Minutes - 2010 - City Council - 10/26/2010 - Special
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2010
REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 5:35 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Acting Mayor Huffaker calls the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: HUFFAKER, SHOUSHT ARIAN, SEMANKO, GRASSER. All
present. A quorum is present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Bob Nichols leads the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT AGREEMENT:
Acting Mayor Huffaker introduces the item.
Semanko moves to approve the mayoral appointment agreement. Seconded by
Shoushtarian. Discussion. HUFFAKER: AYE; SHOUSHSTARIAN AYE; SEMANKO
AYE; GRASSER AYE... MOTIONCARRIES.
Grasser nominates Mr. James Reynolds and move that we appoint him as our new Eagle
Mayor. I am very honored and pleased to have that opportunity and hopefully the third
time is the charm. But I am very excited for Eagle, to have this new Council that we've got
up here and now a new Mayor. And I think we've all got the right attitude up here and
with your addition I think we are going to hit a home run...or touchdown whichever sport
you want to use. I am very pleased to offer up that nomination and move that we appoint
James Reynolds. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
5. OATH OF OFFICE: The Clerk's Office administers the oath of office for James Reynolds
Sr. Deputy Clerk/Treasurer Osborn administers the oath of office to James D. Reynolds.
6. EAGLE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE/EAGLE CITY COUNCIL JOINT
REVIEW SESSION: ( 1 hr) The Eagle City Council and the Eagle Transportation Committee
will review and discuss the Committee's recommendation regarding amendments for the FY
2012-2016 TIP, STIP, and FYWP to aide in the City Council's recommendation to COMPASS,
ACHD, and ITD regarding the same.
Mayor Reynolds introduces the item. Members of the Transportation Committee in attendance:
Aizpitarte, Miller, Grounds.
Discussion of Committee's recommendation regarding amendments for the FY 2012-2016 TIP,
STIP, and FYWP.
Eagle Zoning Administrator Bill Vaughan will bring the changes discussed tonight back to
Council for review at their next meeting on November 9,2010.
Page I
K\CQUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-IO-26-lOspmindoc
Huffaker comments that 11 A is the item that most people are here to speak to and there has been
considerable discussion on items lOB and 10C in the past, he'd like to rearrange the agenda to
move the public hearing up on the agenda.
Huffaker moves to amend the agenda to hear item llA to be heard just after 10 B.
Seconded by Semanko. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES.
Huffaker moves that item 12A be continued to the November 91h meeting at the applicants
request. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Brynne Rutledge is running for Miss Boise Princess, she is 10 years old. The contestants this
year are raising money for the Idaho Humane Society and each must come up with a unique
campaign. Since the Idaho Humane Society can get pet food in bulk at lower costs, Brynne is
focusing on raising money so that each dollar goes farther towards pet food purchases. Council
would like to add a news link for Brynne's fundraising project on the City's webpage. Council
also suggested that she work with the Chamber of Commerce to distribute her fundraising effort
information to local businesses.
Jeff Kunz, 2213 E. Skokie Dr. Eagle, Idaho Co-Chairman of the City Hall Location Task Force.
Mr. Kunz states that he is planning to attend the November 9th Council meeting at which the City
Hall Location Task force findings will be discussed. Mr. Kunz is seeking direction from the
Council as to the level of detail they would like presented at the November 9th meeting. Mayor
Reynolds suggests a brief executive summary followed by a question and answer period and
public comment would be fine. The Task Force findings and documentation are posted on the
City's website, with the exception of one item that Mr. Kunz will get to the City to be placed on
the site. Discussion.
Melissa Brodt, 179 S. Eagle Rd. Eagle, Idaho. Ms. Brodt is presenting news regarding First
Friday and the Eagle Idaho Merchant Group that has been formed. She provides handouts to the
Mayor and Council for review (copy attached to minutes). Ms. Brodt reviews the history of the
First Friday event. They are looking for support and partnership throughout the community. She
is opposed to the proposed Downtown Plan and feels it will be detrimental to the current and
existing uniqueness of the downtown. Ms. Brodt would like to see tax dollars invested in the
current businesses rather than focusing on potential or future businesses. They would like
assistance in funding their marketing efforts and need help in keeping their businesses open. The
requested funding is between $500 - $1,000 on a monthly basis, or perhaps $4,000 to fund a
campaign around whatever the City can give as support. The Chamber of Commerce has been
able to only provide limited support due to their (the Chambers) financial situation. Semanko
asks ifthe upcoming First Friday event could be posted on the City's website or a link added.
Discussion.
Councilmember Semanko takes a moment to publicly acknowledge the almost 8 months that
Councilman Huffaker has put in as our Acting Mayor. It has been a phenomenal effort on his
part.
Mary DeFayette, 2200 Halsey Eagle, Idaho. Ms. DeFayette agrees with what Norm said about
Council Member Huffaker and his service to the City. She feels the Council owes it to Huffaker
to pay him the prorated amount ofthe $30,000 for his time as Acting Mayor.
Page 2
KICOUNCIL\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Wnrk AreaICC-IO-26-IOspmin.doc
Semanko makes a motion to amend the agenda to add item B under 14 for Personnel under
Executive Session. Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Kelly Beech with Gaia Studio and Gallery at 237 N. 1 st Street Eagle, Idaho. She concurs with
Melissa Brodts comments and the usefulness of First Friday to her business. Ms. Beech feels
that First Friday is really something the City needs to get involved with to keep the small
business's alive and vibrant and to continue to bring people to downtown Eagle.
Kathi Venz, 1580 E. State Street Eagle, Idaho. She owns a small business in Eagle. She is a
member of the merchant association and feels like there has been a great benefit from the First
Friday events.
8. CONSENT AGENDA:
· Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one
motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Mayor, a
Councilmember, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed
from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda
will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the City Council.
· Any item on the Consent Agenda which contains written Conditions of Approval
from the City of Eagle City Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, or Design
Review Board shall be adopted as part of the City Council's Consent Agenda
approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise.
A. Claims Ae:ainst the City.
B. Reappointment to the Eae:le Public Library Board: Upon recommendation
of the Eagle Public Library Board, the Mayor is requesting the confirmation of
the reappointment of Margo Walter to the Board. Ms. Walter will be serving a
five year term. This item was continuedfrom the October 12,2010 meeting.
C. Minutes of October 12. 2010:
D. User Ae:reement between City of Eae:le and Eae:le Foothills BMX. Inc.:
(MJE)
E. Service Ae:reement for Animal Control Services between City of Eae:le and
the Idaho Humane Society: (MJE)
F. Cooperative Ae:reement between Valley Ree:ional Transit and City of Eae:le
for Annual Dues and Service Contribution: (SEB)
G. Professional Services Ae:reement between the City of Eae:le and Holladay
Ene:ineerine: Companv: (SEB)
City Attorney requests that item 8F be removed from the consent agenda.
Huffaker moves to approve the amended Consent Agenda. Seconded by Semanko.
Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: AYE; Semanko: AYE: Grasser: AYE: ALL AYES:
MOTION CARRIES.
City Attorney Buxton notes a type-o on page 2. The City of Eagle's address needs to be inserted
and Caldwell's deleted, with that change, she would ask that Council approve the agreement.
So moyed by Huffaker. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYE.. .MOTION CARRIES.
Page J
K\COUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-26-lOspmin.dnc
Semanko would like a dialogue with VRT to improve service in Eagle, especially the physical
configuration of bus route. Grasser concurs and would like it to be an agenized item and seek
public comment.
Kellie Fairless Executive Director with Valley Regional Transit. She would welcome a dialogue
and public comment on the transit and would be happy to come to a Council meeting to discuss
ideas and concerns.
9. PROCLAMATIONS & RESOLUTIONS:
A. Resolution No. 10-27: A resolution of the City of Eagle authorizing the declaring surplus
property. The City Clerk is requesting that certain fixed assets be surplused s the assets are no
longer required to conduct City business. (SKB)
Mayor Reynolds introduces the item.
City Attorney provides clarification on the bidding process, and the establishment of minimum
low bid in regard to Idaho State Code. Discussion regarding the mileage of the vehicles and bid
notification options. Discussion.
Huffaker moves to approve Resolution 10-27 surplus equipment and add to the paragraph
regarding "a public sale by sealed bids" at the end where it says "to the highest bidder"
that we "establish a minimum of low blue book value as determined by the Director of
Public Works and the Mayor". Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
B. Resolution No. 10-28: A resolution of the City of Eagle authorizing the declaration of
surplus property. The City Clerk and the Library Director of the City of Eagle, Idaho are
requesting that certain fixed assets be surplused as the assets are no longer required to conduct
Library business. (SKB)
Mayor Reynolds introduces the item.
Huffaker moves to approve agenda item 9B Resolution 10-28 surplus property. Seconded
by Semanko. ALL AYE.. .MOTION CARRIES.
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. DR-49-01 MOD - Modification to One Buildine: Wall Sie:n and The Monument Sie:n
Includine: the Addition of a Second Buildine: Wall Sie:n for Washine:ton Federal Savine:s
Bank - Washine:ton Federal Savine:s: Washington Federal Savings, represented by Tony
Meade with Idaho Electric Signs Inc., is requesting design review approval to modify the existing
building wall sign and monument sign and to add a second building wall sign. The site is located
on the south side of East State Street approximately 265-feet west of North Palmetto Avenue at
701 East State Street. This item was continuedfrom the October 12,2010 meeting. (WEV)
Mayor Reynolds introduces the item.
Huffaker thanks the Council for their patience in continuing this item to allow time to visit other
site locations.
Tony Meade with Idaho Electric Signs provides comment on signs at other locations.
Page 4
KICOUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-26-lOspmin.dnc
Semanko moves to approve DR-49-01 MOD - Modification to One Building Wall Sign and
The Monument Sign Including the Addition of a Second Building Wall Sign for
Washington Federal Savings Bank. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES.
B. EXT-05-10/PP-02-06 - Preliminarv Plat Extension of Time for Brutsman
Subdivision - Shawn Ross: Shawn Ross represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, is
requesting a two (2) year extension oftime for the preliminary plat approval for Brutsman
Subdivision, a 17 lot (12-buildable, I-existing, 4-common) residential subdivision. The 4.86-acre
site is located approximately 1,200-feet south of Floating Feather Road and on the west side of
Horseshoe Bend Road at 10895 Horseshoe Bend Road. This item was continuedfrom the
October 12,2010 meeting. (WEV)
Mayor Reynolds introduces the item.
Shawn Nickel, 148 N. Second Street Eagle, Idaho, representing Shawn Ross reviews the
application.
Discussion regarding the number of previous extensions of time and the status ofthe project.
Semanko moves to approve the extension request subject to the staff recommendation of a
one year extension which would expire July 10, 2011. Seconded by Grasser. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
I I. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CPA-OI-I0 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment - Downtown Eae:le
Subarea Plan: The City of Eagle is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment
for the "Downtown Eagle Subarea Plan." The plan includes text changes and changes to the
Future Land Use Map for +/- 340 acres from Central Business District, Residential Four (four (4)
units per acre), Mixed Use, and Commercial to "Downtown." The +/-340-acre subarea is
generally located north of the State Highway 44 Bypass, south of the Dry Creek Canal, west of
Edgewood Lane, and east of Taylor Street. The changes are more specifically described in the
application on file at the City of Eagle or on the City's website at www.cityofeagle.org.
Mayor Reynolds introduces the item.
City Planner Baird Spencer reviews the notification process for the public hearing tonight and
the extensive community involvement that was solicited to help create the plan that is before the
Mayor and Council tonight. Baird Spencer reviews the downtown plan. (The power point
presentation is included with the minutes.)
Mayor opens the public hearing.
Bob Taunton and Ed Miller chair of the Urban Land Institute in Idaho. Mr. Taunton introduces
the history of the ULI and Eagle's participation. Ed Miller reviews a study that the ULI
conducted. A copy of the ULI Study is provided to the Mayor and Council and one is included
with the minutes. Miller compliments the report presented to the Council tonight as well as the
City Staff and community involvement. He highlights the areas which the CPA presented tonight
Page 5
KICOUNCILIMlNUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-26-10spmin.doc
agrees with the ULI report. Mr. Miller comments that the length of the document is quite
massive and could benefit to be pared down. The implementation will be a challenge of how to
promote and implement the plan and get it to coordinate with ordinances. Discussion.
Mr. Taunton feels that the City should have a concept of the market and what reality is - what
the market opportunity is for the community. Taunton and Miller recommend selecting two or
three goals and focusing on seeing those through to completion by focusing their efforts on them.
Discussion.
Sheila Martin, 267 N. 1 st Street, Eagle, Idaho. Ms. Martin wishes there was more
consecutiveness to the residents. Her neighbors had not even heard of this plan. Ms. Martin did
not feel that the residents received adequate notice and encourages the Council, Commissions,
and Staff to be more welcoming to the residents. She comments on neighboring businesses and
the welcoming feel of 1 sl Street. Ms. Martin would like a Town Hall meeting on the downtown
plan; the displaced residents should have the opportunity to comment. A smaller vision for the
downtown would be a better approach. Ms. Martin would like the Council to hold off acting on
this plan until more public input is sought. Discussion. She is against approving the plan.
Ken Martin 237 N. 1 st Street Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Martin is retired military. He does not want to
give away his power and the idea of his street being included in this plan is disconcerting to him.
The plan is too grand. The residents need to be consulted not the developers. Mr. Martin
encourages practicality with taxpayer dollars, and the encouragement of involvement for Eagle
residents.
Jason Hass, 1483 N. Foxpoint Place, Eagle, Idaho. Mr Hass is an Eagle resident and member of
the Urban Renewal Agency. It is his understanding that this is a plan - a starting point. The
time, effort, and energy that have gone into this have been outstanding. Mr. Hass compliments
Planner Baird Spencer, the participants, the Chamber, and all those that have been involved in
the development of this plan. The development of this plan has taken years. City Staff has
incorporated the public involvement vision and comments extremely well into this plan. He
encourages Council to move this plan forward, extensive time and dedication has gone into it and
it provides visions and goals for our community. Mr. Hass states that this plan compliments
nicely with what the Urban Renewal Agency has been working on. Discussion.
A member of the audience interjects during Mr. Hass testimony. City Attorney Buxton provides
clarification on public hearing procedures in accordance with Idaho State Law.
Continued discussion between Mr. Hass and Council.
City Attorney Buxton explains the procedural steps that would occur ifthis plan was approved
and what would follow in regard to ordinance changes. She touches on restrictions that exist in
Eagle City Code and Idaho State law.
Sheila Martin, 267 N. I st Street, Eagle, Idaho disagrees with Mr. Hass testimony. She feels that
the Urban Renewal Agency will increase taxes and that this Comprehensive Plan Amendment
will drive the Urban Renewal Agency.
Mr. Hass states he would be happy to bring people up to speed on the recent activities on the
Urban Renewal Agency and their meetings are open to the public. He encourages the Martin's to
attend their meetings.
Page 6
KICOUNCILIMlNUTESITemporary Minules Work AreaICC-IO-26-10spmindoc
Huffaker comments that the Urban Renewal Agency will be addressing Council at their first
meeting in November where the Agency will explain what they do. This would be a great
meeting to attend. And for clarification, Urban Renewal collects taxes it is not adding on to
anyone's tax base at all. It is basically tax that is diverted from other tax districts that you
already get taxed from and it is moved over to urban renewal to help projects that may come into
the area. Urban renewal does not increase anyone's tax. It is just that part of their tax that is
diverted to urban renewal to help them develop blighted areas.
Discussion.
Huffaker states that these different parts of the Downtown Plan allow for a mixture of uses. For
example in the area Martin's are concerned about it actually promotes that it will be single
family residences there, small boutique shops and small offices. It doesn't promote a 5-6 story
building in that area, and actually, according to the plan, that area is actually the lowest intensity,
lowest dense area of activity in the plan. Huffaker points out that this in not Planner Baird
Spencer's concept plan. This was a plan that was worked on with people in the community over
about a three year period. There were community meetings and mailings that were sent out to
every single person in the City of Eagle, not just a notice in the paper, but mailings that detailed
what the city was doing and that the discussion would be about what was happening in the
downtown and encouraging people to attend. There were multiple meetings on different nights
to accommodate people's schedules so they could attend. A number of people from the
community did show up, there has never been a secret about what is going on. Our Planner has
simply put together what the consensus was of the people that showed up at the meetings.
Tonight is another opportunity for people to give us their input and review the plan. We
welcome all of the input we get. Huffaker reviews the correspondence distribution process that
staff follows for items received via mail and e-mail. Discussion.
Shoushtarian states that with the comprehensive plan we are setting up a policy. He states that
he attended almost all of the meetings during the last three years and has been very involving in
the plan. Also he attended the ULI at City Hall. Shoushtarian mentions that he will withhold his
comments on the plan until the end of the public testimony to express his opinion. He
appreciates the hard work that Planner Baird Spencer has done over the last three years. Once
this plan is set, it is a vision for Eagle. If this is approved, at that point when someone comes
forward with an application this downtown plan will provide a guide for us, a policy in the form
of the comprehensive plan. This plan would be used as a vision to guide future land use
decisions. As a City Planner, Shoushtarian he explains that he has done planning for many years,
possesses a planning degree, and has also done work as a developer. As a developer he
understands commercial development. The 340 acres that are included in this application is of
concern to him. A formula exists, that based on the population of the city, and square footage of
the whole city, is used to calculate the downtown. A great many people throughout the world
utilize this formula. He would like to see the formula utilized to calculate the proposed plan
before the Council tonight. A standardized calculation should be done. Shoushtarian states that
he strongly feels the public hearing should be continued to encourage more public comment.
This decision will have a far reaching impact on the city. Discussion.
Semanko would like the public hearing to remain open for the two regular meetings in November
as well as the Town Hall meeting. He would like the plan better publicized, especially those
affected by the plan. Semanko praises Planner Baird Spencer for the work product and what
went into the plan before them tonight. It is now up to the Council to listen to the public
Page 7
K\COUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-26-lOspmindoc
testimony and decide on what will be retained or removed from the final plan. There is a need
for a plan and feels that this is a good starting point. Discussion.
Buxton states the notice for the Town Hall meeting will need to list the CPA out as a public
hearing so that a transcribable record must be maintained for this land use item. Because of the
formal public hearing requirement under the local land use planning act, you have to have formal
testimony at the Town Hall meeting. The speakers will need to identify themselves and give
name and address, just like in a regular Council meeting. The record needs to be clear and
transcribable. Discussion.
Grasser compliments City Planner Baird Spencer on a very professional plan and agrees with Mr.
Hass that there is a need for the plan. He states that he really feels that the people in the
identified area really need to get engaged. Grasser remembers when the original notices were
sent out and that the plan was just being formed. Now that the plan has been drafted and more
detail exists, the people should be able to get more information, ask questions and get a better
understanding of what is proposed for approval. Discussion.
Buxton verifies that the public hearing notices and meeting notices that were done by staff were
in accordance to Idaho State Law. However, if the Council would like other means taken to get
the word out, she encourages Council to direct staff as to specific methods to reach out to the
public. Discussion regarding additional notice method desired and cost.
All of the Council would like a postcard mailed to the affected residential areas notifying them of
public hearings in November. A general message of the comprehensive plan application, where
they can view it and of the public hearing dates in November. Discussion.
Semanko moves to continue the public hearing to include the Council meetings on
November 9th and 23rd and that we also have this as a featured topic at the Town Hall
meeting with the appropriate legal requirements in that notice. And that we also instruct
staff to do a postcard notifying landowner owners within the proposed downtown,
expanded downtown area of the proposed plan and proposed plan in designated, whatever
the appropriate term is of their land and inviting them to testify at one or more of the three
designated opportunities in November. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES.
C. Ordinance 647 - ZOA-03-08 -Zonine: Ordinance Amendment - City of Eae:le: The
City of Eagle is proposing to amend Eagle City Code Title 8 "Zoning", Chapter 6, Section 6 and
Chapter 7, Section 3 ofthe Eagle City Code, and amending Title 9 "Land Subdivisions", Chapter
2, Sections 3 and 4 of the Eagle City Code.
The proposed ordinance amendment, in brief, pertains to approval of extensions of time relative
to conditional use permits, preliminary and final plats, and preliminary and final development
plans for planned unit developments. This item was continuedfrom the October 12,2010
meeting. The public hearing was closed at the October 12, 2010. (WEV)
Mayor Reynolds introduces the item.
Huffaker moves to approve Ordinance 647 with all of the criteria added as we are looking at it
tonight, removing the various subsections within this ordinance that indicate that it has to be only
a maximum 2 extensions of time up to 12 months. And the reason I would do that is just that I
Page 8
K:\COUNCILIMlNUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-26-lOspmindoc
think that occasionally we are going to get something in here that may have a really good reason
why it needs more than 2 extensions. I think the criteria that are given, give us the guidelines
where we can say no to things that don't meet the criteria. And I think the criteria finally
identifies, enough for me, that I can say no to someone if I want to rather than just having it be
completely arbitrary. So my motion would be to approve this ordinance taking out 8-6- 6-3(2),
9-2-3(2) and 9-2-4(2). Seconded by Semanko. Discussion. Huffaker amends to clarify that each
extension could no greater than 12 months, as far as preliminary plats, final plats as well as the
development plan. Second concurs with the amendment. Discussion. Semanko suggests that
item A-E criteria would remain. Adding the applicants demonstrate a reasonable of finalizing
before the extended deadline. And that the applicant has provided a reasonable schedule to
complete the project. Then instead of striking number 2 completely which is the limitation of the
extensions we would change that to say that the Council reserves the right at any time to revoke
or modify the extension or any extension in the event that the criteria is no longer being met.
Huffaker withdraws his motion. Second concurs.
Discussion.
Huffaker moves that the language be changed to add concepts that were articulated for F
and G to be added to each of the subsections and a new number 2 be written that gives us
the right to revoke any extension that has already been granted if they are not meeting the
criteria and that those be changes be brought be for us at the next meeting. The plan is F
the schedule is G and the new number 2. Seconded by Semanko. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES.
D. Ordinance 638 - ZOA-OI-09 - Zonine: Ordinance Amendment - City of Eae:le: The
City of Eagle is proposing to amend Eagle City Code Title 8 "Zoning", Chapter 2A "Design
Review Overlay District". The proposed ordinance amendment, in brief, is to amend the
approval process for Design Review applications and to amend the provisions for the use of
Special Signs. This item was continuedfrom the October 12,2010 meeting. The public hearing
was closed at the October 12,2010. (WEV)
Mayor Reynolds introduces the item.
General discussion.
Huffaker moves to amend the language to add language that has been suggested for F and
G and change language of 2 to be that it is revocable at any time, and that extensions
cannot exceed 12 months of time and bring it back at the next meeting for review.
Seconded by Semanko. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
12. NEW BUSINESS:
A. EXT-07-10/PP-OI-06 - Preliminarv Plat Extension of Time for Mosca Seca Subdivision
(aka Lee:acy) - Land Interests. Inc.. represented by Tom DeLuca: Land Interests Inc.,
represented by Tom DeLuca, is requesting a one (1) year extension of time for the preliminary
plat approval for Mosca Seca Subdivision, a 386-lotresidential subdivision (344-residential, 41-
common, and I-academy lot). The 228.79 acre site is located south of Floating Feather Road and
west of Linder Road. (WEV)
Page 9
KICOUNClLIMINUTESI Temporary Minutes Work ArealCC-l 0-26-1 Ospmin.doc
Continued to November 9, 2010 meeting. See motion above.
13. REPORTS:
A. Mayor and Council Reports and Concerns: Semanko notes that the ACHD cost share
agreement was approved. He attend the breakfast with the Friends of the Library.
B. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: Town Hall Meeting scheduled for November 16th at 6:30 p.m.
Discussion of December meeting dates. Council concurs to cancel the rd meeting of
December.
C. Zoning Administrator's Report: He has been requested to testify before the BOCC regarding
the Eagle Island Market Place. Discussion. Semanko directs staff to put council action regarding
directing staff to attend a BOCC meeting regarding Eagle Island Market Place on the November
9,2010 meeting agenda.
D. Public Works Director Report: None
E. City Attorney Report: Buxton briefs the Council on recent activities with the Wilson
Properties. Discussion. She also gives an update on the co-location of the ACSO and recent
interaction from Hawkins Smith, the owner of the City Hall building.
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
A. Pendine: and Threatened Litie:ation: I.C. 67-2345 (f)
There is nothing to discuss under threatened litigation.
B. Personnel Matters :I.C. 67-2345 (a & b)
Semanko moves to go into Executive Session in accordance with I.C. 67-2345(b) for the
discussion of personnel the potential compensation for acting mayor services. Seconded by
Grasser. Seconded by Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: AYE; Semanko: AYE; Grasser:
AYE: ALL AYES... MOTION CARRIES.
Before Deputy Clerk Osborn can turn off the recording, Huffaker requests that this item actually
be addressed in open session.
Huffaker states that for the record he did not ask Mary Defayette to address this and he did not
ask Semanko to add it to the agenda. He would rather it remain a discussion in open session.
Semanko acknowledges that Huffaker didn't ask him to add this to the agenda. He does feel that
perhaps compensation should take place and it is a reasonable request by Ms. Defayette. Grasser
notes that as Council President, he was compensated for his Council President duties which do
include serving as acting mayor in the absence of a mayor. It is unfortunate that he had to
assume the role for 8 months as acting Mayor. He would rather not touch the carry over monies
from last fiscal year, a portion of which were a result of not having a mayor seated and
compensated for 7 months. Semanko suggests compensating Huffaker for his duties from Oct. 1-
25th which does occur in this fiscal year. Grasser is supportive of that suggestion. Discussion.
Semanko moves to authorize compensation for Councilman Huffaker for his time during
this fiscal year from October 1st through the swearing in of the interim Mayor and that and
other appropriate recognition be provided to Michael for the period of service as acting
Mayor. Seconded by Grasser. SEMANKO AYE; GRASSER AYE; SHOUSHTARIAN
A YE. HUFFAKER ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES.
Huffaker suggests amending code to call out compensation for the acting mayor position.
Page 10
KICOUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-26-10spmindoc
15. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
Semanko moves to adjourn. Seconded by Shoustarian. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES...
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
Respectful1y submitted:
~ r..-uo -f(~
./ SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
",111111...
"~I ""
....\ -{ 0 F E-1 '"
....... ...'\. ........ O( '"
.... ~ -'" .- -. tI
~ v.. POR .. ~ ~
.. · o\l- -1..... -:.
: : 0 '~ · :
=*: : :
: : ~.~ : * :
;. ~.-:"t- SEA L ~.....: :
~ <P -.('0 ....Or.. 0 ~
-:. /> ..:I'OR^....'(~...\.. ~
" .r<J r ....... ~'? ......
"'" l:: 0 F \ \) ",,,
""," II ..."",
AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL
UPON REQUEST.
Page 11
KICOUNCILIMlNUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-26-lOspmindoc
EAGLE PUBLIC LIBRARY
SYSTEM STATISTICS REPORT -- September 2010
CIRCULATION/Books
Adult
Young Adult
Juvenile
Sub Total
CIRCULATION/Audio Visual
Adult
Young Adult
Juvenile
Sub Total
EPL TOTAL CIRCULATION
CIRCULATION SUMMARY
Check-outs
Check -ins
Renewals-Opac
Renewals-Telecirc
Renewals -1n House
Requests Placed
Requests Resolved(Filled)
Holds Picked Up
Holds Expired
ILLs RECEIVED
Non -Consortium
Consortium
ILLs SENT
Non -Consortium
Consortium
NEW EPL CARDS ISSUED
Resident
Non -Resident
REFERENCE SUMMARY
Adult Reference Desk
Children's Reference Desk
Circulation Desk
TOTAL
PATRON COUNT
This Month
MEETING ROOM USE SUMMARY
Proqrams
Community Usage
Youth Programs
Adult Programs
TOTAL PROGRAMS
Attendance
Community Attendance
Youth Prog Attendance
Adult Prog Attendance
TOTAL ATTENDANCE
7,708
1,211
6,923
15,8421
4,708
132
1,964
6,8041
22,6461
22,646
23,254
2,515
491
412
4,124
8,268
3,447
418
13
12
69
25
148
3
651
261
720
1,632
12,7271
Last Year
This Month
8,100
1,364
7,085
16,5491
5,344
127
2,094
1,5651
24,1141
24,114
24,305
2,573
606
320
3,923
7,856
3,368
394
7
11
49
17
1401
473
195
532
1,2001
11,2421
Percent This Year
Change to Date
95,878
16,581
84,427
196, 886
-12% 65,192
4% 1,591
-6% 26,352
-10%1 93,1351
-6u/01 290,021
-6%
-4%
-2%
-19%
29%
5%
5%
2%
6%
86%
9%
41%
47%
6%
0%
38%
34%
35%
36%/oI
290,021
295,809
31,357
6,193
4,716
48,367
97,066
40,427
4,916
1641
97
670
176
1,4571
26
5,189
2,535
7,420
15,1441
Last Year Percent
to Date Change
107,987
18,788
101,008
227, 783
75,463
1,785
27,521
104,7691
332,5521
332,552
335,977
33,659
8,274
9,222
52,699
104,958
45,567
5,318
2691
77
521
115
1,747
23
5,389
4,361
6,825
16,5751
-13%
-12%
-7%
-25%
-49%
-8%
-8%
-11%
-8%
-39%
26%
29%
53%
-17%
13%
-4%
-42%
9%
13%1 156, 2871 173,1271 -10%1
0 8 -100% 0 134 -100%
7 8 100% 142 172 -17%
4 2 100% 30 40 -25%
111 181 -39%i 1 721 3461 -b0%1
0 345 -100% 604 3,776 -84%
205 300 0% 5,695 7,495 -24%
42 20 110% 552 633 -13%
2471 6651 -63%1 6,851 1 11,904 -42%1
EAGLE PUBLIC LIBRARY
RECIPROCAL BORROWING STATISTICS -- September 2010
Items checked out at EPL by Consortium members' patrons.
Percent ot Percent ot
This This Month Last Year Percent This Year To Date Last Year Percent
Month Circulation This Month Change to Date Circulation to Date Change
CHECKOUTS
Ada Community 2,784 2,835 -2% 36,849 42,820
Boise 3,897 4,106 -5% 48,948 62,049
Caldwell 151 10 1410% 580 529
Emmett 103 1,094 0
Garden City 366 268 37% 3,384 5,661
Hailey 0 0 0% 7 8
Mountain Home 1 0 0% 11 2
Meridian 853 1,123 -24% 10,422 14,035
Nampa 106 106 0% 1,524 1,833
Twin Falls 0 1 0% 3 9
Total 8,261 36% 8,449 -2.23% 102,822 35% 126,946 -19.00%
Total EPL Circulation 22,646 24,114 290,021 332,552
Items checked out at consortium member locations by EPL patrons.
This Last Year This Year Last Year
Month This Month to Date to Date
CHECKOUTS
Ada Community 487 420 6,553 6,504
Boise 1,711 1,750 21,970 17,354
Caldwell 21 23 315 235
Emmett 76 652 0
Garden City 346 489 4,802 5,020
Hailey 0 0 0 2
Mountain Home 0 0 10 3
Meridian 621 718 7,354 6,462
Nampa 81 59 898 988
Twin Falls 1 0 29 12
Total 3,344 3,459 42,583, 36,580
Number of EPL items checked out at other consortium locations.
This Last Year Percent This Year Last Year Percent
Month This Month Change to Date to Date Change
4,3881 4,0771 8% 51,8401 J 49,9221 4%1
EAGLE PUBLIC LIBRARY STATISTICS SEPTEMBER 2010
CIRCULATION
Total Items Checked Out al EPL
Total Items Renevted al EPL
Total Items Checked In al EPL
Sep -09 Oct -09 Nov -09 Dec -09 Jan -10 Feb -10 Mar -10 Apr -10 May -10 Jun -10 Jul -10 Aug -10 Sep -10 09-10 Total 08-09 Total 07-08 Total
24,114 23,527 23,542 20,491 23,417 22,989 27,108 23,295 21,778 27,673 28,210 25,345 22,646 290.021 332,552 329,567
3,499 3,572 3,549 3,214 3,004 3,410 3,918 3,828 3,399 3,600 4,203 3,649 3,418 42,764 51,882 47,877
24,305 24,525 23.571 22.641 21,801 22,750 27,280 24.723 22.729 26.720 29,282 26,533 23.254 295,809 335,977 327.381
CIRCULATION OF EPL ITEMS
Books 14,313 13,3/9 13,141 11.126 13,747 13,587 16,297 14,006 12,990 17,187 17.153 15,043 13,892 171,548 197,990 199,336
New Books 1,200 1.248 1,205 1,232 1,266 1.231 1,364 1,235 1,130 1,401 1,252 1,302 1.262 15.128 18,413 16,766
Fbl,aay books 339 466 656 531 104 69 4 1 2 0 1 1 0 1,835 1,931 2,191
V,dcorDVD 5.398 5,630 5.756 5,013 5,501 5.294 6.131 5,137 4,869 5,727 5,875 5,443 4,547
64,923 74,447 72.000
audio Books 1,133 973 928 848 861 1.016 1.151 953 998 1,297 1.456 1.197 975 12,653 13,989 14,061
Music (CDs) 888 976 1.033 919 914 882 1,148 1,111 1,068 1,144 1,398 1.310 976 12,879 14,245 14,121
Penodicals 471 518 418 427 647 479 500 435 391 537 713 653 4736,191 7,055 7,323
TOTAL a OF CHECK0UT$ OF EPL ITEMS 23,742 23.190 23,137 20.096 23.040 22.558 26.595 22,878 21.448 27.293 27.848 24,949 22,125 285,157 328,070 325,800
EAGLE PATRON CIRCULATION
Patron over 18 12,606 12.782 12.735 10,955 12,212 11.824 14,150 12.446 11,797 14,237 14.023 13.137 12.078 152,376 167,702 173,174
Patron under 18 2,915 2,465 2,573 2,262 2,551 2.427 3.174 2,388 2.090 3.795 4.062 2,951 2.159 32,897 36,618 36,280
Courtesy Patron 0
TOTAL 0 OF TRANSACTIONS BY EPL PATRONS 15.521 15,247 15.308 13,217 14,763 14,251 17,324 14,834 13,887 18.032 18.085 16,088 14.237 185.273 204,320 209,454
NEW CARDS ISSUED AT EAGLE
Eagle City Patrons 140 116 120 61 134 134 124 89 102 177 140 135 151 1,483 1,661
Ada Patrons 9 24 17 8 18 15 22 15 14 24 24 9 25 215 280
Boise Patrons 25 22 20 10 13 6 16 12 5 11 12 12 22 161 260
Garden City Patrons 2 1 3 2 2 1 0 3 1 5 1 3 0 22 28
mention Patrons 11 4 9 3 6 1 1 0 2 3 3 2 12 46 73
TOTAL a OF CARDS ISSUED AT EAGLE 187 167 169 84 173 157 163 119 124 220 180 161 210 1,927 2.302
TOTAL EAGLE CARD HOLDERS 9,051 9,142 9,221 9,276 9,430 9.543 9,668 9,767 9,832 9,494 9,567 9,714 9.868
EPL COLLECTION CHANGE
Holdings Added 476 894 397 609 553 427 893 616 706 755 742 825 1,010 8,427 9,176 11,041
Hotd,ngsDeleted (727) (242) (333) (307) (281) 0 (336) (290) (269) (368) (224) (347) (293) (3,290) (4,493) (2,497)
TOTAL COLLECTION CHANGE (251) 652 64 302 272 427 557 326 437 387 518 478 717 5.137 4,683 8,544
TOTAL COLLECTION HOLDINGS 89,247 89,712 89,856 90,122 90.436 90,725 91,300 91,646 92.063 92.537 92.940 93,551 94,125
OTHER
Gate Tralhc 11,242 12,645 12,092 10,621 12,458 11.960 14.213 12,178 11,090 16.353 16.172 13,778 12,727 156,287 173,127 189.989
Monies Collected S2,672 19 52,415 03 52,516 25 52,434 51 52.826 64 52,504 84 53,111 25 52,659 24 52,551 97 $3.302.40 52,737 96 53,762 55 52 980.24 $33.802 88 38,891 539,903.66
Folds/ Requests F,Iled 7,856 7,770 7,336 7,051 8,109 7,748 8.916 8.139 7.626 8.701 8.914 8,488 8,268 97.066 104,958 100,528
Inlen,brary Loans Roco,ved 18 21 26 23 18 16 18 31 12 29 17 25 25 261 272 235
Interlibrary Loans Sent 66 61 60 57 56 86 70 101 73 91 85 69 94 903 694 570
Interlibrary Loans Filled 84 82 86 80 74 102 88 132 85 120 102 94 119 1,164 966 805
Mectng Room Attendance 365 99 100 140 180 45 0 40 I 0 0 0 0 0 604 3,683 4,080
StoryumeAttendance 300 454 773 0 438 1,048 905 704 467 409 687 72 205 6,162 7,495 11,090
Computer Lab Usage 1,117 1,038 855 815 910 1,008 1,173 994 904 1,037 1,184 1,238 1.284 12,440 14,943 15,854
Volunteer Hours 122 129 159 102 172 174 202 186 152 235 344 156 158 2,168 1,996 1,964
Eagle 15,666 15.354 15,429 13,426 14,885 14,377 17,479 14,964 13,997 18,159 18,185 16,311 14,385 186,951 205,759 198,234
RECIPROCAL BORROWING 0
Ada Community 2,835 3,015 2.860 2.350 2.899 2,844 3.256 2.896 2,898 3.656 3,972 3,419 2.784 36.849 42,820 41.859
Boise 4106 3772 3,902 3,601 4,075 4,393 4.582 3,891 3,653 4.337 4 702 4,143 3,897 48.948 62,049 66,695
Caltlwell 10 27 40 25 31 34 43 42 21 36 36 94 151 580 529 679
Emmen 1 31 134 195 151 155 213 140 167 103 1,289
Garden Cily 268 324 289 296 285 256 301 200 190 272 303 302 366 3,384 5,661 4,914
Mend,an 1.123 925 852 685 1,077 828 1,063 987 778 834 760 780 853 10,422 14,035 14,565
Nampa 106 110 129 106 134 120 184 154 86 160 109 126 106 1,524 1,833 1,940
TOTAL RECIPROCAL BORROWING 8 448 8.173 8 072 7 063 8 532 8 609 9 624 8 321 7 781 9506 10 022 9 n�1 8 260 102.996 126 a?7 17n AS2
30,000
29,000
28,000
27,000
26,000
'5,000
'4,000
3,000
;2,000
1,000
20,000
19,000
18,000
17,000
16,000
15,000
14,000
13,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Eagle Patron Circulation -Eagle Patron Totals
m 0 0o 0
< 0
1 1 I
C C
m m 0 c c m
v m
1 , ▪ 1 I
2
+ TOTAL # OF
CHECKOUTS OF
EPL ITEMS
f Gate Traffic
Holiday books
0%
New Books
6%
CIRCULATION OF EPL ITEMS
Music (CDs) Periodicals
Audio Books 4% 2%
4%
Video/DVD
21%
® Books
• Audio Books
o New Books
Music (CDs)
Holiday books
Periodicals
■ Video/DVD
Books
63%
New Cards Issued at Eagle
C>
0 0 0
N N r
Sep -10
Aug -10
Jul -10
Jun -10
May -10
Apr -10
Mar -10
Feb -10
Jan -10
Dec -09
Nov -09
Oct -09
Sep -09
Cardholders
10,000
9,800
9,600
9,400
9,200
9.000
8.800
8,600
TOTAL EAGLE CARDHOLDERS SYSTEMWIDE
Sep -09 Oct -09 Nov -09 Dec -09 Jan -10 Feb -10 Mar -10 Apr- 10 May -10 Jun -10 Jul -10 Aug -10 Sep -10
5
Month
Net Collection Change - Materials Added to Collection
1
Sep -10
L
[
Aug -10
Jul -10
Jun -10
May -10
Apr -10
Mar -10
Feb -10
Jan -10
Dec -09
111- Nov -09
r
0 0 0 0
CO CO v CN
o
Oct -09
1
0 0 0
0 -r
■
97,500
95,000
92,500
90,000
87,500
85,000
82,500
80,000
77,500
75,000
72,500
70,000
67,500
65,000
62,500
60,000
57,500
55,000
52,500
50,000
47,500
45,000
42,500
40,000
37,500
35,000
32,500
30,000
Sep -09 Oct -09 Nov-( 9 lkc-( 9 Jan -10
'
Total Holdings
1
Leh -10 \IH• 10 \p)--10
7
N' ay- () Jun -10
Jul -1 )
E
Aug -10 Sep -l0
Computer Lab Usage
0 0
0 0
-7 N
0
0
O
0
0
co
0
0
CD
0
0
V'
0
0
N
0
Sep -10
Aug -10
Jul -10
Jun -10
May -10
Apr -10
Mar -10
Feb -10
Jan -10
Dec -09
Nov -09
Oct -09
Sep -09
13,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0)
0
D
0
0
0
C)
z
0
0
0
0
Reciprocal Borrowing
m
0
o-
0
9
0
0
1
v
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
September Reciprocal Borrowing by Library
Caldwell
1%
Garden City
2%
Emmett Meridian
0% 4%
Nampa
0%
Boise
17%
Ada Community
12%
10
DOWNTOWN EAGLE PLAN
Application #CPA -01-10
City Council Hearing
October 26, 2010
Presented by:
Nichoel Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP
Planner III
P&Z Commission Recommendation
On September 20, 2010, the Eagle Planning and
Zoning Commission voted 4 to 0 (Villegas absent) to
recommend approval of the Downtown Eagle Sub-
area Plan to the City Council.
The last major planning effort for the Downtown was done in
1997-1999 with the 2000 Plan
From 1997 to 2007 the City's population grew by 217%
Citizens and businesses have expressed concerns about the
impact of commercial development at the exterior of the
community on the Downtown
Unclear vision for downtown- retro fit existing structures, allow
for commerce and employment, architectural styles, pedestrian
facilities
Planning Timeline:
Chamber/City Partnership 2007
Community Visioning Spring 2008
Community Preference Survey Summer 2008
City/U of I URDC Charrette Winter 2008/2009
Transportation System Modeling (ACHD & COMPASS) Fall
2009
Infrastructure Surveys Winter 2009/Spring 2010
Downtown Work Group Winter/Spring 2010
Draft Plan Released June 14, 2010
Public open houses, First Friday, Saturday Market, Eagle
Chamber Presentation July 2010
❑ State Street should be pedestrian friendly.
n Highest Intensity of uses should be focused along
the SH 44 Bypass.
u Connectivity to downtown was important.
(pedestrians, bikes, & vehicles)
II Height is less of an issue than context.
i i Increased density is ok in the downtown area.
nionroni initv Prjorjtjec
Downtown should be a walkable
"pedestrian friendly area" & vehicular
traffic should not be the primary focus;
Downtown should be the economic center of
the community;
Increasing density and intensity in the
downtown is appropriate to achieve 1 & 2
above.
Plan Vision
IMP
The Downtown Eagle area will function as a
regional center for destination retail, cultural,
education, government, office, and residential
uses. It will have a vital retail core that
transitions in use and character to healthy and
inviting residential areas and adjoining
employment areas. In addition to serving as a
regional center, the Downtown Eagle Area will
provide neighborhood -serving uses that help
meet the daily needs of its residents and
employees.
Conceptual Land Uses
\�V 4--► Road
GMM Span.
* Act.vly C.rt..
• TOO
0— T•ans. Raz*
3at.way
Residential Transition
-
-d Town Foto Coiners Ace!l p enteis
I
u_
Residential Transition
trrc
1F-
Downtown Eagle Area will be designed to:
❑ Establish a distinctive, well maintained and well -branded
downtown;
❑ Create a well -organized multi -use community that promotes
the "live, work, play, and recreate" lifestyle;
❑ Promote and support a strong and vibrant business community;
n Create an interconnected community that allows access to and
across the regional highway system;
n Promote and develop a unique downtown that supports
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connectivity.
GOAL 1: Preserve, design, develop, and promote Downtown Eagle as the
"Heart of Eagle" and the center of commerce and employment within the
region: a source of pride for its citizens, a sense of identity from its historic
roots, and a place of great character and attraction due to its unique urban
form and diversity of activities. Ensure that development is designed to
enhance:
Mix of Land Uses
Walkability
r' Active Streets
® Civic and Community Center
o Historical Significance
Infill Development
Diversity of Housing Choices
GOAL 2: Make Downtown Eagle easy to get to
for all modes of transportation and all
generations - seek to expand and develop an
interconnected street and pathway system.
GOAL 3: Maintain Downtown Eagle as the
heart and cultural center of the community with
cohesive and complimentary architecture,
planned and meaningful open spaces,
pedestrian friendly streetscapes, and ample
parking.
Plan Goals
u GOAL 4:Economic Development Goal: Increase
the capacity of citizens, community groups, and
city leaders to understand and respond to
external and internal influences of change that
affect the economic viability of the City
GOAL 5: Seek, promote, and encourage the
use of development incentives in the
implementation of the Downtown Eagle Plan.
Make it easier to develop in Downtown Eagle
than anywhere else in the City and region.
Land Use Map Changes
Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map;
Proposed Downtown Land Use Map:
herrova Chitral Eta rens Dis:nct Cesignatlon ant combine a I p•opertiee m:e a single rev Ia-id .rse distr ct "Downtowr"
t
�� �I—s=�. N NI VIII -11 �•`\l�'�:
gr.
��! F WI
v ` -t __: F ,r~i1i ;`L`T t'_ ' r[. t1••••
9' y'P.
� .rias, i�" ='_
41.,._ RI_�liiiiif
'"I:- Pa
�. '��
Yrlj
New Land Use Terms
or -
n Cottage Retail - Cottage retail is the retrofitting of free standing single
family residential uses in the downtown into small office and/or retail uses
without significantly impacting the residential character of the area. A
good example of cottage retail is the Gaia Gallery on 1" Street (see
picture below). While the structure has been altered, the residential scale
has not been compromised.
Cottage Retail is promoted in the draft Downtown Eagle Plan for the areas north of
Idaho Street and west of Eagle Road from Plaza Drive to the Spoils Banks Canal.
Gaia Gallery on First Street
New Land Use Terms
Pedestrian Friendly/Pedestrian Oriented - The extent to which the built
environment is friendly to the presence of people living, shopping, visiting,
enjoying, or spending time in an area. Factors affecting pedestrian
friendliness include, but are not limited to: land use mix; street connectivity;
residential density (residential units per area of residential use);
"transparency" which includes amount of glass in windows and doors, as
well as orientation and proximity of homes and buildings to watch over the
street; plenty of places to go to near the majority of homes; placemaking,
street designs that work for people, not just cars and retail floor area ratio.
Walkability is often interchanged with pedestrian friendly.
New Land Use Terms
Live/Work is based on the traditional downtown living arrangement
shopkeepers operated their businesses on the lower levels of a building
while living in apartments above. Best for destination businesses or for
offices with modest numbers of visitors such as: salons, insurance agencies,
and other professional services.
The intent of the Live/Work designation is to provide a transition from the downtown
commercial and retail areas to residential areas. This designation permits and
encourages the development of a medium -density neighborhood with a limited
amount of compatible business, wholesale, limited retail, and production uses.
New Land Use Terms
r Transit Ready Development/Transit Oriented Development- Transit ready
development (TRD) or transit oriented development (TOD) are terms used
for development that is planned for the inclusion or the eventual provision
of mass transit (bus, bus rapid transit, or train) as an integrated mode of
transportation. TRD's are integrated vertical mixed use areas (residential
above office/retail) that promote live/work environments. The Plaza
Planning area became a logical location for a new employment center and
an entry point for the regional commuter transit system into Downtown
Eagle.
The Planning Areas
•
• '
r , ; aNY, W•'• •
•
tramp'
,14111
4144,1,4.4 4s *4 •mos
1111mr -167 Mb
11111V1117 414*N1”1,111
W ll'Ik
ilr.411114.4114'.
Rip \i 11112 '11111111fii: 011Word
margeII511111111111111
r• RINA
;MI rill 1
City of Eagle
Downtown Planning Areas
[77A Four Comers
Oki Town
Plaza
Downtown General
.•/ ••.•,
Identify Transition Areas
--4.7tav
rag..•• • awe tfal1111019”'Iiiii
140 11011` 111111".
NO woo
4,•04,
•51ii
num: 01
enguryi.,`POP 111111Iii
WillartA •
f...M.0.1t111
Sim
wort
Ciiy of Eagle
Downton n Plaguing Areas
r:77A Four Comers
ni Old Town
Plaza
Downtown General
rt-
•
''.111110401114
- - • • r _
___.
Land Use Intensity
Guide to Downtown General(unspecified area) Land Use Mixture
ams High Density
Residential
r
1*
13+ units per aCn•
MediumfHigh
Density Residential
8-12 Units per acre
i
Regional Retail
300,000+ Sq ft
Market Scale N Ada county
General
Commercial do
Retail
30,000 —150,000 Sq ft
—1 Neighborhood
Retail & Services
M odium Density 1 10,000-50,000 Sq ft
Reside,
4-8 Units per acre
Low Density
Residential
3-4 Units per acre
J
Local
SupportIBatique
Up to 5,000 Sq ft
Niche Market
i
High Density
Employment
•1-i, Stones
Mixed
D evelopment!
Employment
3-+ Stones
i
1
Low Density
Office
2-3 Stories
J / I
The highlighted uses above represent the combined uses that are appropriate in areas NOT contained within a subarea.
The partial inclusion of a land use indicates a limited potentiallopportunityfor that land use In the area,
Old Towne
I '.!Axxi
-�- via,a
; IltplibillIII17.441Vir. 464
MI Id
pts
Rt V
City of Eagle
Old Town Planning Area
\
Old Towne Eagle should maintain the quaint feel of a
traditional town center; as the active community center
and community gathering place for the City. Defined by:
Pedestrian-scale (attached sidewalks, street fronts and open
space amenities),
Ensuring context sensitive design complementing the most
significant historic structures,
A traditional mix of retail, residential, office and public uses
is to be maintained,
State Street should be the focus for the highest intensity of
uses in the area.
Old Towne
Land Use Intensity
General Guide to Old Towne to Land Use Mixture
High Density
Residential
13+ Units per acre
MediurnlHigh
Density Residential
8-12 Units per acre
Medium Density
Residential
4-8 Units per acie J
Low Density
Residential
3-4 Units per acre
Regional Retail
300,000+ Sq ft
Market Scale. N. Ada county
General
Commercial &
Retail
30,000 — 150,000 3q it
Neighborhood
Retail & Services
10,000-50,000 Sq ft
Local
S u pportlB outique
Up to 5,000'nq rt
Niche Market
High Density
Employment
4-0 Stomas
Mixed
D evelopmentl
E mployrnent
3-4 Stories
Low Density
Office
2-3 Souse
The highlighted u:••", above represent the combined uses that are appropriate in the Old Towne Area
Specific applicability dl be dependent upon the mixture of uses Identified in the subarea text of this plan
The partial inclusion of a land use indicates a limited potential/ opportunity for that land use in the area.
Old Towne
14L1-'
Multi -Family Units • Pathway and ccmtrol courtyard •
Live/Work
Mixed Use
Civic Market Heritage Park
Building height and use transitions
Raised green areas with
parking below
Rowhouses
Note: Though diagram shows 5
stories the land use matrix limits
height to 4 stories in the Old
Towne Area.
Four Corners
esi CC
7, 'NJ
Cit of Eagle
Four Corners Planning Area
11 jJ
Four Comers
vi OW Town
MI Plaza
I-7 Downtown
g o n d a r Y
r-LI.•7‘
LLINI",714:k
•116114S44 a
401
ov
• * 7If
- •
Old Towne, it should be treated as a unique urban
design area, serving as an entry and place marker
letting visitors know "You Have Arrived" in
Downtown Eagle.
n This area, though complementary to the architecture
and designs found in Old Towne, should focus on:
Corner entry buildings,
Third story plazas and gardens,
Creating a unique skyline and streetscape.
1
Land Use Intensity
General Guide to Four Corners Land Use Mixture
•
High Densly
Residential
13+ Units per acre
1 1
I I
1 i Medium/High 11.
Density Residential8-12 nits per acre
I
Medium Density
Residential
4-8 Units per acre
Low Density
Residential
3-4 units per acre
1
J
Regional Retail
300.000+ Sq ft
Market Scale: N Ada county
1
General
C ommercial &
Retail
onn -- ; rr 000 wa ft
Neighborhood
Retail & Services
10,000-5[000 Sq ft_
Local
Support/Boutique
Up to 5,000 Sq ft
Niche Market
High Density
Employment
3 toric
Mixed
Development/ I
Employment j I
3-4 Stories
Low Density
Office
2-3 Stories
The highlighted uses above represent the combined usesthatare appropriate in the Four Corners Area
Specific applicability will be dependent upon the mixture of uses identified in the subarea text of this plan
The partial inclusion of a land use indicates a limited potential/opportunity forthat land use in the area
1
1
Four Corn
Four Corners
-L
Plaza
11 , 4 #44 lobar
AD.611.s
4 44 #4, vi?
Pre Wht. 4".isthafaLta--
,"-
ofroalig
JT
.4"1141 • i
Mill11144ew ."
Nwira
ulna
ilia vos-vOli
11
OW
L
1
1111 F.1
Nil 114111111
Iiu11/40—
•
g
1 .._. ..._ . „.. . City of Eagle
Plaza Planning Area
= Four Comers
.1 IMIII Old Town
Plaza
Downtown Boundary
o --
8 ogo 8
o
• ta.
107.1=15.7 61;7 fir,64%
~w4z415
//
6712.14.
I b 1
The vision for the Plaza Area is to create a "Transit
Ready Development" (TRD). A TRD is similar to a
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) except a TRD
recognizes the need to establish transit supporting
land use patterns before transit can be provided.
The Plaza Area will provide supporting residential,
retail, and employment uses that are critical to the
vitality and evolving functions of Downtown.
in
Land Use Intensity
General Guide to Plaza Land Use Mixture
High Density
Residential
13+ Units per acre
MediiumlHigh
Density Residential
8-12 Units per acre
Medium Density
Residential
4-8 Units per acre
Low Density
Residential
3-4 Units per acre
J
J
Regional Retail
300,000+ Sq ft.
h.aa.ketc1r:rde• 1,1 Ada county
General
C ommerciai &
Retail
30.000 - 150, 000 Sq ft.
N eighborhood
Retail & Services
10,000-50,000 Sq ft.
Local
S upportBoutique
Up to 5 000 Sq ft.
Niche Market
High Density
Employment
4-6 Stories
•
Mixed
Development/
Employment
4 Stones
Low Density
Office
2-3 Stories
The highlighted uses above represent the combined usesthat are appropriate in the Plaza Area.
Specific applicability will be dependent upon the mixture of uses identified inthe subareatext of this plan
The partial inclusion of a land use indicates a limited potential/opportunityforthat land use in the area.
J
Plaza
Downtown Street impr
Proposed Streets
Proposed &ewe 3
Trai CcrneaCr
ExUN Sreets
TOD:Urban ard,
See Page XX
of the DT Sub an
11111ft.
1
k • r'
e C •
•
e•• • I - •
• I L • 0
:
• • -I, . .
•
• •
. . •
• •
•
• • 1, •
e.„
• i" .0 •
1•111=e •
. •—• •••••,-.
• Ike., .
• .
"
r -
OLD STATE
GATEWAY
MARKET PARK
MIITIO USE
GREENWAY CANAL
FOUNTAIN PUIZA
HOTEL
CIDONTOWERPLATI
TOD NODE
HWY 44 BYPASS
Transportation Modeling
Ed • ewood & State Hi • hwa 44
Location
Edgewood N. of SH44
N. Bound
S. Bound
Existing 2009 Plan
(Trips)
3700
3700
Location Existing 2009 Plan
(Trips)
Edgewood N. of SH44
N. Bound
S. Bound
Location
Edgewood N. of SH44
N. Bound
S. Bound
Access to SH 44 @ Mid -mile
COMPASS
Trips
% change
2300 -37.8% 7600 105.4%
2600 -29.7% 7900 113.5%
Overpass to SH 44 @ Mid -mile
COMPASS ACHD
Trips % change Trips % change
Trips
ACHD
% change
3700 6800 83.8% 10100 173.0%
3700 6800 83.8% 10100 173.0%
Existing 2009 Plan
(Trips)
No Connection Mid -mile
COMPASS ACHD
Trips % change Trips % change
3700 7100 91.9% 11400 208.1%
3700 6900 86.5% 11500 210.8%
Design & Charoch-all
Cultural Development: Maintain Downtown Eagle
as the cultural center of the City and expand
Eagle's regional presence.
Design & Chr°
Architecture: Promote attractive, interesting,
complimentary, and compatible architecture and
make quality design a priority for the construction
and maintenance of all property in Downtown
Eagle.
Tripartite facade - clearly marked base, middle and
top
The lower section is the weighty base. The middle section is the shaft with long
vertical lines drawing the eye to the top section. The capital—cornice—usually
featured a classical decorative scheme.
Open Space: Plan for, design, and develop a
complete urban open space system in Downtown
Eagle including pathways, greenways, plazas,
fountains and parks that encourage people to visit
and linger in Downtown Eagle.
fie,;= 141114;11
11 -I
l 4) '_
3( (
.w.errl ; _,
4-
Design & Character
❑
Streetscapes
TENANT ZONE
ttiitLIVADL zom
FURNISHING ZONE
Surrr"K zoNE
TRAFFIC ZONE
1o. to r err • r
Parking: Implement a Downtown parking system
that coordinates all
4
A'
1J
arking resources.
I'
a ....--.,-..a .:,.. ,,,,,,, ,,,,;1111,mhz NE fi
ip
lei i�� %/.i:/.111 ..f,!% �� f -- 111/1� ,
�� 1rla 1 _ . . .• ,
tr': /i!/ .Ilii Wig 151!01, ��_ ���mil re . T4/
tel_ •
p11Ut` iI %may_ r .A4.4..'
�`
=111111111\ + � .r l �� m■
inommi Ll
f• Iw. . ■• �' ' °: 711 AAM
aim `a mr, �7n+ Rr ►-�� .:11111 11.
MIK :RE P::l!111E1' 111111111Ijmoo,
City of Eagle
Downtown Parking Os el Ia, s
aa�
VA
Restncm0 Parlung
C Straat Parking
Rea^`,taros Serf Partrng
Self Parking
01a Town Plain ng Area Pay C.stncl
Plaza P annlna Area t s:a 1 per "_OJ sa
R.
r 11 I --'--
t
Increase the capacity of citizens, community groups, and city
leaders to understand and respond to external and internal
influences that affect the economic vitality of the City.
o Simplify the development process
o Establish an "enterprise" zone
o Actively recruit employment and industries to the City
o Promote Eagle as being "Open for Business".
o Formalize and mobilize the Eagle Economic Development Committee.
o Develop and promote an employment recruitment program for the City of ,Eagle;
o Work with community members, Eagle Star Tech Corridor, the Eagle Viticulture
Center, and the State to identify emerging industries/employment opportunities
who would want to capitalize on the Eagle work force and lifestyle.
o Look at options for the development of business incubators in the City of Eagle.
Develop and promote the scenic and recreation opportunities in close proximity
to Downtown Eagle
There is no silver bullet or magic elixir. The Downtown
Eagle Area will be dependent on ongoing reinvestment
and compatible redevelopment that reinforces the
community's vision for a vibrant community and regional
center.
GOAL: Seek, promote and encourage the use of
development incentives in the downtown. Make it
easier to develop in downtown Eagle than anywhere
else in the City and region.
Find a Shared Vision, Communicate it, and Let it Happen!
Thank you Eagle!
Bob Bruce
Bob Niblett
Jason Pierce
Montse Burkhart
Dave Berent
Barb McDermott
Bob Taunton
Kevin Blankmeyer
Christine Whittaker
Janet Buschert
Louise Curtis
Dan Friend
Steve Guerber
Mike Huffaker
Jeff Madsen
Lynne Sedlacek
Sherry McKibbon
Mr. & Mrs. Reynolds
JJ Plew
Trish Trader
Lisa Vanderwiel
Adam Feik
Barry Prindle
Danny Nesbitt
Bill McCarrel
Randy Johnson
Brian Graham
Teri Bath
Linda Goldman
Cameron Arial
Phil Hull
Ted Vanegas
Ashley Ford
Jason Haas
Richard Allman
Tyler Archer
Andrew Cater
Michelle Dorrough
Ron Garnys
Donna Guerber
Jeff Jackson
Ron Marshall
Bill & Sheri McGinnis
Valerie Olson
Liz Roberts
Becky Fowers
Kevin Brock
Don Larson
Becky Morris
Dan Friend
Amy Hawkins
Olivine Kindall
Jen Grisson
Nancy Jacobs
Bruce Mills
Shawn Nickel
Lynda Wojcik
Mark Priddy
Terry Christense
Jan Allman
Gary Blaylock
Mary Berent
Laurie Baker
Jeanie Comerford
Doug Foot
James Gipson
Ryan & Daisy Hays
Olivine Kendall
Mary May
Patricia Minkiewicz
Jennifer Quinn
Arline Winkler
Tammy Sullivan
Susan Hickerson
Mark Miller
Cindy Allen
Mark Rabdau
Wild West Bakery
Patricia Minkievcz
Carolyn Grisson
Chuck Walter, Jr.
Kathy Wester
Marty Christenson
Scott Wonders
Susan Christensen
Ron Bath
Mike McCabe
Michael Hummel
Eagle Chamber
Eagle URA
BRS Architects
Mark Butler
Victor Villegas
Bill Laubner
Trent Koci
Doug Racine
Suzi Boyle
Norm Semanko
Al Shoushtarian
Joannah Shoushtarian
Frank Thomason
Eagle Transportation Committee
Brian Graham ACHD
Randy P. Hetrick COMPASS
Annie Lung
Kevin McAtee
Roy Montague
Brooke Reche
Tom Rogers
Roy Montague
Roger Hawk
Richard Sutherland
Pat Burton
Richard Christianson
Melissa Brodt
Ron Baker
Ruth Jones
Robert Walters
Pam Weaver
Bob Weaver
Robert D. Vlaanderen
Margo Walter
Walt Lindgren
Dave Aizpitarte
Jane Kramer
Phyllis Bradburn
Dustin Commons
Charles Walter
Jim & Jeri Ross
John & Terry Sayer
Eagle Sewer District Gwen Sears
University of Idaho -Urban Design Center
Kristie Newnham Justin Woolston
Tavis Reche
Nick Zewovich
Tommy Sauriol
Kathy Westor
Kelly Parker
Robert H
Randy Welborne
Dee Childers
Laurie Baker
Phil Janquart
398 attendees for over 1,300 hours of community time!
Teresa Yragin
Lisa Keyes
Peter Butler
Vikki Miller
Paul Peterson
Mary Lu Foster
Debbie Carpenter
Becky Carlson
Diane Mc Donald
Janet Bushert
e C"� 1 o/,*//a
Eagle, Idaho Merchant Group Facts & Findings for First Friday
Timeline
• First Friday was started in fall 2008 with two businesses participating.
Short Term Goal
• Raise awareness of our businesses, grow cliental, and enrich our community by providing monthly artistic and cultural
events.
Long Term Goal
• Raise awareness of downtown Eagle, develop kinship amongst merchants, foster economic growth, facilitate commerce,
grow community, and build a strong foundation to support our community's well being and longevity. Support
businesses located outside the downtown core by providing them with the opportunity to sell/display goods and
services at downtown businesses.
Community Organizations we Look to for Support & Partnership
• City of Eagle—Arts Commission, City Council, Mayor
• Residents
• Business leaders
• Angel investors
• Area print/web publications
• Chamber of Commerce
Current State of Affairs
• After 26 months of hosting the monthly event, this grassroots program has ignited our community in Eagle. The ripple
effect has started to move the merchants in a direction designed to thrive.
• 17-20 businesses have signed on to share in the Eagle, Idaho Merchant Association's mission. This number continues
to grow each month.
• Merchants are aware consumers are relationship driven when it comes to making purchases. First Friday promotes
cross pollination amongst businesses and potential clients.
• We are committed to growing the merchant group through working together, grassroots efforts, and creative ways to
help each other.
• A kinship has blossomed between the merchants.
• Marketing funds are limited within the participating merchants—which is holding us back from growing quickly.
• Hope and optimistic beliefs are wavering due to the economic situation these past couple of years. Most businesses are
out of savings, extended lines of credit and have been surviving with limited to zero pay.
• Hundreds of patrons are attending First Friday monthly. Demographic includes Boise, Eagle, Star, Emmet, Nampa, and
out of state visitors. Patrons are visiting Eagle again after a positive experience during the event.
Summation
• Residents within zip code 83616 work, play and shop outside our downtown. This hurts our local businesses. The
majority of Eagle businesses are family owned and operated. First Friday is designed to create commerce and connect
businesses. It is working through our creative efforts. We encourage patrons to mingle throughout the downtown by
providing a program targeted to get the patrons in at least 5 businesses during the event. Visit 5 to WIN THE PRIZE
gives each business an opportunity to be the month's spotlight business and host the drawing.
• The proposed future plan for Eagle hurts today's local businesses by imposing costly (tax payer dollars) ordinances
meant to grow our community yet it will turn future developers and the current businesses away from improving our
downtown. Our tax payer dollars should be spent on fixing the existing foundation of businesses. Doing so, will
provide us freedom to support future growth. Doesn't it make sense to assist the businesses owners who are standing
in front of you—as opposed to supporting the idealistic "future" community? My bet is on these hardworking,
dedicated merchants.
• First Friday has positively branded the city of Eagle. This will in turn encourage growth, raise property values and
promote our live, work, play lifestyles.
Financial Support
• Will foster economic growth, raise property values, strengthen our foundation. We are the brick and mortar businesses
who've invested our family's livelihood, emotional, financial and physical well being into providing Eagle a place to call
home. Please help us thrive by assisting with funding our marketing efforts.
Conclusion
• As leaders of our community, we ask you to understand our success determines our city's success and vise -versa. Do
you care about the well being of the residents in Eagle? How can you help?
• As leaders of our community, we ask you to do everything in your power to help. Are you willing to stand-by and
watch our businesses close? Your involvement is critical for our survival.
• As leaders of our community, we ask you to take a closer look at the city's approach to build our community with wise
investments—after all it is the tax payers who fund your decisions. How much help is the city council ready to commit
to the present & future success of Eagle businesses?
Thank you for your support.
Questions, contact Melissa Brodt 208-938-1342 or mbrodt@galeriebelleame.com
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
October 26, 2010
SUBJECT: CPA -01-10 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment - Downtown
Eagle Subarea Plan — City of Eagle:
TESTIFY PRO/ CON or
NAME ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL
l/l kD/ij 17q 5. r ��-r) c( ( i S ��
► ((1 V-1/ Zt) Le4J2 s l 14y fr4-(
LAL/4r°1 L1 z e l� I S� G -P am t � � (o
k e ! JGc� M i G c) A J (' J S i S rori
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
October 26, 2010
SUBJECT: CPA -01-10 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment - I)oNN ntm%n
Eagle Subarea Plan — City of Eaele:
.; 3 . / 1") AA ti
JOINT CITY OF EAGLE/ ADA COUNTY AGENDA
�L I01aIeji0
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2010
,3:00PM
ADA COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
200 W. FRONT STREET, 3" FLOOR, BOISE, ID 83702
1) Call to Order (Commissioner Yzaguirre/ Mayor Reynolds)
2) Roll Call (BOCC/ Eagle)
3) Introduction of Mayor Reynolds (Council President I-Iuffaker)
5) Area of City Impact (AOCI) Decisions (Mark)
a) Use of Eagle Planned Unit Development within Eagle AOCI (Nichoel)
i. Should the Eagle PUD Ordinance (w/ staff discussed revisions) be
implemented throughout the entirety of the Eagle AOCI?
b) No "automatic" rezones to Rural Urban Transition in Eagle AOC1 (Nichoel)
c) Contiguity Language (ACC 8-4A-8) (Nichoel)
d) Ada County Adoption of ECC 8-2A (Design Review)
ii. Value of Design Review (Nichoel)
iii. Proposed Ada County Processes w/ DR (Meg)
iv. Content - Should the Eagle Design Review code be applicable (w/staff
discussed revisions) throughout the entirety of the Eagle
AOCI?
v. Process — Should we adopt the proposed process as discussed above; if
so at the P&Z and BOCC level should the condition of approval that
requires a DR letter be reviewed by staff or by the BOCC?
e) Planned Communities within Eagle AOCI (Nichoel)
i. Should the Ada County Planned Communities be allowed within the
Eagle AOCI?
6) Next Step
1 of 1
c \docu,nents .tnd settings \nb.unl\lural setting.\amporary Internet tile.\cc ntint 41tn10131.\edet42bj\joint meeting agenda oct
27 final.docx
Ada County Code:
8-4A-8: CONTIGUOUS PARCELS:
Abutting parcels held in the same ownership shall be considered one property for
development purposes unless the owner can demonstrate one of the following:
A. The parcels comply with the regulations of this title that were in effect at the time
such parcels were recorded, and the parcels were originally conveyed and recorded
under a single deed identifying each as a separate parcel;
B. The parcels comply with the regulations of this title that were in effect at the time
such parcels were recorded, and the parcels were originally conveyed and recorded
under separate deeds;
C. Each of the abutting parcels is a conforming or nonconforming property as defined in
subsection 8-1 B -2B of this title; or
D. Physical characteristics of the property prevent its use as one unit, the properties are
separated by a fee simple ownership and/or the properties are separated by a public
right of way or public street. (Ord. 389, 6-14-2000; amd. Ord. 426, 9-26-2001)
THE VALUE OF EAGLE DESIGN REVIEW
OVERVIEW:
The Eagle Design Review Board meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of every month. The
Design Review Board reviews all design review applications to assure compliance with Eagle's
architecture standards in accordance with Eagle City Code 8-2A. This section of the City Code
addresses building architecture, signage, landscaping, streetscape, and pedestrian elements. It is
the implementation of Eagle City Code Section 8-2A and the Eagle Architecture and Site Design
(EASD) Book that have guided the look of the City and have created a unique sense of place that
sets it aside from other jurisdictions in the valley.
Other communities have strived to become like Eagle by creating codes and DR Boards to help
enhance the general appearance of their cities and to protect property rights and values. Eagle
has been a model for these communities.
DIFFERENCES IN BUILDING DESIGN:
The notable differences in the building design included: identification of appropriate
architectural styles, stone facade, planer changes in the walls, gabled roof to conceal mechanical
units, composite shingles, and earth toned building color.
ilrtl�l :
pttin�t�.��.cwr.ow;�i ` iC
itUi !mum mui ll
_
1111
111 11 !i : f
(.)
Eagle Walgreens (Eagle Rd & SH 44)
Typical Walgreens
Page 1 of 14
k:\planning dept\impact area\2010\the value of eagle design review.docx
WALGREENS AT FIVE MILE AND LAKE HAZEL (ADA COUNTY)
Page 2 of 14
k:\planning dept\impact area120101the value of eagle design review.docx
Page 3of14
k:\planning dept\impact area\2010\the value of eagle design review.docx
WALGREENS AT STATE Hwv44 AND EAGLE ROAD (CITY OF EAGLE)
Page 4 of 14
k:\planning dept\impact area12010\the value of eagle design review.docx
Page 5of14
k:\planning dept\impact area120101the value of eagle design review.docx
DIFFERENCES IN SIGNAGE:
The notable differences in signage are that Ada County allows the use of electronic reader boards
and internal illumination. In Eagle, signs are externally illuminated, reader boards are
prohibited, and signs must be designed to be architecturally compatible with the building.
WALGREENS AT FIVE MILE AND LAKE HAZEL (ADA COUNTY)
Page 6 of 14
k:\planning dept\impact area120101the value of eagle design review.docx
Page 7 of 14
k:\planning dept\impact area120101the value of eagle design review.docx
WALGREENS AT STATE Hwv44 AND EAGLE ROAD (CITY OF EAGLE)
Multi -Tenant "Shopping Center" Sign
Concept
Actual
Specification: Specifications: 15 -fool Tall by 10 foot wide monument sign with 100 waft high
pressure sodium ground mounted light fixture. (Not internally illuminated)
Single Tenant Monument Sign
Actual
Specifications: 6 -foot tall by 10 -foot wide monument sign with 100 watt high pressure sodium
ground mounted light fixture. (Not internally illuminated)
Page 8 of 14
k:lplanning deptlimpact area120101the value of eagle design review.docx
Building Wall Sign (not yet installed)
Specifications: LED, Halo illuminated with exterior accent lighting (gooseneck. fixtures)
Page 9 of 14
k:\planning dept\impact area\2010\the value of eagle design review.docx
DIFFERENCES IN SITE DESIGN:
The notable differences site design are the types and location of plant materials (specifically
perimeter and street trees), the design and inclusion of landscape islands within parking areas,
the use of stamped and decorative paving to identify pedestrian areas, setbacks from arterial
roadways, the inclusion of community gathering areas/plazas, and tree preservation
requirements.
WALGREENS AT FIVE MILE AND LAKE HAZEL (ADA COUNTY)
Page 10 of 14
k:\planning dept\impact area12010\the value of eagle design review.docx
Page 11 of 14
k:lplanning dept\impact area120101the value of eagle design review.docx
WALGREENS AT STATE Hwv44 AND EAGLE ROAD (CITY OF EAGLE)
Page 12 of 14
k:\planning dept\impact area\2.010\the value of eagle design review.docx
Page 13 of 14
k:\planning dept\impact area .0101the value of eagle design review.docx
DIFFERENCES IN PROJECT VALUES AND TAXES:
Typical Walgreens Value = $1,053,140.00
Ada County Taxes (FY2010/11 Levy Rate: .003060429) = $3,223.06
Eagle Walgreens Value = $1,754,843.00 ($701,703.00 more)
Ada County Taxes (FY2010/11 Levy Rate: .003060429) = $5,370.57
Ada County's implementation of the Eagle Design Review standards/Process (ECC 8-2A) results
in approximately a 40% increase in land value ($701,703.00) and taxable income ($2,147.51) for
the County.
Page 14 of 14
k:\planning dept\impact area120101the value of eagle design review.docx
ZONING CERTIFICATE LEVEL APPLICATION PROCESS (Does Not Require
Transmittal)
Applicant receives Eagle Design Review Recommendation*
Applicant comes to ACDS w/ site plan, & application material to apply for a
Zoning Certificate
Front Desk Planner reviews to ensure all of the required
material is included, if it is, the application is taken in,
and deemed with submission
Applicant pays fee & Front Desk Planner issues zoning
certificate if in compliance with code
There is a 15 day Appeal period.
(If an Appeal application is filed it goes directly to the Board at
a public hearing).
Applications that fall under this process:
Actual
Process
Time
Dai• 1
Total
process
Days = 1
Some Accessory Uses (Agricultural Structure, Family Daycare Home, Fuel Cell.
Livestock Confinement Facility <300 AU for educational purposes, Roadside Produce
Stand, Private Swimming Pool)
Some Temporary Use Approvals (Temp. signs, seasonal stands. fireworks stands,
subdivision model homes/real estate offices*. reapplication for an existing permitted
temp use)
*Eagle Design Review required; City of Eagle sends a notification letter of Date of Acceptance
to Ada County and 45 -day time period begins-ifAda County does not receive a
recommendation within 45 -days then the application proceeds on its normal path
ADA COUNTY PROCESS OCTOBER 26, 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL APPLICATION PROCESS (Does Not Require Transmittal)
Applicant receives Eagle Design Review Recommendation*
Applicant comes to ACDS with application material to submit for an application that
requires Administrative Approval (Requires Staff Report)
Front Desk Planner reviews to ensure all of the required
material is included, if it is, the application is taken in and
deemed with submission
The application is assigned to a Planner
The Planner has 60 days to review the application
material and write a staff report with a final
decision
There is a 15 day Appeal period. (lf an Appea
application is fled it goes directly to the Board at a
public hearing).
Applications that fall under this process:
Typical
Process
Time
Day 1
Day 2
Days 15
Total
process
Days =18
Some Accessory Uses (Farm Development Right). Modification or expansion to an
approved conditional use*. Modification or expansion to an approved master site plan*.
One Time Division of a property. Floodplain permit*. Landscape and Screeninc
Plan*, Liuhtint Plan*, Property Boundary Adjustment, PC Landscape Plan, PC Periodic
Review, PC Financing Verification
*Eagle Design Review required; City of Eagle sends a notification letter of Date of Acceptance
to Ada County and 45 -day time period begins -if Ada County does not receive a
recommendation within 45 -days then the application proceeds on its normal path
ADA COUNTY PROCESS OCTOBER 26, 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL APPLICATIONS (Does Require Transmittal)
Applicant receives Eagle Design Review Recommendation*
Applicant comes to ACDS w/ required application material
Front Desk Planner reviews the application material to ensure that all of
the required material is included, if it is, the application is taken in and
deemed with submission. A final decision must be made within 60 days.
Application is assigned to a Planner
Planner sends an email to
applicable agencies. The email
includes a link to the application
material, requesting comment
w/in 15 days
Planner sends a letter to
appropriate property owners
(w/in 300' or 1000')
requesting comment w/in 15
days
After the 15 days are up the Planner reviews all of the
information and makes a decision on the application
There is a 15 day Appeal period, from the date of the final decision.
(lf an Appeal application is filed it goes directly to the Board, at a public
hearing).
ADA COUNTY PROCESS
Tunical Process
Time
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3 -5
Days 6-21
Total Process
Days = 30
OCTOBER 26, 2010
Applications that fall under this process:
Some Accessory Uses (Additional Farm Dwelling, Caretaker Dwelling, Attached or Detached
Secondary Dwelling, Group Daycare Facility*, Large Home Occupation, Hobby Kennel,
Pit/Mine or Quarry*, Portable Classroom*, Public or Quasi -Public: Sub -transmission lines,
Some Signs (signs greater than 64 SQ ftr, Temporary Living Quarters, Some Temporary Uses
(Seasonal Events, an existing dwelling/secondary dwelling/temp manufactured home dwelling
while building a single-family dwelling on the same site, or a small pit/mine/Quarry within a
residential district*, Private Tower or Antenna Structure*), Expansion or extension of
Nonconforming Use or Structure*, Joint Applications that do not require transmittal, Master Site
Plan*, Private Road
*Eagle Design Review required; City of Eagle sends a notification letter of Date of Acceptance
to Ada County and 45 -day time period begins -if Ada County does not receive a
recommendation within 45 -days then the application proceeds on its normal path
ADA COUNTY PROCESS OCTOBER 26, 2010
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION PROCESS
Applicant comes to ACDS w/ required
application material
Front Desk Planner reviews to ensure all of the required
material is included, if it is, the application is taken in,
deemed with submission, and given a hearing date. The
hearing date must be within 90 days of the date of
submission.
Application is assigned to a Planner
Planner sends an email
to applicable agencies.
The email includes a
link to the application
material, requesting
comment w/in 15 days
Planner sends a
letter to appropriate
property owners
(w/in 300' or 1000')
requesting comment
w/in 15 days
After the 15 days and AOCI negotiation time requirements are up, the Planner
reviews all of the info and writes a staff report with a recommendation of approval
or denial (staff report includes COA for a recommendation from the Eagle Design
Review)
P&Z Commission public hearing is held (a decision/recommendation must be made
within 180 days (or 240 for PC's) of the date of application submission)
For the applicable
applications, the
P&Z approves or
denies an application
ADA COUNTY PROCESS
There is a 15 day appeal period,
from the date of the final decision.
(If an Appeal application is filed it
goes directly to the Board, at a public
hearing).
Actual Process
Time
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3 -5
Day 6-51*
Total Process
Days = 60
*45 days allotted
for AOCI time
For the applicable
applications, the
P&Z recommends
approval or denial to
the BOCC
OCTOBER 22.2010
ADA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPLICATION PROCESS
Applicant comes to ACDS w/ required application material
Front Desk Planner reviews to ensure all of the required material is included,
if it is, the application is taken in, deemed with submission, and given a
hearing date. The hearing date must be within 90 days of the date of
submission or 60 days after a P&Z Recommendation.
Application is assigned to a Planner
Planner sends an email
to applicable agencies.
The email includes a
Link to the application
material, requesting
comment w/in 15 days
Planner sends a
letter to appropriate
property owners
(w/in 300', or 1000')
requesting comment
w/in 15 days
After the 15 days and the ACOI negotiation time requirements are up, the Planner reviews
alt of the info and writes a staff report with a recommendation of approval or denial (staff
rennrt includes COA for a recommendation from the Eagle Design Review)
P&Z Commission public hearing is held (a decision/recommendation must be made within
180 days (or 240 for PC's) of the date of application submission) & they make a
recommendation to the BOCC
The BOCC denies or approves the application
Actual Process
Time
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3 -5
Day 6-51*
Total Process
Days = 60
*45 days allotted
for AOCI time
ADA COUNTY OCTOBER 22.201 0
City of Eagle
Date Check No Payee
10/18/2010 2804 Eagle Chamber Of Commerce
10/18/2010 2805 Trautman Lawn & Landscapes
10/20/2010 2808 Home Depot Credit Services
Total 2806
Check Register - Transparency Version
Check Issue Date(s) 10/13/2010 - 10/25/2010
Seq GL Acct No
1
1
1 15-0451-05-00 MTNC & RPR -EQUIP & STRUCTURES 3.81
1 15-0452-05-00 MTNC & RPR -EQUIP & STRUCTURES 12.69
\C fAyML.i} Pr D IIt0
GL Acct Title
c �; c1a(cIIC
Page 1
Oct 25, 2010 11.27am
Seq Amount Check Amour
01-0422-03-00 COMMUNITY PROMOTION/SPC EVENT r Uri 1 1 7 0.36
15-0437-20-00 GENERAL MTNC PARKS -PATHWAYS LV 8,405 00
10/25'2010 2807 Ada City -County Emergency Mgmt
10/25;2010 2808 Ada County Sheriffs DepL
10/25/2010 2809 Allied General Fire & Security
10/25/2010 2810 Allied Waste Services #884
Total 2810
10/25/2010 2811 Alloway Electric
Total 2811
10/25/2010 2812 AT & T Mobility
10/25/2010 2813 Baldwin & Associates, Inc
Total 2813
10/25/2010 2814 Billing Document Specialists
Total 2814
10/25/2010 2815 Boise Office Equipment
Total 2815
10/25/2010 2816
10/25/2010 2817
10/25/2010 2818
10/25/2010 2819
10/25/2010 2820
10/25/2010 2821
10/25/2010 2822
Total 2822
10/25/2010 2823
10/25/2010 2824
10/25/2010 2825
10/25/2010 2826
10/25/2010 2827
10/25/2010 2828
Clearwlre Accounts Rec
Community Planning Association
Crotty, Bruce
Daniel Beal
David Aizpitarte
De Lage Landen Financial Svc
Dean Burrup
Derek T. Smith
Donald P. Roehling
Eagle Auto Repair
Eagle Mini Storage
Eagle Senior Citizens, Inc
Gary W Tanner
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
1 01-0413-14-00 PROFESSIONAL DUES
1 01-0416-09-00 LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
1 01-0413-34.00 MONITORING ALARM SYSTEMS
1 01-0413-16-00 UTILITIES/NEW CITY HALL
1 15-0452-06-00 UTILITIES
2 15-0449-06-00 UTILITIES
1 15-0414-05-00 NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT
1 15-0454-06-00 UTILITIES
15-0441-05-00 STREET LIGHTS MTNC & REPAIR
15-0444-01-00 MAINTENANCE & REPAIR
60-0434-19-00 TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS
01-0413-05-00 OFFICE EXPENSES
14-0413-05-00 OFFICE EXPENSES
15-0414-04-00 AWIN MGMT (BFI) EDUCATION SRVS
60-0434-47-00 BILLING SERVICES
01-0413-05-00 OFFICE EXPENSES
01-0413-23-00 MTNC-REPAIR/OFFICE EQUIP/FURN
1 60-0434-19-00
1 01-0413-14-00
1 60-0220-00-00
1 09-0463-02-00
1 01-0413-01-00
1 01-0416-24-00
1 09-0463-02-01
1 09-0463-02-01
2 09-0463-02-00
1 01-0413-01-00
1 01-0413-01-00
1 60-0420-03-00
1 07-0482-15.00
1 01-0416-10-00
1 01-0413-01-00
TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS
PROFESSIONAL DUES
WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS
EAGLE SATURDAY MARKET
P&Z COMMISSIONERS COMPENSATION
EQUIPMENT LEASING
SAT MARKET MGR FEES
SAT MARKET MGR FEES
EAGLE SATURDAY MARKET
P&Z COMMISSIONERS COMPENSATION
P&Z COMMISSIONERS COMPENSATION
VEHICLE MTNC & REPAIR
STORAGE UNIT
SR CENTER VAN AGREEMENT
P52 COMMISSIONERS COMPENSATION
16 50
1,553 50
108,367 83
100 50
148 07
203 80
203 80
16 56
101 90
674.13
97 50
25 00
122 50
62 56
27.30
4 54
31.84
158.95
812.79
971.74
232 00
1546
247.46
44.99
2,435 75
72 59
175 00
100 00
1 067 25
264 00
154 00
63.54
481.54
1,790 36
8,405 00
16.5C
1.553.50
108,367 83
100.5C
674 12
122 50
62.5E
31.84
971.74
247 4E
44 99
2,435 75
72 59
175 0C
100 OC
1,067 25
481.54
100.00 100.0C
100 00 100.00
131.73 131.72
83 00 63 0C
1,216.67 1,216 67
100.00 100.00
A
City of Eagle
Date Check No
Total 2843
10/25/2010
10/25/2010
10/25/2010
10/25/2010
10/25/2010
10/25/2010
10/25/2010
10/25/2010
Total 2851
Totals:
Dated:
Mayor:
City Council:
Payee
2844 Randy Upson
2845 Republic Storage
2848 Steel Creek Properties
2847 Taliaferro, Justin
2848 The Independent News
2849 tw telecom
2850 Victor Vdlegas
2851 Willamette Dental Insurance
M = Manual Check. V = Void Check
Check Register - Transparency Version Page: 3
Oct 25, 2010 11:27am
Check Issue Date(s): 10/13/2010 - 10/25/2010
Seq GL Acct No
1 07-0462.52-00 HISTORICAL COMM/UTILITIES
GL Acct Title
1 13-0413-12-00
1 01-0413.36-00
1 80.0220.00.00
1 80.0220-00-00
1 09-0483-15.00
1 01-0413-19-00
1 01-0413-01-00
1 12.0217-07-00
2 08-0217-07-00
3 14-0217-07-00
4 80-0217-07-00
5 15-0217-07-00
PERSONNEL TRAINING
STORAGE SHED RENTAL
WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS
WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS
CHRISTMAS MARKET
TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS
P&Z COMMISSIONERS COMPENSATION
CLERK DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE
LIBRARY HEALTH INSURANCE
P&Z DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE
WATER DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE
PUBLIC WORKS HEALTH INSURANCE
Seq Amount Check Amoun
100.88 190.47
190.47
50.00 50.00
94.00 94.00
40.75 40.75
32.27 32.27
156.00 158.00
524.90 524.90
100.00 100.00
38.49
115.73
122.34
85.73
68.75 431.04
431.04
209,219.32 209,219.32
i0/82(g I ro
October 26, 2010
Acting Mayor Michael Huffaker
Mayor -Designate James Reynolds
Eagle City Hall
660 East Civic Lane
Eagle, ID 83616
For the record at the October 26, 2010 meeting of the Eagle City Council:
The North Ada County Foothills Association (NACFA) congratulates and welcomes James
Reynolds as the new mayor of Eagle. We greatly appreciate Mr. Reynolds' service to the
entire community—those within the city limits as well as residents of the AOI and the North
Foothills. We look forward to working with him over the course of the next year and
perhaps beyond to assure that the City continues to distinguish itself as one of the premier
locations in which to live within the broader Treasure Valley.
We also take this opportunity to recognize and sincerely thank Councilman Michael
Huffaker for his superior performance and tireless service over the past seven months as
acting mayor. In the mayor's role, and in difficult circumstances, Councilman Huffaker
continued to show the balance, good judgment, patience, openness and inclusiveness that
have been hallmarks of his approach at Council.
We wish both gentlemen rewarding terms of service and affirm our commitment to work
with the City, with our focus on the North Foothills, to assure that growth occurs in a
manner that provides maximum benefit to both the existing community and new residents
joining us over time.
Sincerely,
C'G 1cia0i0
0 4- ,-4/), 44/Ltor 0-22- TP -a-21
7/-7,);
,AlAd
41/1/0j__
I. t. [�f:�1. f�[
t.��.�['[.;1
C
1 i;. t [� t;
r'
Judicial Review in the 21st Century
Susan Buxton / Paul Fitzer
Moore, Smith, Buxton & Turcke, Chtd.
October 14, 2010
I. Introduction
IRCP 84 Judicial review of state agency
and local government actions.
• (1) Scope of Rule 84. The procedures and
standards of review applicable to judicial
review of state agency and local government
actions shall be as provided by statute.
. Actions of state agencies or officers or actions
of a local government, its officers or its units
are not subject to judfcia/ re view unless
expressly authorized by statute.
I. Introduction
Interaction between LLUPA and IAPA
■ IAPA authorizes judicial review of only agency
actions.
Local governmental entities are not agencies
. Thus, review of cities and counties must
originate from a different statutory source
I. Introduction
LLUPA provides a limited and exclusive remedy
of certain land use decisions
• Standing issues
• Attorney fees
Historic Quasi/Judicial v. Legislative
distinction replaced with strict statutory
interpretation
E]
11. The Early Years:
Quasi-judicial v. Legislative
Distinction
• Quasi-judicial — afforded Judicial Review under LLUPA
• Legislative — subject only to collateral attacks such Declaratory
Judgment Actions
Early Cases
• City of Idaho Falls v. Grimmett -
Legislative activity is afforded presumptive discretion: "Every presumption is
to be indulged in favor of that discretion, unless arbitrary action is clearly
disclosed."
• Dawson Enterprises, Inc. v. Blaine County
"Zoning is essentially a political, rather than a judicial matter, over which the
legislative authorities have generally speaking, complete discretion"
• Burt v. City of Idaho Falls
L. Action is legislative when it affects a large area consisting of many parcels of
property in disparate ownership.... Conversely, action is considered quasi-
judicial when it applies a general rule to a specific interest, such as a zoning
change affecting a single piece of property
III. The Middle Years:
Pre -2010 Amendments
■ The Shift to Strict Statutory Construction
• Quasi-judicial/legislative distinction is not codified in statutes
® Cases
• Giltner Dairy v. Jerome County
Challenge ora comprehensive p/an map
Idaho Code §67-6519(4)
• Judicial review available only for an applicant denied a permit or aggrieved by a decision.
r Idaho Code §67-6521
• Judicial review is available only to persons with an interest in real property which may be
adversely affected by the issuance or denial of a permit authorizing development.
III. The Middle Years (cont)
• High/ands Development Corp. v. City of Boise
Initial Zoning
Unlike Gi/tner Dairy, the High/ands decision focused on the word "permit"
rather than on the "authorizing development" language, thereby adopting a
simple test for determining whether judicial review is available: Is it a
permit?
The court adopted a simple, if not simplistic, evaluation of what constitutes
a "permit" under LLUPA.
The new rule of thumb is simply this: LLUPA authorizes judicial review of
five, and only five, types of permits (variances, special use permits,
subdivisions, PUDs and building permits). If the action is not one of these,
then it must be challenged via some other form of action, typically a
complaint for declaratory judgment.
111. The Middle Years:
Burns Holdings, LLC v. Madison County Bd. of County
Commissioners (Rezones)
• Judicial review was not available under LLUPA for rezones.
■ If the applicant is not seeking a "permit," judicial review is not
available under LLUPA, period—irrespective of whether the
action is legislative or quasi-judicial.
• Adverse rezone decisions would still be available via a
declaratory action.
• The court did not address the question of what standard would
apply to such declaratory actions in the absence of the IAPA's
"arbitrary and capricious" standard.
III. The Middle Years:
Taylor v. Canyon County Bd. of Commissioners (Rezo n e
with a Development Agreement)
. Judicial review is available for a conditional rezone coupled with
a development agreement.
Here, the developer sought and received a rezone of his property with
conditions imposed pursuant to a development agreement.
The court held that even under Giltners holding that only "permits" may be
appealed under LLUPA, the so-called conditional rezone coupled with a
development agreement is the "functional equivalent" of a conditional use
permit, and therefore was appealable.
IV. Today
67-6521. ACTIONS BY AFFECTED PERSONS.
• (1) (a) As used herein, an affected person shall mean one
having a bona fide interest in real property which may be
adversely affected by:
(i) The approval, denial or failure to act upon an application for a
subdivision, variance, special use permit and such other similar applications
required or authorized pursuant to this chapter;
(ii) The approval of an ordinance first establishing a zoning district upon
annexation or the approval or denial of an application to change the zoning
district applicable to specific parcels or sites pursuant to section 67-6511,
Idaho Code; or
(iii) An approval or denial of an application for conditional rezoning pursuant
to section 67-6511A, Idaho Code.
V. Judicial Review, Generally
Judicial Review is Limited to the Agency Record
• Limited Exceptions — (i.e. jurisdiction, standing, etc.)
Crown Point v. City of Sun Valley
Questions of Fact:
• The Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency
as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. IC §67-
5279
Take Home message
• Even if additional evidence is available showing the decision was
flawed, it is too late to bring it up for the first time on appeal.
The applicant must build the record before the original decision
maker.
V. Standard of Review
In order to reverse a local land use decision, the Court
must find the decision was:
• In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions
• In excess of statutory authority of the agency
• Made upon unlawful procedure
• Not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole,
or
• Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
V. Standard of Review (cont)
Presumption of Validity (Evans v. Teton County)
• There is a strong presumption that the actions of the Board of
Commissioners, where it has interpreted and applied its own zoning
ordinances, are valid.
• The party appealing the Board of Commissioners' decision must first
show:
the Board of Commissioners erred in a manner specified under I.C. § 67-
5279(3), and second,
that a substantial right has been prejudiced.
V. Standard of Review (cont)
Questions of Law
■ The IAPA authorizes courts to overturn actions of planning and zoning
entities where they are "in violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions" or "in excess of the statutory authority of the aiencv."
Idaho Code §§ 67-5279(3)(a) and (b).
■ Thus, the courts may second-guess the legal pronouncements of
planning and zoning entities.
■ Unlike review of fact-finding, the district court reviews these law -
declaring functions de novo.
V. Standard of Review (cont)
Unlawful procedure
■ The action of a zoning and planning board may be set aside if it was
"made upon unlawful procedure." Idaho Code § 67-5279(3)(c).
■ As with other questions of law, the courts freely review whether
procedural error has occurred.
■ But, where the procedural violation is found in the ordinance, deference
may be accorded to the municipality's interpretation of its own
ordinance.
V. Standard of Review (cont)
Judicial Review of Fact -Finding
• When an agency finds facts in an adjudicative context, the proper
standard of review is whether the decision was "supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole." Idaho Code § 67-
5279(3)(d)
• In the legislative context, the "arbitrary and capricious / abuse of
discretion" standard is used to review both discretion and fact-finding.
Idaho Code § 67-5279(2)(e).
• In the context of adjudicative decision making, however, the "arbitrary
and capricious / abuse of discretion" standard applies only to the
exercise of discretion, while fact-finding is reviewed under the
substantial evidence test.
V. Standard of Review (cont)
I Judicial Review of Discretion
• In the exercise of its judgment and discretion, decisions of local bodies
may be challenged as "arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion."
Idaho Code § 67-5279(3)(e).
• In other words, was it "unreasonable"?
"A city's actions are considered an abuse of discretion when the actions are arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable.... The City's interpretation of their code is unreasonable
and therefore an abuse of discretion ...." Lane Ranch Partnership v. City of Sun
Valley ("Lane Ranch II").
V. Standard of Review (cont)
Prejudice to a Substantial Right
• Two-tiered burden of proof
Merely proving that the decision was made upon unlawful procedure, an abuse of
discretion, in excess of statutory authority, etc. is but the first step.
Second, the parry must how that "substantial rights of the appellant have been
prejudiced." Idaho Code § 67-5279(4).
■ Cases
El Cowan v. Frerhont County
■ Actual Notice trumps defective legal notice
Evans v. Cassia County
■ Illegal site visit
■ Counter
McCuskey v. Canyon County
■ Defective notice where Plaintiff did not have actual notice
F
V. Standard of Review (cont)
Actual Harm Idaho Code 67-6535(c)
■ Only those whose challenge to a decision demonstrates actual harm or
violation of fundamental rights, not the mere possibility thereof, shall be
entitled to a remedy
■ Not akin to a standing argument which can be based upon a potential
but yet unrealized harm.
VI. Attorney Fees I.C. 12-117
Attorney fees cannot be awarded in judicial review
cases. Smith v. Washington County
■ I.C. 12-117 allows for attorney fees to the prevailing party "in any
administrative proceeding or civil judicial proceeding".
ri
An administrative proceeding is one before an agency and thus "no mechanism exists
for courts to intervene in administrative proceedings to award attorney fees."
A civil judicial proceeding is one commenced by filing a "complaint" not a petition for
judiciial. Therefore the Court will not award fees in judicial review cases.
■ Unless I.C. 12-117 is amended, there is little recourse (or deterrent) to
arbitrary actions of governmental entities or frivolous lawsuits by
disgruntled applicants or neighbors.
u,k,t\dAf V
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LAND USE DECISIONS
IN THE 21ST CENTURY
October 2010 APA Conference
By: Susan Buxton, Partner
Paul J. Fitzer, Partner
Jill Holinka, Associate
Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke, Chtd.
I. INTRODUCTION
Nearly four decades ago, Idaho adopted the Local Land Use Planning Act of
1975 (LLUPA). LLUPA grants broad planning and zoning authority to local
governments and provides both mandatory and exclusive means for a city's or
county's implementation of their planning and zoning authority. It also authorizes
judicial review of certain governing boards' decisions related to such planning and
zoning authority. While today's discussion focuses on the status of judicial review
for land use decisions in the 21' century, that discussion necessarily involves an
understanding of how Idaho courts have interpreted LLUPA's judicial review
provisions over the last thirty-five years.
II. EARLY INTERPRETATIONS: QUASI JUDICIAL OR
LEGISLATIVE?
Until recently, the Idaho Supreme Court decided what was reviewable under
LLUPA on the basis of whether the matter is quasi-judicial (and thus reviewable
under LLUPA) or legislative (and thus reviewable only by some other means).
This quasi-judicial/legislative distinction predates LLUPA and is part of a much
broader common law found in all jurisdictions over the last fifty years.' Strangely,
l The Courts first delved into this legal distinction in City of Idaho Falls v. Grimmett, 63 Idaho 90, 117
P.2d 461 (1941) which held that zoning ordinances are subject to very limited judicial review, due to their
legislative nature. "Every presumption is to be indulged in favor of the exercise of that discretion, unless
arbitrary action is clearly disclosed." Grimmett, 63 Idaho at 92, 117 Idaho at 463; see also Dawson
Enterprises, Inc. v. Blaine County, 98 Idaho 506, 511, 567 P.2d 1257, 1262 (1977) ("Zoning is essentially
a political, rather than a judicial matter, over which the legislative authorities have generally speaking,
complete discretion") Thereafter, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction in Cooper v. Ada County
Comm'rs, 101 Idaho 407, 614 P.2d 947 (1980) and Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d
1075, (1983) which articulated:
Action is legislative when it affects a large area consisting of many parcels of property in
disparate ownership.... Conversely, action is considered quasi-judicial when it applies a
general rule to a specific interest, such as a zoning change affecting a single piece of
property, a variance, or a conditional use permit. ... It is analogous to a general rezone
this distinction has never appeared anywhere in the LLUPA text, and it was only in
2008, with the Idaho Supreme Court's decisions in Giltner Dairy v. Jerome
County, 145 Idaho 630, 181 P.3d 1238 (2008) and Highlands Development Corp.
v. City of Boise, 145 Idaho 958, 188 P.3d 900 (2008), that the court shifted away
from this line of jurisprudence and held that the availability of judicial review
under LLUPA turns on the words of the statute itself.
In Giltner Dairy and Highlands Development, the court adopted a simple, if
not simplistic, evaluation of what constitutes a "permit" under LLUPA. The new
rule of thumb is simply this: LLUPA authorizes judicial review of five, and only
five, types of permits (variances, special use permits, subdivisions, PUDs and
building permits). If the action is not one of these, then it must be challenged via
some other form of action, typically a complaint for declaratory judgment.
III. INTERACTION BETWEEN LLUPA AND IAPA
LLUPA provides the right to judicial review to applicants "denied a permit"
or affected persons "aggrieved by a decision".2 An affected person under LLUPA
is "one having an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the
issuance or denial of a permit authorizing the development."3 Rather than setting
out its own judicial review procedures and standards, however, LLUPA simply
incorporates by reference the judicial review provisions of the Idaho
Administrative Procedures Act (IAPA).4 Thus, a litigant under LLUPA does not
rely on the IAPA as the basis for the action, but does rely on parts of the IAPA
which are incorporated by reference by LLUPA.
which affects a large number of people -in this case, multiple owners of multiple tracts of
land approximating over eight hundred individuals, each with varying affected interests
and impacts, and which is highly visible to the public. ... The amendment of the plan
and zoning of the annexed property affects the interests of all persons in the city in some
manner. Such widely felt impact and high visibility is consistent with action deemed
legislative.
Burt, 105 Idaho at 66, 665 P.2d at 1077; see also Dawson, 98 Idaho at 511, 567 P.2d at 1262. The basic
idea is that when a county or city takes action that affects a broad number of people, the action is like that
of a legislative body. The remedy is political, not judicial. "Legislative action is shielded from direct
judicial review by its high visibility and widely felt impact, on the theory that the appropriate remedy can
be had at the polls." Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 68, 665 P.2d 1075, 1078 (1983) quoting
Cooper, 101 Idaho at 410, 614 P.2d at 950. While legislative actions by counties are subject to collateral
actions such as declaratory judgments, they cannot be attacked by a petition for judicial review. Id; See
also Scott v. Gooding County, 137 Idaho 206, 208, 46 P.3d 23, 25 (2002).
2 Idaho Code §§67-6519(4) and 67-6521(1)(d).
3 Idaho Code §67-6521(1)(a).
4 Idaho Code §§67-6519(4) and 67-6521(1)(d).
A common mistake of litigants is to confuse judicial review under LLUPA
with judicial review under the IAPA. Both LLUPA and the IAPA provide a
private right of action for persons with standing to challenge violations of the
statute. However, the IAPA authorizes judicial review only of "agency" actions,
which are defined in the IAPA as actions of state agencies.' Accordingly, the
IAPA itself provides no basis for jurisdiction for judicial review of local land use
decisions.
V. POST-GILTNER DAIRY JUDICIAL REVIEW
As stated previously, Giltner Dairy was the first in a line of cases
establishing which land use actions under LLUPA are entitled judicial review,
relying strictly on the words of the statute itself. In Giltner Dairy, the Idaho
Supreme Court ruled that Idaho Code §67-6519(4) authorizes appeals only of
"permits" as that term is defined in LLUPA, therefore denying judicial review of
an amendment to a comprehensive plan map.6 It went on to name five types of
permits that are subject to judicial review under LLUPA: special use (aka
conditional use) permits, subdivision permits, planned unit development permits,
variance permits, and building permits.
Judicial review under LLUPA is also authorized by section 67-6521(1)(d),
which provides judicial review by any "affected person aggrieved by a decision."
Unlike the more restrictive section 67-6519(4), this provision covers both
5 Idaho Code §67-5202(2). "Counties and city governments are considered local governing bodies rather
than agencies for purposes of IAPA." Giltner Dairy, 145 Idaho at 632, 181 P.3d at 1240 (2008). This is
one of many cases that have so held. E.g., Highlands, 145 Idaho 958, 188 P.3d 900; Petersen v. Franklin
County, 130 Idaho 176, 182, 938 P.2d 1214, 1220 (1997); Allen v. Blaine County, 131 Idaho 138, 140,
953 P.2d 578, 580 (1998); Arthur v. Shoshone County, 133 Idaho 854, 859, 993 P.2d 617, 622 (Ct. App.
2000). However, other statutes, such as LLUPA, make the IAPA's judicial review provisions applicable
to local governments. Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley County, 145 Idaho 121, 126, 176
P.3d 126, 131 (2007).
6 This conclusion was reiterated in Highlands Development. In Highlands, the dissent urged a broader
reading of section 67-6519(4), noting that it authorized judicial review to an "applicant denied a permit or
aggrieved by a decision." The majority, however, found no merit in this distinction, noting that the thrust
of the provision is to allow review only of instances involving "the granting or denial of a permit
authorizing the development." Highlands, 145 Idaho at _, 188 P.3d at .
Although building permits are identified in Giltner Dairy and Highlands as among the five types of
permits subject to judicial review under LLUPA, LLUPA actually references building permits in the
context of "development on any lands designated upon the future acquisitions map." Idaho Code §67-
6517. The Highlands dissent thus cautioned that the majority's logic would allow judicial review only for
this very narrow class of building permits. Highlands, 145 Idaho at 964-65, 188 P.3d at 906-07 (J. Jim
Jones, dissenting).
applicants and others interested in the outcome of a land use proceeding. Like
section 67-6519(4), section 67-6521(1)(d) is limited to proceedings involving
"permits" under LLUPA. However, in Giltner Dairy, the court held that an
ordinance amending the comprehensive plan map does not authorize any
development, thereby precluding judicial review. 145 Idaho at 632, 181 P.3d at
1240. It is unclear why the court in that instance focused on the "authorizing
development" part of the statute rather than the fact that a comprehensive plan map
amendment is not a "permit." Regardless, judicial review is unavailable under
LLUPA for a comprehensive plan map amendment.8
1. Highlands Development Corp. v. City of Boise (Initial Zoning)
The next in the line of cases following Giltner Dairy was Highlands
Development, which involved initial zoning of property upon annexation. Like
Giltner Dairy, the outcome of Highlands Development was fully predictable and in
line with the quasi-judicial versus legislative framework. As it had done in Giltner
Dairy, however, the court determined that judicial review was not available under
either section 67-6519(4) or 67-6521 without so much as mentioning the quasi-
judicial versus legislative distinction in its analysis.
First, the court applied its holding in Giltner Dairy that section 67-6519(4)
authorizes judicial review of only five specified "permits" and that an initial
zoning is not among those specified permits. The majority rejected an argument
pressed by the dissent that section 67-6519 allows review of both "permits" and
"decisions." The court found they were one and the same (that is, "decisions"
refers to decisions as to permits, not to all manner of decisions). The court also
rejected the dissent's suggestion that "permits" should be read broadly to include a
broader range of zoning decisions.
The court then turned to section 67-6521, finding that it, too, is unavailable:
"LLUPA also grants the right of judicial review to persons having an interest in
real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of a permit
authorizing development. This case does not involve the granting or denial of a
permit authorizing development." Highlands, 145 Idaho at 961, 188 P.3d at 903.
Unlike Giltner Dairy, the Highlands decision focused on the word "permit" rather
than on the "authorizing development" language, thereby adopting a simple test for
determining whether judicial review is available: Is it a permit?
8 This was hardly shocking because comprehensive plan development and initial zoning had long been
viewed as legislative functions and thus not subject to review. See Burt v. City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho
65, 665 P.2d 1075 (1983).
2. Burns Holdings, LLC v. Madison County Bd. of County
Commissioners (Rezones)
In Burns Holdings, the court, for the first time, determined that judicial
review was not available under LLUPA on an application for a rezone. Here, the
landowner sought approvals to build a concrete batch plant in an agricultural and
residential area near Rexburg. The company filed an application for a
comprehensive plan text and map amendment and rezone. The county denied the
comprehensive plan amendment and declined to act on the rezone, thus effectively
denying it. The applicant sought judicial review under LLUPA. The Supreme
Court, in a 3-2 decision, ruled that the applicant had no right to appeal because
neither the comprehensive plan nor the rezone applications involved "permits." If
the applicant is not seeking a "permit," judicial review is not available under
LLUPA, period irrespective of whether the action is legislative or quasi-judicial.
Responding to Justice Jim Jones' strong dissent, the majority noted that
adverse rezone decisions would still be available via a declaratory action. The
court did not address the question of what standard would apply to such
declaratory actions in the absence of the IAPA's "arbitrary and capricious"
standard.
3. Taylor v. Canyon County Bd. of Commissioners (Rezone with a
Development Agreement)
The third primary post-Giltner Dairy case, Taylor addressed the availability
of judicial review for a conditional rezone coupled with a development agreement.
Here, the developer sought and received a rezone of his property with conditions
imposed pursuant to a development agreement. He also sought and received an
amendment to the comprehensive plan map in effect at the time of his application.
In line with earlier cases, the court rejected the appeal of the comprehensive plan
map amendment. However, on the rezone, the court held that even under Giltner's
holding that only "permits" may be appealed under LLUPA, the so-called
conditional rezone coupled with a development agreement is the "functional
equivalent" of a conditional use permit, and therefore was appealable.
Taylor re -opens the door partially to judicial review of rezones. However, it
would appear to work only as to up -zones (where the developer is seeking the
rezone, and thus can be packaged together with a development agreement and
labeled as a "conditional rezone.") Down -zones are imposed unilaterally against
the wishes of the landowner, so it is highly unlikely that there would be a
development agreement.
4. Other Post-Giltner Dairy Decisions
Other post-Giltner Dairy decisions utilized the court's newly minted text -
based analysis to deny judicial review to annexations and initial zoning,9 denials of
requests for annexation,10 requests for comprehensive plan amendments," and
requests for rezones.12 Of these, the decisions denying judicial review to initial
zoning upon annexation and of rezones raise concern because they would
effectively require applicants and affected persons to resort to the more lengthy
and costly declaratory judgment procedure to challenge decisions related to site-
specific zoning applications. From the perspective of local governing boards, this
would mean that approval or denial of a site-specific zoning decision could be
subject to challenge months or years after the decision, in contrast to the short, 28 -
day time limit for filing a petition for judicial review.
VI. LEGAL STANDARD OF REVIEW, GENERALLY
Once a party can meet its threshold burden that it is an affected party, a party
may invoke LLUPA's judicial review provisions to overturn the issuance or denial
of a permit and potentially invalidate an error -prone zoning ordinance or
comprehensive plan that served as the basis for the issuance or denial of the permit.
In such cases, the court will still not substitute its judgment for that of the
governing board deferring to the governing board's findings and interpretations
unless clearly erroneous. Spencer v. Kootenai County, 145 Idaho 448, 180, 184-
185, P.3d 487, 491-492 (2008).
Planning and zoning decisions are entitled to a strong presumption of
validity. Id. To overturn a board decision, the Court first must find that the
governing board committed error, i.e. that its findings, inferences, conclusions, or
decisions are:
9 As the Court noted in Highlands Development, at the time the petition for judicial review was filed,
there was no statute granting the right to obtain judicial review of the annexation and initial zoning of
property. 145 Idaho at , 188 P.3d at 903. The legislature has since enacted Idaho Code § 50-222
which permits judicial review of the decision of a city council to annex and zone lands under certain
circumstances.
i° Black Labrador Investing, LLC v. Kuna City Council, 147 Idaho 92, 205 P.3d 1229 (2009).
" Neighbors for Responsible Growth v. Kootenai County, 147 Idaho 173, 207 P.3d 149 (2009).
12 Burns Holdings, 147 Idaho 660, 214 P.3d 646.
(a) in excess of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b)
in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c)
made upon unlawful procedure; (d) not supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole; or (e)
arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Idaho Code §67-5279(3); see also Petersen v. Franklin County, 130 Idaho 176,
182, 938 P.2d 1214, 1220 (1997). Once the party attacking a governing board's
action demonstrates that the board erred in a manner specified herein, the court
must then determine that a substantial right of the party has been prejudiced by
virtue of the board's error. Idaho Code §67-5279(4); Neighbors for a Healthy
Gold Fork v. Valley County, 145 Idahol21, 126, 176 P.3d 126, 131 (2007). Absent
either of these conditions, the reviewing court must affirm the decision of the local
governing board. Taylor v. Canyon County Bd. of Comm 'rs, 147 Idaho 424, 431,
210 P.3d 532, 539 (2009).
VII. THE 2010 AMENDMENTS TO LLUPA'S JUDICIAL REVIEW
PROVISIONS.
In response to the Giltner Dairy line of cases, the 2010 Legislature passed
amendments to the judicial review provisions of LLUPA that became effective
March 31, 2010. As amended, Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a) defines an "affected
person" as one having a "bona fide interest in real property which may be
adversely affected by" either (i) the "approval or failure to act upon an application
for a subdivision, variance, special use permit and such other similar applications
required or authorized pursuant to this chapter"; (ii) initial zoning upon annexation
or the approval or denial of a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6511; or (iii)
approval or denial of conditional rezoning pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6511A.
Under Idaho Code § 67-6519(4), as amended, an applicant denied an application or
aggrieved by a final decision concerning any of the matters identified in Idaho
Code § 67-6521(1)(a) has the right to judicial review. The amendments further
clarified Idaho Code §§ 67-6519 and -6521 by removing all references to the word
"permit" and replacing it with "application."
The court has not yet had occasion to test the 2010 amendments, including
what constitutes a "similar application required or authorized pursuant to" LLUPA.
Building permits and site alteration permits are obvious areas of inquiry, as the
court has already had at least some discussion of these types of permits.13
Obviously, such permits are required and enforced by local ordinance. Many
subdivision ordinances and zoning ordinances include as a condition of approval of
the application, a requirement to obtain a building permit or a site alteration permit
prior to construction. However, these types of permits are generally applied via the
local building code ordinance. Other than the reference to building permits in
Idaho Code § 67-6517, LLUPA does not require or authorize building permits, site
alteration permits, or other types of construction -related permits.
VIII. ATTORNEY FEES
Idaho Code §12-117 provides for the recovery of attorney fees in land use
disputes involving a political subdivision or state agency and a person. How and
when the statute applies, however, has recently been addressed by both the Idaho
Supreme Court and the Legislature.
Prior to 2010, Idaho Code §12-117(1) provided that in any administrative or
civil judicial proceeding involving a state agency and a person, "the court shall
award the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and reasonable
expenses, if the court finds that the party against whom the judgment is rendered
acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law." Until 2009, the statute had been
applied to allow not only a court to award attorney fees (either in an appeal of an
administrative proceeding or in a civil proceeding), but also to allow an
administrative agency to award attorney fees to a successful party in an
administrative proceeding. Stewart v. Department of Health & Welfare, 115 Idaho
820, 771 P.2d 41 (1989).
Stewart's holding allowing an administrative agency to award attorney's
fees was overruled by the court in Rammell v. Idaho Department of Agriculture,
147 Idaho 415, 210 P.3d 523 (2009). In Rammell, the court reversed an award of
attorney fees in favor of the Department of Agriculture on the ground that the plain
language of the statute did not allow an administrative agency to award attorney
fees. The court held that the use of the word "judgment" clearly indicates only
courts could award attorney fees because the decision of an administrative officer
or agency is not properly characterized as a judgment. Further, the court held that
the term, "in any administrative or civil judicial proceeding" means "in any
administrative judicial proceeding or civil judicial proceeding" such that there is no
13 See Highlands, 145 Idaho at 963-964, 188 P.3d at 906-907 (J. Jones, dissenting) and Rollins v. Blaine
County, 147 Idaho 729, 215 P.3d 452 (2009), respectively.
statutory basis to award fees incurred during an administrative proceeding.14 The
result of Rammell was to allow only a court to award fees incurred in the appeal of
an administrative determination (i.e. petitions for judicial review).
In response to Rammell, the 2010 Legislature passed an amended version of
Idaho Code §12-117. The statute now provides,
Unless otherwise provided by statute, in any
administrative proceeding or civil judicial proceeding
involving as adverse parties a state agency or political
subdivision and a person, the state agency or political
subdivision or the court, as the case may be, shall award
the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees, witness
fees and other reasonable expenses, if it finds that the
nonprevailing party acted without a reasonable basis in
fact or law.15
The amendment was intended to restore the law as it existed since 1989, and was
made retroactive to May 31, 2009, so that those administrative cases pending at the
time of the Rammell decision would not be adversely affected.16
Recently, in Lake CDA Investments, LLC v. Idaho Department of Lands, 149
Idaho 274, 233 P.3d 721 (2010), the Idaho Supreme Court once again raised doubt
as to under what circumstances Idaho Code §12-117(1) would apply. There, the
court declined to award attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code §12-117 because
the appellants did not act without a reasonable basis in fact or law in challenging
the holding of the district court. Although the current version of section 12-117
was not at issue in the case, the court, in a lengthy footnote, questioned whether the
current version of the statute would apply to allow an award of attorney's fees in
the appeal of an administrative proceeding." Reviewing its decision in Rammell,
the court noted that it defined "civil judicial proceeding" to mean a civil lawsuit,
"which may not include appeals of administrative proceedings to a court."18
Again in KGF Development, LLC v. City of Ketchum, CITE, the court
telegraphed its analysis that the 2010 amendments had the effect of precluding an
14 Id. at 422-23, 210 P.3d at 530-31.
15 Idaho Code §12-117(1) (2010).
16 See Statement of Purpose, H0421 (2010 Idaho Legislature).
17 Lake CDA Investments, 149 Idaho at _, 233 P.3d at 721, fn. 6.
181d.
award of attorney fees in an action brought under a petition for judicial review. In
KGF, both the city and KGF sought attorney fees under Idaho Code §12-117. The
court held that the city was not entitled to fees because it did not prevail. It also
determined that KGF was not entitled to attorney fees because the matters
presented by the appeal were matters of first impression, therefore the city did not
act without a reasonable basis in fact or law. Again in a footnote, however, the
court questioned whether KGF would be entitled to attorney fees under the newly
amended statute even if the city had acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law.
Id. at .
Confirming what it had earlier alluded to, the court in Smith v. Washington
County, 2010 Slip Opinion No. 105 (October 6, 2010), held that attorney fees are
not available under section 12-117 in a judicial review. Again relying on a rigid,
text -based analysis, the court determined that an "administrative proceeding" is
one before an agency, and that "no mechanism exists for courts to intervene in
administrative proceedings to award attorney fees." Id. at p. 4. Further, the court
held that a "civil judicial proceeding" is one commenced by the filing of a
complaint, which is not the case with petitions for judicial review. Therefore, the
courts cannot award fees. Id.
Although a review of the statement of purpose for the bill amending section
12-117 clearly signals the legislature's intent to restore the prior case law allowing
an award of attorney fees by an administrative agency in an administrative
proceeding (and to leave other interpretations of the statute intact, i.e. those
allowing an award of attorney fees by the court in an appeal of an administrative
decisions), the court simply state, "By separating `administrative proceedings'
from `civil judicial proceedings,' the Legislature signaled that the courts should no
longer be able to award fees in administrative judicial proceedings such as [judicial
review of administrative proceedings.]" Smith, at p. 5.
Unless the Legislature seeks to further amend section 12-117 in the 2011
Session, Smith will have a lasting impact on land use litigation. Prior to Smith, the
parties to a judicial review could take some comfort in the fact that frivolous
conduct, on the part of either the government or an individual, could be deterred by
the possibility of an award of attorney fees against the party acting frivolously.
Smith removes that deterrent.