Findings - CC - 2010 - A-4-09 & RZ-04-09 - Annex & Rezone From Rut To Mu-Da 110.56 Acres W Chinden & S Meridian Rd
ORIGI
I
I
'"-
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION )
FOR AN ANNEXATION AND REZONE )
FROM RUT (RURAL-URBAN TRANSITION) )
TO MU-DA (MIXED USE WITH A )
DEVELOPMENTAGREEMEN~FOR )
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER A-4-09 & RZ-04-09
The above-entitled annexation and rezone applications came before the Eagle City Council for their action
on December 15, 2009, at which time public testimony was taken and the public hearing was continued to
January 12,2010. The public hearing was again continued to February 9,2010, and again to February 23,
2010, at which time additional limited public testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed. At
this time the City Council scheduled a mediation session for this item on March 2, 2010, and continued the
applications to March 9, 2010, they made their decision at that time. The Eagle City Council, having heard
and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, makes the following Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law;
FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. PROJECT SUMMARY:
Capital Development, Inc., represented by Dave Y orgason is requesting approval of an
annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition-Ada County Designation) to
MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement in lieu of a PUD). The 11 0.56-acre
site is generally located on the west side of S. Meridian Road and the north side of W.
Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20/26) approximately 835 feet west of S. Meridian Road.
B. APPLICA TION SUBMITTAL:
A Neighborhood Meeting was held at 6:00 PM, March 24, 2009, at the Foxtail Golf
Course Maintenance Barn at 6479 N. Fox Run Avenue, Meridian, ID, 83646, in
compliance with the application submittal requirement of Eagle City Code. The
application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 27, 2009.
C. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission was published in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code and the Eagle City Code on May 25,2009. Notice of this public hearing was
mailed to property owners within three-hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in
accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City
Code on May 29, 2009. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on
June 1, 2009. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on April 30, 2009, in
accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code.
On July 13,2009, the Planning and Zoning Commission remanded the application to staff.
Re-notice of Pubic Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission was published in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65,
Page 1 of 24
K\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccf Y orgason.doc
Idaho Code and the Eagle City in the Idaho Statesman on October 3, 2009, and in the
Valley Times on October 5, 2009. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property
owners within three-hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in accordance with the
requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on October 6,
2009. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on October 6,2009.
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle City Council was published in
accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City
Code on November 30, 2009. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property
owners within three-hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in accordance with the
requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on November 25,
2009. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on December 2, 2009.
D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
On January 16, 2007, the Eagle City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment
(CP A-09-06) from Transitional Residential (Ada County designation) to Professional
Office for a portion of this original site.
On March 27, 2007, the Eagle City Council approved an annexation and rezone from
RUT (Rural-Urban Transition - Ada County designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with
Development Agreement) and preliminary plat for Castlebury West Business Park for
Capital Development, Inc. The 8.52-acre site is located on the northwest comer of West
Chinden Boulevard (SH 20/26) and North Meridian Road at 6615 North Meridian Road
(A-19-06/RZ-25-06 and PP-19-06).
On August 28, 2007, the Eagle City Council approved the final plat for Castlebury West
Business Park No.1 for Capital Development, Inc. (FP-08-07).
On March 11, 2008, the Eagle City Council approved the final plat for Castlebury
Business Park No.2 for Capital Development, Inc. (FP-OI-08).
On December 16, 2008, the Eagle City Council approved CP A-5-08 & A-03-08 & RZ-8-
08, a Comprehensive Plan Map and Text amendment changing the land use designation
on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Mixed Use and Professional Office to
Commercial for the property located on the northeast comer of Linder Road and Chinden
Boulevard (US 20/26). This action also approved an annexation (once the property is
contiguous to Eagle City limits) and a rezone with development agreement from RUT
(Rural Urban Transition) to C-3-DA (Highway Business District with a Development
Agreement).
On November 25,2009, the Eagle City Council approved a de-annexation of this property
(Ordinance 614).
E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: All applications are inclusive herein.
Page 2 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMPPLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
Existing Transitional Residential RUT (Rural-Urban Agriculture
Transition-Ada County
Designation)
Proposed No Change MU-DA (Mixed Use with Residential and commercial
Development Agreement) mixed use development
North ofsite Residential Estates RUT (Rural-Urban Residential subdivision
Transition-Ada County (Winward River Heights
Designation) Subdivision)
South of site Transitional Residential, RUT (Rural-Urban Agriculture, CastIebury
Professional Office and Transition-Ada County Business Park and Foxtail
City of Meridian Area of Designation), MU-DA Subdivision
Impact (Mixed Use with a
development agreement) and
Rl (Residential- Ada
County designation),
East of site Residential Estates and R-l (Residential up to one Church of Latter Day Saints
Residential One unit per acre), R-E and Residential (Cast1ebury
(Residential-Estates up to one West and Sugarberry
unit per two acres) Subdivisions)
West of site Public/Semi-Public Rl and RUT (Residential and Golf course (proposed
(proposed Mixed Use) and Rural-Urban Transition-Ada mixed use development)
Transitional Residential County Designation) and single family
residential (Foxtail
Subdivision)
G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT:
Not located within the DDA, TDA, CEDA, or DSDA.
H. TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: +/- 110.56 acres
I. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONE:
See applicant's justification letter dated April 24, 2009 (incorporated herein by reference).
J. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
See applicant's justification letter dated April 24, 2009 (incorporated herein by reference).
K. GENERAL SITE DESIGN FEATURES:
Open Space:
Since the applicant is requesting a rezone to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development
agreement in lieu of a PUD) a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the residential gross
land area will be required for open space pursuant to Eagle City Code.
Page 3 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
Storm Drainage and Flood Control:
Specific drainage system plans for the entire development are to be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat. The
plans are to show how swales, or drain piping, will be developed in the drainage
easements. Also, the CC&R's are to contain clauses to be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer and City Attorney, requiring that lots be so graded that all runoff runs either
over the curb, or to the drainage easement, and that no runoff shall cross any lot line onto
another lot except within a drainage easement.
On-site Septic System (yes or no) - no
The applicant will be required to construct a central sewer system at the time of
development.
Preservation of Existing Natural Features:
Eagle City Code Section 9-3-8 (B) states that existing natural features which add value to
residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees,
watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable assets) shall be preserved in the
design of the subdivision.
Preservation of Existing Historical Assets:
Staff is not aware of any existing historical assets on the site. If any historical artifacts are
discovered during excavation or development of the site, state law requires immediate
notification to the state.
L. STREET DESIGN:
Public Streets:
The applicant provided a Concept Plan date stamped by the City on May 27, 2009,
showing connectivity and access (i.e. stub streets) between the development and adjacent
properties with the exception of the property adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.
Street design and street sections will be reviewed at the time of submittal of platting.
Sidewalks:
The Concept Plan date stamped by the City on May 27, 2009, does not show any
sidewalks within the development. As a condition of approval during the platting
sidewalks adjacent to the streets will be required
Street Names: There are no new streets proposed with this development.
M. ON AND OFF-SITE PEDESTRIANIBICYCLE CIRCULATION:
Pedestrian Walkways:
The Concept Plan date stamped by the City on May 27, 2009, does not show any
pathways within the development. Proposed pathways will be reviewed during the platting
review and approval process.
Bike Paths: None proposed - will be addressed during the platting and review approval process.
N. A V AILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
Within the rezone justification letter dated April 24, 2009, the applicant has indicated that
United Water Company has a twelve-inch (12") water line located parallel to Chinden
Boulevard. United Water Company has a well located on Lot 3, Block 1, of Foxtail
Subdivision.
Page 4 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
Engineering Northwest, LLC, (representing Eagle Sewer District), provided a memo dated
May 19, 2009, indicating Eagle Sewer District has sewer capacity for 480 equivalent
residential units (ERU's) inclusive of 257 ERU's for the Y orgason parcel in the area north
of State Highway 20/26 between Meridian Road and Linder Road.
O. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists.
P. NON-CONFORMING USES: None
Q. SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - no
Evidence of Erosion - no
Fish Habitat - no
Floodplain - no
Mature Trees - no
Riparian Vegetation - no
Steep Slopes - no
Stream/Creek - no
Unique Animal Life - unknown
Unique Plant Life - unknown
Unstable Soils - no
Wildlife Habitat - no
R. NON-CONFORMING USES: none
S. AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached tot he staff
report and is incorporated herein by reference. Comments, which appear to be of special
concern, are noted below:
Ada County Highway District - Provided site specific requirements that the District may require
when it reviews a future development application.
Central District Health - No objections to the proposal
Chevron Pipeline - No conflicts with the pipeline
Department of Environmental Quality - Recommended verifying that there is adequate water and
sewer to serve the project
Engineering Northwest, LLC (representing Eagle Sewer District) - Provided information on sewer
capacity for the area (480 equivalent residential units [ERU'sj) and indicated concerns regarding
certain commercial uses.
Idaho Transportation Department - Recommended prohibiting direct access to US 20 (Chinden
Boulevard) and requesting a 100' setback to accommodate future widening
Meridian Fire Department - Indicated requirements for minimum levels of fire protection pursuant
to International Fire Code
T. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC (attached to the staff report and incorporated herein by
reference):
Mimi Plumb stated in correspondence, date stamped by the City on July 6, 2009, that the
Page 5 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccf Y orgason.doc
density shown on the submitted plan is far too great. As proposed, the development will
not be in harmony with the existing area. Ms. Plumb goes on to state that it appears the
proposed annexation and rezone is to provide an annexation pathway to the proposed Fred
Meyer property located at the northeast comer of Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20/26)
and Linder Road.
Larry Slider stated in an email, date stamped by the City on July 13, 2009, that the
homeowners in the area are concerned with the proposed density in the area and that Eagle
should not allow one (1) acre home sites to be located across the street from an area which
allows up to eight (8) units per acre. They are also in opposition to changing the
Comprehensive Plan every time a developer has a new idea.
Dana Erdman stated in correspondence, date stamped by the City on July 27, 2009, that
development in this area will affect their life at home, value of their home, and their
neighbor's lives and home values. They went on to state that development is inevitable,
but developers should take into consideration the area already established.
Judith Erdman stated in correspondence, date stamped by the City on September 8, 2009,
that the proposed density is too high and the area should be zoned Agricultural-Residential
since they were assured years ago that the transition area would ensure two (2) acre size
parcels next to the existing five (5) acre parcels.
Larry and Lee Swider stated in correspondence, date stamped by the City on October 13,
2009, that they are concerned with traffic congestion, sound and light pollution resulting
from the planned unit development. They are also concerned with the minimal transition
areas from high density commercial space to estate type homes.
Larry Sandusky stated in correspondence, date stamped by the City on October 15, 2009,
that the proposed density will cause unacceptable impacts to existing neighborhoods. He
further states that the City of Eagle should not be annexing additional commercial and
residential capacity that requires more planning investment amid uncertain prospects of
revenue recapture.
The following correspondences were received after October 15, 2009, and are incorporated herein
by reference.
E-mail from Larry Swider, 7176 N. Springcrest Place, date stamped by the City on
October 19,2009.
E-mail from Richard and Joyce Cooke, 1376 W. Sandy Court, date stamped by the City on
October 19, 2009.
Email from Brian Schlador, date stamped by the City on October 19,2009.
Correspondence from Lynn Trosper, 7110 N. Springcrest Place, date stamped by the City
on October 19, 2009.
Correspondence from Scott Trosper, 7110 N. Springcrest Place, date stamped by the City
on October 19,2009.
Correspondence and a power point presentation from Dan Rozsa, 593 W. Gray Fox Court,
date stamped by the City on October 19, 2009.
Page 6 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN 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 Transitional Residential.
Residential Transition
Residential development that provides for a transition of density within the planning area
while keeping in context the density, scaling and lot sizes of existing or proposed uses.
Commonly requires changes in lot dimensions and scaling, see specific planning area text
for a complete description.
6.6 Implementation Strategies
1. Require design treatments to provide compatibility of new development with
existing development by considering such issues as building orientation, increased
setbacks, height limitations, size restrictions, design requirements, fencing,
landscaping or other methods as determined through the development review
process.
6.8.8 Rim View Planning Area (approved December 18, 2007)
The Rim View Planning Area contains a large amount of existing residential uses that
have been developed as one-acre and five-acre lots through the Ada County development
process. The future land uses in the area are predicated on Linder Road being the only
Eagle City river crossing between Eagle Road and Star Road, and the need to buffer and
preserve the existing residential developments, and the need to provide commercial
opportunities along the regional transportation corridors south of the Boise River.
Because of the alignment of the State Highway 16 crossing moving further to the west (to
McDermott), no clear funding option or time line for the SH 16 crossing, and recent
changes in nearby city limit boundaries (Meridian), the previously planned regional
commercial area at Black Cat no longer is a viable location for the City of Eagle.
a. Uses
The land use and development policies specific to the Rim View Planning Area
include the following:
1. A forty acre commercial area located at the northeast comer of the
intersection of Chin den Boulevard and Linder Road is to be designed and
developed as a unit. This commercial area is intended to serve the Eagle
community as a gateway into town before crossing the river.
2. Areas designated as Transitional Residential should have a residential
density of up to I-unit per acre. Units may be clustered to provide for
transitional lot sizes to ensure compatibility of new residential uses to
existing residential uses and the commercial and office uses located at
Linder Road and Chinden.
Page 7 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccf Yorgason.doc
3. Patio home styles and alternative lot sizes may be allowed in conjunction
with exiting open space and recreation areas located in the Rim View
Area. The patio homes and townhouses may be located near the
commercial area.
b. Access
Access to the area should focus on new internal linkages.
Primary access should be on Linder Road with limited access onto Chinden
Boulevard only in accordance with ITD's access management policies. All
accesses should be designed to allow traffic to flow through the area connecting
Meridian Road to Linder Road may provide the opportunity of future east/west
residential collector linkage within the planning area. Cross-access and local stub
streets should be used to allow the planning area to be interconnected without the
need to access the arterial and state highway network.
Internal and interconnected circulation should be used to move traffic within the
non-residential area, helping to mitigateJhe number of local vehicle trips entering
State Highway 20/26 to access commercial/services use along Linder Road.
Chinden Boulevard should be recognized as a gateway corridor to the City of
Eagle and development should adhere to_proper berming, landscaping, and
appropriate setbacks to prevent the encroachment of abutting uses into future
corridor improvements. This would protect the viability of the regional
transportation corridor as well as buffer the abutting uses from the impacts of the
corridor.
c. Design
This area is recognized as a gateway to the City of Eagle, to be integrated with
appropriate landscaping, entry features, and place-making features in the design of
the area.
Design of this area should be compatible to the existing residential and
recreational uses currently present in the area.
Design of commercial and office uses should be compatible with the existing
residential uses and contain significant landscaped buffers to reduce impacts and
appealing building design elements to promote a cohesive character. Commercial
development should provide for pedestrian linkages to the residential areas
adjacent to the site.
Both Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road should be developed with a detached
sidewalk and planting strip adjacent to the back of curb, further solidifying the
purpose and character ofthe gateway corridor of Chinden Boulevard.
Signage for all non-residential uses should be designed to be consistent and
complimentary, with place-making being the primary objective and identification
of uses being secondary.
Non-residential areas should be designed with features and materials intended to
compliment and buffer residential uses and to avoid creating a tunnel or wall
effect along the backside of the large buildings.
Page 8 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccf Y orgason.doc
ResidentialAreas
II
Llmlted accen hlllhw8
---
d. Issues
One of the main concerns in the development of this area is the ability to properly
balanceJhe commercial uses with residential uses. New uses should be designed in a
manner that provides a cohesive transition between the commercial and residential uses,
incorporating elements that will provide a common and complimentary identity between
the two.
Considering the large amount of undeveloped or underdeveloped land within the
planning area, each proposed project should be evaluated for the potential to provide
linkages and connectivity to adjacent parcels. This is necessary to establish a
functioning local and collector roadway system to supports the regionalIy significant
roadways at the south and west of this area._
As this area develops, consideration should be made of the transitory non-farm uses that
have been approved by Ada County which may be nearing the expiration on the open
space restrictions.
8.2 Street Classifications
A roadway system must include a number of streets, each of which are designated to
handle a particular type and amount of traffic. The Community Planning Association
(COMP ASS) Functional Street Classification Map illustrates the various classifications of
roadways that are included in the Ada County roadway system. The Eagle section of the
COMP ASS Functional Street Classification Map and Regional Transportation Plan should
consider the City of Eagle Transportation/Pathway Network Maps # 1 and #2.
In general, there are several types of streets in the street hierarchy.
. Principal arterials provide major circulation and movement through urban areas and
to connect with major activity centers and freeways outside the City of Eagle.
Principal arterials are regional roadways and provide travel routes for longer trips. On-
street parking is prohibited.
Page 9 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
. Collector streets intercept traffic from local streets and carry the traffic to the nearest
arterial street. Collector streets may extend for one or more miles and serve to connect
the developed areas within a section to the arterial roadway network. Collectors may
provide access to larger parcels or developments with high trip generation. On-street
parking is typically prohibited.
. Residential collector streets intercept traffic from local streets and minor numbers of
abutting parcels and carry the traffic to a standard collector or arterial street.
Residential collectors typically extend less than one-half mile in length. Residential
collectors may provide access to local streets, multi-family developments or planned
unit developments. On-street parking may be permitted under special circumstances.
. Local streets serve to provide direct access to the abutting properties, individual
homes or small traffic generators. On-street parking is typically permitted.
8.2.1 Principal Arterial
Mobility Function:
The primary function of a principal arterial is to provide major circulation and movement
through urban areas and to connect with major activity centers and freeways. A principal
arterial may serve motorized and non-motorized transportation needs and may include up
to seven vehicular traffic lanes. On-street parking is prohibited.
Access Function:
Access from other roadways is controlled and subordinate to traffic on the principal
arterial street. Direct lot access is prohibited or severely restricted. Combined access
points are encouraged. The City's Access Management Plan should be the final
determination of any site access plan.
Right -of-Way:
As shall be determined by the Highway District having jurisdiction with recommendations
by the City and seriously considered by the Highway District.
8.2.5 Residential Collectors
Mobility Function:
The primary function of a residential collector street is to intercept traffic from local streets
and minor numbers of abutting parcels and carry the traffic to a collector or arterial street.
A secondary function is to service abutting property. The ACHD allowed length and
number of vehicle trips per day on residential collectors is less than collectors. The
residential collector street may serve motorized and non-motorized transportation needs,
and be designed with the minimum street section to accommodate the projected vehicle
volume. On-street parking may be prohibited.
Access Function:
To provide limited and controlled access to residential neighborhoods. Direct lot access is
typically restricted.
Page 10 of24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
Right-of- Way
As shall be determined by the Highway District having jurisdiction with recommendations
by the City and seriously considered by the Highway District.
8.2.6 Local Roadways
Mobility Function:
The primary function of a local street is to serve abutting property. Local streets are to be
designed to allow on-street parking and discourage continuous or unobstructed flow of
traffic through residential neighborhoods.
Access Function:
To normally provide abutting properties with unrestricted access to the local street unless
the street is a local commercial street, in which case access restrictions may apply.
Right-of- Way:
As shall be determined by the Highway District having jurisdiction with recommendations
by the City and seriously considered by the Highway District.
All roadways not classified as arterials or collectors are considered local roadways.
8.4 Goals
Public Transit Goals
Encourage the development of a local and regional public transit system. The public
transit system is to provide basic mobility for some, alternative transportation for others,
and a non-drive alone mode for everyone.
Optimize the effectiveness of public transit through supporting land use decisions.
Promote land use changes and redevelopment plans in key areas that provide densities and
activities that promote the use and efficiency of a public transit system.
Work regionally with COMPASS and Valleyride to plan for the potential of a regional rail
or bus rapid transit system. The SH-44, SH-16, SH-55 and US 20-26 corridors have the
greatest potential.
Evaluate concepts to fund the operation and expansion of the regional public transit
system and facilities.
Coordinate with the Land Use Elements of the Comprehensive Plan to establish potential
transit nodes in the future transit corridors.
Pathway System Goals
Encourage the development of a local and regional pathway system. The design of the
pathway system should be coordinated with other elements of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. The pathway system is to provide basic mobility for some and a non-drive alone
mode for everyone.
Page 11 of24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
Work regionally to integrate the pathway system with the ongoing planning and design
efforts for the SH-44, SH-16, SH-55 and US 20-26 corridors.
Support the concept and goals of demand management strategies, such as telecommuting,
ride-sharing, park-and-ride facilities, etc. to reduce overall travel demand.
. APPENDIX 1 - GLOSSARY
Transitional Density
The shifting of density within a development to allow compatibility with
existing uses adjacent to or within a site.
B. ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
THIS PROPOSAL:
. Eagle City Code, Section 8-1-2 Rules and Definitions:
Open Space
A common area platted as a separate lot (except for the portion of the 8 foot wide
landscape strip located adjacent to and within the public right of way of a local street),
substantially open to the sky, exclusive of streets, commercial and residential
buildings, and shall be designated and intended as a usable and convenient amenity
for the residences of any proposed development.
Planned Unit Development:
A development designed to incorporate a variety of lot sizes and created to
accommodate a wide range of income levels and planned to be developed as a unit
under single ownership or control which may include residential, commercial, or
office uses or any combination thereof.
. Eagle City Code, Section 8-2-1 Districts Established Purposes And Restrictions:
The following zoning districts are hereby established. For the interpretation of this title the
zoning districts have been formulated to realize the general purposes as set forth in this
title. In addition, the specific purpose of each zoning district shall be as follows:
MU MIXED USE DISTRICT: To provide for a variety and mixture of uses such as
limited office, limited commercial, and residential. This district is intended to ensure
compatibility of new development with existing and future development. It is also
intended to ensure assemblage of properties in a unified plan with coordinated and
harmonious development which shall promote outstanding design without unsightly and
unsafe strip commercial development. Uses should complement the uses allowed within
the CBD zoning district. All development requiring a conditional use permit in the
MU zoning district, as shown in section 8-2-3 of this chapter, shaU occur under the
PUD and/or development agreement process in accordance with chapter 6 or 10 of
this title unless the proposed development does not meet the area requirements as set forth
in section 8-6-5-1 of this title. In that case a cooperative development, in conjunction with
adjacent parcels (to meet the minimum area requirements), shall be encouraged. Otherwise
a conditional use permit shall be required unless the proposed use is shown as a permitted
use in the MU zoning district within section 8-2-3 of this chapter. Residential densities
shall not exceed ten (10) dwelling units per gross acre. When a property is being proposed
for rezone to the MU zoning district a development agreement may be utilized in lieu of
the PUD and/or conditional use process if approved by the city council provided the
Page 12 of24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
development agreement includes conditions of development that are required during the
PUD and conditional use process.
· Eagle City Code, Section 8-2-3 Schedule of District Use Regulations:
Residential dwellings are allowed by Conditional Use within the MU (Mixed Use) zoning
designation.
· Eagle City Code, Section 8-2-4 : Schedule of Building Height and Lot Area Regulations:
IMinimum Yard Setbacks II I
Minimum
Maximum Lot Area Minimum
Zoning Lot (Acres Or Lot
District Maximum Front Rear Interior Street Covered F Square Width 1*
Height Side Side And J* Feet) H*
I R-l 35' 1~[2QJ1 15' 1[lU1 35% I 37,000 100' I
I R-2 35' 1~[2QJ1 10' I~I 40% 17,000 75' I
I R-3 35' I~~I 7.5' I~I 40% 10,000 75' I
I MU I 35' I~~I 7.5' I~I 50% 5,000 50' I
B. Additional 5 feet per story side setback is required for multi-story structures. Height
not to exceed maximum allowed within the zone.
· Eagle City Code, Section 8-6-5, PUD, Site and Structure Regulations and Requirements:
8-6-5-2: Common Area Open Space:
A. Required Common Area Open Space: A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the
gross land area developed in any residential PUD project shall be reserved for
common area open space and recreational facilities for the residents or users of the
area being developed.
B. Active Open Space: A minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the common area open
space shall be developed as active open space, as defined in title 9 of this code.
C. Compliance: All common area open space shall be evaluated for its compliance with
the following:
1. Landscaping: Streetscape, open spaces and plazas, use of existing landscaping,
pedestrianway treatment and recreational areas;
2. Siting: Visual focal points, use of existing physical features such as topography,
view, sun and wind orientation, circulation pattern, physical environment.
D. Direct Access: A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of all lots shall be designed to be
adjacent to, or at a minimum, have direct access to common area open space. The term
"direct access" means all building lots are to be located a maximum of two hundred
fifty feet (250') away from a pathway connecting to a common area open space lot.
Building lots separated from a common area open space lot by a local roadway shall
be deemed to have achieved direct access. The required planter strip located between
the sidewalk and the street will not be permitted to fulfill this requirement.
Page 13 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason,doc
C. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
No subdivision is proposed at this time, applicant shall comply with the Subdivision
standards in effect at the time of platting.
D. DISCUSSION:
· The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this site as Transitional Residential. The
Comprehensive Plan Planning Areas map shows this area to be located within the Rim View
Planning Area. The applicant is requesting a MU-DA (Mixed Use with development
agreement) zoning designation to develop the property in a manner that will allow for higher
density adjacent to State Highway 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) while providing a transition of
larger residential lot sizes adjacent to Foxtail and Winward River Heights Subdivisions. The
Rim View Planning Area allows for transitioning of lot sizes to ensure compatibility of new
residential uses to existing residential use and the commercial and office uses currently located
or recently approved for development in the area. The Development Agreement is a
discretionary tool that may be used as a condition of rezoning to assure the proper
development of this parcel. Eagle City Code Section 8-2-1 provides that when a property is
being proposed for rezone to the MU zoning district, a development agreement may be utilized
in lieu of the PUD and/or conditional use process if approved by the City Council, provided
the development agreement includes conditions of development that are required during the
PUD and conditional use process.
· The applicant has provided a concept plan (bubble plan) date stamped by the City on May 29,
2009, showing proposed residential densities, neighborhood business area, open space
network and road network. While the concept plan provides a generalized concept of the area
it does not provide enough detail to address the conditions of development that may be
required as part of the PUD and conditional use process. The applicant should be required to
provide a more detailed concept plan to address the conditions of development that are
required during the PUD and conditional use process prior to approval of preliminary plat.
· The recently amended Comprehensive Plan text within Chapter 6 - Land Use, Rim View
Planning Area, 6.8.8(a)(2-3), states, (2) "Areas designated as Transitional Residential should
have a residential density of up to I-unit per acre. Units may be clustered to provide for
transitional lot sizes to ensure compatibility of new residential uses to existing residential uses
and the commercial and office uses located at Linder Road and Chinden." Policy (3) states,
"Patio home styles and alternative lot sizes may be allowed in conjunction with existing open
space and recreation areas located in the Rim View Area. The patio homes and townhouses
may be located near the commercial area." Previously, the Comprehensive Plan designated
residential densities in this area from 1-2 units per acre. The basis for the density at 1-2 units
per acre in this area was to ensure a transition of lot sizes to provide for larger lots adjacent to
the larger lot subdivisions to the north and Foxtail Subdivision to the south. During the
comprehensive plan amendment hearing process for Eagle Island Market Place (EIMP), the
text for the Rim View Planning Area was amended reducing the residential density in the area
from 1-2 units per acre to up to one (1) unit per acre.
The Concept Plan date stamped by the City on May 27, 2009, shows a transitioning or shifting
of density within the development which will allow for compatibility with the existing uses
adjacent to or within the site. The applicant has submitted a Proposed Community Master Plan
(concept plan), date stamped by the City on May 27, 2009, showing the +/- 110.56-acre site
with approximately three (3) acres of Neighborhood Business adjacent to Highway 20/26
(Chinden Boulevard). The remaining acres of the site shows a mix of residential densities
Page 14 of24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
varying from up to eight (8) units per acre reducing in density to up to one (1) unit per acre
adjacent to Foxtail and Winward River Heights Subdivisions. The concept plan shows the
residential area containing up to eight (8) units per acre centrally located in the southern
portion of the site adjacent to Castle bury Business Park, the proposed neighborhood business
area, and the LDS Church located on Meridian Road.
· Northwest Engineering provided a memo on behalf of the Eagle Sewer District which
indicated that a total of 410 equivalent residential units (ERU's) for sewer hookups are
available for the Yorgason (subject property), Wilson (Foxtail Golf Course) and
BundersonlBodily (adjacent to Linder Road) properties. These properties contain a majority of
the undeveloped parcels in the Rim View Planning Area. Utilizing the available 410 ERU's
available for the 205 acres of undeveloped area, the overall density for new development in the
area outside of the existing subdivisions is calculated at two (2) units per acre. The previous
language in the Comprehensive Plan, for the Rim View Planning Area stated "the residential
density of new residential uses in the area is up to 1-2 units per acre which provides for
transitional lot sizes to ensure compatibility of new residential uses to existing residential use
and the commercial and office uses located at Linder Road and Chinden." Although the
applicant is proposing a density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre, the overall density in the area
for new development (based on the available ERU's) would still meet the policies of the
previously approved comprehensive plan. Based on 410 residential ERU's for this area along
with the 68 existing residential units (located within three (3) subdivisions and unplatted
parcels) the total residential units in the area would be 478. The Rim View Planning Area east
of Linder Road, minus the proposed commercial areas and the existing church contains
approximately 429 acres. Therefore the overall density in the Rim View Planning Area east of
Linder Road would be 1.11 dwelling units per acre. The proposed number of dwelling units
will also help support the recently approved commercial area located at the northeast comer of
Chinden Boulevard (principal arterial) and Linder Road (minor arterial) while reducing trip
generation to other areas in the vicinity. The higher density adjacent to Chinden Boulevard
will also be supportive of plausible future transit routes through the valley.
. Since the applicant is applying for a MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement)
zoning designation in lieu of a planned unit development, the residential portion of the
property should be developed to comply with the minimum open space requirements for a
planned unit development pursuant to Eagle City Code, which is a minimum of 20% or 21.40
acres.
. The concept plan date stamped by the City on May 29,2009, shows two (2) roads connecting
to Meridian Road, two (2) roads stubbing to the Wilson (Foxtail Golf Course) property
adjacent to the east, and a road connecting to North Winward Avenue at Foxtail Subdivision.
North Winward Avenue connects to West Sly Fox Street and then North Fox Run Avenue
which provides access to the traffic light at its intersection with Highway 20/26 (Chin den
Boulevard). The street running through Foxtail Subdivision is narrow and the additional traffic
from the proposed development may impact residents in the Foxtail Subdivision neighborhood
since there are no pedestrian facilities within the subdivision. At the time of preliminary
platting the applicant should design reasonable traffic calming measures within the proposed
development to address traffic entering Foxtail Subdivision at North Winward Avenue. The
applicant should also work with ACHD to address interconnectivity between Meridian Road,
Foxtail Subdivision and the adjacent parcel to the west. At a minimum, there should be no less
than two (2) roads providing connectivity to the adjacent Wilson (Foxtail Golf Course)
property .
Page 15 of24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccf Y orgason.doc
. The property is located within the Meridian Rural Fire District. The applicant should be
required to work with the Meridian Rural Fire District regarding all fire service/protection
issues for the proposed development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
Based upon the information provided to staff to date, staff recommends approval of the requested
annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition - Ada County Designation) to MU-DA
(Mixed Use with a development agreement) with conditions to be placed within a development
agreement as provided within the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the applications was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on
June 15, 2009. The Commission continued the item to July 13, 2009, at which time the
applications were remanded to staff. The applications were re-noticed and came before the Eagle
Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration on October 26, 2009. The Commission
continued the item to November 16, 2009, at which time public testimony was taken, the public
hearing was closed. The Commission made their recommendation at that time.
B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by
three (3) individuals (other than the applicant/representative) who felt that this development is a
great opportunity for the strategic growth of the City relative to the tax base and job growth; the
need to protect this "gateway" into the City from the encroachment of the City of Meridian; others
expressed their empathy to the Commission's difficult decision; the importance of traffic safety;
the need to have a funding system to provide necessary infrastructure; the importance of
sustainability, mix of uses, and higher densities; and the advantage of master planning multiple
parcels.
C. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by eleven (11) individuals with concerns regarding increases in traffic and safety
issues on heavily traveled Chinden and Linder Road, as well as impacts on the intersection;
increase in noise pollution; the size of the commercial project is too big for the area and does not
meet the intent of the comprehensive plan agreed upon two years ago; the density is not
appropriate for this area; the need to maintain the Comprehensive Plan as it is currently written;
the need to protect the existing neighborhoods; projected population growth does not support the
ROIC report findings; projected project build-out time frames are not realistic; claims that the
developer has not satisfactorily maintained contractual berming; the lack of consistent answers
from the developers; request to leave property as-is or purchase property for a city park; the need
to buffer commercial from residential; the need to have more conservative analysis of a project
relative to financial concerns; and developers should pay for their impacts to infrastructure.
D. Oral testimony neither in favor of nor opposed to this proposal was presented to the Planning and
Zoning Commission by one (1) individual who stated that the Idaho Transportation Department is
not opposed to moving the signal located at Fox Run and Chinden west to the 1;2-mile, ITD does
not have the power to require off-site improvements, and a right-in/right-out access can work
properly if internal circulation is designed to not hinder traffic circulation.
E. Written testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission
by two (2) individuals who felt that this development is a great opportunity for the strategic growth
of the City relative to the tax base and job growth; and the need to protect this "gateway" into the
Page 16 of24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccf Yorgason.doc
City from the encroachment of the City of Meridian; and the dependency on this property being
annexed to aid in completing the Eagle Island Market Place west of this site.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted 3 to 1 (Smith against, Villegas recused) to recommend approval of A-04-09
and RZ-04-09 for an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition - Ada County
designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) for Capital Development, LLC,
within conditions to be placed within a development agreement as shown within their Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law document, dated November 23, 2009.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the applications was held before the City Council on December 15, 2009, at which
time public testimony was taken and the public hearing was continued to January 12, 2010, to allow
the applicant time to meet with the adjacent neighbors. The public hearing was continued to February
9, 2010, and again to February 23, 2010, where additional limited testimony addressing neighbors
concerns was allowed and the hearing was closed. At this time the City Council scheduled a mediation
session for this item on March 2, 2010, and continued the applications to March 9, 2010, at which time
the Council made their decision.
On February 23,2010, the City Council ordered mediation and, pursuant to Idaho Code S 67-6510,
directed staff and Council representatives to mediate with the applicant and the affected neighbors and
bring potential changes to the Conditions of Development (to be placed in the development agreement)
back for Council consideration at the March 9, 2010, meeting. On March 2, 2010, a mediation session
was held between the applicant and the affected neighbors regarding the development. (See Mediation
Summary attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A).
B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by three (3) individuals
(other than the applicant/representative) who indicated that the City of Eagle Area of Impact is being
taken over in this area by Meridian and this area should be part of Eagle. It was also indicated that this
area is a gateway to the City of Eagle and the design of the area should be controlled by the City of
Eagle.
C. Oral testimony in opposition to the application was presented to the City Council by eight (8)
individuals who indicated the following:
. The residential density should be maintained at R-l (Residential - up to one (1) unit per
acre)..
. Increased traffic will be a burden to the existing roadways.
. The proposed development is inconsistent with the densities currently in the area and IS
inappropriate for the area.
. Applicants have not worked with the neighbors to address the neighbor concerns.
. The proposed development will not fit in with the rural feel of the area.
. Proposed development will affect the quality of life in the area.
. The proposed plan does not show any parks.
*N ote - upon completion of mediation only one (1) individual had concerns regarding the
proposed residential density of the development.
COUNCIL DECISION:
The Council voted 4 to 0 to approve A-04-09 and RZ-04-09 for an annexation and rezone from
RUT (Rural-Urban Transition - Ada County designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a
development agreement) for Capital Development, LLC, with the following Planning and Zoning
Page 17 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccf Yorgason.doc
Commission recommended conditions to be placed within a development agreement with strike
through text to be deleted by the Council and underline text to be added by the Council:
3.1 Eagle hereby acknowledges that the bubble plan shown on the Concept Plan (Exhibit A)
represents Applicant's concept for the Property. All future development of the Property
shall be generally consistent with the Concept Plan; provided, however, it is the intent of
this Agreement to allow flexibility until such time a detailed conceptual site plan
("Conceptual Site Plan"), and preliminary plat are submitted to Eagle so long as the
general intent of the Concept Plan and the conditions and limitations set forth in this
Agreement are met. Applicant shall submit the Conceptual Site Plan outlining future
phased developments as a modification to the development agreement prior to or
concurrent with a preliminary plat application. The Conceptual Site Plan shall provide
more detail, including but not limited to, location of roads within the development, lot
layout, lot dimensional standards, setbacks for the commercial and residential areas,
location and size of common areas and buffer areas. The City shall hold necessary public
hearings pursuant to Eagle City Code notice requirements to address the Conceptual Site
Plan and any changes thereafter proposed to said plan. The Conceptual Site Plan shall be
in lieu of the preliminary development plan provided Conditions of Development and the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the development agreement modification are
similar to Conditions of Development required during the PUD and conditional use
process.
3.2 Applicant will submit applicable applications regarding design review, preliminary and
final plat reviews, and/or any conditional use permits, if applicable, and any other
applicable applications as may be required by Eagle City Code, which shall comply with
Eagle City Code, as it exists at the time such applications are made except as otherwise
provided within this Agreement.
3.3 All commercial development within the Property shall be consistent with the CastIebury
West Business Park architectural style and be generally consistent with the Eagle
Architecture and Site Design Book. The Concept Plan shows the general nature and
relative location of certain improvements on the Property. It is the intent of this
Agreement is to allow sufficient flexibility at the time a detailed plan and platting are
submitted to Eagle, while maintaining the general intent of the Concept Plan with the
requirements set forth in this Agreement.
3.4 Applicant shall develop the Property subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in
this Agreement and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law approved by the City
Council. Applicant shall also submit such applications for design review, preliminary and
final plat reviews, and/or any conditional use permits, if applicable, and any other
applications as may be required by the Eagle City Code in effect as of the Effective Date
of this Agreement.
3.5 Applicant shall submit a preliminary plat for all or a portion of the Property within two (2)
years of the recording date of the Final Plat for Castlebury West Subdivision Phase 3. An
approved preliminary plat for this site shall expire two (2) years following action by Eagle
City Council, or after any additional period of time as may be approved by Eagle City
Council, not to exceed an additional three (3) years, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld. All preliminary plat applications must be submitted within seven
(7) years after the initial preliminary plat has been approved by Eagle City Council. A
Page] 8 of24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccf Y orgason,doc
final plat application must be submitted to Eagle prior to the expiration of its
corresponding preliminary plat. Final plat applications submitted in connection with
portions of corresponding preliminary plats shall be submitted in an orderly and
reasonable manner in intervals not to exceed eighteen (18) months following the
recordation ofthe preceding final plat. (Such final plat applications shall be considered for
final approval without resubmission of the preliminary plat for approval). Any final plat
shall be recorded within two (2) years following Eagle City Council action on the final
plat; provided however, Eagle City Council may approve the extension of such two (2)
year period, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, for a period of time not to
exceed three (3) years to facilitate the completion of improvements required by the
applicable sections of Eagle City Code. As part of its consideration to extend the time
frame in this Section, Eagle City Council may require Applicant to adhere to subdivision
ordinances and resolutions in effect at the time the extension is requested.
3.6 Except as otherwise provided within this Agreement, Applicant shall comply with the
Eagle City Code in effect as ofthe Effective Date of this Agreement (excluding building
codes adopted after the Effective Date); provided, however, if, following the Effective
Date, the permitted uses of the MU-DA zone are expanded, such expanded uses shall be
allowed in the Property and included in this Agreement or portions thereof. If preliminary
and final plats are not submitted in a timely manner as set forth in this agreement the
Eagle City Code effective at the time of submittal of said untimely plats shall apply
thereto.
3.7 The 110+/- acre site of the Property shall consist of approximately 107 acres of residential
use (single-family and multi-family units) and approximately 3.0 acres of non-residential
uses as described below.
3.7.1 Non-Residential (Commercial) Mixed Use. Commercial uses shall be limited to
those uses that complement or are ancillary to the Castlebury West Business Park
and are otherwise limited to the following uses, which may be constructed without
a Conditional Use Permit:
. Banks/financial institutions (no drive up service)
. BeautyIBarber Shop
. Catering Service (no restaurants)
. Day Spa
. Office, business and professional
. Office, medical and professional
. Artist Studios
. Clinic
. Daycare Center
. Personal Improvement
. Home and Business services
. Laboratories
. Pharmacies and Medical Sales (no drive thru service)
. Photographic Studio
. Printing/Blueprinting
. Professional activities
. Travel Services
. Research and Development
. Research Activities
Page 19 of24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccf Yorgason.doc
. Christmas Tree Sales (only until building on the property has begun)
. No Drive up or Drive thru services are allowed.
3.7.2 Residential Development.
3.7.2.1 The total residential area shall be approximately 107+/- Acres (inclusive of
open space). The maximum density for the Property shall be approximately
2.40 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 257 dwelling units to be
located within the areas as generally depicted on the Concept Plan (Exhibit
A) attached hereto and made a part hereof and subject to the capacity of the
sewer system. Residential portions of the Property shall not require a
conditional use permit.
3.7.2.2 The residential areas shall transition with higher densities adjacent to the
mixed-use non-residential area located at the southern boundary of the site
and reducing in density with larger lots in proximity to Foxtail and Winward
River Heights Subdivisions as shown on the Concept Plan (Exhibit A).
Single-family residential lots shall be no less than one (1) acre in size adjacent
to Foxtail and Winward River Heights Subdivisions, which are in existence as
of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
3.7.2.3 .^.1I open space requirements shall be met pl:lrsuaRt to Eagle City Code g €i 5
2. Sidewalks afld path','.'a.-ys shall be eOHstmeted ill appropriate loeatiofls to
provide pedestrian eonHeetivity through the site.
The minimum required open space shall be comprised of no less than 20% of
the total gross land area of the residential areas; those residential areas
containing lots greater than 37,000 square feet in size shall be excluded from
the calculations for the required amount of open space for the overall site.
Sidewalks and pathways shall be constructed in appropriate locations to
provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the site, subiect to review upon the
submittal of a preliminary plat application.
3.8 Dimensional standards and respective setbacks within the Property shall be as follows:
Patio Home Lots (5,000 sq. ft. minimum):
Front: 15 feet - living area / 20 feet garage
Rear: 15 feet
Side: 5 feet
Street Side: 15 feet
Maximum lot coverage 60%
Standard R-3 Lots (10,000 sq. ft. minimum):
Front: 20 feet
Rear: 20 feet
Side: 5 feet (additiona12.5 feet per story)
Street Side: 20 feet
Maximum lot coverage 40%
Page 20 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
Standard R-2 Lots (17,000 sq. ft. minimum):
Front: 25 feet
Rear: 20 feet
Side: 7.5 feet, (additional 5 feet per story)
Street Side: 20 feet
Maximum lot coverage 40%
Standard R-l Lots (43,560 sq. ft. minimum):
Front: 30 feet
Rear: 30 feet
Side: 15 feet
Street Side: 30 feet
Maximum lot coverage 35%
3.9 The Property shall comply with all parking requirements pursuant to the Eagle City Code
in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement unless otherwise set forth in this
Agreement.
3.10 A letter of approval shall be provided to Eagle from the Eagle Sewer District indicating
that the property has been annexed into the Eagle Sewer District's service boundaries at
the time of submitting the first final plat application. A letter of approval shall be
provided to Eagle from the Eagle Sewer District approving the construction plans prior to
approval of the respective final plat application.
3.11 Commercial Building placement shall be designed such that parking areas are not
concentrated between the buildings and roadways of a collector status or higher. All
buildings shall be provided with architectural design elements and architectural relief in
keeping with the proposed architectural styles contained in Castlebury West Business
Park.
3.11.1 All commercial structures within the Property shall be constructed utilizing
architecture consistent with the Castelbury West Business Park. All commercial
development within the Property shall be consistent with the Castlebury West
Business Park and be consistent with the Eagle Architecture and Site Design
Book. Eagle Design Review Board and Eagle City Council approval of the
detailed architectural plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits for
multi-family residential and commercial/retail buildings.
To assure compliance with this condition, Applicant shall create an architectural
control committee ("ACC") as a component ofthe Property's restrictive covenants
("CC&Rs"). Provisions regarding the creation and operating procedures of the
ACC shall be included in the CC&Rs, and shall be reviewed and reasonably
approved by the Eagle City attorney prior to the approval of the first final plat.
The submittal of the building permit application to Eagle for each commercial
building within the development shall be accompanied by an approval letter from
the ACC. Building permit applications that do not have an approval letter
attached will not be accepted.
Page 21 of24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccf Y orgason.doc
3.11.2 A II non-residential (commercial) mixed uses shall be subject to dark-sky lighting,
noise, or related limitations at the design review approval stage to address
additional concerns that may arise.
3.12 Applicant shall comply with all requirements of ACHD and/or ITD, as applicable, to
ensure restrictions pertaining to State Highway 20/26 do not exceed existing restrictions
placed on Castlebury West Business Park. The City shall not require the Applicant to
dedicate or preserve any Right-of-Way that exceeds the width of Right-of-Way dedicated
and/or preserved by the Castlebury West Business Park.
3.13 Applicant shall meet with Eagle within sixty (60) days of the anniversary of the Effective
Date to review compliance with the Agreement and Applicant-requested extensions at
least annually until fifty percent (50%) of the property has been platted.
3.14 For each preliminary plat the applicant shall design traffic calming measures within the
proposed development to address traffic entering Foxtail Subdivision at North Winward
A venue. The applicant shall provide a revised concept plan showing the western end of
the road immediately north of Foxtail Subdivision terminating as a cul-de-sac prior to
reaching the western boundary of the site. The applicant shall provide no less than two (2)
roads providing connectivity to the adjacent Wilson (Foxtail Golf Course) property.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. A Neighborhood Meeting was held at 6:00 PM, March 24, 2009, at the Foxtail Golf Course
Maintenance Barn at 6479 N. Fox Run Avenue, Meridian, ID, 83646, in compliance with the
application submittal requirement of Eagle City Code. The application for this item was received
by the City of Eagle on April 27, 2009.
2. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was
published in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle
City Code on May 25, 2009. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within
three-hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title
67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on May 29, 2009. The site was posted in
accordance with the Eagle City Code on June 1, 2009. Requests for agencies' reviews were
transmitted on April 30, 2009, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code.
On July 13, 2009, the Planning and Zoning Commission remanded the application to staff. Re-
notice of Pubic Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was
published in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle
City in the Idaho Statesman on October 3, 2009, and in the Valley Times on October 5, 2009.
Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three-hundred feet (300-feet)
of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code
and Eagle City Code on October 6, 2009. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City
Code on October 6, 2009.
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle City Council was published in
accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City Code on
November 30, 2009. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three-
hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67,
Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on November 25, 2009. The site was posted in
accordance with the Eagle City Code on December 2,2009.
Page 22 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason,doc
3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed rezone (RZ-04-09)
with regard to Eagle City Code Section 8-7-5 "Action by the Commission and Council", and based
upon the information provided concludes that the proposed rezone is in accordance with the City
of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and established goals and objectives because:
a. The requested zoning designation of MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development
agreement) is consistent with the Transitional Residential designation as shown on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map since the proposed zone will allow for a
minimum lot size that will allow for a transitioning of lot sizes to occur adjacent to the
properties. Also, the proposed density is acceptable because it allows for buffering
between commercial uses with the higher densities occurring in proximity to the
existing commercial uses and the transportation corridor (State Highway 20/26); and
b. The information provided from the agencies having jurisdiction over the public
facilities needed for this site indicate that adequate public facilities exist, or are
expected to be provided, to serve all uses allowed on this property under the proposed
zone;
c. The proposed MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) is compatible with
the RUT (Rural-Urban Transition - Ada County designation) zone and land use
(Winward Heights Subdivision) to the north since the applicant will be required to
develop lots that are a minimum of one (1) acre in size adjacent to that area, and;
d. The proposed MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) is compatible with
the RUT (Rural-Urban Transition - Ada County designation), Rl (Residential - Ada
County designation), and MU-DA (Mixed Use with development agreement) zones
and land uses to the south since the applicant will be required to develop lots that are a
minimum of one (1) acre in size adjacent to Foxtail Subdivision, and to provide a
buffer between the proposed residential development and Castlebury West Business
Park, and;
e. The proposed MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) zone is
compatible with the RUT (Rural-Urban Transition - Ada County designation) and Rl
(Residential - Ada County designation) zones and land use to the west since that area
is proposed to be developed in a similar manner to this development and the applicant
will be required to develop lots that are a minimum of one (1) acre in size adjacent to
Foxtail Subdivision, and;
f. The proposed MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) zone is
compatible with the R-E (Residential-Estates up to one unit per two acres) and R-l
(Up to one unit per acre one acre) zone and land use to the east since that area is
already developed as residential subdivisions and the applicant will be required to
provide a landscaped buffering berm adjacent to Meridian Road and the existing
residential developments to the east will be buffered from the proposed development
by the landscaped buffering berm; and
g. The land proposed for rezone is not located within a "Hazard Area" and "Special
Area" as described within the Comprehensive Plan; and
h. No non-conforming uses are expected to be created with this rezone.
Page 23 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
DATED this 23rd day of March 2010.
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
ATTEST:
Au~ -)( ~AO~
Sharon K. Bergmann, Eagle City Cle
",,'11,......,...
.........' '{ 0 F 13-1 >.,
," ...~ ........ (~/. '.
..... /'" ~ .e e...
.. v. 0 · -<<. .
: ... 0 \l.. \' R. -1 /> \- ':
".(., ~.:
: * : ~::
: . ---.~ .*-
- . . :
:. ...~ SEA I. ~"".: :
-:. <p · 00 ' · ....
~, ..;-., ...~POR A..rt.~..:'\..O ...,....
", '*1 i" ....... ~''''..,
"" E: 0 F \ \) "....
"'1'., III' "~,I"~
Page 24 of 24
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 ccfYorgason.doc
EXHIBIT
A
~-?~/t)
MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 520
Boise, ID 83702
TELEPHONE: (208) 331-1800 FAX: (208) 331-1202
MEMORANDUM
ORIGINAL
TO:
City of Eagle - Mayor and City Council Members
Wilson Properties/Capital Development Applications Mediation Participants
FROM:
Susan E. Buxton
DATE:
March 7, 2010
RE:
Wilson/Capital Development Mediation Summary
The following is a summary of the discussions between the participants of the Wilson
Properties/Capital Development Mediation held on March 2, 2010, in the Freedom Room at the
Eagle City Hall. The mediation session commenced at approximately 6:35 p.m. and concluded at
approximately 10:58 p.m. The purpose of this summary is to capture the substantive issues
explored by the participants without unnecessarily disclosing the internal dynamics of the debate.
This summary is also intended to preserve a sufficient record of the discussion t6 disclose ex
parte communications with the Eagle City Council members present at the mediation. The
summary notes the identity of the mediation participant and a description of what was discussed
in front of the Eagle City Council members present.
This summary is a public record. A copy of the written Informal Mediation Ground
Rules was circulated to all Participants which each Participant signed. A copy of the Informal
Mediation Ground Rules and the signature pages will also be included as a part of this Mediation
Summary as Exhibit A.
The Mediation Participants are as follows:
City of Eagle
Norm Semanko, Eagle City Councilman
Al Shoushtarian, Eagle City Councilman
Bill Vaughan, City of Eagle Staff
Mike Williams, City of Eagle Staff
Susan Buxton, Eagle City Attorney
Idaho Department of Transportation
Pam Golden
I Mr. Smith did not speak during the mediation.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIA nON
March 8, 2010
Page 2
I Bruce Smith, Eagle City Attorneyl
Capital Development, Ine,
Ramon Y orgason
David R. Yorgason
Craig Hilbog2
, ,
Wilson Properties, LP & Wilson Holdings,
LLC3
Charles H. Wilson
Roger Cantlon
Bob Mitchell
Bob Banks
Gene Schaeffer
Don Knickrehm
Neighbors to Development:
Bodily & Bunderson Springs Subdivision (aka
Sandy Springs)
Scott Trosper
Larry Swider (left mediation at 9: 10 pm)
Foxtail Homeowners Association
Ryan Moore emailed Susan Buxton the afternoon
of 3/2/1 0 they would not attend. Ms. Buxton noted
their issues at the beginning of the mediation.
Fred Meyer
Don Forrest
Clearview Estates Subdivision
Larry Sandusky
Winward River Heights Subdivision
Phil Broadbent
EIMP
Craig Eisenberg
JoAnn Butler
The observers to the mediation, who did not participate, are as follows:
Gary Smith (left mediation at 9:30 pm), John Luque (left mediation at 9:30 pm),
JoAnne Wilson, Vicki Cantlon, Gerry Robbins (left mediation at 9 pm) , Mary
May, Teri Bath, Jeanne Jackson-Heim (left mediation at 9 pm), Kay Perkins, and
Foad Roghani. These people did not speak except to confirm they were observers
and not participants in the mediation. The City of Eagle concludes, therefore, the
observers are not asserting any affected party status in this process.
I. CITY OF EAGLE:
Al Shoushtarian: Council Member Shoushtarian welcomed everyone to the
mediation and explained his goal for the mediation was that it be informal, but
limited each participant to ten minutes for their opening remarks so that everyone
had a chance to speak to the group and to reserve enough time that evening to
conduct the mediation both with the group as a whole and separately as needed.4
2 Mr. Hilbog did not speak during the mediation.
3 Dan Thompson also addressed the mediation as part of the Wilson team. Roger Cantlon did not speak at the
mediation session.
4 Neither Mr. Shoushtarian nor Mr. Semanko attended separate break-out meetings held by participants or observers.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIA nON
March 8, 2010
Page 3
He asked Wilson and the neighbors if they would address a possible compromise
on the commercial density issue. Mr. Shoushtarian noted that the neighbors did
not appear to be concerned with the residential density, especially after Dave
Y orgason clarified their residential 4 units/acre intent. He did point out that the
issue between Wilson and the neighbors was they desired less commercial density
and the Foxtail HOA did not want any commercial traffic traveling through their
subdivision from Chinden. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Mr. Shoushtarian
attempted to keep the mediation moving forward by suggesting as a possible
commercial square footage change, that Wilson reduce their main commercial
square footage to 144,375 and their neighborhood commercial square footage to
36,250. When making that suggestion, Mr. Shoushtarian was very clear that his
suggestion was not based on numbers that he would require for his decision as
that was not his role in the mediation. After that suggestion, a break was taken to
give the participants a chance to see if they could agree on commercial square
footage reductions on the Wilson property.s
Norm Semanko: Council Member Semanko stated he wanted the attendees to
openly discuss their views and opinions. He identified the concern that Fred
Meyer wants the same written conditions in both the EIMP and Wilson
Development Agreements regarding sewer, ACHD and ITD access requirements
and that annexation occurs first, not after those items are worked out with the
other entities. In an attempt to break down the issues to be worked on, Mr.
Semanko suggested the participants address the following: (1) road access and
public safety for residential and commercial; (2) density of residential and
commercial; (3) terms within Development Agreement for Wilson on the
annexation that concern EIMP; (4) sewer capacity; and (5) the developers'
willingness to compromise with the neighbors in this forum. Mr. Semanko noted
that the discussions from the participants in the mediation mirrored their positions
previously stated in public hearings before the City Council. He also asked
Wilson to consider what sort of compromise they could suggest regarding the
commercial square footage.6 Mr. Semanko asked about whether the commercial
square footage was comparable to other shopping centers in the area. He
reminded the participants that this is a mediation so neither he nor Mr.
Shoushtarian could or would force an agreement in this forum.
Bill Vau2han: Mr. Vaughan described the applications' voluntary annexation
requests. Each application also has two separate development agreements. When
asked by a participant why the two applications were handled concurrently, Mr.
Vaughan explained that he believed it would be easier to see the entire plan for
During breaks in the meeting of the whole (all participants and observes in the same room), Mr. Shoushtarian and
Mr. Semanko talked to City Staff or had short conversations with others unrelated to the AppJi;ations or the
mediation.
S See Mr. Knickrehm's comment summary to see the compromise offered by Wilson.
6 Same as footnote #2.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIA nON
March 8,2010
Page 4
the two properties that were going to be developed in concert with each other.
That is a common method for Eagle even though each application will require
separate decision by the City Council. He described the Eagle Planning and
Zoning Commissions' 4-0 recommendation that the Comprehensive Plan
amendment requested by the applications be approved. Mr. Vaughan also
discussed the Planning and Zoning Commission's deliberation on the signal/ITD
access and that the Commission reached no majority recommendation to forward
to the City Council on the zones due to commercial density/square footage
concerns.
Mike Williams: Mr. Williams provided information regarding the Staff
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission of 78,500 main
commercial and 17,750 neighborhood commercial. He elaborated on how the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, if approved, would change what commercial
square footage that would be expected if so zoned on the Wilson property. Mr.
Williams also discussed the process and recommendations before the Eagle
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Susan Buxton: Ms. Buxton answered questions about the mediation process
asked of her by Mr. Shoushtarian, Mr. Semanko or others present. Ms. Buxton
recounted the substance of the Foxtail HOA emails received that afternoon from
Ryan Moore as noted below. Ms. Buxton discussed the condition precedent terms
in the Development Agreement presented in late February by Wilson and how
they were different than similar requirements for ITD/ ACHD access approval and
sewer capacity approval for EIMP. Ms. Buxton did state she would not
recommend that the City enter into an amendment of the proposed Development
Agreement with Wilson that reduced one of its time-frames to get those approvals
to 90 days, citing that is too short.
II. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
Pam Golden: Ms. Golden provided an explanation of ITD's agreement with
EIMP for full access for two (2) years after the store opens. Following those two
years, a left in a right in/right out shall equal a three-quarters (%) access. If the
road is improved to six (6) lanes and crash history develops or the ITD Board so
orders, then a right in/right out would be the only access to Chinden.
ITD is neutral as to whether properties are annexed to obtain access or not. ITD
does not want the Development Agreement to become a political tool and wants
to proceed with normal planning. She also noted that with other unfunded
projects, Linder would have 40,000 cars a day which is equal to Eagle Road's
flow now - this occurs even without these projects (EIMP, Wilson and Capital
Development) .
WlLSON/CAPIT AL DEVELOPMENT MEDIA nON
March 8, 2010
Page 5
No one from Fox Run subdivision has contacted lTD to Ms. Golden's knowledge.
The signal at Fox Run is underutilized to the North. There are questions
regarding relocating the existing Fox Run light. lTD has talked to developer
across Chinden regarding its interest in relocating the light. This could help
Meridian as well. Ms. Golden described the access permit process for ITD and
the timing regarding land use applications which are going through the city
process. Ms. Golden noted that the Wilson application is difficult because lTD
has not seen more than a conceptual traffic study yet because Wilson is not asking
for a change of use on Fox Tail Golf Course property at this time. She is not sure
about the status of lTD requiring the extension to five (5) lanes. Ms. Golden
believes that the Fox Run light/road issues will need ACHD's input as well.
Ms. Golden left the mediation session at 10:30 pm).
III. CAPIT AL CITY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
David R. Y ore:ason: Mr. Yorgason clarified their intent that the residential
shown as eight units per acre will be approximately four units per acre. They have
met with many neighbors and have a spreadsheet which tracks most of their
neighborhood discussions which has been previously submitted into the public
record on these applications. He stated that they would like their Development
Agreement modified so that there is no open space requirement for the "R -I".
The Staff had recommended that change as well at the public hearing. The R-l
lots are a 43,560 square feet minimum. This will make fewer patio home lots and
less open space that would make the transition to the properties which are located
to the North smoother. The streets come out of the lots which are less than one
acre. Mr. Y orgason further discussed their transitioning from neighboring large
lots to their residential project. Does not have any compromises on density. He
felt that as far as a compromise he is able to make is to anticipate 128 + 257 = 385
(more or less) units which rejected Mr. Broadbent's suggestion of 340 residential
lots. However, Mr. Y orgason said he will review the lot layouts and not look at
the number of units. He stated that he will put fewer lots across the lot lines
adjacent to the existing lots to reduce the amount of light, cars and noise. He
stated that they are seeing an increased demand for smaller but not cheap homes.
He believes that these homes will be nicer that those in the Settler's Bridge
Subdivision.
Ramon Y ore:ason: Mr. Y orgason stated his belief that the residential issues have
already been compromised and would like a vote for their annexation application
next Tuesday whether Wilson goes forward or not. He also noted that in his
experience, when planning for commercial development 10,000 square feet of
commercial per acre is standard. He felt that with the 21 acres, Wilson's proposed
main commercial of210,000 square feet was a precise number.
IV. WILSON PROPERTIES, LP & WILSON HOLDINGS, LLC
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIA nON
March 8,2010
Page 6
Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Wilson noted that the deceleration lanes to the Fox Tail
Golf Course are already in place including a center turn land. He believes that if
they were able to get assistance with the Fox Run light from the City, ITD and the
neighbors, they would be comfortable with a right in/right out. He stated that it is
his first choice to annex in to Eagle. Mr. Wilson is concerned that the neighbors
in opposition do not understand the economics that need to be met to develop his
property and that no matter how much more he compromises; only no
development would make them happy. He was still willing to remove the
neighborhood commercial of 55,000 square feet as described by Mr. Knickrehm.
He was not willing to reduce the other 210,000 square feet of commercial. He
believes that this compromise keeps the project as reasonably viable.
Daniel A. Thompson: Mr. Thompson is Wilson's traffic engineer. He stated that
underpass option mentioned by Mr. Broadbent would create traffic on the south
side and restrict additional movements. He believes that traffic will come to this
quadrant with or without the Wilson project or EIMP so he believes this is a better
way to solve the existing traffic dilemma for ITD and ACHD. He stated that their
mandate does not require them (Wilson) to mitigate anything other than their own
impact. He believes that they could complete a traffic study in two weeks.
Bob Mitchell: Mr. Mitchell works with the Wilson group. He believes that retail
centers begin to draw traffic around 10-11 a.m. so it does not impact the morning
commute. They also draw traffic in the evenings so it helps reduce the evening
commuter traffic at those high count times. He noted that this is regional gateway
area so 210,000 square feet of commercial is not excessive.
Bob Banks: Mr. Banks was the spokesman for the Wilson group. He laid out the
concept plan that was worked out with the neighbors and is part of the public
hearing record. He also discussed the four residential units per acre issue.
With regard to relocating the Fox Run light, Mr. Banks stated that he has talked to
Mr. McKinney (landowner to South) but has not asked him for a commitment.
In summarizing the compromises Wilson has made in the application process, Mr.
Banks showed the October 2008 original plan. He illustrated the movement of the
signal and proposed that work off the existing signal or moving signal are the
options. He stated that their study says that their project would not properly
function off the existing signal and that they need the other access as well. ITD
conditions are controlled with EIMP. He believes they could try to work with
EIMP but they do not have them completed today.
Mr. Banks discussed the actions at the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission.
There, the Fox Run Subdivision residents said they did not want commercial on
the five (5) acre parcel, to which one Commission member agreed. He discussed
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIA nON
March 8, 2010
Page 7
how their cul-de-sac option cuts traffic commercial traffic to zero. He believes
the parties could agree to cul-de-sac Fox Tail subdivision and route to Meridian
Road. He believes Fox Tail HOA and ACHD could agree to that.
With regard to the two conditions precedent to annexation in their most recent
development agreement draft to the City, Mr. Banks believes the City is more
inclined to help the project before annexed than after. He wants to know exactly
what they can do with their project prior to committing to the City. He states that
they are okay with the movement of the light if they can get compromise. He
believes that the underpass is acceptable if the government pays for its
construction but does not believe that these projects can economically support it
nor would the traffic study require such mitigation.
In earlier compromises, they reduced the neighborhood commercial from 70.000
to 55,000 square feet. He believes that the issues with the commercial issue are
sound, visual, and traffic. By having residential, transitional uses and buffering
plus the traffic compromise, the traffic would improve and with cross access to
EIMP, the residents would not have to leave the internal roads to shop. He
believes that that would pull traffic off the road during high traffic times and
lessen cars at those critical time periods. He believes that their proposal deals
with those concerns. He showed examples of visual impacts. He said he is
unable to hear Albertsons from City Hall.
He stated that they build to suit, not build to spec. He stated that they cannot do
the project with the Staffs numbers. The proposed twenty-one acres of main
commercial is substantiated by their studies and experts. He noted their previous
removal of 5 acres of commercial at Fox Tail HOA's request and that they agreed
to the large berm.
There are three other quadrants of the intersection, not just theirs. The
commercial square footage proposed in the other three quadrants equals 1.6M
square feet in Meridian. He believes that if it does not get built here, they will go
to the other quadrants and build. He stated that working to get connection with
signal out REA with EIMP. He said he will address sewer issues with EIMP. He
believes that natural phasing could work out. He does not agree to EIMP
language versus the condition precedent language.
Gene Schaeffer: Mr. Schaeffer works with the Wilson group. He described the
concept plan is the same plan with highlighted road systems. The Master Concept
Plan was presented for City Council approval last Tuesday. He stated that they
asked for clarity on the approval so that all parties knew the: (1) access for both
residential and commercial; (2) densities; (3) sewer capacity in this quadrant is
limited so that is why they would want all parties to work together to make it
work for everyone; and (4) since there is no specific tenant this will allow
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIA nON
March 8, 2010
Page 8
flexibility for their plan. He showed some photographs of the golf course and
how it could look with the homes. He stated that the view was looking due south
from the existing subdivisions. He stated that everyone in the north property
would see trees and they could put in more evergreens to densify the existing
trees. He showed the views from the Bunderson property looking south to the
Powell property and the possible new residences and commercial property would
be buffered with landscaping in front. He believes they would need at least a right
in/right out.
Don Knickrehm: Mr. Knickrehm is legal counsel for the Wilson group. He
discussed the effect of the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He stated that
Mr.Tanner moved with full support for 210,000 square feet commercial. Mr.
Roehling had said "no" because the commercial included a 5-acre lot contained
within Foxtail Subdivision. Mr. Smith said "no" because of too much density.?
The CCRs were amended to exclude the 5-acre parcel from CCRs. He addressed
the commercial square footage. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan talks about a
regional commercial area (Chinden/Black Cat). This area has since been annexed
by Meridian. That regional plan said not to exceed 40 acres. The office and retail
form a buffer. This corner makes sense as a regional commercial center since it is
on the northeast corner. That is why Fred Meyer selected it. 600,000 - 1M
square feet = regional. Even if we built one-half of this, people have to go by here
to shop whether they stop at this corner or not. Look at how Eagle has built out so
there is a need for a regional center and it does not make sense to cut it in half. If
it is cut in half, from 265,000 to 130,000, it would not make sense.
As another compromise to working out the road/light relocation, around 10:30
pm, Mr. Knickrehm told the mediation group that Wilson is willing to forego the
55,0000f neighborhood commercial if they keep main commercial at 210,000. As
part of that, if the developer believes the market and the area changes such that it
is consistent, they can ask the City Council to amend the development agreement
(with public hearing) to replace that square footage in the future. It was noted that
Eagle City Code and Idaho Code allow amendment to development agreements on
notice and hearing to the City Council. As to the two conditions precedent on
ITD approval and sewer capacity, Mr. Knickrehm offered to limit their ability to
do so to 90 days instead of 36 months. If they cannot get the contingencies
removed in 90 days, they will either waive them or the development agreement
and approvals are void.
v. NEIGHBORS TO DEVELOPMENT
7 Mr. Knickrehm was describing his understanding of the P&Z meeting, Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Williams had
described the meetings too. This summary is not meant to interpret the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendations or votes.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIA nON
March 8, 2010
Page 9
Clearview Estates Subdivision:
Larrv Sandusky: Mr. Sandusky stated that his only access out of his property is
Meridian Road to Chinden. He has a number of crash concerns because he hauls
horses. He believes that the light on Fox Run has not helped with the two lights
so close. He has seen people use the turn lane to turn into Fox Run so it is an
added hazard. He believes that the signs funded by EIMP were improvements but
does not like the added density with these applications. His main issue is safety.
He believes that another direct access would be chaos and that road needs to be
restructured. He stated that the Fred Meyer traffic studies did not add in Wilson.
He stated that he believes that the Fox Run people do not believe that Wilson is
negotiating in good faith. He believes it would have been easier if the
applications were separate. He would agree to a signal relocation.
Winward River Heights Subdivision
Phil Broadbent: Mr. Broadbent stated he personally preferred to see the
development done through Eagle instead of Ada County. He wanted to know if
the developers would further compromise on commercial and residential density.
Mr. Broadbent presented his understanding that the parcels to north were 5-6
acres; parcels to the east were 2 acres. He felt traffic will be significant and
suggested at one point whether an underpass was considered. He wants less
density so there would be less impact on traffic and less density everywhere. He
does not like patio homes and wants less density as noise/traffic light. He stated
that Dave Turnbull at Paramount will not agree to move the light currently located
at Fox Run. He believes that they would have to put in 5 lanes. He believes that
it would be inconceivable that City is not requiring 2 more lanes with this project.
He wants to reduce number of residential lots to 340. He does not think that Mr.
Knickrehm's offer to reduce the commercial by 55,000 was very significant and
that it was a hollow offer if they could come back to Council to ask for it back in
the future. Regardless, he did believe the Wilson offer was made in good faith.
Foxtail HOA:
As presented to Susan Buxton by Ryan Moore in emails on the afternoon of
March 2, 2010, the Fox Tail HOA wanted the mediation group to be aware of
their following issues:
(i) They agree with the arrangement made with Dave Y orgason
regarding the residential portion of the concept plan and they want
the 4 unit/acre incorporated as presented by Mr. Y orgason to them.
(ii) They like the City Staff report on commercial to the Planning and
Zoning Commission as they feel the commercial density is too
high.
(iii) They support moving the Fox Run light so long as they can close
their entrance to Chinden and access Meridian road through
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 10
Capital Development's residential development. They do not want
any commercial traffic to go through their subdivision.
(iv) They do not want any part of these two applications annexed to
Meridian.
VI. BODIL Y AND BUNDERSON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION (aka SANDY
SPRINGS)
Scott Trosper: Mr. Trosper stated his concerns come down to the density of the
commercial property and traffic impacts on the comer. He believes the level of
commercial property is too large and would contribute to problems by impacting
the quality of life of the neighbors. He does not like the unprotected turn onto the
highway. He believes that the only way Fred Meyer can go forward is with an
annexation. He believes that Fred Meyer is being held hostage by Wilson. He
believes that traffic is already a problem and it is difficult to get out of the
subdivision. He stated that they are already unable to get out on Linder. He
would accept the relocation of the Fox Run light. He believes this is a concept
plan and that they have to come back to the City with a Preliminary Plat which
shows 4.2 or 3.8 units per acre to be located where the Concept Plan shows eight
units per acre. He believes that Eagle has a very high open space requirement.
The Concept Plan is currently at 4.1 units per acre. He believes that they are
creating a traffic reservoir that would make getting in and out of the subdivision
more difficult. He stated that he would rather have it compact up against
Chinden. He stated that any reduction in commercial would help them at the end
of the day.
Larrv Swider: Mr. Swider appeared as a participant but did not make many
comments except his agreement with Mr. Trosper's positions and concerns. Mr.
Swider left at approximately 9:40 pm.
VII. EIMP
Craie Eisenbere: Mr. Eisenberg is the developer of ElMP. He described
meeting with the Wilson group. He has concerns about the two new development
agreement terms added by Wilson that make annexation contingent on approvals
to their satisfaction in 90 days by Eagle Sewer District and lTD. As to the
density, he believes the market will drive that. He stated that their development
is difficult even with Fred Meyer. He does not believe the interior roads on the
EIMP site plan already approved through Eagle Design Review should be required
to be redone. He stated that they believed that they would be able to accomplish it
within Eagle and not as a condition of annexation as he is willing to work with
Wilson on the cross-access and traffic study results.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIA nON
March 8,2010
Page 11
JoAnn Butler: She stated that the EIMP Development Agreement approving
their annexation is approved. She believes that they have to get separate
approvals in regard to ACHD/ITD and Sewer District and a separate path to
annexation. She stated that they are committed to the City first and wants the
same terms in the Wilson DA as is in the EIMP DA that they annex first and work
agrees to abide by the approvals of the other entities like Eagle Sewer and ITD.
VIII. FRED MEYER
Don Forrest: Mr. Forrest noted their support for the Capital City Development
annexation. Their problem with Wilson Properties is the addition of the pre-
annexation agreement terms making achieving ITD access (irrevocable) and sewer
capacity reserved by sewer district a condition precedent. He believes that those
are non-starters, different from what he and EIMP had to do in their development
agreement and those clauses are not a good way to influence the other agencies.
He believes that Wilson is looking for adjustments on the EIMP site plan that has
already been approved by Eagle's Design Review Boards.
Mr. Forrest noted that their traffic approvals make it safe for the community as
they are their customers. He stated that they had traffic models and mitigation
that provides more traffic capacity than they create so that helps the area. He
stated that they have a good safety buffer and that he already believes is good
safety movement. He stated that they do have a signed agreement with lTD. If
the Development Agreement passed as is now, he does not believe the Wilson
property will annex. He is anticipating that the development of three (3) corners
and the 8% growth rate that they build in has not been seen yet. He stated that
they have safety factors built in. Their agreement with the City is contingent on
contiguity and that is with the current properties. They had an application with
the county and they stayed it so to give Eagle a chance to get this annexation path
approved so they wanted to avoid going through another process to save that
money. They will go to the county if this does not get annexed. He stated that
three items in the Wilson Development Agreement that need to be addressed are:
(1) cross access; (2) need to be in Eagle; and (3) traffic study. He does think the
ITD and sewer capacity questions can be solved in the ninety (90) days suggested
by Mr. Knickrehm. He stated that are able to do an easements traffic study.
EXHIBIT -A-
CITY OF EAGLE
Informal Mediation Ground Rules
To Idaho Code 67-6510
The following land use applications have been requested to participate in mediation by
the Eagle City Council on March 2,2010:
1. CPA-07-08/A-05-08/RZ-l1-08 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment from
Public/Semi-Public and Transitional Residential to Mixed Use, and Annexation and
Rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition-Ada County Designation) to MU-DA (Mixed
Use with a Development Agreement). The 83.7-acre site is generally located at the
northwest corner ofN. Fox Run Avenue and Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20/26) at 6479
N. Fox Run Avenue and 990 W. Chin den Boulevard. Represented by Wilson Properties,
L.P. and Wilson Holdings, LLC.
2. A-04-09/RZ-04-09 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition - Ada
County designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a Development Agreement in lieu ofa
PUD). The 11 0.5-acre site is generally located on the west side of S. Meridian Road and
the north side ofW. Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20/26) approximately 835 feet west of
S. Meridian Road. Represented by Capitol Development, Inc.
Expected Participants
Al Shoushtarian Eagle City Council
Norm Semanko Eagle City Council
Capital City Development, Inc. Applicant
Wilson Properties, LP and
Wilson Holdings, LLC Applicant
Eisenberg Company Affected Party
Foxtail HOA Affected Party
Bodily and Bunderson Springs Subdivision
(aka Sandy Springs) Affected Party
Sugarberry Woods HOA Affected Party
Winward River Heights HOA Affected Party
Other affected parties not listed may also attend the mediation. An affected party is
defined as "one having an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the
issuance or denial of a permit authorizing the development." Idaho Code 967-6521(1 )(a).
Informal Mediation Ground Rules
1. The Applicants, City Representatives and Affected Parties will meet in the Freedom
Room at Eagle City Hall. All those present at the Mediation shall be required to sign in.
2. The mediation sessions will not be recorded because the mediation process is not part of
the official record regarding the Applications. Idaho Code 967-6510(5).
City of Eagle - Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code ~67-6510 - 1
3. The City Attorney or its designee shall preserve a sufficient record of the discussion to
disclose ex parte communications with the Eagle City Council members present at the
mediation. The identity of the ex parte contact and a description of what each participant
discussed is required.
4. The mediation will not result in an "agreement" as no participant would be required to
pledge their support or opposition to the Applications. The City Council participants are
specifically not required nor allowed to support or oppose any compromise during the
course of mediation. As such, the City Council participants must disclose their ex parte
communications in the subsequent public meeting(s) held on the Application.
5. The City Council member participants must disclose any conflicts of interest as set forth
in Idaho Code 967-6506 ifthey have an "economic interest" in the procedure or action.
If such conflict of interest exists, that City Council member may not participate in the
decision on the Applications.
6. The questions regarding whether the lands being requested to be annexed into the
territorial limits of the City of Eagle are legislative.
The questions regarding the amendment of the Comprehensive plan is legislative as
there is not ripe for judicial review.
The zoning designations upon annexation is legislative.
7. Communication with the media should be discouraged while the mediation process is
ongoing as such contacts may cause Participants to hesitate to engage openly in the
mediation. As such, a brief statement to the press may only be made by the City Attorney
and only regarding the status of mediation.
8. All participants may have reasonable and convenient access to the public record before
the City Council. Arrangements with the City Clerk's office will be facilitated through
Mike Williams at the City of Eagle for such access.
9. A written summary of the mediation shall be compiled by the City Attorney that fairly
captures the substantive issues explored by the participants without unnecessarily
disclosing the internal dynamics of the debate. The written summary shall be a public
record and will also include the names of the Participants in the mediation.
City of Eagle - Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code ~67-6510 - 2
10. All Participants shall treat each other with civility, courtesy and without interruption.
11. If participants who want separate breakout sessions or to meet privately with their group,
meetings places will be arranged by Mike Williams or the City Attorney to accommodate
such discussions.
12. Mediation is voluntary so Participants may leave any time. Please tell the City Attorney
that you are leaving so the summary will be accurate.
Date: '1;'" ') '---[0
City Councilman
Aln/ "" J.'e..-",,/:!.j" 'GO
Printed Name
Date: ,3./ 2- ---- to
fJf ~~v
Al'shoushtarian, Eagle City Councilman
fit SAo{)6h3u-(\'~ 1"1
Printed Name
Representing:
Date: :5 -~ -/ V
Date:
City of Eagle - Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code ~67-6510 - 3
Ii} 0 (7. 1 r 7/J 11 ,oil
(~(~L LLW~OVl
Signature
, .' tkLa s--!i-t \J~:O-4D~l
Printed Name
-:.2 . fD
Date: a -.1 -
Representing:
lJJuJbou
-
Date: 3'" J - ( -0
~:t& ~- ~~
VlMIi & ~. 'IfJ{~O.sO{1
Printed Name
RepreSenting:~ rW u,nJopJ
Date: ;- '2 - \ ()
~ .".--..
/~. J:~.
/~'-7'T"~,...~
Signatm:~ ..
, , i \ .'11
L-~., ,- <, 4-'-> \ \ ~?
Printed N ame:~
Representing: Ct-,),+-,.J tx\.lJS\e.-.L< S~~cj.\"..)
,
Date:~ll J
?
tr-1\ \~ 'Wi> H 6 N"-
rinted Name
Representing: ~ f{t~ '{J J
City of Eagle - Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code ~67-6510 - 4
Date: ~ ~ e.);.." ~ l ;)...0 ~ 0
Dat':Yr\aML /J. I d-b (()
Date~c? <<~~
Date: ''1?7a/M4L ~ d C) /0
-dJ ~ Ivrl 'C1U
Sig ture
~h we \A\",(fJOV)
Printed Name
Representing: !!JJ~h1.~
()~' ~
Signature
\J \ Clc-\ Qa n+L cJf\
Printed Name
Representing: (J) ( I ~,
~~~
Printed Name ad P ~
Representing: ~~Alv !I?
dk; J3dd/
Signature
1/3 tell b~ flu
Printed Name
/,
Representing: &t!e em?'ttJu, 1
0/1}?7P1?L ~
City of Eagle - Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code ~67-6510 - 5
Date:
"? 1'--1 2..--0 \ ()
Ct r-CQ
Signature '-.J
~
l\CI~ klA(C-J~V€hW
Printed Naffie C;; ,"v<-- J" }Dv..-rS" k.; I J... P
Representing: !Ai : l K WL ~O /1.-6 ~. :s
Date:
3 leX/ d.O/O
I I
Signat re
&tftT 1<. &NF5
Printed Name
Representing:
/;JI /SOr( R-o()DA"L~S
I
Date:
3 /? / Z {/ tc
. ,
r~ c;{'=f!---
Signature II
~'SllA~_~_
Printed Name
Representing: -A~ tc.AI._::;'-Y
~ \
Date:
3 / J.- / d--tJ/O
, I
;{. ~
Signature~
J<lff Pev K,n $
Printed Name
Representing:
City of Eagle - Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code ~67-6510 - 4
Date: .J.... 2-- 10 h:;r ~
Signature
~~ j: BJ~h~:>
Printed Name
Representing: E..r. y)4.f /aJ~~
/
Date:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
Date:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
Date:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
City of Eagle - Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code ~67-6510 - 5
~-
Date:
Date:
Date:
~/'
/ 71"6
( I
g/~)(6
( /
1.- t(/L~ W to
Date: 3 /2-[2-D I 0
s~ -CVh~~
~4'~L/ ~.r-/.~ cC5-/L--o/
Printed Name
Representing:~l/cJ6 ~7C:i{5\~,
'"
~~; ~y-
Si
s- eDit- .~-OS~
Printed Name
Representing:
Sc,~ Sp.r-I ~~
.
CR~~~~_~1/\
Signature
POem ~A Cl C--lb I dt/l]
Printed Name
Representing: IT D
City of Eagle - Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code ~67-6510 - 4
Date: 3(:2-/'0 U~ 7 ~~.
-
SIgnature
~)) t> '1 --
I- c5 f'tI'e r7
Printed Name
Representing: '-f" i2 ~ fJIlZ: V ~ I~
Date: 3-2 - 2of.() Sign~ 5. \TI f
fh,-/Ii P E. grpudbel1f
Printed Name
Representing: f\k/~'{) t;:J
U
Date:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
Date:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
City of Eagle - Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code ~67-6510 - 5
EXHIBIT "B"
uJ I~U /41fI7'ftt-- /!, ITj Jdev - ~ (})
&t a{- !:hJ^ 3/2/09
m._NIlfJ1~_~_.~._. '~'. ..M~~_. ....._~_.n.. ...~.:&d&LL..~~-(€!\i!?~ ~......_.
---- - ~ . --= yr..
---~~-... ..-~~;~~~C4<i2~
--~f:t::~i~Atl;;~,~~~
...0...41I?~i~~ L__~!;0A! ..iP ~._fJ).t_a#:L1J~!~,~/~Wlf ~~__._._ltt.~.... ..
_~~~~'MlLL . ..~:i~~~~:L_~=_~--~~~@
.~..~fYliDl Js...8S-l.M;..t.t.J...j,Aj;L~,_ S'1\f\~------~27'~~
~~'" l~_~ j,[Li~11AL/~7t1f""L --~S:.~~~~I.C"t1_t-0
~~:d::'uw;:~~~~t~1~~::L
._-~~HQf\. _RlJQL.s-,-~j?g~ibll& W1J-a~7."""
~~j?2~LPJ~~~~~_..
~l Y\..Ct2Lf' -~~r.--j_8()12-~~~.~~---4~e7_ ti f"'-J:j~~,~t!L&.(:;izdtJ_~____l:J?~J2 .iJ.nf:;;_'?K
Cgtti2 .fk-l:2~~_ .~g.")1_?;3_~l7!1~~L~_~.~___~!2~2o/~fJ;lt.~__ ~-f;~-P...
t~~_~_ ~)\~~ ~~__~_~fltP:'!_~~~..~au\.:)__~~~!= ~ 1~,?___ .. cc.. ~ (V...F
(7 t7 hb .
2C;rr1"t-J2___~_..lD~?_ ~-?:?J~.:-$jYer~~e2rl_5kLUll_t Et'~!Q_~?_~l~._ .n_ _ M_~_
R~~-2folqh4j2jL-_~"=<mX3f..'?2 -qf~iP
~~~_:2/2_Q_5>-O_.c.:;~~_ ..:V ol.~!L 12::CZ 0 L.__...______m__n__~lLS~~J _
-.~.'.-. ~-fP:.. ~-.- 1?ll:..j\J;r::;~J;&d,Ti..J&i3fdJ"LnW{;;~
1~J(:tGk_h-hc1- -- -----~~r~ u -U6t6- j~-..
L#'~!dJ/u..-IL5-764r~- ... -- --- --- ... .-.
.. ~~~~-;~ ~-<)-rJ ~~l~"-~+ S~;--~_~- i4)h
.' J?GL\116.Q.14.~~~~t[I\~.gt~Ch\tyJe.:llR21~~_______dU__H1IQ
_S:ce:--fr"1J~~ ~_~_:lQ, ~i'\~~_~!"~~t- ---- :---- - ._......_5ct~I-~-'>-'~~-,-
L " -L
. /-br~~ . 7 ~ 7~ ?:.'-;/1~h(+ _ .._ If
~~--:~~Ls;;;;.:?:h-w0~,C/~q ~pQ? <'?---:"~(--/ ?L.~..cl~E.,/?1e:~Vc/"'?~6'?C:S
;CJ/z,-j B roadb6n/t- Cll ~ 72:; ver /-k .,hls iJr ^- t_,~~t,. htf)/f'?:,
@)
-
~' BAil (~"97~~~
~-cr:;- . 4b3~W t~_
-r\4~r' M -. S~~t, K:~~~bn_, -, (10 - &:f1~)
-~---'-~'-~-- ------
. --------------------~-----
-------'--~------------------~----~_._--~--
-- --'-~------~-~- ----_...__.-,.~----_._-------'~,-------_._--------
Recording Requested By and
When Recorded Return to:
City of Eagle
660 E. Civic Lane
P.O. Box 1520
Eagle, Idaho 83616
For Recording Purposes
Do Not Write Above This Line
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement (this "Agreement") made and entered on the date indicated herein
by and between the CITY OF EAGLE, a municipal corporation in the State of Idaho ("Eagle"), by and
through its Mayor, and CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., an Idaho corporation ("Applicant") is as
follows:
WHEREAS, Applicant has contracted to purchase a contiguous parcel of land approximately
110+/- acres in size currently within Ada County and generally located at the northwest corner of State
Highway 20/26 and Meridian Road as depicted on that certain proposed Concept Development Plan
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein (sometimes referred to herein as the ("Concept
Plan"), and more particularly described on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein (the
"Property"), which Property is the subject of Eagle Annexation and Rezone Application No. RZ-04-09;
and
WHEREAS, the Eagle Comprehensive Plan indentifies various Land Use Sub Areas and the
Property is located in the Land Use Sub Area known as the "Rim View Planning Area"; and
WHEREAS, the Property comprises an area currently zoned in Ada County as RUT (Rural-
Urban Transition); and
WHEREAS, Applicant desires that the Property be annexed into the corporate limits of Eagle
and be developed as an integral part of Eagle as set forth in this Agreement. Applicant has submitted to
Eagle a duly executed application requesting and consenting to annexation and rezone of the Property into
Eagle; and
WHEREAS, Applicant and Eagle desire that the Property be zoned MU-DA (Mixed Use with
Development Agreement) and developed as a mixed use project containing commercial, office,
residential, and open space as generally shown on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eagle, upon recommendation of Eagle's Planning & Zoning
Commission, has determined that the scope of any mixed use project upon the Property must be limited to
prevent undue damage to, and to otherwise be in harmony with, the existing community; and
WHEREAS, the intent of this Agreement is to protect the rights of Applicant's use and
enjoyment of the Property while at the same time limiting impact of the development of the Property
upon neighboring properties and the existing community while ensuring that the Property is developed in
a manner consistent with Eagle's City Code as may be modified by this Agreement; and
Page 1 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc fnl ver Yorgason.doc
WHEREAS, Applicant has agreed to the use restrictions and other limitations set forth in Eagle's
"MU-DA" (Mixed Use with Development Agreement) zoning designation for the Property, subject to the
provisions and requirements set forth in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Eagle and Applicant acknowledge that development of the Property will require the
construction of public improvements both within and outside of the boundaries of the Property, which
construction may take extensive time and which public improvements will provide regional benefits as
well as benefits for the Property; and
WHEREAS, Eagle and Applicant acknowledge that development ofthe Property may be
constrained by market and financing issues outside of the control of Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the Property have previously provided Eagle with affidavits agreeing
to submit the Property to a development agreement pursuant to Eagle City Code Section
8-10-1 (C) (I); and
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged and agreed, and in consideration of the recitals above, which are incorporated
below, and in consideration of the premises and the mutual representations, covenants and agreements
hereinafter contained, Eagle and Applicant represent, covenant and agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
LEGAL AUTHORITY
This Agreement is made pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Idaho Code,
Sections 50-222; 50-301; 67-6508; 67-6511; 67-6512; and 67-6511A and Eagle City Code, Title 8,
Chapter 10.
ARTICLE II
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Eagle will adopt an ordinance amending the Eagle Zoning Ordinance to rezone the Property that is the
subject of the application to the Mixed Use District ("MU-DA"), after recordation of, and subject to the
provisions of this Development Agreement. The ordinance will become effective after its passage,
approval, and publication.
ARTICLE III
CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Eagle hereby acknowledges that the bubble plan shown on the Concept Plan (Exhibit A)
represents Applicant's concept for the Property. All future development of the Property shall be
generally consistent with the Concept Plan; provided, however, it is the intent of this Agreement
to allow flexibility until such time a detailed conceptual site plan ("Conceptual Site Plan"), and
preliminary plat are submitted to Eagle so long as the general intent of the Concept Plan and the
conditions and limitations set forth in this Agreement are met. Applicant shall submit the
Conceptual Site Plan outlining future phased developments as a modification to the development
agreement prior to or concurrent with a preliminary plat application. The Conceptual Site Plan
shall provide more detail, including but not limited to, location of roads within the development,
lot layout, lot dimensional standards, setbacks for the commercial and residential areas, location
and size of common areas and buffer areas. The City shall hold necessary public hearings
pursuant to Eagle City Code notice requirements to address the Conceptual Site Plan and any
Page 2 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc fnl ver Yorgason.doc
changes thereafter proposed to said plan. The Conceptual Site Plan shall be in lieu of the
preliminary development plan provided Conditions of Development and the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for the development agreement modification are similar to Conditions of
Development required during the PUD and conditional use process.
3.2 Applicant will submit applicable applications regarding design review, preliminary and final plat
reviews, and/or any conditional use permits, if applicable, and any other applicable applications
as may be required by Eagle City Code, which shall comply with Eagle City Code, as it exists at
the time such applications are made except as otherwise provided within this Agreement.
3.3 All commercial development within the Property shall be consistent with the Castlebury West
Business Park architectural style and be generally consistent with the Eagle Architecture and Site
Design Book. The Concept Plan shows the general nature and relative location of certain
improvements on the Property. It is the intent of this Agreement is to allow sufficient flexibility
at the time a detailed plan and platting are submitted to Eagle, while maintaining the general
intent of the Concept Plan with the requirements set forth in this Agreement.
3.4 Applicant shall develop the Property subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in this
Agreement and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law approved by the City Council.
Applicant shall also submit such applications for design review, preliminary and final plat
reviews, and/or any conditional use permits, if applicable, and any other applications as may be
required by the Eagle City Code in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
3.5 Applicant shall submit a preliminary plat for all or a portion of the Property within two (2) years
of the recording date of the Final Plat for Castlebury West Subdivision Phase 3. An approved
preliminary plat for this site shall expire two (2) years following action by Eagle City Council, or
after any additional period of time as may be approved by Eagle City Council, not to exceed an
additional three (3) years, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. All preliminary
plat applications must be submitted within seven (7) years after the initial preliminary plat has
been approved by Eagle City Council. A final plat application must be submitted to Eagle prior to
the expiration of its corresponding preliminary plat. Final plat applications submitted in
connection with portions of corresponding preliminary plats shall be submitted in an orderly and
reasonable manner in intervals not to exceed eighteen (18) months following the recordation of
the preceding final plat. (Such final plat applications shall be considered for final approval
without resubmission of the preliminary plat for approval). Any final plat shall be recorded
within two (2) years following Eagle City Council action on the final plat; provided however,
Eagle City Council may approve the extension of such two (2) year period, which approval shall
not be unreasonably withheld, for a period of time not to exceed three (3) years to facilitate the
completion of improvements required by the applicable sections of Eagle City Code. As part of
its consideration to extend the time frame in this Section, Eagle City Council may require
Applicant to adhere to subdivision ordinances and resolutions in effect at the time the extension is
requested.
3.6 Except as otherwise provided within this Agreement, Applicant shall comply with the Eagle City
Code in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement (excluding building codes adopted after
the Effective Date); provided, however, if, following the Effective Date, the permitted uses of the
MU-DA zone are expanded, such expanded uses shall be allowed in the Property and included in
this Agreement or portions thereof. If preliminary and final plats are not submitted in a timely
manner as set forth in this agreement the Eagle City Code effective at the time of submittal of said
untimely plats shall apply thereto.
Page 3 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc fnl ver Yorgason,doc
3.7 The 110+/- acre site of the Property shall consist of approximately 107 acres of residential use
(single-family and multi-family units) and approximately 3.0 acres of non-residential uses as
described below.
3.7.1 Non-Residential (Commercial) Mixed Use. Commercial uses shall be limited to those
uses that complement or are ancillary to the Castlebury West Business Park and are
otherwise limited to the following uses, which may be constructed without a Conditional
Use Permit:
. Banks/financial institutions (no drive up service)
. BeautyIBarber Shop
. Catering Service (no restaurants)
. Day Spa
. Office, business and professional
. Office, medical and professional
. Artist Studios
. Clinic
. Daycare Center
. Personal Improvement
. Home and Business services
. Laboratories
. Pharmacies and Medical Sales (no drive thru service)
. Photographic Studio
. Printing/Blueprinting
. Professional activities
. Travel Services
. Research and Development
. Research Activities
. Christmas Tree Sales (only until building on the property has begun)
. No Drive up or Drive thru services are allowed.
3.7.2 Residential Development.
3.7.2.1 The total residential area shall be approximately 107+/- Acres (inclusive of open
space). The maximum density for the Property shall be approximately 2.40 dwelling
units per acre with a maximum of 257 dwelling units to be located within the areas
as generally depicted on the Concept Plan (Exhibit A) attached hereto and made a
part hereof and subject to the capacity of the sewer system. Residential portions of
the Property shall not require a conditional use permit.
3.7.2.2 The residential areas shall transition with higher densities adjacent to the mixed-use
non-residential area located at the southern boundary of the site and reducing in
density with larger lots in proximity to Foxtail and Winward River Heights
Subdivisions as shown on the Concept Plan (Exhibit A). Single-family residential
lots shall be no less than one (1) acre in size adjacent to Foxtail and Winward River
Heights Subdivisions, which are in existence as of the Effective Date ofthis
Agreement.
3.7.2.3 The minimum required open space shall be comprised of no less than 20% of the total
gross land area of the residential areas; those residential areas containing lots greater
than 37,000 square feet in size shall be excluded from the calculations for the
required amount of open space for the overall site. Sidewalks and pathways shall be
Page 4 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc fnl ver Yorgason,doc
constructed in appropriate locations to provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the
site, subject to review upon the submittal of a preliminary plat application.
3.8 Dimensional standards and respective setbacks within the Property shall be as follows:
Patio Home Lots (5,000 sq. ft. minimum):
Front: 15 feet - living area / 20 feet garage
Rear: 15 feet
Side: 5 feet
Street Side: 15 feet
Maximum lot coverage 60%
Standard R-3 Lots (10,000 sq. ft. minimum):
Front: 20 feet
Rear: 20 feet
Side: 5 feet (additional 2.5 feet per story)
Street Side: 20 feet
Maximum lot coverage 40%
Standard R-2 Lots (17,000 sq. ft. minimum):
Front: 25 feet
Rear: 20 feet
Side: 7.5 feet, (additional 5 feet per story)
Street Side: 20 feet
Maximum lot coverage 40%
Standard R-1 Lots (43,560 sq. ft. minimum):
Front: 30 feet
Rear: 30 feet
Side: 15 feet
Street Side: 30 feet
Maximum lot coverage 35%
3.9 The Property shall comply with all parking requirements pursuant to the Eagle City Code in effect
as of the Effective Date of this Agreement unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement.
3.10 A letter of approval shall be provided to Eagle from the Eagle Sewer District indicating that the
property has been annexed into the Eagle Sewer District's service boundaries at the time of
submitting the first final plat application. A letter of approval shall be provided to Eagle from the
Eagle Sewer District approving the construction plans prior to approval of the respective final plat
application.
3.11 Commercial Building placement shall be designed such that parking areas are not concentrated
between the buildings and roadways of a collector status or higher. All buildings shall be
provided with architectural design elements and architectural relief in keeping with the proposed
architectural styles contained in Castlebury West Business Park.
3.11.1 All commercial structures within the Property shall be constructed utilizing architecture
consistent with the Castelbury West Business Park. All commercial development within
the Property shall be consistent with the Castlebury West Business Park and be
consistent with the Eagle Architecture and Site Design Book. Eagle Design Review
Board and Eagle City Council approval of the detailed architectural plans is required
Page 5 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc fill ver Yorgason.doc
prior to the issuance of building permits for multi-family residential and
commercial/retail buildings.
To assure compliance with this condition, Applicant shall create an architectural control
committee ("ACC") as a component of the Property's restrictive covenants ("CC&Rs").
Provisions regarding the creation and operating procedures of the ACC shall be included
in the CC&Rs, and shall be reviewed and reasonably approved by the Eagle City attorney
prior to the approval of the first final plat.
The submittal of the building permit application to Eagle for each commercial building
within the development shall be accompanied by an approval letter from the ACC.
Building permit applications that do not have an approval letter attached will not be
accepted.
3.11.2 All non-residential (commercial) mixed uses shall be subject to dark-sky lighting, noise,
or related limitations at the design review approval stage to address additional concerns
that may arise.
3.12 Applicant shall comply with all requirements of ACHD and/or ITD, as applicable, to ensure
restrictions pertaining to State Highway 20/26 do not exceed existing restrictions placed on
Castlebury West Business Park. The City shall not require the Applicant to dedicate or preserve
any Right-of-Way that exceeds the width of Right-of-Way dedicated and/or preserved by the
Castlebury West Business Park.
3.13 Applicant shall meet with Eagle within sixty (60) days of the anniversary ofthe Effective Date to
review compliance with the Agreement and Applicant-requested extensions at least annually until
fifty percent (50%) of the property has been platted.
3.14 For each preliminary plat the applicant shall design traffic calming measures within the proposed
development to address traffic entering Foxtail Subdivision at North Winward Avenue. The
applicant shall provide a revised concept plan showing the western end of the road immediately
north of Foxtail Subdivision terminating as a cul-de-sac prior to reaching the western boundary of
the site. The applicant shall provide no less than two (2) roads providing connectivity to the
adjacent Wilson (Foxtail Golf Course) property.
ARTICLE IV
AFFIDAVIT OF PROPERTY OWNERS
An affidavit of all owners of the Property agreeing to submit the Property to this Agreement and
to the provisions set forth in Idaho Code Section 67-6511 A and Eagle City Code Section 8-10-1 shall
have been provided to Eagle, and all such affidavits are incorporated herein by reference.
ARTICLE V
DEFAULT
5.1 Eagle and Applicant shall act in good faith when undertaking their respective obligations and
covenants contained herein. Failure or unreasonable delay by either party hereto to perform or
otherwise act in accordance with any term or provision of this Agreement for a period of sixty
(60) days following written notice thereof from the other party (the "Cure Period"), shall
constitute a default under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the failure or delay is such
that more than sixty (60) days would reasonably be required to perform such action or comply
with any term or provision hereof, then such party shall have such additional time as may be
reasonably necessary to perform or comply so long as such party commences performance or
Page 6 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc fnl ver Yorgason,doc
compliance within such sixty (60)-day period and diligently proceeds to complete such
performance or fulfill such obligation (the "Extended Cure Period"). The written notice
provided for above shall specify the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said
default may be satisfactorily cured, if possible. In the event a default of Applicant is not cured
within the Cure Period or the Extended Cure Period, if applicable, the zoning of that portion of
the Property related to such default shall convert to the A-R (Agricultural-Residential) zoning
designation.
5.2 In the event that either party to this Agreement shall file suit or action at law or equity to interpret
or enforce this Agreement, the unsuccessful party to such litigation agrees to pay to the prevailing
party all costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the prevailing party.
Similarly, all fees and costs associated with an appeal to any appellate court thereafter, including,
without limitation, the prevailing party's attorneys' fees, shall be paid by the non-prevailing party.
5.3 In the event the parties cannot resolve any disputes or disagreements in this agreement either
party may request mediation pursuant to Idaho Code S 67-6510.
ARTICLE VI
UNENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS
If any term, provision, commitment or restriction of this Agreement or the application thereof to
any party or circumstances shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such provision shall be severed from this Agreement and the remainder of this Agreement
shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect except that any portion so determined to be invalid or
unenforceable shall be re-negotiated in good faith between Applicant (or other appropriate party) and
Eagle. It is the parties' express intention that the terms and conditions be construed and applied as
provided herein, to the fullest extent possible. It is the parties' further intention that, to the extent any
such term or condition is found to constitute an impermissible restriction of the police power of Eagle,
such term or condition shall be construed and applied in such lesser fashion as may be necessary to not
restrict the police power of Eagle.
ARTICLE VII
ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER
After its execution, the Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder at
the expense of Applicant. Each commitment and restriction of this Agreement is binding upon, and the
burdens and benefits inure to, all successors in interest of the parties to this Agreement and constitute
covenants that shall run with the land. This Agreement shall be binding on Eagle and Applicant, and their
respective heirs, administrators, executors, agents, legal representatives, successors and assigns; provided
however, that if all or any portion of the Property is sold, the sellers shall thereupon be released and
discharged from any and all obligations arising under this Agreement in connection with the portion of
the Property sold. The new owner of the Property or any portion thereof (including, without limitation,
any owner who acquires its interest by foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise) shall be liable for all
commitments and other obligations arising under this Agreement with respect to the Property or portion
thereof.
In the event of a complete or partial assignment of Applicant's rights and obligations hereunder,
except an assignment for collateral purposes only, Applicant's liability under this Agreement shall
terminate. Nothing in this Agreement shall operate to restrict Applicant's ability to assign less than all of
Applicant's rights and obligations under this Agreement to those persons or entities that acquire any
portion of the Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the ongoing ownership, operation and
maintenance obligations in connection with this Agreement may be assigned to an owners' association.
Page 7 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc ful ver Yorgason.doc
Applicant shall provide Eagle with written notice of any assignment of Applicant's rights or obligations
to such owners' association within a reasonable period of time following such assignment.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, Applicant may assign all or part of Applicant's
rights and duties under this Agreement as collateral to any financial institution from which Applicant has
borrowed funds for use in developing the Property.
ARTICLE VIII
GENERAL MATTERS
8.1 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
pertaining to the subject matter hereof. All prior and contemporaneous agreements,
representations and understandings of the parties, oral or written, are hereby superseded and
merged herein.
8.2 Amendments. Eagle and Applicant acknowledge that amendments to this Agreement may be
necessary or appropriate from time to time. When the parties agree that an amendment is
necessary or appropriate, the parties shall, unless otherwise required by applicable law as
established in this Agreement or by state or federal statute, effectuate minor amendments
administratively approved by Eagle's Zoning Administrator. The approval of such minor
amendments shall not necessitate formal amendment of this Agreement, but shall be retained in
Eagle's official file for the Property. The parties shall cooperate in good faith to agree upon and
use reasonable efforts to process any amendments to this Agreement. No modification or
amendment to this Agreement of any kind whatsoever shall be made or claimed by Applicant or
Eagle and no such claimed modification shall have any force or effect whatsoever unless the same
shall be endorsed in writing and signed by the party against which the enforcement of such
modification or amendment is sought, and then only to the extent set forth in such instrument.
Amendments other than those approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator to this
Agreement shall be made only after complying with the notice and hearing provisions of Idaho
Code, Section 67-6509, as required by Eagle City Code Section 8-10-1. Such approved
amendment shall be recorded in the Official Records of Ada County, Idaho.
8.3 Construction; Headings. All parties hereto have either been represented by separate legal
counselor have had the opportunity to be so represented. Thus, in all cases, the language herein
shall be constructed simply in accord with its fair meaning and not strictly for or against a party,
regardless of whether such party prepared or caused the preparation of this Agreement. Titles and
captions are for convenience only and shall not constitute a portion of this Agreement. As used in
this Agreement, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall
each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates.
8.4 Termination Upon Sale to Public. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement is not
intended to and shall not create conditions or exceptions to title or covenants running with the
Property beyond the development of the Property. Therefore, in order to alleviate any concern as
to the effect of this Agreement on the status of title to any portion of the Property, this Agreement
shall terminate without the necessity of any notice, agreement or recording by and/or between the
parties in connection with any lot that has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in
"bulk") leased (for a period of longer than one year) or sold to the end-purchasers or users thereof
(a "Public Lot") and thereupon such Public Lot shall be released from and no longer be subject to
or burdened by the provisions of this Agreement.
8.5 Termination Upon Completion of Development. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
herein, Eagle shall, upon written request of Applicant, execute appropriate and recordable
evidence of termination of this Agreement if Eagle has determined reasonably that Applicant has
Page 8 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc ful ver Yorgason.doc
fully performed Applicant's obligations under this Agreement in connection with all or a portion
of the Property. Upon final approval of any detailed phase of the Property, or portion thereof, by
Eagle, and the recordation of the final plat in connection therewith, Eagle shall, as soon as
practicable, execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of the Agreement in
connection with such phase of development of the Property.
8.6 Waiver. No delay in exercising any right or remedy shall constitute a waiver by either party
thereof, and no waiver by Eagle or Applicant of the breach of any covenant or condition of this
Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or
any other covenant or condition of this Agreement.
8.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but all of which together constitute one and the same instrument.
The signature pages from one or more counterparts may be removed from such counterparts and
such signature pages all attached to a single document so that the signatures of all parties may be
physically attached to a single document.
8.8 Recitals; Exhibits. The recitals and any exhibits attached hereto shaU be deemed to have been
incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth in the body hereof.
8.9 Further Acts. Each of the parties shall promptly execute and deliver all such documents and
perform aU such acts as reasonably necessary, from time to time, to carry out the matters
contemplated by this Agreement.
8.10 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in implementing the terms of this Agreement.
8.11 Force Majeure. In the event of changed conditions, changes in state or federal laws or
regulations, building codes, inclement weather, delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials,
civil commotion, fire, acts of God, or other circumstances which substantiaUy interfere with the
ability of either party to perform such party's obligations and/or exercise such party's rights under
this Agreement, the parties agree to bargain in good faith to modify such obligations to aUow the
terms and conditions of this Agreement to proceed as planned to the extent practicable.
8.12 Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Idaho in effect at the time of the recordation of this Agreement, without regard to conflicts oflaw
principles. Any action brought in connection with this Agreement shall be brought in a court of
competent jurisdiction located in Ada County, Idaho.
8.13 Notices. Any notice which a party may desire to deliver to another party must be in writing and
may be delivered by personal delivery, by mailing the same by registered or certified u.s. Mail,
return receipt requested and postage prepaid, or by Federal Express or other reputable overnight
delivery service, to the party to whom the notice is directed at the address of such party set forth
below:
Eagle:
William E. Vaughan
Planning and Zoning Administrator
City of Eagle
660 E. Civic Lane
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Page 9 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc fill ver Yorgason.doc
Applicant:
J. Ramon Y orgason
Capital Development, Inc.
6200 N. Meeker Place
Boise, Idaho 83713
or such other addresses and to such other persons as the parties may hereafter designate. Any such
notice shaH be deemed delivered upon delivery ifby personal delivery, three (3) days after
deposit in the United States mail, or upon receipt if deposited with a reputable overnight delivery
serVIce.
8.14 Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective upon recordation of a fully executed and
notarized original of this Agreement.
8.15 No Partnership; Third Parties. It is hereby specifically understood, acknowledged and agreed
that neither Eagle nor Applicant shall be deemed to be an agent of the other for any purpose
whatsoever. It is not intended by this Agreement to, and nothing contained in this Agreement
shaH, create any partnership, joint venture or other arrangement between Applicant and Eagle.
No term or provision of this Agreement is intended to, or shall, be for the benefit of any third-
party, person, firm, organization or legal entity not a party hereto, and no such other third-party,
person, firm, organization or legal entity shall have any right to cause of action hereunder.
8.16 Good Standing; Authority. Each of the parties represents to the other that: (a) Applicant is an
Idaho corporation duly qualified to do business in Idaho; (b) Eagle is a municipal corporation
duly qualified to do business in the State ofIdaho; and (c) the individual(s) executing this
Agreement on behalf of the parties are authorized and empowered to bind the party on whose
behalf each such individual is signing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, having been duly authorized, have executed this
Development Agreement.
DA TED this _ day of
,2010.
EAGLE:
CITY OF EAGLE, a municipal corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Idaho
By:
Michael Huffaker, Council President/Acting
Mayor
ATTEST:
Sharon K. Bergmann, City Clerk
Page 10 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc fill ver Yorgason.doc
APPLICANT:
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., an Idaho
corporation
By: Ramon Y orgason
Its: President
ST A TE OF IDAHO )
: ss.
County of Ada )
On this _ day of ,2010, before the undersigned notary public in
and for the said state, personally appeared Michael Huffaker, known or identified to me to be the Council
President/Acting Mayor of the City of Eagle and the person who executed the foregoing instrument on
behalf of said City and acknowledged to me that said City executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year first above
written.
Notary Public for Idaho
Residing at:
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF IDAHO )
: ss.
County of Ada )
On this _ day of , 2010, before the undersigned Notary Public in
and for the said state, personally appeared Ramon Y orgason, known or identified to me to be the
President of Capital Development, Inc., an Idaho corporation, the corporation that executed the within and
foregoing instrument, or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and
acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same.
Page 11 of 12
K:\Plannjng Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc fnl ver Yorgason.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year first above
written.
Notary Public for Idaho
Residing at:
My Commission Expires:
Page 12 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2009\A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 da cc fnl ver Yorgason.doc