUFFAKER) ...MOTION CARRIES. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Ordinance No. 599: Prohibition of the landing of helicopters within corporate city limits, providing exemptions and penalties. This item was continuedfrom the February 26, 2008, meeting. Staff is requesting this item be remanded to meet notification of the public hearing. (ME) Guerber moves to remand item 7 A Ordinance No. 599 back to staff with the expectation that it would be added to the council agenda such time as appropriate notifications, publishing and finalization of the ordinance takes place. Seconded by Huffaker. ALL AYE.. .MOTION CARRIES. 8. NEW BUSINESS: A. FP-I-08 - Final Plat for Castleburv West Business Park No.2 - Caoital Develooment. Inc: Capital Development, Inc. is requesting final plat approval for Castlebury West Business Park No.2, a five (5) lot (3-commercial, 2-common) commercial subdivision. The 2.97-acre site is generally located on the northwest corner of West Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26) and North Meridian Road at 6615 North Meridian Road. (WEV) Mayor introduces the item. City Planner II, Mike Williams briefly reviews the application. Dave Y orgason representing Capital Development states that they are working on fill at the site at this time. The applicant would like Condition No.4 to be stricken, because it is a unique plat there is no additional right of way in this phase. All of the roads and infrastructure, for both phases, were installed when the first phase was completed, so the license agreement that was acquired from ACHD for the first phase applies also, though it is not needed, would apply to any work done in the second phase. So they request that condition number 4 be stricken only because there will be no additional license agreement through ACHD. City Planner II Williams suggests the language remain due to the fact although the applicant installed the infrastructure until such time as the second phase of the plat is approved there is actually no dedicated right of way, so staff is requesting that the condition be left in although the condition has been met with the current ACHD license agreement. Guerber moves to approve FP-I-08 - Final Plat for Castlebury West Business Park No.2 _ Capital Development, Inc: with staff recommendations and appropriate guidelines as outlined in the documentation, and include in the motion the recognition that the license agreement that has taken place in the past for first phases of this project be will be Page 5 K:\COUNCIL\M];-.jUTES\Temporary Minutes \\iork Area\CC-OJ-I I-OSrnin doc recognized as the licenses under which appropriate landscaping would be reviewed by the City. Seconded by Huffaker. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES. B. Discussion of the committee creation: (AS) Mayor introduces the time. Huffaker states he enjoyed reviewing the materials, and feels that perhaps a City Communications Committee could be created initially as task forces rather than a standing committee. If the task force would subsequently recommend that a standing committee be created, then that could be addressed later. The task force could be selected perhaps in the way suggested here, as soon as possible. They could then make some recommendations for goals and objectives, and also opening this up to the public to comment on the goals and objectives so we can get public input. It would be an excellent opportunity for the public to be involved. Guerber concurs with the need of the task force. If the recommendation of the task force is "hey you need to set up a committee to do these kinds of things" then I think that is when we act on establishing a permanent committee. The task force could look at what is currently being done and what needs to be enhanced or continued, as well as suggest some new things to be done. Semanko agrees with the comments made and suggests that a set deadline be established to get recommendations from the task force, to have those presented to the Council. In regard to all of the great ideas that Shoushtarian has come up with, I think the first order of business for that group is to look at these ideas. I would like to see those recommendations coming from them (the task force) to us, they may adopt some, they may not, but they can brain storm additional ideas and then we can adopt whichever ones make sense. If they think there should be a full time committee we can look at that. How this will be staffed is something that should be considered as well. Discussion regarding how to appoint individuals to the task force. Shoushtarian would like to know what the other Council members mean by task force, vs. committee which was already talked about in his proposal. He would like clarification on the difference between a task force and a committee. Huffaker states that a task force would be something similar to what was organized when they tried to do the nominating process for the vacant City Council seat, it is something formed for a specific purpose and for a specific amount of time, as opposed to a permanent City committee which would meet as a monthly, weekly or bi-monthly, whatever it maybe, basis as a permanent committee of the city. It is possible that the task force might recommend that there be a permanent committee but we should let them make that recommendation. Shoushtarian states that in his proposal to give it three years to try out and see how its going to work and then at the end of the three years, we can analyze and see if it did any good for our town or not. By having at least 5 members on the committee from specific geographic areas, they can come together and bring the ideas from that neighborhood to the committee. This will open our relationship with the community. By calling it a task force it changes what he had in mind and has researched that other cities have this type of committee. Semanko appreciates everything that Shoushtarian is saying, but would really like to see a group of folks in the city that are interested in the communications issues, get together and make recommendations to us. If those recommendations include having a permanent standing committee that would be great. Shoushtarian does not understand why we are changing from a committee to a task force, he does not see the case. However, he wants to give the power to the community to express their opinion, and if we get the members from the different parts of the City they have already done their homework by contacting their neighborhoods. They would bring all of the issues, by having a Council liaison he could express all of those issues that community has way in advance before it gets to the situation where it may be too late to handle. Further discussion of terminology regarding task force creation vs. committee. Page 6 K \CQVNCIL\MJNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-OJ-J ] .08min,doc Huffaker moves to advertise through the paper and website and set a deadline for perhaps March 31 for anyone who wants to apply (that's 3 weeks from yesterday) to be on the work group taskforce/committee to determine what kinds of things that the city can do to improve communication between the City and its residents, and from its residents to the City and also as part of their tasks to determine recommendations regarding a standing permanent Communication committee - how it would be formed, what its goals would be, and to make any other recommendations regarding communications as they see fit and they be given approximately 2 months from the time of formation to make those recommendations to the Council and the Mayor. Seconded by Semanko. Discussion. Huffaker amends his motion to move the deadline to April 4th to submit to be on the task force in deference to Spring Break. Second concurs. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. Guerber moves to approve item 5 A. Seconded by Huffaker. HUFFAKER AYE; SHOUSHT ARIAN AYE; GUERBER AYE; SEMANKO AYE.. .ALL AYE.. .MOTION CARRIES. Huffaker verifies for the record that his vote on item 6B was nay. Guerber moves pursuant 67-2345 (t) acquisition of private property and pending and threatened litigation for Eagle River LID litigation. Seconded by Semanko. HUFFAKER AYE; SHOUSHTARIAN AYE; GUERBERAYE; SEMANKOAYE...ALL AYE.. .MOTION CARRIES. Council discusses pending and threatened litigation regarding Eagle River lawsuit. Council leaves executive session at 10: 10 p.m. REPORTS: B. Mayor and Council's Report: Semanko reports on the Eagle Sewer District meeting. Shoushtarian discusses a meeting with the Senior Center and discusses regarding utilization of parking lot. C. City Engineer Report: No report D. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: No report E. Zoning Administrator's Report: No report F. City Attorney Report: No report 9. ADJOURNMENT: Semanko moves to adjourn. Seconded by Huffaker. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES... Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. R pectfully submitt .................. .... ~AGl.JJ ..... .' O~ ....... ... .....~~.. 09." 1'~~" \~ TRACY E BORN ..... ~ . :(.) 0, : SR DEPU Y CLERK/TREAS : tJ,. \,1_ 0: ,,-- . :. ~ ~ ~ ~ :':: . .. " '!t'1 ..... ...~_\~~~.."'.: .... $1'ATB 0 ...... '. 1"1 ,.' "r'fI....'" A TRANSCRlBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT EAGLE CITY HALL Page 7 K\CQUNCIl\MfNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-1 I-08min doc CG 3(i1l 08 INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning Administration To: From: Subject: Date: Attachment(s): Copy To: Mayor Bandy and City Council Members Nichoel Baird Spencer, AICP, Planner III On'. Downtown Plan March 11, 2008 Project Timeline, Oregon Model Zoning Administrator, Eagle Chamber of Commerce Background: In October of 2006, the City of Eagle agreed to work cooperatively with Eagle Chambers of Commerce to review the development potential of the downtown core and the potential need for modifications or changes to existing planning and zoning regulations within the Central Business District. In August of 2007, the City adopted a temporary modification to parking and street tree standards as an effort to increase developers' interest in downtown. As the City continues to gauge the effectiveness of these changes the Chamber in working with City staff would propose a larger city-wide planning process that will provide an opportunity for all residents to voice their desires for the City's downtown over the next 20 years. Process: Staff proposes to use the Oregon Visioning Model, the process used for the Western Area and the Foothills Plans, to initiate a public dialogue about the downtown area in the context of the 20 year planning horizon. The "Oregon Visioning Model" is an award winning community involvement process which poses questions to the participants and then walks them through a series of activities resulting in a prioritization of concerns, desired outcomes and actions. The proposed process provides the citizenry flexibility to communicate both their desires and concerns as the downtown develops. Further, this process is the cornerstone to establishing a clear and consistent communication with the citizenry and landowners as a plan is developed for the area. Attached is an overview of the Oregon Visioning Model and the proposed Downtown Plan Timeline for your review. In preparation for these meetings staff and the Chamber's Downtown Feasibility Committee will draft and refine the visioning questions and compile the necessary background information for the downtown. It is anticipated that the 2007 Chamber proposal for the downtown will also be integrated into this process. The small group discussion will be facilitated by the Chamber's Downtown Feasibility Committee under supervision of the City staff. Staff in cooperation with the Eagle Chamber has identified stakeholders that we want to focus on recruiting into this process. Please provide any feedback or additions to staff for inclusion. The results of the "visioning" process will be reviewed by staff and the Eagle Chamber Downtown Page 1 of 1 K:1Planning Dept\Comp PIan\Subarea P1ans120081Downtown\Process me draft.doc Feasibility Committee to establish policy issues for future analysis and review as well as area of special concern when establishing criteria for the physical development of the downtown. Staff is currently working with local professionals and the University of Idaho & Boise State University to help expedite the review and design criteria process. The goal is to hold a design charette with either U of I students or with multiple groups of local design professionals in the fall to provide several visions for the community and City Council review prior to finalizing a sub -area plan. If you have questions please don't hesitate to contact me at 939-0227 ext. 211. Page 2 of 1 K:1Planning Dept\Comp Plan\Subarea Plans120081Downtown\Process mo draftdoc DRAFT- DOWNTOWN PLAN TIMELINE Visioning Notices: March 2008 Location: (Chamber locate) Methods: (staff to draft/chamber to distribute) Newspaper Utility Stuffing Direct Mail Posters in Businesses City & Chamber websites Target Groups: Businesses Land owners Home Owners Associations City Council (require RSVP) Transportation Committee (require RSVP) Urban Renewal (require RSVP) (RSVP used to ensure attendance. is spread across all the meetings) Visioning Development: March/April 2008 Questions Development (Staff & Chamber) Begins March 18th Facilitator Training- (staff) Visioning Sessions April/ May 2008 Meetings Min. of Two (2) Public Sessions (potential dates April 16, 23 or 24 May 6, 7, 8, 14 or 15) One (1) Chamber Workshop (Potential Chamber Lunch) Facilitators City Staff Chamber Committee/staff (need to ID about 10 people per session) Visioning Results Analysis: May 2008 (City Staff) Chamber Committee Workshop Public Release: City website Chamber website Options from May 2008 forward: Design Process A- Students June -August 2008 Policy research by BSU (MPA intern) September- November 2008 Design work with U of I November/December 2008 - Project selections & adoption Design Process B - Consultant May 2008- Consultant Consideration June -August 2008 Policy research by BSU (MPA intern) September 2008 -Local Design Charette October/November 2008 - Project selections & adoption THE OREGON MODEL A COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY VISIONING PROCESS 1. Where are we now? COMDR UNITY PROFILE 2. Where are we going? TREND STATEMENT - Descriptive information Trend Information Community Values Probable Scenario Figure l : The Oregon Model 3. Where do we want to be? 4. How do we get there? VISION ACTION STATEMENT PLAN PossibIeIPrererred Goals, Strategies, Scenarios Aeons Community 4+ision Action Agendas & Priorities The Oregon Model. The Oregon Model is, at its core, a four -step process driven by four very simple questions. Each question establishes the context for one step of the process, guiding a series of specific activities and resulting in a number of discrete outcomes. The overall thrust of the model is to make planning for the future an easy -to -understand, engaging exercise in which participants intuitively grasp the purpose of the process and their role within it. Ideally, they are also challenged and motivated to learn about their community and the future. The first step of the model addresses the question "Where are we now?". This step focuses on profiling the community as it exists in the present: describing its background and important features, assessing its strengths and weaknesses, defming current issues and concerns, and articulating shared community values. The result is a compendium of relevant data and information which provides a foundation for the entire process. The statement of values also establishes a set of qualitative criteria for evaluating new ideas or concepts that emerge during the process. The second step addresses the question "Where are we going?". This step focuses on determining where the community is headed if current directions persist. Relevant demographic, economic, environmental and social trends are identified, and emerging issues that may confront the community are postulated. A "probable" scenario is then developed showing what the community might look like in the future if it continues on its current course with no major changes in direction. This "business -as -usual" picture of the future also provides a baseline for the development of the community's vision. The third step addresses the question "Where do we want to be?". This step represents the core of the visioning process. The purpose is to articulate a vision of what the community wishes to become in the future. Starting from the probable scenario, a "preferred" scenario is developed showing what the community could look like in the future if it chooses to respond to identified trends and emerging issues in a manner that is consistent with its core values. Ultimately, this "realistically idealistic" picture becomes the basis of a formal vision statement, which is refined, embellished and, ideally, illustrated. The fourth and final step addresses the question "How do we get there?". In this step the community begins planning to achieve its vision. This phase is, in essence, a self- contained strategic (or "action") planning process. It identifies short-term strategies and actions intended to move the community in the direction of its long-term vision. It also identifies groups responsible for implementing specific actions, timetables for completion of these activities, "benchmarks" for monitoring progress, and other relevant information. The resulting action plan is designed to be revised and updated several times over the lifetime of the vision. The advantage of the Oregon Model is that it can easily be tailored to fit a variety of settings and circumstances. Virtually every community that has undertaken a visioning process based on this model has adapted the approach in some way to fit its own needs and resources. Some communities have altered the sequence of activities, while others have bypassed certain activities or added entirely new ones. In order to ensure the success of the process, however, two preliminary activities are essential: (1) establishing a "visioning framework" and (2) determining the number of scenarios to be developed as part of the process. The idea of exploring a concept as vast and uncharted as the future can stagger the imagination. Without conceptual "boundaries" that delimit the scope of inquiry, participants in a visioning process would quickly be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information or ideas that might be considered. The challenge is to focus the process on those aspects of the future that will most directly affect the community and over which it has the greatest measure of influence. A visioning framework accomplishes this by providing a discrete "window" on the future: information "inside" the window may be drawn into the process; information "outside" lies beyond the scope of inquiry. A visioning framework is comprised of three distinct elements: a timeframe, overall focus, and target areas of concern. Setting a timeframe involves establishing a planning "horizon" for the process. Most communities set relatively long timeframes for their visions (i.e., 20-25 years into the future) in order to emphasize the visionary nature of the process. Determining an overall focus involves identifying the central theme of the process. Such a theme may be broadly or narrowly defined depending on a community's overall concerns and interests. Identifying target areas involves breaking down the central theme into more discrete elements. These categories greatly facilitate gathering and analyzing information, creating scenarios, and developing an action plan. The second essential activity involves determining the number of scenarios. Scenarios lie at the core of the visioning process; the number of scenarios developed strongly influence its outcomes. Not unlike the Willamette Valley Choices for the Future report, the Oregon Model uses a "single alternative" approach involving the development of two scenarios: a baseline (or probable) scenario and a single alternative (or preferred) scenario. However, a "multiple alternatives" approach can also be incorporated into the model, allowing a community to develop several alternative (or possible) scenarios before converging on a preferred alternative. The single alternative approach is quicker and more simple, leading directly to the creation of a vision. It works well when the focus of the process is broad and the emphasis is on action. The multiple alternatives approach is more complex. However, it works well when the focus of a process is narrower and the emphasis is on exploring a number of alternatives in greater depth, comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each. Like Corvallis, most Oregon communities have chosen to use the single alternative approach. A few, however, have used multiple scenarios to great effect. Having completed these activities, the basic construct of a community's visioning process is in place. Of course, many more detailed decisions must be made in designing and implementing the process. Design decisions typically revolve around questions of scale: How much time will the process take? Who will participate? What products will result? How much will it cost to conduct? Implementation decisions focus on ensuring that the process succeeds in its mission: building political support, involving the public and, ultimately, promoting community action. Are there inherent shortcomings in the Oregon Model? Certainly. The most common criticism of any planning effort of this nature is a perceived lack of tangible results. Visioning by nature is conceptual, and therefore, lends itself to such criticism. However, that is precisely the reason why action planning has been built into the process: planning for action makes it less likely that nothing will happen. Other measures can also be taken to ensure successful follow-through, such as forming action teams to implement key strategies, securing the support of important community "stakeholders," or concentrating on immediate, short-term successes. In the end, such details may mean the difference between failure and success. These are the sorts of challenges that every community must grapple with in undertaking a visioning process; but they also provide the opportunities that can make visioning an engaging and rewarding enterprise. Because most communities have never been involved in anything quite like visioning, it can be a transforming experience that permanently alters their view of the future - and themselves. In Oregon, this process has enabled communities across the state to foster the kind of intelligence, imagination and cooperation that Lewis Mumford once said would be critical to our future. Message Tracy Osborn Page 1 of 1 31i/10$ From: Tracy Osborn Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:20 AM To: Steve Guerber (dsguerber@msn.com); Al Shoushtarian (alcityplanner@aol.com); Michael Huffaker (huffakerpc6@hotmail.com); Norm Semanko (semanko@rmci.net); Phillip Bandy (pbandy@cityofeagle.org) Cc: (clb@msbtlaw.com); Susan Buxton (seb@msbtlaw.com); Vern Brewer (vern@holladayengineering.com); Bill Vaughan Subject: minutes for review I've attached the minutes of the 2/26 and 3/6 meeting for your review. They will need to be added to the agenda for approval at tomorrows meeting. c: ice,,,, , ' e,"_Gti Please let me know of any nasty type-o's I've missed when reviewing it. Also please remember that your meeting is starting at 6:00 p.m. tomorrow and.Xou will be meeting at the Library for a tour and orientation (yes, food will be provided). ;) Tracy E. Osborn, CMC Sr Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer City of Eagle, Idaho P.O. Box 152o 208-489-8781 3/11/2008 3j11j0g EAGLE CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Minutes March 6, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Bandy calls the meeting to order 3:10 p.m.. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: GUERBER, HUFFAKER, SHOUSHTARIAN; SEMANKO. A quorum is present. — Semanko present via tele -conference. 3 EXECUTIVE SESSION: A. Pending & Threatened Litigation: I.C. 67-2345 (f) Guerber moves to go into executive session for acquisition of property as allowed in Idaho State Code 67-2345 (c), and for Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1) pending and threatened litigation Eagle River litigation and Legacy matter . Seconded by Shoushtarian .... SCS r Jr AKER AYE; SHOUSHTARIAN AYE; GUERBER AYE; SEMANKO AYE...MOTION CARRIES. Discussion of pending and threatened litigation regarding Eagle River litigation and the Legacy matter as well as acquisition of property. Council exits executive session at 3:50 p.m. 4. NEW BUSINESS: A. Consideration of water lease from the Idaho Water Bank. Huffaker states that the City of Eagle and the applicant have agreed to the first amendment to the MOA, paragraph 5 of the MOA reserves the to the City discretion to designate any terms and conditions under which leased water may be used to meet development agreement requirements for the Legacy development. Therefore pursuant to the exercise of that discretion set forth in paragraph 5 of the first amendment to the MOA, I make a motion as follows: Huffaker the City Clerk is directed to sign the final plat for Mosca Seca 1 a part of the Legacy development subject to the following terms and conditions: 1.) The developer shall continue to full meet its obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement dated November 17, 2005, as amended by the first amendment to Memorandum of Agreement dated February 26, 2008 and the Memorandum of Understanding for issuance of building permits dated January 29, 2008. 2.) Developer shall complete all actions required under the MOA as amended and shall meet all the terms and conditions in the rental agreement entered into by the City through the Idaho Water Resources Board Water Bank dated February 29, 2008. Specifically including the requirements of conditions number 14 in the rental which references the conditions in the final order on applications for permit number 63-32089 and 63-32090 issued on February 26, 2008. 3.) The action of the City to approve the temporary use of the leased water rights and the signing of the final plat for Mosca Seca 1 shall not constitute a waiver or release of any rights held or reserved by the City pursuant to the MOA as amended. 4.) If the developer takes any action in violation of the MOA, and its first amendment, including, but not limited to, any action in violation of paragraph 10 of MOA as amended, the waiver of claims provision, or pursuant to paragraph 12 or 13 of the MOA as amended the arbitration and other claims provisions, or fails to comply with the terms set forth in this motion the MOA or the MOU for issuance of building permits, the City then reserves all rights and may have pursuant to the original MOA, its first amendment, any and all conditions of approval, the development agreement, City Code and other applicable laws and policies with regard to enforcement of these term, including but not limited to non -issuance or revocation of building permits or occupancy Page 1 K:ICOUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-06-08spag.doc permits. And as part of this motion I also move to authorize the Mayor to sign the water bank lease agreement. Seconded by Guerber. iiuii AKER AYE; SHOUSHTARIAN NAY; GUERBER AYE; SEMANKO AYE. THREE AYE; ONE NAY...MOTION CARRIES. Discussion regarding Mosca Seca 2. Huffaker moves to apply the same terms and conditions to Mosca Seca 2 as we have previously outlined for Mosca Seca 1, when that becomes ready and available to be sign. Seconded by Guerber. HU rr'AKER AYE; SHOUSHTARIAN NAY; GUERBER AYE; SEMANKO AYE. THREE AYE; ONE NAY...MOTION CARRIES. Guerber moves to go into executive section per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) to consider pending and threatened litigation in regard to the Eagle River and acquisition of private property 67-2345(c). Seconded by Huffaker. HUJ ii i AKER AYE; SHOUSHTARIAN NAY; GUERBER AYE; SEMANKO AYE. THREE AYE...ONE NAY....MOTION CARRIES. Discussion of Eagle River litigation and acquisition of private property. Council leaves executive session. 5. ADJOURNMENT: Guerber moves to adjourn. Seconded by Huffaker. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES... Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted: TRACY E. OSBORN SR DEPUTY CITY CLERK/TREASURER APPROVED: PHIL BANDY MAYOR A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT EAGLE CITY HALL Page 2 K 1COUNCILIMIINUTES1Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC•03.06-08spag doc 3hi/ °l EAGLE CITY COUNCIL Minutes February 26, 2008 **EARLY START TIME*** No public hearings shall begin prior to 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Bandy calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: GUERBER, SHOUSHTARIAN, HUFFAKER, SEMANKO. A quorum is present. 3 PRESENTATIONS: A. Eagle Police Department Monthly Report. Police Chief Brian Hippe reviews the monthly statistics for January and updates the Mayor and Council on recent law enforcement activities. B. Boise WaterShed Exhibits Inc. presentation: Donna -Marie Hayes. Ms. Hayes is a Boise City Public Works Commissioner and the Volunteer Executive Director and President of Boise WaterShed Exhibits Incorporated. Boise Watershed Exhibits Inc. takes a sophisticated approach to public education. Ms. Hayes discusses the new facility and exhibits being built via a public —private partnership between the City of Boise and Boise Watershed. Boise Watershed agreed to raise $1 million dollars towards the construction of this facility. The target opening date is in May of this year. Boise Watershed is approximately $30,000 short of their $1 million goal. As this facilities will be used to educate the young and old on how their behaviors impact the watershed they are requesting Eagle donate towards the completion of this project. Eagle is the first City outside of Boise that has been approached and it is Ms. Hayes intent to pursue donations from other communities in the area. Discussion. 4 EXECUTIVE SESSION: A. Pending & Threatened Litigation: I.C. 67-2345 (f) Guerber moves to go into Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (f) & (c) to discuss pending and threatened litigation to on the Legacy matter and acquisition of private property. Seconded by Huffaker. tiu1 MAKER; AYE; SHOUSHTARIAN AYE; GUERBER AYE; SEMANKO AYE. ALL AYE....MOTION CARRIES. Discussion of pending and threatened litigation and acquisition of private property. Council leaves executive session. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chester Goodell leads the pledge of allegiance. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: No one chooses to comment. 7. CONSENT AGENDA: • Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Mayor, a Councilmember, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the City Council. • Any item on the Consent Agenda which contains written Conditions of Approval from the City of Eagle City Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, or Design Review Board shall be adopted as part of the City Council's Consent Agenda approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise. A. Claims Against the City. B. Minutes of February 12, 2008. Page 1 K:\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area1CC-02-26-08min.doc C. Minutes of February 19, 2008. D. DR -79-07 - Multi -Tenant Office/Flex Space Building - Robert L. Pederson: Robert Pederson is requesting design review approval to construct a 14,133- square foot multi - tenant office/flex space building. The 1.00 -acre site is located on the south side of East Hill Road, approximately 255 -feet west of Horseshoe Bend Road at 3055 East Hill Road. (WEV) E. DR -80-07 — Master Sign Plan for a Multi -Tenant Off ce/Flex Space Building=, Robert Pederson: Robert Pederson is requesting design review approval of a master sign plan for a multi -tenant office/flex space building. The 1.00 -acre site is located on the south side of East Hill Road, approximately 255 -feet west of Horseshoe Bend Road at 3055 East Hill Road. (WEV) F. Appointment to the Historical Preservation Commission: Mayor Bandy is requesting Council confirmation of the appointment of Gwen Sears to the Commission. Ms. Sears term will be for three years. (PB) G. Re -Appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission: Mayor Bandy is requesting the re -appointment of Nancy Suiter to the Commission. Ms. Suiter has served on the Commission since June of 2007. Her reappointment would be for a five year term. (PB) Huffaker requests item 7H be removed. Guerber moves to approve the Consent Agenda without item 7H. Seconded by Seconded by Semanko. Guerber: AYE; Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: AYE; Semanko: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES... H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-01-07/RZ-01-07 & PP -01-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R -2 -DA and Preliminary Plat for Dwayne Lingel Subdivision (aka Adonai Subdivision) — Dwayne Lingel: Dwayne Lingel is requesting annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to R -2 -DA (Residential, 1.7 -units per acre with development agreement) and preliminary plat approval for Adonai Subdivision, a 12 lot (8 -buildable, 4 -common) residential subdivision. The 5.7 -acre site is located on the east side of Park Lane Road approximately 1,200 -feet south of Beacon Light Road at 2440 North Park Lane. (WEV) Huffaker asks for clarification of what specific action and review is required for findings of fact. City Attorney Buxton reviews discusses the history of this specific item. These findings have already been approved by the previous city council they just were not signed. This is merely an administrative authorization. Buxton states that at a meeting held last week the applicant's representative stated that they would be submitting the letter requesting an amendment to the findings of fact, based on that conversation she requests the findings be tabled. Discussion. Huffaker moves to table item 7H Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-01-07/RZ- 01-07 & PP -01-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R -2 -DA and Preliminary Plat for Dwayne Lingel Subdivision (aka Adonai Subdivision) Dwayne Lingel to the March 11, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Semanko. Discussion. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Order granting appeal for AA -1-08 - Tiny Rose LLC. represented by Mike Setv. (WEV) Mayor introduces the item and notes that the applicant has requested this item be continued to the next regular Council meeting. Guerber moves to continue 8A item to the March 11, 2008 Council meeting. Seconded by Huffaker. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES Page 2 K \COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Arca\CC.02-26-08min doc Guerber amends the agenda to hear item 9B prior to 9A. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. (B) A public hearing to allow citizens of the City of Eagle to have input on the development of Idaho Department of Commerce Community Development Block Grant applications, in accordance with the Citv's Citizen Participation Plan: Shawn Charters. This item was continued from the February 19, 2008 meeting. (SC) Mayor introduces the item and states that the public hearing remains open from the February 19, 2008 Council meeting. Mayor notes that a number of letters in support of this grant have been received and will be forwarded to Ms. Charters for inclusions in the application. Chester Goodell, President of the Eagle Senior Center for the last three years. He is concerned with the hazard that the unpaved parking lot presents to the elderly. Mr. Goodell would like to help in the design of the rear parking lot. He is somewhat concerned with the high cost estimate for the parking lot paving, but would like to be involved in the process and the raising of funds for this project. Public hearing is closed. Discussion. Huffaker moves to approve the submittal of the application Idaho Department of Commerce Community Development Block Grant applications, in accordance with the City's Citizen Participation Plan now agenda item 9A. Seconded by Guerber. Discussion. HU r r AIER AYE; SHOUSHTARIAN AYE; GUERBER AYE; SEMANKO AYE. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. B. (A.) RZ-13-05 MOD 2 — Rezone Development Agreement Modification — Idaho Development Services, Inc.: Idaho Development Services, Inc. is requesting a modification to the rezone development agreement for the Legacy Development. The 623.9 -acre site is generally located approximately 1,850 -feet north of State Highway 44 between Linder Road and State Highway 16. (SEB) This item was continued from the February 19, 2008 meeting. (WEV) Mayor introduces the item. Todd Santiago 533 E. Riverside Dr. Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Santiago reviews the items he would like modified in the agreement. States he has reviewed the staff report and has submitted a letter to the Council for their review detailing his concerns. City Planner II Mike Williams reviews staffs recommended conditions. Discussion of private streets, sidewalk access and construction requirements. City Attorney Buxton reviews the remaining proposed modifications to the memorandum of understanding. Mayor opens the public hearing. Tom Stevenson 533 E. Riverside Dr. Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Stevenson reiterates the purposed for these requested modifications and thanks the City Attorney and staff for their efforts. Discussion between Council, Mr. Santiago, and Mr. Stevens. Peter Harris with Eaglefield Subdivision. He is in a similar situation as Mosca Seca regarding water rights and financing challenges. It is possible that they will be coming forward with a similar request as Mosca Seca. Page 3 K:\COUNCO.\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-02-26-08min.doc Discussion amongst the Council and Mr. Santiago. Huffaker moves to approve agenda item 9B RZ-13-05 MOD 2 Rezone Development Agreement Modification — Idaho Development Services, Inc. with all of the conditions therein: condition 3.4.15, condition 3.12, condition 3.16, condition 3.21 with the understanding that with regard to condition 3.12 that this condition is contingent upon approval of the vacation of the public right of way by both ACHD and the City of Eagle. Seconded by Guerber. THREE AYES...ONE NAY (SHOUSHTARIAN)... MOTION CARRIES. C. DEA -1-07 - Exclusion of Property from the Corporate Limits of the City - City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is acting to exclude (de -annex) certain contiguous real property from the city limits. The 1.4 -acre site, a part of Government Lot 1, Section 13, and Government Lots 1 and 2, Section 12, T.4N., R.1 W., is located southeast of the intersection of Park Lane and Old Valley Road at 4015 W. Old Valley Road. (WEV) Mayor introduces the item. City Planner II, Jeff Lowe reviews the application. Mayor opens the public hearing. No one chose to speak. Mayor closes the public hearing. Zoning Administrator, Bill Vaughan states that Mr. Frost has requested a refund of the taxes he had paid to the city. He believes it would be less that $500. Semanko moves to approve DEA -1-07 exclusion of property from the corporate limits of the City — City of Eagle agenda item 9C, including the refund of taxes paid as to be suggested by staff. Seconded by Shoushtarian. nutFAIOR AYE; SHOUSHTARIAN AYE; GUERBER AYE; SEMANKO AYE...MOTION CARRIES. 10. NEW BUSINESS: A. Ordinance No. 596 - Frost Deannexation: An Ordinance Of The City Of Eagle, Ada County, Idaho, To Exclude Certain Real Property Situated In The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Eagle, Idaho; Directing That Copies Of This Ordinance Be Filed As Provided By Law; And Providing An Effective Date. (WEV) Mayor introduces the item. Guerber moves, pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902, that the rule requiring ordinances to be read on three (3) different days with one (1) reading to be in full be dispensed with, and that Ordinance No.596 be considered after being read once by title only that An Ordinance Of The City Of Eagle, Ada County, Idaho, To Exclude Certain Real Property Situated In The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Eagle, Idaho; Directing That Copies Of This Ordinance Be Filed As Provided By Law; And Providing An Effective Date. Seconded by Semanko. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. Semanko moves to approve Ordinance No. 596 Frost de -annexation. Seconded by Huffaker. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. B. Ordinance No. 599: Prohibition of the landing of helicopters within corporate city limits, providing exemptions and penalties. (ME) Mayor introduces the item and comments that he feels this proposed ordinance may be something that should have a public hearing in an effort to give Eagle residents the opportunity to comment. Code Enforcement Officer, Michael Echeita gives the background on why this ordinance has Page 4 K:ICOUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-02-26-08min doc been brought forward. There was a report on February 12t from a resident of Two Rivers who had complained about a helicopter landing within the Two Rivers subdivision. Echeita has contacted the F.A.A., and the F.A.A. states that there was no violation of their regulations, and unless the City itself enacts an ordinance no action can be taken. Echeita reviews the proposed language and notes that Council member Semanko has also submitted suggested language. Discussion. Guerber moves to remand Ordinance 599 back to staff to make revisions discussed and return at the March 11, 2008 meeting for a public hearing. Seconded by Huffaker. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. 11. REPORTS: A. Mayor and Council's Report: Semanko inquires as to when the LID public hearing notices will be sent. Deputy Clerk Osborn provides the mailing dates and publication dates. Osborn notes that the notice was posted on the City's website as of Monday. Huffaker reports on a meeting he attended with the Chamber of Commerce today. Guerber no report. Shoushtarian hands out information on a proposed community relations committee and he would like to see that move forward at the next meeting. B. City Engineer Report: Contractors are finalizing the backfill of the reservoir. DEQ has contacted us and asked for a meeting. DEQ wants to discuss the loan requirements. Monte Marcus has requested a meeting and a conference call we be held next week. C. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: no report D. Zoning Administrator's Report: no report E. City Attorney Report: no report 12. ADJOURNMENT: Huffaker moves to adjourn. Seconded by Guerber ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES... Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted: TRACY E. OSBORN SR DEPUTY CITY CLERK/TREASURER APPROVED: PHIL. BANDY MAYOR A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT EAGLE CITY HALL Page 5 K:ICOUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area1CC-02-26-O8rnin.doc INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning Administration To: From: Subject: Date: Attachment(s): Mayor Bandy and City Council Members Barbara A. Cerda, Planner II DR -93-07 — Storage Facility for Storage 55 (Phase II) — Jeffery Mower, represented by Mike Fairchild, Architect March 6, 2008 Findings of Fact 8 1/2 x 11 Vicinity Map 8 1/2 x 11 Site plan of Phase I and Phase II, date stamped by the City on December 31, 2007 8 1/2 x 11 Site plan of Phase I, date stamped by the City on July 7, 2005 8 1/2 x 11 Site plan of Phase II, date stamped by the City on December 31, 2007 11 x 17 reductions Copy To: Mike Fairchild, Architect, 7964 Open Sky Road, Middleton, Idaho 83644 On September 13, 2005, the Eagle City Council approved a storage facility for the first phase of Storage 55 (DR -44-05). Staff provided the following analysis for the parking associated with phase one: Eagle City Code defines "mini -storage" as a space for household or commercial goods within an enclosed building with direct public access to individual storage spaces. First, it is likely that an individual that decides to lease a storage space will visit the site to complete the required lease agreement with the caretaker (located in the on-site office). Once an individual has secured a storage space the majority of the trips to this site will be to visit the leased storage space with the occasional stop at the office to pay their storage space rent. If staff were to use the "warehousing", "wholesaling", "distribution", or "storage" parking requirements as specified in Eagle City Code to determine the minimum required parking spaces, the applicant would be required to provide approximately thirty one (31) parking spaces. It is staffs opinion that requiring thirty one (31) parking spaces for a mini -storage facility is unwarranted because the customary practice for a mini -storage facility patron would be to park in front of their unit (as noted above). If the space located in front of the storage units were to be calculated as a parallel parking spaces, phase one would have a total of 86 -parking spaces on the interior of the site. Based on the analysis herein, staff recommends that a minimum of six (6) parking spaces be provided for this facility in proximity to the office (as shown on the site plan). Reason: The office/caretaker's facility is 2,300 -square feet and based on one (1) parking space per 1,000 -square feet of gross floor area for warehousing, wholesaling, distribution and storage the applicant would be required to construct three (3) parking spaces near the office. With this Page 1 of 2 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications1Dr120071DR-93.07 land dr action mai .doc _e interpretation, staff recommends that three (3) parking spaces be added to the number of required parking spaces for this site for the purpose of providing additional caretaker and employee parking. Again, the six (6) parking spaces as on the approve site plan date stamped by the City on July 7, 2005, was approved by the City Council on September 13, 2005. On February 28, 2008, the Eagle Design Review Board recommended approval of a storage facility for the second phase of Storage 55. No office, parking, or vehicle access to Hill Road has been proposed to be constructed with the second phase of Storage 55. Other than an emergency access road (proposed near the eastern property line of phase two) there will be no vehicle access to or from Hill Road. Access to phase two will be provided by a driveway with a reciprocal cross access agreement on the west property line. Individuals that decide to lease a storage space in phase two of Storage 55 will utilize the parking associated with the office/caretaker's facility located in phase one or the parking area located in front of each unit. As noted in the previous paragraph (parking analysis for phase one), if the space located in front of the proposed units were to be calculated as parallel parking spaces, phase two would have a total of 70 - parking spaces on the interior of the site. No additional parking was required with phase two of Storage 55. See page 9 of the findings for the Design Review Board recommendation. Page 2 of 2 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\Di 20071DR-93-07 land dr action mel.doc BEFORE THE EAGLE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD IN THE MAI Ytdt OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DESIGN REVIEW TO A STORAGE FACILITY FOR STORAGE 55 (PHASE II) FOR JEFFERY MOWER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER DR -93-07 The above -entitled design review application came before the Eagle Design Review Board for their action on February 14, 2008. The Design Review Board 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: Jeffery Mower, represented by Mike Fairchild, Architect, is requesting design review approval to construct a 39,800 -square foot storage facility for Storage 55 (Phase II). The 2 -acre site is located on the south side of East Hill Road approximately 540 -feet the east of State Highway 55 at 2871 East Hill Road. B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: The City of Eagle received the application for this item on December 31, 2007. C. NOTICE OF AGENCIES' REVIEW: Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on January 7, 2008, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: On July 24, 2007, the Eagle City Council reviewed and approved a rezone application with a development agreement for this site (RZ-05-07). E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: None Page 1 of 13 K:1Plammng Dept'Eagle ApplicationssDr120071DR-93.07 land drfdoc F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS: Existing Proposed North of site South of site East of site West of site COMP PLAN DESIGNATION Business Park No Change Business Park Business Park Business Park Business Park ZONING DESIGNATION BP -DA (Business Park with Development Agreement) No Change BP (Business Park) RUT (Rural Urban Transition — Ada County designation) A -R (Agricultural - Residential) BP -DA (Business Park with Development Agreement) LAND USE Single-family dwelling/Pasture Storage Facility Gravel extraction Pasture Single-family dwelling Storage facility (Phase 1 of Storage 55) G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA, CEDA, or DSDA. H. EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS: There is an existing house and garage which the applicant is proposing to remove. There are fifteen (15) trees located around the existing house and the applicant is proposing to remove six (6) of the trees. The applicant is proposing to retain and protect nine (9) of the trees. The City Forester's report addressing the removal of these six (6) trees is attached. Page 2 of 13 K:1Planning Dcpt1Eagle Applications1Dr120071DR-93-07 land drf doc I. SITE DESIGN INFORMATION: Site Data Proposed Required Total Acreage of Site 87,346 -square feet (2 -acres) N/A Percentage of Site Devoted to 45% (approximately) 50% (maximum) Building Coverage Percentage of Site Devoted to 22% (approximately) 10% (minimum) Landscaping Number of Parking Spaces N/A N/A Front Setback 30 -feet (north)* 20 -feet (minimum) Rear Setback 10 -feet (south)* 0 -feet Side Setback 10 -feet (east)* 0 -feet Side Setback 10 -feet (west) * 0 -feet * Note: Setback measurements are measured from the property line to the closest building J. GENERAL SITE DESIGN FEATURES: Number and Uses of Proposed Buildings: Four storage facilities Height and Number of Stories of Proposed Buildings: 17 -feet maximum, one story. Gross Floor Area of Proposed Buildings: Building "A": 15,499 -square feet Building "B": 11,042 -square feet Building "C": 6,630 -square feet Building "D": 6,630-scuare feet Total: 39,801 -square feet On and Off -Site Circulation: No parking is proposed to be constructed with this phase. The office and associated parking was constructed with the first phase of Storage 55. K. BUILDING DESIGN FEATURES: Roof: Metal (Green) Walls: Split face CMU Windows/Doors: Metal doors — painted to match fascia. Fascia/Trim: Metal (green) Page 3 of 13 K;lplanning Dept\&glc Applications1Dr120071DR-93-07 land drf doc L. LANDSCAPING DESIGN: Retention of Existing Trees and Preservation Methods: There are fifteen (15) trees existing on site. The applicant is proposing to remove six (6) of the trees. Tree Replacement Calculations: An evaluation of all of the existing trees has been completed by the City Forester (report attached). The City Forester recommends a minimum of five (5) species of trees be included in the planting list of the landscape plan. Proposed Tree Mix (Species & Number): To be reviewed by the Design Review Board Street Trees: The applicant is proposing to install street trees on the north and south sides of the meandering sidewalk along East Hill Road. Maintenance Provisions and Proposed Irrigation Methods: Automatic irrigation required. Transition Zones: N/A Parking Lot Landscaping: N/A M. TRASH ENCLOSURES: A trash enclosure was constructed with the first phase of the storage facility. No trash enclosure is proposed to be constructed with this phase. N. MECHANICAL UNITS: No ground mounted or roof top mechanical units are proposed with this development and none are approved. O. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: A site and parking lot light plan showing location, height, and wattage is required to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of any building permits. P. SIGNAGE: No signs are proposed with this application. A separate design review application is required for the approval of any signs. Q. PUBLIC SERVICES AVAILABLE: Public services and utilities are required as conditioned herein. R. PUBLIC USES PROPOSED: None S. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists Page 4 of 13 K\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\Dr\2007\DIt-93-07 land drf.doc T. SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - none Evidence of Erosion - no Fish Habitat - no Floodplain - no Mature Trees - yes Riparian Vegetation - no Steep Slopes - no Stream/Creek - no Unique Animal Life - no Unique Plant Life - no Unstable Soils - unknown Wildlife Habitat - no U. SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLAN (IF REQUIRED): Not required V. AGENCY RESPONSES: The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is incorporated herein by reference. Comments, which appear to be of special concern, are noted below: ACHD Chevron Pipeline Eagle Fire Department W. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: None received to date. STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED W 1 i tuii THE STAFF REPORT: A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: • The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this site as Business Park. B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: 3.1 Eagle hereby acknowledges that the attached Site Plan (Exhibit "A") and Building Elevation Plans (Exhibit "B") represents the Owner's current concept for completion of the project. As the Concept Plan evolves, the City understands and agrees that certain changes in that concept may occur. If the City determines that any such changes require additional public comment due to potential impacts on surrounding property or the community, a public hearing shall be held on any proposed changes in the Concept Plan, notice shall be provided as may be required by the City. 3.2 Except for the limitations and allowances expressly set forth above and the other terms of this Agreement, the Property can be developed and used consistent with the Business Park District land uses allowed by the Eagle City Code Section 8-2-3 "Official Schedule of District Regulations", existing at the time a design review Page 5 of 13 K:1Planning Dcpt\Eagle AppticationADr12007\DR-93-07 land cid:dna application or conditional use permit application (whichever the case may be) is made for individual building use. All uses shown as "P" permitted under the 13P zoning designation within Eagle City Code Section 8-2-3 "Official Schedule of District Regulations," shall be considered permitted uses and all uses shown as "C" conditional uses under the MU zoning designation shall require a conditional use permit. The following use which is shown as "C" conditional uses under the MU zoning designation within Eagle City Code Section 8-2-3 "Official Schedule of District Regulations," shall be permitted uses on the Property: • Storage (enclosed building) 3.3 The Applicant shall remove the residence and all accessory (secondary) structures from the site prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site. Demolition permits shall be obtained prior to the removal of said buildings. 3.4 Provided that vehicles (RVs, trailers, automobiles, etc.) are stored within enclosed garages, the facility is permitted to store said vehicles. in excess of the maximum 20% allowed by Eagle City Code. 3.5 The driveway providing access to East Hill Road approximately thirty feet (30') west of the eastern boundary shall be used for emergency access only by securing the access with a wrought iron gate. 3.6 Landscape buffering and siting of the self -storage facility shall be designed to mitigate the effects of the development on adjacent residences. All new construction shall be setback from the eastern and southern property lines a minimum of ten -feet (10') and those setback areas shall be landscaped with dense plant material to be reviewed and approved by design review. 3.7 The building configuration (footprint) shall remain substantially as shown on the attached Site Plan (Exhibit "A"). 3.8 The design of the self -storage facility shall incorporate architectural elements (materials, colors, appurtenances) upon the building walls, with an emphasis on those facing Hill Road to deter the construction of a monoplane structure and shall remain substantially as shown on the attached Building Elevation Plans (Exhibit "B"). No portion of any building shall exceed 35 -feet in height, as measured from the foundation to the peak of the roof. 3.9 The applicant shall construct a five-foot (5') wide meandering concrete sidewalk along Hill Road abutting the northern boundary of the site. 3.10 The Applicant shall submit a Design Review application for the site to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3.11 The development shall comply with the Eagle City Code, as it exists in final form at the time an application is made and the conditions within this agreement shall be satisfied. 3.12 The Applicant's property shall be annexed into the Eagle Sewer District's service boundaries and shall comply with all applicable Eagle Sewer District's regulations and conditions prior to the issuance of a building permit for this site. Page 6 of 13 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications1Dr120071DR-93-071and drf doc 3.13 The applicant shall obtain permission of the property owner to the south so that the fence on the southern property line may be repaired (if permission is not granted, then the repairs noted herein shall not be required). The fence shall be repaired to ensure that posts are located on the property line, the panels are tightened so as to not bow out, and the panels are secured to the fence posts with a minimum of three metal tie downs per post. 3.14 The City will not adopt an ordinance to rezone the property until the property line dispute is resolved regarding the southern boundary line adjacent to the property located at 9605 North Horseshoe Bend Road. C. ZONING CODE PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: • Eagle City Code Section 8 -2A -6(A)(5) Utilities: Utility service systems shall not detract from building or site design. Cable, electrical, and telephone service systems shall be installed underground, and the design review board shall consider: a. Size and location of all service systems for appropriate appearance and maintenance accessibility; b. The location and design of transformers, pad mount and roof mounted mechanicals and electrical equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the design review board. All roof mounted mechanicals shall be completely screened from view through the use of a parapet wall when utilizing a flat roof design or shall be enclosed within the building when utilizing a roof design other than a flat roof. "Screened from view" shall mean "not visible" at the same level or elevation of the parapet wall (e.g., the perspective generally as shown on an elevation plan); • Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-6(B)(1)(g) Masonry: brick, natural rock/stone, synthetic stone, decorative block. Smooth face block for accent only, ten percent (10%) maximum wall coverage (per each facade); • Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-6(B)(1)(k) Metal: metal siding shall be anodized, shall have a concealed fastener system, shall have a silicon polyester finish or equivalent, and shall include special design treatments to enhance its appearance. These treatments may include brick or masonry wainscot treatments along exterior walls and accent colored metals. Metal siding is prohibited on the portion of any building facing a road. This includes sections within the front facade that may be perpendicular to the road but within the face of the building oriented towards the road. Page 7 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle ApplcationsDDA20071DR-93-07 land drf doe • Eagle City Code Section 8 -2A -7(C)(1) Retention Of Existing Trees: Existing trees shall be retained unless removal is approved in writing by the city. Where trees are approved by the city to be removed from the project site (or from abutting right of way) replacement with an acceptable species is required as follows: Existing Tree Replacement 1 inch to 6 inches caliper 2x caliper of tree removed 6 1/4 inches to 12 inches 1.5x caliper of tree removed 12 1/4 inches or more lx caliper of tree removed • Eagle City Code Section 8 -2A -7(C)(2) Damage During Construction: Existing trees or shrubs that are retained shall be protected from damage to bark, branches, or roots during construction. Construction or excavation occurring within the drip line of any public or private retained tree or shrub may severely damage the tree or shrub. Any severely damaged tree or shrub shall be replaced in accordance with subsection C1 of this section. • Eagle City Code Section 8-4-4-2(2 & 3) 2. Any lights used to illuminate a site shall be arranged to reflect the light away from the adjoining property. 3. Except as noted in subsection A4 of this section, all site lighting shall be recessed or shielded to direct all light downward and the source of the light (including the lamp and any nonopaque material/lens covering the lamp) shall not be directly visible by a person of average height standing on the property line of any public right of way, or any private street, or on the property line of any residentially zoned parcel of land or parcel of land used for residential purposes. D. DISCUSSION: • The four (4) enclosed storage buildings proposed to be constructed with this application are the second and final phase of Storage 55. The architectural style, exterior lighting, colors, and materials proposed to be used in the construction of these buildings will match those approved and used in phase one (DR -44-05). • There are fifteen (15) existing trees on this site of which the applicant is proposing to remove six (6) of these trees from the site. Per Eagle City Code, existing trees shall be retained unless removal is approved in writing by the City. Where trees are approved by the City to be removed from the project site replacement with an acceptable species is required as follows: Existing Tree Replacement 1 inch to 6 inches caliper 2x caliper of tree removed 6 1/4 inches to 12 inches 1.5x caliper of tree removed 12 1/4 inches or more lx caliper of tree removed Per the above mentioned replacement calculation the applicant would be required to replace ninety (90) caliper inches of tree for the removal of the six (6) trees. The City Forester has provided a report on the health and value of all the trees located on this site. The landscape plan, date stamped by the City on December 31, 2007, shows an additional eighty six (86) trees installed at the site. Total caliper inches of the trees to be installed are 258 inches, or 168 caliper inches beyond what is required to replace the trees the applicant intends to remove. The additional 168 caliper inches installed by the applicant will satisfy the requirement. Page 8 of 13 K:1Planning DeptlEaglc Applications1Dr120071DR-93-07 land drf.doc • Staff defers comment regarding building design and colors to the Design Review Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED Nionruol THE REPORT: Based upon the information provided to staff to date, staff recommends approval with the site specific conditions of approval and the standard conditions of approval provided within the staff report. PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD: A. A meeting was held on the application before the Design Review Board on February 14, 2008, at which time the Board made their decision. B. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Design Review Board by no one. C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Design Review Board by no one (not including the applicant/representative). BOARD DECISION: The Board voted 4 to 0 (Whittaker and Grubb absent) to approve DR -93-07 for a design review application to construct a storage facility for Storage 55 (Phase II) for Jeffery Mower, with the following staff recommended site specific conditions of approval and standard conditions of approval with text shown with strike thru to be deleted by the Board and text shown with underline to be added by the Board. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Comply with any applicable requirements of the development agreement for RZ-05-07. 2. All ground mounted transformers, cable, and phone boxes shall be screened by landscaping per Eagle City Code. 3. Prior to the application of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a reciprocal cross access agreement with the property owner to the west. The reciprocal cross access agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be recorded in the Ada County Recorders office prior to the City issuing a zoning certificate for this site. 4. No ground mounted or roof top mechanical units are proposed for this site and none are approved. 5. for the-treesrepesed to be removed er(2, placing the dellar event of the valuation ewe eost e .- - . = _ = - . = -- • = t ir. value -441:a tress 6. Paint all electrical meters, phone boxes, etc. located on the building to match the color of the building. 7. Paint all roof vents to match the color of the roof of the building. 8. Submit payment to the City, at the time of building permit submittal, for all Engineering fees incurred for reviewing this project. 9. The applicant shall be required to comply with any applicable conditions placed on this application by the City Engineer. 10. Submit payment to the City, at the time of building g permit submittal, for the Planning and Zoning plan review. 11. No signs are proposed with this application and none are approved. Page 9 of 13 K:1Planning DeptlEaglc Applicationa\Drl20071DR-93-O7 land drf.doc 12. The applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan showing the addition of one tree species to be incorporated within the landscaping throughout the entire site. The revised landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Forester prior to the City issuing a zoning certificate for this site. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Ada County Highway District and/or the Idaho Transportation Department, including but not limited to approval of the drainage system, curbs, gutters, streets and sidewalks. A letter of approval from the highway district having jurisdiction shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 2. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare approval of the sewer and water facilities is required prior issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 3. All permits from Central District Health, Eagle Sewer District & Eagle Fire District shall be secured prior to issuance of building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 4. Written approval of all well water for any shared or commercial well shall be obtained from the Idaho Department of Water Resources shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 5. Unless septic tanks are permitted, wet line sewers will be required and the applicant will be required to furnish the City Engineer with a letter from the sewer entity serving the property, accepting the project for service, prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 6. The applicant shall submit a letter from the appropriate drainage entity approving the drainage system and/or accepting said drainage; or submit a Letter from a registered professional engineer certifying that all drainage shall be retained on-site prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. A copy of the construction drawing(s) shall be submitted with the letter. 7. The applicant shall submit plans and calculations prepared by a registered professional engineer to handle the satisfactory disposal of all storm drainage on the applicant's site. Drainage system plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. The plans shall show how swales, or drain piping, will be developed in the drainage easements. The approved drainage system shall be constructed, or a performance bond shall be submitted to the City Clerk, prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. The lot shall be so graded that all runoff runs either over the curb, or to the drainage easement and no runoff shall cross any lot line onto another lot except within a drainage easement. All design and calculations shall meet the requirements of Ada County Highway District. Construction of the storm drain disposal system shall be complete before an occupancy permit is issued. 8. No ditch, pipe or other structure or canal, for irrigation water or irrigation waste water owned by an organized irrigation district, canal company, ditch association, or other irrigation entity, shall be obstructed, routed, covered or changed in any way unless such obstruction, rerouting, covering or changing has first been approved in writing by the entity. A Registered Engineer shall certify that any ditch rerouting, piping, covering or otherwise changing the existing irrigation or waste ditch (1) has been made in such a manner that the flow of water will not be impeded or increased beyond carrying capacity of the downstream ditch; (2) will not otherwise injure any person or persons using or interested in such ditch or their property; and (3) satisfied the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction. A copy of such written approval and certification shall be filed with the construction Page 10 of 13 K:1Planning DcptlEagle App1cations1Dr120071DR-93-07 land drfdoe drawing and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 9. Street light plans shall be submitted and approved as to the location, height and wattage to the City Engineer (if applicable) prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. All construction shall comply with the City's specifications and standards. The applicant shall provide a recorded easement, acceptable to the City Engineer, for the purpose of installing and maintaining street light fixtures, conduit and wiring lying outside any dedicated public right-of-way, prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. The applicant shall pay applicable street light inspection fees prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 10. Parking lot light plan shall be submitted and approved as to the location, height and wattage by the City Engineer. All construction shall comply with the City's specifications and standards. Lighting is required in the parking area and shall be properly illuminated to avoid accidents. Any lights used to illuminate the parking lot shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from the adjoining property. 11. The parking area shall be paved and shall be maintained in good condition without holes and free of all dust, trash, weeds and other debris. 12. One set of building plans, for any non single-family residential use, shall be submitted to the Eagle Fire Department for approval. An approval letter from the Eagle Fire Department shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. The letter shall include the following comments and minimum requirements, and any other items of concern as may be determined by the Eagle Fire Department officials: a. "The applicant has made arrangements to comply with all requirements of the Fire Department." b. The fire hydrant locations shall be reviewed and be approved in writing by the Eagle Fire Department prior to the City Engineer signing the fmal plat. c. Minimum flow per hydrant shall be 1,000 gallons per minute for one and two family dwellings, 1,500 gallons per minute for dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3,600 square feet, and 1,500 gallons per minute for non-residential uses (i.e.; Commercial, Industrial, Schools, etc.). Flow rates shall inspected in accordance with all agencies having jurisdiction, and shall be verified in writing by the Eagle Fire Department prior to issuance of any building permits or certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. d. The proposed fire protection system shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 13. Any recreation area, greenbelt area or pathway area along the Boise River, Dry Creek or any other area designated by the City Council or Eagle City Park and Pathway Development Committee for a path or walkway shall be approved in writing by the Eagle City Park and Pathway Development Committee prior to issuance of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 14. Conservation, recreation and river access easements (if applicable) shall be approved by the Eagle City Park and Pathway Development Committee and shall be shown on the final plat prior to issuance of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 15. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Eagle City Code, pertaining to floodplain and river protection regulations (if applicable) prior to issuance of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 16. The applicant shall obtain written approval of the development relative to the effects of the Boise River Flood Plain (if applicable) from the Corps. of Engineers prior to issuance of a building permit or Page 11 of 13 K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications1Dr120071DR-93-071and drf.doe Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 17. The applicant shall obtain approval of the development relative to its effects on wetlands or other natural waterways (if applicable) from the Corps. of Engineers and the Idaho Department of Water Resources and/or any other agency having jurisdiction prior to issuance of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 18. Basements in the flood plain are prohibited. 19. The Americans with Disabilities Act, Uniform Building Code, Eagle City Code, and all applicable County, State and Federal Codes and Regulations shall be complied with. All design and construction shall be in accordance with all applicable City of Eagle Codes unless specifically approved by the City Council. 20. New plans, which incorporate any required changes, shall be submitted for staff approval. Staff may elect to take those plans to the Design Review Board and the City Council for review and approval. 21. Any changes to the plans and specifications upon which this approval is based, other than those required by the above conditions, will require submittal of an application for modification and approval of that application prior to commencing any change. 22. Any modification of the approved design review plans, including, but not limited to building design, location and details, landscaping, parking, and circulation, must be approved prior to construction/ installation of such changes. Failure to do so may result in the requirement to modify the project to comply with the approved design review and/or result in the inability to issue a final approval for occupancy of this project. 23. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the City of Eagle of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 24. Approval of any Design Review shall expire without notice to the applicant on the date of expiration of the Design Review if construction has not started prior to that date, as stipulated in Eagle City Code (one year from the City Council approval date). 25. All ground -mounted accent lighting fixtures and monument sign lighting fixtures shall be screened from view with the use of landscaping (top of the fixture shall be no higher than the surrounding landscaping). The light source itself shall otherwise be screened as provided for within Eagle City Code. 26. The City's actions on the application does not grant the applicant any appropriation of water or interference with existing water rights. The applicant indemnifies and holds the City harmless for any and all water rights, claims in any way associated with this application. Page 12 of 13 K:1Plann ng DeptlEagle Applicationa1Dr120071DR-93-07 land dr£doc CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on December 31, 2007. 2. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on January 7, 2008, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. 3. The Board reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed design review application (DR -93-07) with regard to the Eagle City Code Title 8, Chapter 2, Article A, DR Design Review Overlay District, and based upon the information provided with the conditions required herein, concludes that the proposed design review application is in accordance with the Eagle City Code and the Eagle Comprehensive Plan. 4. Will, in fact, constitute a permitted use as established in Eagle City Code Title 8, Chapter 2, Section 3, for the BP -DA (Business Park with development agreement) zoning district. DATED this 28th day of February 2008. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF EAGLE Ada Counlvdaho Eric R. McCullough, Chairman ATTEST: Aktr`h-Ai bAi6AA_t69.4 Sharon K. Bergmann, Eagle City CIerk Page 13 of 13 K 1Planaing Dept\Eagle Appliations1Dr120071DR-93-07 land drf.doc *• �' ice; • �• • * . :. SEAL : OF 19 titi�ilti \N " ' T _L Iv i\ r L . • , • < FI-IASE ONE 1) IMO. aim, P1-4,4SE TWO OHp E'.iC;.F_ 3 2C37 F..c)Ltte to• '•�_ - -`.iso 8 • -...fiEN1Vtitrit FILED ;;¢I1 Otx f:AGLE JUL 6.7 2005 Route to* to* •'---';;;L:zzo .81'09.02-E 199.51• _.b 1\ - I I • VI �'9+• i .i l_ L i i \ i I I I , •,I I I r- I SEEPAGE BED,' ISD-.04E1 iEFfu-SD1 '• ' 1 I I ,1 '• 1 1 I -1 .- 1 1 - ii i _- ------16L SZ 1 f ------ 1 I 1 I I I f I 1 I L 1 I I I I 1 I --- - _ -h I I I 1 IJ�NL -- -- - I - - F189't2'2t'W -52933=------ .----- -� ---•--2579•- - co SEEPAGE BED SToRArwE 5 '-NP,ss Z. -------------- J 0. 15' II I I L 1- +• ZO• PROJECT• btoragle5D DATE RBNSION 1 i4EE� I 1.1r •••••••• ,,.-fili:.? 41. •••• .... illi Ffi !I (Op tri;: --1-. ......4E-7.11E:Tl ili i..: *k.::.1:.. .1.1.1.11:14-1 f.lIN.TE4-1., III 1 i 1::EE--.-f11::71::::16;;;t.-: 11306160 nem -.....1 . -.• .---. ......."--".' ,...s,....5e...............-- '-;.. . 1 .. .. "",.. .N. -'•--..„.-44,.., -N3-kiP N.... \ ---,:.?? ' .... N. --...... 1 ...,:1‘...., lir 1111411.4.K .........,„........ 1 ...,'...',.... 4 '....„ ''',.... '.......--,42.. ...."---.-• _..; ...,... --......... ........-, - '""...............1 ......-- ..- MAT MCI MI" 1:.:.1 OFFI DODO .1•11401 FMCS • Matia.,MOD Aii \ • • • WC I -- CI —1- aILII4MOTO 0 twat lise• 004:2.1.0i IMALEEDVA3 .; 111111111.TEM rEB oar up. N89.42 26"H' .30/.93 Jer444.11./ PAY4.4.1 1.1-14.te .4.0.41•10 Pow,. I 1 irbizoGgie• ss ?Mae 'IC PI,OE 4:4111112 • 74111WIT Peel ••••••••,1,1,11- • ••••••••..•••••-••./.4111,111. IT IS SO ORDERED, this day of March 2008. Phil Bandy Mayor ORDER GRANTING APPEAL - 2 K:1Pianning DeptWagle Applications APPEALS120081AA-01-08 final order.doc ATTEST: Sharon K. Bergmann Eagle City Clerk CC 3IuIoB INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning Administration z, 8 To: Mayor Bandy and City Council From: Michael Williams, PCED, Planner II Subject: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-01-07/RZ-01-07 & PP -01- 07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R -2 -DA and Preliminary Plat for Dwayne Lingel Subdivision (aka Adonai Subdivision) — Dwayne Lingel Date: March 11, 2008 Attachment(s): Letter from T. Hethe Clark with Spink Butler date stamped by the City on March 11, 2008 Copy To: Dwayne Lingel, 9344 West Cory Lane, Boise, Idaho 83704 Spink Butler, LLP, Attn: Hethe Clark, 251 East Front Street, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho 83702 The applicant is requesting the Findings and Conclusions of Law be approved so the applicant may move forward with a modification to the rezone Conditions of Development. Page 1 of 1 K:\Planning Dept'Eagle Applications\SUBS120071Dwayne Lingel me 13.doc March 10, 2008 Via E -Mail and U.S. ?vlail City of Eagle Planning & Zoning Department Attn: Nlicliael J. Williams P. O. Box 1520 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE MAR 1 pjerd H. Andrus Rojl.44;.eUuuer Lauren Masers Keyncluaull Michael T. Spink (208) 388-3327 hctarki3sb-attornevs coni RE: Adonai Subdivision—Annexation, Rezone, and Preliminary Plat Applications (Eagle City Files A-01-07, RZ-01-07, and PP -01-07) SB File No. 22493.2 Dear Mike: As you know, we represent Dwayne and Stacie Lingel who made the applications referenced above in connection with the 5.7 -acre Adonai Subdivision located approximately 1,200 feet south of Beacon Light and immediately east of Park Lane. For the benefit of the new Council members reading this letter, I have enclosed a copy of the approved preliminary plat for Adonai Subdivision. These applications were approved by the then -Council several months ago but the Findings and Conclusions N•vere not signed, at our clients' request, pending further discussions with staff. The delay was because the Council modified some of the conditions of approval in a manner inconsistent with the circumstances surrounding the applications and our clients were considering whether to withdraw their applications. Given our discussions with staff, it appears there is a way that our clients and the City can continue to work together and process these applications. 251E FRONT STREET SUITE 200 RCA Box G39 BOISE. IOAI-lO 83701 208-388-1000 208-388-1001 (1') WWW SPINKIBUTLER.COM 2008 City of Eagle Planning & Zoning Department March 10, 2008 Page 2 Although you know the details, to repeat for the new Council members, the then -Council modified conditions to require that our clients share their irrigation water with subdivisions proposed to the east of our clients' property through a joint irrigation system. Of course, these were, and remain, impossible conditions to meet. Our clients have never had agreement with adjacent property owners to share irrigation water or to construct and operate a joint irrigation system. Since the then -Council's deliberations, the developers of the proposed subdivisions to the east have, moved forward with their individual developments just as our clients hope to do. We have been working with staff on a possible modification to our clients' approved subdivision, which would add open space and an irrigation water storage pond on land immediately north of Adonai Subdivision that our clients' control. A diagram of that open space and pond previously provided to staff is enclosed. Because the additional open space and pond do not alter the existing Adonai Subdivision common space, amenities, or lot lines, staff has indicated that they could treat the modification as an insubstantial change to the approved plat. Of course, the modification application, which can be made in the very near future, would also request that the impossible conditions of approval be deleted. Our clients are looking forward to working with you on this modification but we understand there is some unfinished business to be wrapped up -- the Findings and Conclusions from the previous Council's deliberations need to be signed. We understand that these Findings are scheduled on the Council's consent agenda for tomorrow evening. We appreciate staff's (and the City's legal counsel's) determination that, technically, these Findings and Conclusions must be signed prior to the staff considering our clients' modification application. However, we hope the City can understand and appreciate our clients' deep concern that the technicality of signing the Findings and Conclusions prior to consideration of the modification will have the effect of imposing impossible conditions on our clients and also have the effect of annexing and rezoning our clients' property. This poses a difficult hurdle for our clients. Nonetheless, we believe that hurdle can be overcome if the City wiil sign its Findings but hold in abeyance the annexation and rezone of our clients' property until the modification application has been heard and, hopefully, approved. If the City cannot, or will not, make this short-term accommodation, our clients likely will be compelled to withdraw their applications. City of Eagle Planning & Zoning Department March 10, 2008 Page 3 We hope that will not he the case so that we can look forward to continued cooperation with the City of Eagle and its staff. Very truly yours, T. Hethe Clark THC:kah Enclosures c: Eagle City Council (via e-mail) Dwayne and Stacie Lingel (via e-mail) Van Elg (via e-mail) David Koga (via e-mail) Susan Buxton (vin e-mail) Paul Fitzer (via e-mail) Ted Vanegas (via e-mail) • a a • • •111"r • • 4141 • • • 4 ® • • • • • • • • • 41141 1114/411P0 • 4P1 P •••••ii•i i i i i 4.4111,41164* L 8 1 1 b PIMP 77. • OWN MINED rwt.O. MUMS rd • MI lei pin rr,M1 rr OOMPLIf 1 MCI SSS. S1/♦ .. IL MAS aS; ••fr :m. f dons lit IOOtD-t•.Ir+.•.fa. RS /germO�R Nag= Of1112I100M? Atm J L�•QOy ammo. Y•• MUM Id O. OM Y r•dor room ••M rmpr•1nom I.II•^1 WO. _+ .1. MN A.•R roma IIII•.•M•• GNI NMI •••1111=1•11 w wf•M•11110Zvrl 01,==1, MIL L up. v..d .. A up.. f►f•M•R M.. u. MR Arr•R•w. rflrwi a••flimo IP t� ffl fr.fl. f a M •NOS • ao. • MIr..••• R..IRIM ORIN R♦r f lrtMOM Y, Amim• /MN .•INO•0 Mfr•r E.. • =r�� WNW f• t ffi rS2SIM MwM� • VIsI<YAaQf War7 ` • = M. :w.=• wi•�:Sw.r.�••w • s Pad.to Ai • �s.ivaw.f�r" •iGQ?aLY..itJitg p R EXIMMANIMage9 2".4.7Tr==n.im M0111"81:415WE 1 1 A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ADONAI SUBDIVISION A PARCEL OP LAND LOCATED IX SECTION 1, TOJ'NSiIIP 4 NORTH, .RANGE 1 HEST, BO1SE MERIDIAN, ADA COMM: IDAHO, 2007 •M..r•roar r • OLOC.. •W N. u � 7I. • V. did W. ?LSCI 3 11.7.1 V. LA of. 1•.8 L. •11K wa •. Obi { • i , • • • • w rN.1 Lingel (Adonai) -- Plat As Requested By P & Z `r.�M •wry wlr. f •4 frp •rr`w7 �. cz =Y• .i N.CRt LSA brro Mlt Aebw •A•. �•.. f>!!•. r•w w goo . _ rxrt oiNO MOTOR it oda. sr op, ... .•.. �.,... tr ticeeria. W. rw.�..••wwwR r.r s r.•A .1 CD'1 UM r � Page 10 Conceptual Pond Addition Scale: 1"=-50'0" Pond Volume - 2.3 Acre Feet Footprint - A3 Acrei 289