Loading...
Minutes - 1998 - City Council - 10/10/1998 - RegularEAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 10, 1998 ORIGINAL PRECOUNCIL: 6:30 p.m. - 7:30pm 1. Planning & Zoning Commission Liaison Report: Farrin Farnworth. Reports on the P&Z meetings in reference to the Comp Plan. P&Z will need some direction on what is happening with the flood plain issue before they can complete their portion of the comp plan. Reports on the approval of the Hodges development at Eagle Rd. and Fairview. Mayor and Council thank P&Z for the extra hours they are putting in and their good work. 2. Discussion of financing for proposed museum to be located in the current library building. Ron Marshall. Ron thanks the Council for supporting the proposed museum. Chamber of Commerce is excited about having a place where they can have an office. Proposed to rent office space at $200 per month. People are willing to donate money to the museum. There is a good chance that the building will pay for itself and even make some money each year. The total for gutting the inside of the building and remodeling would come to a total of $25,700, this would include a new heating and air conditioning unit. Ron distributes information on cases for the museum. General discussion. 3. Mayor and Council's Reports: Sedlacek: Reports on the Senior Citizen Board meeting. Seniors would like the tables and chairs put back in order after City meetings. Mayor will bring this up in a staff meeting. Discussion on the non-compliance sign letter. Limited basis, grand opening and special occasion need to be defined before letter is sent out. Bastian: Stan did not attend Library Board meeting. Terry Loffus, Library Board Treasurer, reports on the meeting. Presentation by the Sheriff's Office on the proposed substation. Friends of the Library are opposed to the substation. Concerned about the cost of renovation the storage space and losing that area for storage for the Library. Discussion on the construction phase of the Library. Merrill: Reports on the bridges for Island Wood and the Arboretum. Reports on the Park Meeting. Discussion on the impact committee being formed. Guerber: Trail Creek would like to discuss some concerns they have on access to the Skateboard park. Chuck Jetters, Trail Creek Homeowners Association. Directors are concerned about ingress and egress location and the access to the new park. General discussion. 4. City Clerk/Treasurer's Report: No report 5. Zoning Administrator's Report: No report 6. City Engineer's Report: No report 7. City Attorney's Report: No report 8. Sheriff's Report: Sgt. Freeman introduces Mel Arnold, Community Resource Officer. Mel explains what he will be doing in this job. General discussion. Sgt. Freeman discusses the recent drug bust in Eagle. General discussion. Mayor calls a recess at 7:30 p.m. Mayor reconvenes meeting at 7:40 p.m. COUNCIL: 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: Bastian, Merrill, Sedlacek, Guerber. A quorum is present. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 4. CONSENTAGENDA: · 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 Council Member, 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 Rules of Order. · 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. Minutes of October 27, 1998 B. Claims Against the City Bastian moves to approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Merrill. Sedlacek would like to remove 4.A from the Consent Agenda. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... Sedlacek: Correction: Pedersen did not attend the meeting and Melissa Anderson was in attendance. Sedlacek moves to approve the minutes of October 27, 1998, as corrected. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES .............. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Ada County Sheriff: Sgt. Freeman will discuss the location of the Eagle substation. (This item was continued from the October 27, 1998 meeting) (RF) Mayor introduces the issue. Sgt. Freeman, Ada County Sheriff's Office, reports on the Library Board meeting. The Library Board is opposed to the substation being located at the Library. General discussion. Merrill: I have two items to add to the agenda under New Business: Item #7.I. Beer and Wine Application for Leslie L. Ditz and #7.J. Display cases for the new museum. B. RZ-8-97/CU-6-97/PPUD-1-97/PP-2-97 Brookwood Subdivision - Mike Hormaechea: Hormaechea LTD, represented by Mike Hormaechea, is requesting a rezone from A (Agricultural) to R-2-P (Residential two units per acre maximum - PUD) and R-4-P (Residential four units per acre maximum - PUD) with a development agreement, and conditional use, planned unit development preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat approvals for Brookwood Planned Community. The development consists of a 219.2-acre, 457-1ot (411-buildable) residential subdivision. The site is located at the northeast comer of Floating Feather Road and Eagle Road, approximately one mile north of State Street. (Note: The Commission heard testimony on all four applications at one time but took separate action on each application.) This item was continued from the October 27, 1998, Council meeting. The public hearing was closed on October 13, 1998. (MLB) Mayor introduces the issue. Evan Robertson, Attorney for the applicant. Distributes a copy of his brief to the City Council and Mayor. I have not seen your City Attorney's brief. I would like you to have an opportunity to review this as well as your City Attorney's brief and we would stipulate to continuing this to your next meeting. I also think there is an opportunity for you to go into Executive Session on this issue. Merrill moves to continue this to the next regularly schedule meeting, together with the proposed draft ordinance. Seconded by Guerber. Discussion. Merrill amends her motion to continue to a special meeting on November 17, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ................. C. Document approving Greenbelt easement encroachment for Echo Creek Subdivision along Horseshoe Bend Road [old Hiehwav 551. (Susan Buxton) This item was continued from the October 27, 1998, meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. Butler: This needs to be postponed to the next meeting. So moved by Guerber. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ................ D. Discussion of letter from the Buildine Contractors Association: (MLB) This item was continued from the October 27, 1998 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. Butler: This a complicated issue and we need more time on this item and would request that it be continued to the next meeting. Merrill moves to continue this to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ................ E. AD78 - Hill Road land acquisition and ACHD parcel - ~eneral discussion: This item was continued from the October 27, 1998 meeting.(NM &MLB) Mayor introduces the issue. Merrill discusses this location for a new park. General discussion. Bastian moves to offer a bid of $44,500 for Parcel ID #39158 to lTD. Seconded by Guerber. Discussion. Bastian I would amend my motion to also include the filing fee of $400.00 in this motion. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............. Bastian moves to amend the agenda. Move item 7D to item 5F. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES .................. F. 7D. Discussion of gradine olan for oronosed Hill Road Park site and orocess for removal of dirt mound between proposed park site and Prime Earth. (RY) Mayor introduces the issue. Butler: Discusses thc site, the meeting at the pit and the numerous letters that have been received by City Hall. Legal Counsel. I have reviewed the site and the record in this matter. There is no slope, it is a cliff. The dirt was falling off while we were standing there. It does appear to be a serious issue. I do think it is a violation and docs warrant pulling the Conditional Use Permit if we are going that way. Wc need to file a complaint in Court. General discussion. The City has the authority. The City should file a Complaint and go through a Show Cause process to pull the Conditional Use Permit. The Department of Lands would also have the authority to step in. General discussion. Mayor: We need to decide what we want to do with the berm and get back to Patterson on this. Merrill moves to have Patterson in 100% compliance to the April 20, 1998 letter, proceed with a Temporary Restraining Order to forbid operation of the gravel pit, and that the berm not be removed. Seconded by Gnerber. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES .......... Bastian moves to request the Idaho Department of Lands to exercise their authority and require the compliance of Prime Earth as set forth by the Idaho Department of Lands. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............. Angela Deckers, President of Evans Water Association and Evans Homeowners Association. Discusses the Prime Earth noncompliance. We support the City of Eagle and the Idaho Department of Lands. Presents some slides of the Prime Earth site and discusses them. Legal Counsel would like to have a copy of the slides. Angela has a copy for the City Attorney. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CU-7-98 - Conditional Use Aoorovai for Ea~le Country Plaza Shoooine Center - William Hodees: William Hodges is requesting conditional use approval for Eagle Country Plaza Shopping Center consisting of a multi-tenant commercial building (with attached restaurant and with drive-thru service for an unspecified use), and two separate building pads (one pad to include drive-thru service for a drug store). The total building area proposed is approximately 74,000-square feet. The entire site is 7.5-acres and is located at the northeast comer of Chinden Boulevard and Eagle Road.(MLB) Mayor introduces the issue. Mayor polls the Council for any ex parte contact or a conflict of interest, hearing none the Mayor proceeds. Bill Hodges, 1832 Spring Meadow Lane, Boise. Describes the proposed shopping center for the Council and displays a site plan for the City Council. This has been through P&Z and they have made their recommendations. We attempted to resolve the concerns of the neighbors and through that process we have come up with a revised plan. Displays an overhead of the revised site plan and discusses the same. Discusses the Site Specific Conditions of Approval. All of these conditions of approval are acceptable. Discusses Condition #14 which presents a hardship in the construction. I would request the City Council to eliminate this provision. Discussion on the Development Agreement. Butler: Provides an overview of the Staff Report. Discusses the Development Agreement. General discussion. P&Z recommended approval with their conditions as outlined. General discussion. Mayor opens the Public Hearing. Duayne Didericksen, 3430 E. Chinden Blvd. Property boarders the site. Discusses the proposed easement agreement that was presented to him and the project. General discussion. Denise Liley, 3410 Chinden Blvd. Distributes a copy of the Easement and Maintenance Agreement from the developer and discusses the same. Norman Duncan, 3520 E. Chinden Blvd. I attended all of the previous meeting and now we have a discount drag store and strip mall. Discusses the proposed project. Mike, 1125 Steepleview Drive. Discusses the project and propose changes to provide room for changes on the driveway. Duayne Didericksen, discusses what was approved at P&Z. General discussion. Bill Hodges. Discusses the Easement and Maintenance Agreement with the neighbors. It is the same easement that they have had, it is no more and no less. Mr. Didericksen wanted an unrestrictive, unlimited easement over my property to use for whatever he wanted in the future. I have asked Duayne specifically what he wants the easement for and I can get no answer. I will give the neighbors access in compliance with the current zoning which is seven residences. Discusses Hodges sale of the property to Liley. General discussion. Mayor closes the Public Hearing. Discussion among the City Council. Guerber moves that we deny this based on the fact that there is an inability to provide a reasonable access to the homeowners. Seconded by Merrill. Discussion. Guerber withdraws the motion and Merrill withdraws the second. Discussion. Bastian moves to continue this consideration until there is an agreement between the developers and the property owners, at whatever meeting that would be. Seconded by Merrill. Discussion. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... Bastian moves to reconsider the motion and Second concurs. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... Bastian moves to continue this matter to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting, November 24, 1998. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES .......... Mayor calls a recess at 10:25 p.m. Mayor reconvenes at 10:40 p.m. B. V-2-98 -Variance to Decrease Front Yard Setback - Mary Ann Dalton: Mary Ann Dalton, represented by Darren Leavitt with Arrow Land Surveying, is requesting City approval of a variance to decrease the required front yard setback of an existing house from 20-feet to 15-feet. The 0.69-acre site located on the southeast comer of Syringa Street and Elliot Street at 2196 Elliot Street. (MLB) Mayor introduces the issue. Darren Leavitt, representing the applicant. Discusses the variance. You originally saw this as a lot split. We do no have any problems with any of the conditions of approval. Butler: You have all of the information. P&Z approved the variance with conditions. Bastian moves to approve V-2-98 Variance to Decrease Front Yard Setback-Mary Ann Dalton with site specific recommendations. Seconded by Guerber. Discussion. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ................. 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Solid Waste Collection Services: Council will award the contract for solid waste collection. Mayor introduces the issue. Guerber moves to continue this to the special Council Meeting on November 17, 1998. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... B. Appeal Of Zoning Administrator's Code Enforcement Letter Reeardine the Temporary Trailer To Be Removed At 64 N. Idaho Street: Nancy Merill is appealing the October 27, 1998, code enforcement letter written by the Zoning Administrator requiring the temporary trailer to be removed by November 16, 1998. The grounds for the appeal are for clarification of interpretation of the Conditional Use permit granted by the City Council, with conditions for the temporary trailcu', on November 12, 1991. Mayor introduces the issue. Merrill discusses what her involvement in this issue was. Discusses the original Conditional Use Permit which has expired. George Jensen, 200 N. 3ra, Boise. We are here because of a problem with some property bought in downtown Eagle. Provides Council with some of his personal history. We bought some property at 1st in State and we upgraded the property and lease to several small businesses. We purchased the property at 64 N. 1st Street. We were not aware of any problems. Discusses the Conditional Use Permit as issued. We request that the mobile home have p~rmanent status at 64 N. 1~t Street. General discussion. Bastian moves that the Conditional Use Permit be extended for another year or until the current lease is terminated or whichever comes sooner. Seconded by Merrill. Discussion. Legal Counsel. The current motion is not allowed under the provisions of the Code. The Conditional Use Permit is terminated. A new Conditional Use Permit is not a possibility. General discussion. I don't think you have discretion to allow it. Bastian withdraws the motion. Second concurs. Further discussion on the issue. George Jensen. I would like to plead to have it for one year and we will sign whatever we have to sign. If you give us a year we will get it out of there. Council further discussion. The majority of the Council has agreed to allow one year before enforcement on the Conditional Use Permit. Mark to work with the Jensens on putting something in writing. This will follow the one year lease. Sedlacek has requested a motion so a vote can be taken. Legal Counsel. This can not be put into a formal motion. You would be formalizing something that is not allowed. Bastian moves that we instruct the Zoning Administrator to wait until one year from the day of the signing of the lease on 64 IN. 1st Street for the Jensens to have the opportunity to arrange for the removal of the mobile home. Seconded by Merrill. TWO AYE: TWO NAY: MAYOR VOTES AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............. C. Document douatin~ uarcel at Plaza Drive and Ea~le Road to City. (MLB) Mayor introduces the issue. Butler: Mr. Webster said he was going to send over the information to put in your packet but I have not received it. General discussion. D. Discussion of grading plan for proposed }Iill Road Park site and process for removal of dirt mound between uroDosed Dark site and Prime Earth. (RY) Moved to 5F. E..Ordinance 336: An ordinance changing the zoning classification of the real property described herein from A (agricultural) classification to CBD-DA (central business district with development agreement); amending the zoning map of the city of Eagle to reflect said change; and providing an effective date. (MLB) Mayor introduces the issue. Guerber moves, pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-902, that the rule requiring Ordinances to be read on three different days with one reading to be in full be dispensed with, and that Ordinance #336 be considered after being read once by title only. Guerber reads Ordinance #336 by title only. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ................. Guerber moves that Ordinance #336 be adopted. Seconded by Merrill. Bastian: AYE; Merrill: AYE; Sedlacek: AYE; Guerber: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ................... F. Discussion of requested additional fundine for JUB Engineers to comolete the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. (MLB) Mayor introduces the issue. Butler asks to continue this item to the November 17, 1998, meeting. Merrill moves to continue this to the November 17, 1998, meeting. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ..................... G. ACHD funding of street liohts and trees for Ea~,ie Road project north of State Street. (RY) Mayor introduces the issue. Phil Hull, The Land Group. Distributes a site plan and displays an overhead of the same. Discussion on the plan. General discussion. Yesterday ACHD decided to pay for the top soil and sod for the entire project. I'm guessing that this is mound $8,000-$9,000. This does force us to do irrigation for the entire area. General discussion on the project and the costs. Council discussion on where the funds will come from out of the budget. Gnerber moves to do the project with a proposed base bid of $68,668.20 and the proposed add alternate of $138,602.00 with the revenues necessary to come out of designated development funds for Eagle Road and the Merrill Park Fund. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ................ H. ACItD Residential Neighborhood Enhancement Pro,ram: Discussion. (RY) Mayor introduces the issue. We don't need to take action tonight. Council needs to be thinking about this for the November 24, 1998, meeting with the ACHD Commissioners. General discussion. I. Application for Beer and Wine License - Leslie L. Ditz. Mayor introduces the issue. I would entertain a motion to approve this license. So moved by Guerber. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... J. Purchase of displays cases the new Eagle City Museum. Mayor introduces the issue. Discussion on where the money would come from out of the budget. Sedlacek moves to appropriate the $2,500 to buy the cases. Seconded by Merrill. All AYE: MOTION CARRIES .................. Legal Counsel. Discusses the brief on the flood plain. Found some minor changes that need to be revised. Will get the changes to Council tomorrow. Mayor discusses the Christmas program on December 4~. Mayor: The meetings in December will be on the 8~ and 15~' of December. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Guerber moves to adjourn. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... Heating no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. CITY CLERK/TREASURER R/CKhdZAOU I MAYOR EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Subject: V-2-98 Variance to decrease front yard set back November 10, 1998 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON? Page 1 of 1 EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Subject: CU-7-98 Eagle Country Plaza November 10, 1998 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON? Page 1 of 1 Philip E. Batt, Governor TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMEN PO BOX 7129 • BOISE, ID • 83707-1129 • (208) 334-8000 November 5, 1998 The Honorable Rick Yzaguirre City of Eagle 310 E. Street Eagle Idaho 83616 Dear Mayor Yzaguirre: RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE N O V 0 6 1998 File. Route to: The Idaho Transportation Department has identified a parcel in Eagle valued over $10,000 as surplus. Parcels valued over $10,000 are offered to interested state agencies, counties, cities and highway districts prior to sale to the general public. Information on the parcel is attached. If your City is interested in acquiring this property by purchase or trade for other real property, we must receive your response no later than November 20, 1998. For further information, Please contact the Idaho Transportation Department, Right of Way Section, Property Management, P. 0. Box 7129, Boise Idaho 83707-1129. Sincerely, 77 OBERT SNYDER, R/W Agent Property Management RS:af Attachment - An Equal Opportunity Employer - IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT SURPLUS LAND OFFERINGS TO PUBLIC AGENCIES ADA COUNTY Parcel ID #39158 Minimum Bid 544,500.00 Location: The property is located in Ma County North of Hill Road, West of the new Highway 55. There is deeded access off of Hill Road. Description and Size: The property is irregular in shape and consists of 11.41 acres. It varies in topography due to the past excavation as a gravel source. The site has been excavated to the approximate grade of Hill Road, nearly flat on the bottom with substantial side slopes on the East and West sides. The property is under the City of Eagle jurisdiction and is zoned public/semi-public. J CMrc. I1 2.7 Clot.. ♦ Me.ee. ts7 MM.. ♦ e..- .. `1.• Imo•• Sc.v.I 04* ... a .$1 Scne. OW. N.. law lowe uw ..... •ewio ' I 00 .ILS Y•� >ti'. �o .__.. .��.. ..... _ _ ,i�3yJfi. 7 NUMBERED NOTES. 0 JarAle slow" rage or common ST! Jga*i v Kuria Rad s•-JOOme 0 soma snow" Lg04* LI* frac rp-Jaooar late 1-r AK( 11011.2 aMN01T AS LAMM Ar Gl0l ex.eDK Rae 0 .awe 1-8,/r a1 MIR swage /14.2 MI ',SODA)* OAM"woo=caw=outerAre mama ROI 1•-JaafP7is rill1 L0 .�we J11Mwd tAa7LK IJK wrMK. mor J.-Jaa001 0 waeee JIIMWRw /CAO0 rav Dw-JaoASS *own 0000 O *MA AR MOT AID Rte* N*4lC 1101 ',MODS Comm., sc... L AGLE ..... so.3 �- - awl ,...41111‘ incl. i1 _-_ _ -----_---.7.-,7=_—.:-.=:"7.,.:---.'=--- _ _ _ Nelle -III • • ' .i lt.�r+T'r 'err r...wr. r: ri ,J. LP. WTI "won Aare !S1 ri 11s, fns Ce.p•M.. 1 1.11.1.0 Ada County Highway District U' awei 3506 Em me.w C..w.sle. • 2111 CPA DIY Week Pe.s. Y.D., WPM • 14-17 71 IO Np N.i 741 ee1141 Chip ch iI „AA1 r mom r. r. rswot.Ammo swot. a1z r[ ou WW2 17-.1=74 l .& JOWL; Ja0224 W MOLL :IQ J -7/r. I'. Jlele. SACKS" JOvlr. WO POW eAelet Imo P -2-M11 Jamb 1000 0 sleet (4 •0000 40-04* mamas Or mos out. 11.11 naso 410*46 M o'r09M7 LaMar Or KO/. ROI 01,100 :01 eEOM mow "MK NO MCCIAIR UNIA 0 Der =tick armor 4-vr POI Man IS MO AR Ma MIS ID 04 CI NAMP C Rae s»JOORS. iKt NOTES KKR 1011111 M ICYO/D MLr1 MA& 11010110104•01 1 R 10 !MT 011010!1 AIO 111101% NM 0011111011 01114* Mae* MI SUM rt7l�Aw AAIO Mott 11111,110.00.oMMwAM �O.MO r��Ow111,11 IM KaAW110Nb WWAD�A�WWOvU�V0700 MIN= 10:mew Pre OMNI 1.= be1RA1 rCP •01 M30L71�0111MWKl LAeoML1110101111 `PaOM4*110110117 100p1111100101 RM. IawSwIK17 o01PL PIPE 5IZINa NOTE 314 IMP OML•NOT tODEEM II PP& 4* 41101Va•/107SO MOO*NV. F1Ie' 11d10MIM1•NOrTODEMO sSPA 1493 1141 aJYI . IOr ?0 0•20111111 11411. 1.117 /q1I 1 LLt 1: V r., 1- 1'�'�� .i � 11.11 1l � • 1!:121.101... 1 line" R l Dote Project No 52056.0 EAGLE R 0 AD (900' S. of State Street To Floating Feather Rood) 711B LAND STT. Er' erre• • eM Ileeq . Ir...+• Pia ratiagraierlawr 1 J/N•.•e er1pis DM. WWII Sheet L-1 of 5 c...... m JI ss pr 9•1!"7;77 •r c....••1 t11 .. ................................ .....•.•.iii :•.........••.......•...... r) cove ;lemenlory School M..M .r.1•m Rte` / -: 'VP' , r -X615 71..": f$050e1siel0 Int '"S e. r.4101 E, - i _ — _ _�►/iifSlJiJifi��w� ;� �ii�Ifl�twi��l,.FtLz WL LEIM N•M CEEB LN k ma neon • (•mow I • EAGLE �s Q KuAO u.. Link L••* ' tamp. • C 1 r r 0.1 1.1 EAGLE 1.410 J"4 • r.•••I.II.. la INC r, .Y G * OMP. N 11 PvCN• WONSI, a• EOQI.offiwater I ce Storage Garage Retirees Ada County Highway District 9. •wawl eek0,...Oak. Mi..UTI4• LI Po.N 1..11•. Me. Daisy Onus ►N.N rete HUMORED mons. Co /am getout P 1 of carte= • e1e00201 UWG flW 0,40:00 iO MAMA aeons. marmot fro D•-07010/ O AVAIL 1•r/i AIG 07SIimN: 010W/7AS LA0Q=D Al MOS IOGApI INN t -100703 O /41lfs I -vs' spaNas MAIM POPO S>•-100104 MOO lamas wawa at 11410 No Neva IRU ss-sa 0 is © DOOM 17010101 LAIVU1 L f" os IW S0.070001 0 OVAL ~run ACADS /fpr s^-07001). O maw AM Miff AMO Mal KKIC arm se -moat It DOM Ala Aoa7 a1MDL r . r. r AMOCO corns. Drat MAC Ant! 000X00 NO= ftoxes 01014 © *AMR R ItlW}tD�•p-1000rC. MO 0001 isarea 11 L/Y G IDi WIC I�a.K 7aOC • f A G� AIAMME 10410701 QIOTEs ►10MWrAI* TD In ONO NI.MN MOM. SN O 110.0001 WIN r TO VOW 01eD11Wn MD MOM DINT 'Tiff/ DAT DMIOlf7POD 00,11 gN10W101pmM'lll AO ID 000 SO NO/ NOW 01 ANENT=OMNI,00f 0,0104Tw1 u 001.04011 OR WU=iq 1iud01ll 10 .oINNTA ,401,01f W r M 70 IMOM 1MYrre MIS 1.=11,0=MO 1 OM NAL MO MOW 1N000•04dY .0.1.Z OAti LAMINA MO MINS 4.1.00•0•Pi OORNNCTON TO 000017T 1.001 00 MO 1111010100 0,000 P A�SISM MN DOI OP sun0N 00041 010. 420140101. PIPE SIZING NOTE TM 0.0 OPM. • NOT TO oc= • PP& P w GM • NOT To MOW 0 PP* tor Mak Arri• NOT TO DRiSD DPPA. $40 7140 GPM • NOT TODOOM 0PP* 1 !'id/. Br Kim I' ';1102M no. top, A. 1 MTei h: Oats Project No 52056.0 EAGLE ROAD (900' S. of Stote Street To Floating Feather Road) 1A1 TIM LAND aiDOP. oar Ll1241 .'AG1.r +wf•1y kr Toe Dar To /18 Sheet L-3 of 5 2) J N.' rill l i 0000TAn MST.' • 0 1 Noy 0 c*.. M.., rI. r,. No. ;rj -1�I�� v'-- -' : .2. 0 • ,F. EAGLE • m e...•. rw �!b 4 -� \ 1✓ •r (Ol` 6 fl ROAD 11 .T T . "/- Meet MIM• END PROJECT bd+b2 Py.0 rNtl r AIfM. nese MAIN III., 1 y SrYo,r `ld 11 z 0 1,, P E A G L ROAD sr:+Me no./ �rW D -MN I.. D.Arrs Ada County Highway District • WS ltrt 0tt1 Otr..1. Balm. WM. WOW • 1 DI Ia 111 1Ta1 l Nr -Th Data tWD/M f Draw ar m1 NUMBERED NOTED. 0 saw rwsws? ar PaCOMM= SET ~AVON £1W0 USN s►-Lloaaol. 1Q .IUM sraf.aa comma' ow wa to MULL. KG QaWO OMN1r7 As LAeQm Art1CV L0CAD0K IAN 01.100001 0 sum T -//?'s4 ICIIR MAMIE Iowa mil s•-zzom MAUL s oosozo calm rum .14D .Iowa trio s -soxol O /4TA4L somato Lama we ~a IIW se -moot AaTAu 0+0e110 WAS 1101 .0-I000t Oj 00011 AR Reser AAO MAN NIL IC Hal s -zo:ooe St ..0.1%707. eAA.Gt I' , e . employ) i0•SCt. net Ql.41 s acootQ swot 1X0.1 X004 WAS= Dam J -I4 1 !• 'sage AVM= 1ErLnL ALO ROOT smarm gag ~own 20004 XGOL& 0 MAMA (040P010 10-114v imam Ov Apntt AYSTAu II aroma comes o► SOL Rp/ R•-2 0017. to n -NW (t) own N0i[It 7000 O* &MM1L 001 s -SOCAAL 112108 tPO 11/41 AA TO M VOID IMAM AAM L10 00O04T1011 WTO. *TO MILLI ON 0000 UCS MO STUMM LIMO{111N OAS OdN E. PM M Pe{TAS10 SIM MSS= Me >/ M.% WOAt10Norrr LMpJIW 1IS AIfOor fPlISSRPO NO/ w0i OM PMC IONOINS MITA.4tIP! SO O O TN�Fs.1�MOO MOS0ia110NT00W OO 0t M W WO MI k 40J1CMR W W OOS MLtO Mr WPM UM MNA% taTOMLRao MOIL A Ia▪ 0.cM10C 0OrSrs4O�PII01IM OM 0P a oTANI CQPLECI t PIPE SIZING NOTE aM wOPM•NCR TOMUD IFPI, P O•DO ONt • 1107 TO Ocs®. ►r1. 14Y• 11.1 Ors% • NOT TO 70a®. Pra M0 • MO MM -1107 To Dicar. Pr* TSB LAIC) GROUT... N71. 5.171 t•I ,is f arm/ D7.. Data 1 A0proom Dn Ip1 DWf t0L2l�00 Project No 52056.0 EAGLE R OAD (900' S. of State Street To Floating Feather Rood) Sheet L-4 of 5 BASF BID IItem No. SP - 200001 SP - 200002 SP - 200003 SP - 200004 SP - 200005 SP - 200006 SP - 200007 SP - 200008 SP - 200009 - SP - 200015 1 Description Sprinkler point of connection Sprinkler controller Sleeving Sprinkler Mainline Sprinkler control valves & wiring Sprinkler lateral lines Sprinkler heads Sprinkler air relief & flush valve Tree Grate Frame Existing sprinkler equipment relocation SP - 300003 Junction Box SP - 300005 1 - 1/2" Conduit QTY. 1 UNIT I Unit Price Bid 1 2 EA 1 EA 4405 LF 3067 LF 12 EA 5847 LF 339 EA 7 EA 12 EA 1 EA 45 EA 4950 LF N $850.00 $1,450.00 $2.70 $2.10 $200.00 $2.00 $10.00 $260.00 $110.00 $550.00 Total $193.00 $3.50 Total Bid Item Total I $1,700.00 $1,450.00 $11,893.50 $6,440.70 $2,400.00 $11,694.00 $3,390.00 $1,820.00 $1,320.00 $550.00 $42,658.201 $8,685.00 $17,325.00 $26,090.001 TOTAL $68,668.201 ADD ALTERNATE I[tern No. SP - 200010 SP - 200012 SP - 200013 SP - 200014 Amended Topsoil Tree Root Barrier Tree Grate Description SP - 300000 Electrical Service Pedestal SP - 300001 Concrete Pole Bases & Historic Light Pole SP - 300006 Wiring QTY. 1 UNIT 238 CY 100 EA 888 LF 12 EA 1 44 23600 EA EA LF I Unit Price Bid 1 Bid Item Total $15.00 $350.00 $7.50 $350.00 Total $1,800.00 $1,560.00 $0.87 Total $3,570.00 $35,000.00 $6,660.00 $4,200.00 $49,430.001 $1,800.00 $68,640.00 $20,532.00 $89,172.001 TOTAL $138,602.00 Nov -10-98 11:39A PATRomIKX AND BETTY MILLER 2O/10+1493322 November 10, 1998 Mayor Yzaguirre, zet,-qe P.05 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE N0Y 1 0 199841111" I File: Route to: Briefly some thoughts concerning Eagle City Ordinance 9-4-1-10 H (No building in the floodplain). We live in a very deceptive area --a high desert in which most of the year we are short of water. Floods -just that much water— are inconsistent with our image of southwestern Idaho. Our high desert mentality make all of us forgetful about the flood dangers. Interestingly FEMA'S booklet "Floodplain Management: A Local Floodplain Administrator's Guide to the National Flood Insurance Program, Chapter 2, page 2 states "Sometimes referred to as the 100 -year flood, the base flood has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. Although a 100 year flood sounds remote, keep in mind that over the life of an average 30 year mortgage, a home located within the 100 year flood zone. ..has a 26% chance of being inundated by the base flood over the life of the mortgage. The same house has less that a 1% chance of fire damage during the same period. What is significant is that the house in this example is almost certain to a 10 year flood (96% chance) in the same 30 year mortgage cycle. All of you have seen floods in the Dry Creek area and the Boise River area. In the past this ordinance was not enforced—but now the ordinance has been unearthed. Use it. Consider it wisdom. We would rather have you spend our tax dollars defending a reasonable, wise ordinance ( as the current section H is) then spending tax money on flood clean-up and lawsuits filed by flood damaged homeowners who find out that you changed an ordinance that would have prevented their house from being in a flood plain. Good judgment and responsible action call for no development in the flood plain. Sincerely, Pat and Betty Miller City Council Eagle, Idaho 83616 Re: Development Approvals Dear City Council Member: RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE Nov 1 0 1998 File: Route to:..frl 1C on Floodway 12 E. Ranch Dr. agle, ID 83616 ovember 10, 1998 `:08-938-1307 Just as you passed the existing City of Eagle ordinance for "no" building on the floodplain/floodway, etc., it is a FEMA requirement that the City have an ordinance reflecting current FEMA minimum standards. You cannot just not have an ordinance. It would appear if you give even preliminary approval to a developer you could be liable for a lawsuit. If FEMA does not give approval to a LOMA and you allow the developer to build because he already has begun to build on your preliminary approval, FEMA could, in a worse case scenario, refuse flood insurance to anyone in Eagle city limits. Likewise, if you give the developer preliminary approval and then take it back, the City might be sued for costs to date toward or for development based on your preliminary approval. I respectfully submit that you should make no determination on any pending requests in the floodway until LOMA changes have been approved or rejected. Your contacts for further information are: FEMA - Patrick Massey 1-425-487-4626 State Coordinator - Fred Isenbath Water Resources of ID 327-7900 Ada County Floodplain Engr.- John Priester 364-2277 It would also appear to be "undue influence" to grant an approval and then expect FEMA to pass the LOMA to protect the City of Eagle (and where applicable pressure Ada County to send approval to FEMA) simply because the City has already committed itself to the developer. It is premature to approve any developments in floodplain or floodway areas without FEMA approval of a LOMA. cc: Mayor Rick Yzaguirre City Attorney Respectfully, Sharon A. Barnard Sunday November 8, 1998 To: Mayor Rick Yzaquirre, City of Eagle Eagle City Council cc: Mark Butler, Panning and Zoning Administrator Dear Mayor Yzaquirre and City Council, RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 0 9 1998 =:= Fite: Route toditi�-- L� Over two years ago we started to consider whether to move or remodel our present home in Eagle. After extensive review of the Comprehensive Plan, the sound barrier in place after removal of gravel from AD -78 and the intent for AD -78 to become a city park we chose to stay and remodel our home. The remodel took a year to complete with considerable financial'and emotional cost involved. We lived through the removal of the gravel from AD -78. No. protest was made with the understanding that when the gravel was removed, reclamation would be completed in the area and all would come to rest. We lived with heavy equipment working in a cloud of dust for a summer knowing that when done the dust would settle our quiet neighborhood would return. That has happened. Now we learn of a proposal to bring the heavy equipment back to remove a wonderful sound and visual barrier between us, the gravel pit, developments to come and the 24 hour noise of highway 55. Emotionally our family is drained. Our patience for more construction, basically in our backyard, doesn't exist. Our hope is that the peace and quiet we have waited for remains. The concept of a city park is welcome. If gravel removal does occur emotional harm will occur. Financial harm will occur as well if the gravel is removed. We just completed having our home appraised. The appraisal indicated a substantial negativeimpact with the gravel pit as it is. The noise that will carry across our property lines is forever in the event the gravel'between AD -78 and Prime Earth is removed. To leave the gravel where it is will leave the long awaited peace and quiet. Our hope is that you agree and that you will reject any further discussion of gravel removal between AD -78 and Prime Earth. Thank y for ur�'onsideration of this request. � e Robert E. and Marcia J. Beckwith 2260 Dicky Ct. Eagle, ID 83616 To: Mayor Rick Yzaguirre, Mayor, City of Eagle Eagle City Council cc: Mark Butler, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dear Mayor Yzaguirre and City Council Members: 2249 Dicky Circle Eagle, ID 83616 Nove*ibAr 8 149F RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 0 9 1998 File: Route to: VVI 1 (J I am writing to voice my opposition to the removal of materials between the AD -78 gravel pit and Prime Earth's current gravel operations (see Item 7D on the November 10, 1998 City Council Agenda). Prior to purchasing our property in March of 1995, my wife and I made a careful assessment of not only our property, but also the surrounding land uses. We read the City Comprehensive Plan and were encouraged with planned land uses, especially the park for AD -78 which is now a near -reality. My wife made several trips to the Idaho Transportation Department and viewed touched up photographs on file depicting their intended result of the reclamation of AD -78. We considered the community of Eagle as a whole. Our decision to purchase our current property was based on studying this information prior to entering into any real-estate transactions. In subsequent years after moving into our home, we have watched Eagle grow and were encouraged by the direction it is taking. We became involved in City planning processes and various committees, and we were much encouraged. We watched the final excavation and reclamation of the AD -78 gravel pit and were further encouraged. Based on these positive developments, we have invested significant time and funds into upgrading our home and landscaping. The proposal to remove the materials between the AD -78 pit and Prime Earth comes as a surprise and a severe blow to our expectations. The section of land in question serves as a natural buffer between our home and Prime Earth's gravel operations. It also serves as a noise and viewscape buffer screening out the new Highway 55. To remove this section of land would, in essence, directly expose our home to Highway 55 and the Prime Earth gravel pit. Discussions with several realtors have confirmed that the removal of this buffer zone would amount to an overnight significant loss of real property value to our home. There are numerous homes adjacent to ours that would realize a substantially equivalent loss in real value. None of our diligent investigations prior to purchasing our home prepared us for this possibility. I ask that when considering this item during the November 10th City Council Meeting, please reject further discussion of proposals that would compromise the pre-existing natural buffer zone that we have been counting on prior to purchasing our home. Please do not permit any material removal or regrading of this critical strip of land that separates us from an active gravel pit and Highway 55. Please close this topic now so we can have some peace on this matter and rest easy at night. Respectfully, Steve Deckers Karen Kurt's 2301 Sadie Dr. Eagle, ID 83616 Phone: 2081939-6379 FAX: 208/939-3317 e-mail: kkuzis @ micron.net To: Mayor Rick Yzaguirre, Mayor, City of Eagle Eagle City Council Date: 9 November 1998 Subject: Item 7D on the November 10, 1998 City Council Agenda Dear Mayor Yzaguirre and City Council Members: D & FILED CITY OF EAGLE N O V 0 9 1998 File: Route to: I am writing to respond to a potential gravel pit conditional use permit (CUP) expansion adjacent to my property. It has been rumored that Prime Earth wishes to expand its operations to extract the gravel between its western boundary and the reclaimed state gravel pit AD78, site of a potential City of Eagle park. Prior to purchasing this property in October 1996, I evaluated not only my property, but also the surrounding land uses. I decided to purchase the property based on the planned park for AD -78. I reviewed the Idaho Transportation Department reclamation plan and retouched photos of AD -78. My decision to purchase my current home was based on the available plans and information. During the excavation and reclamation of the AD -78 gravel pit I was exposed to excessive noise and dust. The pit fencing was not maintained, the contractor was not especially responsive to complaints and I had to actively control the children in my yard. It was a relief when the excavation was completed and my daughter and I have been looking forward to completion of the proposed park. The proposal to remove the materials between the AD -78 pit and Prime Earth comes as a shock and a surprise. The section of land in question serves as a buffer between our home and Prime Earth's gravel operations and the new Highway 55. To remove this section of land would directly expose our house to the Prime Earth gravel pit, the noise and dust of their operations and the noise of Highway 55. I have talked to a real estate agent and found the removal of this buffer zone and exposure to the gravel operations would result in a loss of property value. The Prime Earth Operations have not consistently complied with the terms of their conditional use permit or DSL permits. Fences have not been maintained and I have observed unsafe conditions near their pit numerous times. I regularly see equipment operating in the property to the north of their gravel pit and have had personnel and equipment operating near my home. It concerns me with their record of negligence to have their operations expand and have my property directly exposed to their operations. I am a single mother with a three-year old daughter and my yard is a frequent path of neighborhood children. I am concerned about the safety and liability of expanding the Prime Earth operation so there is almost direct access to their pit through my property. As an adjacent landowner — who would be seriously impacted by any decision to remove this buffer I am surprised I was not notified that this item was under consideration. At the November 10th City Council Meeting, I would appreciate it if you would reject the proposal to remove the natural buffer between my home and the gravel pit operation. I do not wantany material removal or regrading of this critical strip of land that separates my home from an active gravel pit and Highway 55. The noise and disturbance from the mining operation in my backyard was more than I wanted to deal with. Please reject this proposal now so I can enjoy my property and feel good about investing more in the property. As an adjacent property owner I would like to be notified about any future proposals regarding the activities on the Prime Earth property. Sincerely, Karen Kuzis 2 1 November 8, 1998 Mayor Rick Yzaguirre Council Members: Stanley J. Bastian Steve Guerber Nancy Merrill Lynne Sedlacek City of Eagle P.O. Box 477 Eagle, ID. 83616 Dear Mayor and City Council members: RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 0 9 1998 File: Route to: During the past year we have filed formal complaints with the City of Eagle and the Idaho Department of Lands concerning the non-compliance of Prime Earth with the terms of their conditional use permit and my concerns for protecting the welfare of my residential property. As you are aware the Prime Earth gravel pit borders our northern property line. We have a residential well along this boundary that is the only source of water for our property. The conditional use permit issued by the City of Eagle provides for questionable protection as it is. Our well company: Caron Pump Co., has expressed concern that even if the conditions were being followed, that our well will survive. The specified operating restrictions including a six-foot berm sloped at 2:1 and the maintenance of 3:1 excavation slopes. Prime Earth is currently not in compliance on any boundary, including ours. Their berm is 12 feet high instead of six. This is very obtrusive, making it feel like we are situated next to prison walls. We have planted trees to try and screen this, but it does not help. The berm is not sloped 2:1 either. The excavation slopes along this boundary are vertical, and actually concave, undercutting the berm in several places and getting dangerously close to my well. We hold the City of Eagle responsible for enforcing the CUP to protect our property. This is a longstanding issue, which has never been resolved and becomes more serious as the operation moves closer to our property. The Prime Earth operation has disregarded both the city and the stare concerning these regulations. We are depending on you to protect our property from the encroachment of their operation. In April, in response to several complaints from several sources, Mark Butler listened to all the tapes from meetings establishing the CUP and then inspected the operation. He found several violations. The pit operators were notified of five specific areas of non-compliance and were told to make corrections by May 11,1998. To date, none of these corrections have been made and the city has done nothing about it. On October 8, 1998, the Idaho Department of Lands issued a notice of non-compliance to Prime Earth and gave them 30 days to make corrections. These corrections have been ignored as well. Prime Earth has excavated vertically along the property boundary adjacent to the Idaho Department of Transportation gravel pit as well, which appears to be in violation of the Surface Mining act as well as the city's PUC. This excavation has caused a very dangerous situation. People have walked along the Idaho Transportation Department property for years. Today, anyone walking on state property along the common boundary with Prime Earth could fall into the gravel pit and be seriously injured or killed. This situation gets worse every day due to further erosion. There are fewer and fewer fence posts actually stuck in the ground; instead they are dangling over the 52 -foot vertical drop. We contacted the Department of Transportation and the City of Eagle last month to notify responsible individuals of this serious hazard. To date no corrections have been made and no action has been taken. This is gross negligence. In August 1994 Eric Wilson of the Idaho Department of Lands wrote a letter to Prime Earth to confirm the verbal agreement they had reached concerning mining operations in this gravel pit. This agreement stated that vertical working slopes would be no more than 25" high and would be regraded to a 3:1 slope weekly and that vertical excavation would not be permitted within 30' of property boundaries as stipulated by state regulations. These requirements were not as protective as your stated requirements, yet the operation has not been in compliance of these during the ensuing four years either. Now we are told you are considering allowing the Prime Earth gravel pit to expand its operation and remove gravel that is in the IDTpit. We find it impossible to understand why you would allow the gravel pit operation to expand based on their history of continual total disregard of all requests, requirements and demands for compliance. I have lived next to this gravel pit for six years. This pit is an eyesore that we have to look at and listen to many times a day. Opening up this pit for the view of the other residents to view would only make matters worse. Furthermore, you must consider the view for future park users to the park you will be approving as early as Nov. 10, 1998. Before you consider allowing this operation to expand, we strongly suggest you require Prime Earth to comply with its existing CUP and complete the reclamation on the other three sides of the pit. There is no completion date included in the existing PUC and therefore Prime Earth is free to leave the pit a mess, continuing to bring in fresh dumpings of asphalt and whatever for years and years to come. In the meantime, people will have to be viewing the mess from their windows as we do now. We don't think it would make for much of a park amenity either. They must be required to cooperate before being granted further privileges. To start, they need to make the corrections outlined in the letter from Mark Butler dated Apri120, 1998. This letter was written do clear up confusion about the terms of the PUC. Prime Earth was allowed time to appeal this letter, if they disagreed with the CUP terms stated, and did not do so. They have had six months to comply and have chosen to again disregard the requirements of the City of Eagle. They should also comply with the terms of the letter issued by the IDL on October 8, 1998which indicated they are in violation of state mining laws. They have chosen to disregard this as well. Until they choose to comply with applicable state and city regulations, they should certainly not be allowed to expand. You have the ability to make them comply. You also have the obligation to enforce the laws and regulations of the city. All current and future development in the City of Eagle is in jeopardy if the city council lacks the will to enforce its own laws and permits regulating land use within the city. Why should any developer comply with your requirements if you allow Prime Earth's disregard to continue and establish this as a legal precedent? Prime Earth came to the city requesting annexation when the county denied their request for permission to mine in a residential district. They asked and were unfortunately granted inappropriate zoning. Now they must be required to comply with regulations like any other resident. If in the future, if you do consider allowing this expansion, it should be regulated under a separate CUP with a time limit and applicable bonding which would be forfeited if the work is not completed by the deadline. In addition, it should not be permitted until the existing CUP is terminated or replaced with a new comprehensive CUP with appropriate time limits. The City of Eagle should be compensated appropriately for the valuable mineral resource which the gravel pit operator would receive. Prime Earth obviously values it greatly. We have included a letter from the pit owner's attorney in response to our offer to purchase a strip of property approximately 20' x 200' between our property and the pit. The owner values this mineral resource at $175,000.00. The berm under consideration contains at least 10 times as much gravel as the property we offered to buy and should bring a good price to the City of Eagle, once opened up to the public bid process which we believe is required by law. We request that you will delay consideration of the expansion of the Prime Earth gravel pit and instead force this operation to comply immediately with all applicable city laws and regulations. We have suffered for six years with this fiasco. It has been continually emotionally draining . Now we are faced with a huge financial loss do to this inappropriate zoning as well. As are all the Ore -Ida employees, we potentially face the need to move back east. We cannot possibly get the value out of our home until this mess is settled. We could possibly be forced to rent a 48,000 -sq. ft. home from two and half thousand miles away. The property would unquestionably get run down by renters. In the opening statements of the city plan there are statements; as required by state law, requiring the city to protect its citizen's welfare, including property values. We want to see you physically protect your citizens by correcting the treacherous situation at the pit and to correct the situation to protect our and all of our neighbor's property values. We are expecting your careful consideration of all this and thank you in advance. Sincerely, Richard Butterfield Diane Butterfield 2400 Hill Rd. Eagle, ID 83616 COSHO, HUMPHREY, GREENER & WELSH, P.A. FREDRIC V. SHOEMAKER Mr. Gary L. Neal Churchill Law Offices P.O. Box 1926 Boise, Idaho 83701 COUNSELORS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW CARNEGIE BUILDING 815 WEST WASHINGTON STREET BOISE. IDAHO 83702 TELEPHONE (208) 344-7811 FACSIMILE (208) 338-3290 May 19, 1998 Re: Prime Earth, Inc. v. Butterfield CHGW File No. 11333-02 Dear Mr. Neal: OFFICE ADMIN.rRATCR <RjSTNE TF-CMSEEN ALFA' A"ERJCAN LAW Fiats ASST. C AT CN I have spoken with my clients about the possibility of selling that portion of the property your clients have been encroaching on. Given the value of the mineral resource underneath, Prime Earth, Inc. would be willing to sell the subject property to Mr. and Mrs. Butterfield for $175,000. This offer will remain open for ten days. If it is not accepted, please file an answer or other responsive pleading, or alternatively, remove the fence and the balance of the improvements which your clients have placed upon my clients' property (including the recently -planted trees). Not incidentally, your clients' recent removal of the shed and/or outbuildings, for whatever reason, did not cure the encroachment and trespass which continues. Yo}4rs Every ly, Fredric . hoemaker FVS/srb cc Floyd Patterson EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT This Easement and Maintenance Agreement ("Agreement") is made this day of October 1998, among Eagle Country Plaza, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company (hereinafter "Company") whose address is 609 West Main Street, Boise, Idaho 83702, Duayne Didericksen and Lee Didericksen, husband and wife, (hereinafter "Didericksen"), whose address is 3430 East Chinden Boulevard, Boise, Idaho 83714, and James Liley and Denise Liley, husband and wife, (hereinafter "Liley") whose address is 3410 East Chinden Boulevard, Boise, Idaho 83714. WHERAS, Company is the owner of a parcel of real property located in Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Company Property"); and WHEREAS, Didericksen is the owner of certain real property located in Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Didericksen Property"); and WHEREAS, Liley is the owner of certain real property located in Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit C attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Liley Property); and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to grant and be granted certain easements that are described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convenants herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Company does hereby give, grant and convey unto Didericksen and Liley for the benefit of the Didericksen Property and the Liley Property a perpetual, nonexclusive easement for ingress and egress for pedestrian and vehicular traffic across a portion of the Company Property more particularly described in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as "Easement Parcel No. 1 "). It is expressly understood and agreed among the parties hereto that the use of Easement Parcel No. 1 by Didericksen and Liley and their successors shall be limited to such uses as are ordinarily and necessarily associated with one single family residential dwelling each on the Didericksen Property and the Liley Property, and no others. The use of Easement Parcel No. 1 as limited herein shall not be expanded, enlarged or modified without the written approval of Company or its successors or assigns. EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 1 4 2. Didericksen does hereby give, grant and convey unto the Company and Liley, for the benefit of the Company Property and the Liley Property a perpetual, nonexclusive easement across a portion of the Didericksen Property more particularly described in Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as "Easement Parcel No. 2"). It is expressly understood and agreed among the parties hereto that the use of Easement Parcel No. 2 by Liley and their successors shall be limited to such uses as are ordinarily and necessarily associated with one single family residential dwelling and no others. It is further expressly understood and agreed among the parties hereto that the use of Easement Parcel No. 2 for the benefit of the Company Property shall be limited to the purpose of ingress and egress of pedestrian and vehicular traffic as may be reasonably necessary in order to provide for the maintenance of any and all landscaping improvements to be located on the Company Property westerly of and adjacent to Easement Parcel No. 2. The use of Easement Parcel No. 2 as limited herein shall not be expanded, enlarged or modified without the written approval of Didericksen or their successors or assigns. 3. It is further agreed among the parties that Easement Parcel No. 1 and Easement Parcel No. 2 shall be improved, at the sole cost and expense of Company, with an asphalt surface designed and constructed in accordance with sound construction practices in view of the nature of the uses therefore as set forth herein. All costs associated with the repair, maintenance and upkeep of the southerly 180 feet of Easement Parcel No. 1 shall be the responsibility of Company. All costs associated with the repair, maintenance and upkeep of the balance of Easement Parcel No. 1 and Easement Parcel No. 2 shall be shared equally between Didericksen and Liley or their successors or assigns. No further improvements (except ordinary repair, maintenance and upkeep) shall be made upon Easement Parcel No. 1 or Easement Parcel No. 2 without the consent of the owner of the property on which the easement exists. 4. The easements granted hereby shall run with the land described herein and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and their respective heirs or successors and the rights granted hereunder shall not be assigned, conveyed or in any fashion alienated separate from the proeprty benefited thereby. 5. Each of the parties hereto does hereby release, abandon, extinguish and terminate any other rights-of-way or easements across any other partys' real property described herein, it being the intent of this Agreement to supersede and replace any pre-existing easements serving the same or substantially the same purposes. EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 2 J3 •A••I:2.•Y P•E•T•E•E •8 Attorney at Law, P.A. Admitted to Practice in Idaho & California 101 Eagle Glen Lane, Suite A Telephone: (208) 939-2600 Eagle, Idaho 83616 Facsimile: (208) 939-2692 January 31, 1996 Members of Eagle City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission 310 East State Street Eagle, Idaho 83616 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE N O V 1 0 1998 File: Route to: nn Re: Proposed Revisions to Eagle Comprehensive Plan Dear Council and Commission Members: I have reviewed the various changes which have been proposed for the Eagle Comprehensive Plan. Although I have significant reservations with respect to most of the changes which have been recommended, there are two aspects of the changes which I believe will have a crippling financial impact on the city. I would urge you to have your city attorney explore this issue with you very carefully before adopting the suggested revisions. The two provisions to which I refer are as follows: 1. The provision which prohibits any development within the FEMA -designated floodway, regardless of what mitigation steps may have been undertaken; and 2. The provisions which will limit fill placement within the FEMA -designated floodplain to a maximum of fifteen percent (15%) of the surface area which lies within the floodplain. It is important to recognize that, after studying the issue for decades, FEMA has concluded that fill placement may take place within both the floodplain and the floodway without adverse effect on surrounding properties in the event of any 100 year flood event. Extensive computer models have been developed in order demonstrate when mitigation steps are sufficient to offset the effect of fill placement, even within the floodway itself. When those steps are sufficient, the project will satisfy the no -rise analysis requirement which the Eagle City Code currently includes. Members of Eagle City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1998 Page 2 In view of the fact that FEMA effectively acknowledges that there is no risk to the public associated with development in the floodplain under these circumstances, any effort to revise the Comprehensive Plan in this fashion can only be regarded as a backdoor effort to obtain open space areas contiguous to the Boise River channels. This is even more so the case where, as here, the committee is quite candid in explaining that they have consciously disregarded the comments of "developers" in developing the proposed changes. Even the most cursory examination of, recent constitutional challenges to such efforts should make it abundantly clear that "just compensation" must be paid before any such action is taken. If the city undertakes this action, significant liability will be unavoidable. Again, I would strongly recommend that you obtain carefully -considered advice from the city attorney's office so that the city does not inadvertently trigger very significant liability by adopting these proposed changes. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration on these matters. Cordial yo rs, Barry Peters BP:mmg EAGLE"LT.01 MOORS & McFADDEN, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE CAPITAL CENTER., SUITE 910 999 MAIN STREET, BOISE, ID 83702 TELEPHONE: (208) 331-1800 PAX: (208) 331-1202 DAVID H. BIETER SUSAN E. BUXTON • JOHN J. McFADDEN'$ MICHAELC. MooRE* PAULA. TURCKE *Also Admitted in Oregon *Also Admitted in Washington November 10, 1998 Mayor and City Council City of Eagle 310 E. State Street. Eagle, Idaho 83616 Dear Mayor and Members of the Eagle City Council: Several issues have arisen concerning the interpretation of the Eagle City Code relating to development within the flood plain. We discussed these issues in some detail at the last council meeting. At that time you requested that both of the developer and our office provide more analysis of the issues involved. We will first review the applicable Code sections, the legislature history of those section, and the rules of construction that apply to interpretation of those sections. Second, we will discuss the issues raised by the City's previous application of the applicable Code sections and the probable legal effect of such application. Third, we will consider any constitutional takings issues; and, finally, the options available to the City. As expected, we found no authority compelling a definite answer to the issues raised by this development. However, the absence of any (at least recent) application of 9-4-1-10H ("Section H") seriously restricts the City's discretion to now apply that section to deny all development in the flood plain. Nevertheless, as we reviewed earlier, these issues will not be easily resolved. We suggest, therefore, that the council amend the Code, at least on an interim basis, and thereby narrow the issues and have the present council directly address such issues. Title 9, Title 10, Their History and Construction The applicable titles of the Code are Titles 9 and 10. Title 9 is entitled "Land Subdivisions"; Title 10 is entitled "Flood Control". The issues currently before you center around language in Title 10, specifically, 10-1-3 which states: Mayor and City Council November 10, 1998 Page 2 A. Jurisdiction Interpretation: This Title shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of the City. And the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be: 1. Considered as minimum requirements; 2. Liberally construed in favor of the City; and 3. Deemed neither to limit or repeal any other powers granted under provisions of the Idaho Code. B. Conflicting Laws: This title is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or repair any existing easement, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter and other ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restriction shall prevail (emphasis added). Title 10 does not, in any particular sections, preclude development in the flood plain. Rather, the Title allows for elevating building pads to either two feet when elevation data is not available, E.C.C. 10-1-8-1A, or alternatively, as in the case of Brookwood, if the elevation levels are known, the lowest floor must be elevated one foot above the 100 year flood level. E.C.C. 10-1-6A. On the other hand, Title 9 states in 9-4-1-10H: With the exception of road crossings, approved drainage structures and recreation and open space uses which do not involve the destruction of the vegetal cove, development shall be prohibited within the 100 -year flood plain for major waterways, and the 50 -year flood plain for minor waterways. The previous section, Section 9-4-1-10G, defines major and minor waterways. Since a minor waterway is one that drains a basin area of less than ten acres, Dry Creek must be considered a "major" waterway. Thus, the 100 year flood plain applies. In order to construe these Code provisions, we begin with the premise that an ordinance, like any statute, is to be construed to determine the legislative intent and give effect thereto. George W. Watkins Family v. Messenger, 118 Idaho 537, 797 P.2d 1385 (1990). If possible, the council should interpret the statute so as not to, in effect, nullify the statute. De Rousse v. Higginson, 95 Idaho 173, 505 P.2d 321 (1973). Moreover, clearly expressed intent Mayor and City Council November 10, 1998 Page 3 in the statutes must be given effect; there is no occasion for constructing language of a statute that is unambiguous. In the Matter of Application for Permit Number 36-7200, in the Name of the Idaho Departments of Parks and Recreation, 121 Idaho 819, 828 P.2d 848 (1992). Accordingly, by reviewing the plain meaning of the Code provisions, we must try to ascertain the previous City Councils' intent. This threshold review reveals that Section 10-1-3 A and B, set forth above, allows for more restrictive code provisions addressing the flood plain issues. Thus, at the most fundamental level, the plain language of Title 9 and Title 10. The problem, however, is that we cannot, as it is likely a court would not, end the inquiry with the language of the statute. There are at least two arguments that the statute has, in effect though not directly, been amended. Courts have labeled this as an "implied repeal" of a statute. As we reviewed in your earlier meeting, the various Eagle City Code provisions addressing the flood plain proceeded as follows: 1. Eagle City Ordinance No. 35, passed on June 14, 1977, Eagle's first zoning ordinance, prohibited residential uses in the Flood Hazard District, which was defined as the Hundred Year Flood Plain. (See Exhibit "A"). 2. Eagle City Ordinance No. 40, passed on October 18, 1978, repealed the first zoning ordinance and had a flood plain overlay district. The uses allowed in the flood plain were addressed by conditional use permit. (See Exhibit "B"). 3. Eagle City Ordinance No. 82, passed December 14, 1982, was the first Title 10. Although there is no documentation so indicating, it appears this is a version of the FEMA model ordinance. It specifically repealed those contrary sections of Ordinance No. 40. (See Exhibit "C"). 4. Eagle City Ordinance No. 88, passed November 15, 1983, is the precursor of the present Title 9 and is the City's subdivision ordinance. This ordinance contained the present section H verbatim. (See Exhibit "D"). There is a letter in City files from the attorney apparently representing the City at the time, stating that although much of the language of the subdivision ordinance was adopted from the City of Boise, he refers to what are now 9-4-1-10 G and H and by explanation states: The Commission requested at the last public hearing on the Mayor and City Council November 10, 1998 Page 4 subdivision ordinance that the ordinance 'address the problem of drainage and irrigation to be included by the developer before a subdivision plan is approved.r] This suggested language is taken from a Boise City Foothill's ordinance and applies to all subdivisions seeking approval within the City of Eagle and is not confined to hillside subdivisions only" (emphasis on the original). (See Exhibit "E"). 5. Eagle City Ordinance No. 115, passed May 12, 1987, (See Exhibit "F"), passed changes to Title 10 to reflect recent amendments to the federal regulations. (See letter from FEMA, Exhibit "G"). 6. Eagle City Ordinance No. 249, passed on October 25, 1994, established Areas of Critical Concern. (See Exhibit "H"). 7. Eagle City Ordinance No. 251, passed October 25, 1994. On that same day, as it passed Ordinance No. 249, the City made fairly minor changes to Title 10. (See Exhibit "I"). Accordingly, Eagle apparently proceeded as follows: 1. Enacted a version of the FEMA model ordinance in 1982; 2. Passed a more restrictive ordinance as part of a subdivision ordinance in 1983; 3. Made amendments to Title 10 in 1987, apparently to bring it in line with changes to federal regulations; 4. Amended Title 10 with minor changes again in 1994 and also added Areas of Critical Concern in 1994. From the little information that's available, the changes to Title 10 have either been reflections of changes in federal regulations, or changes in mapping. Moreover, there is some evidence that the subdivision Ordinance, No. 88, was meant to apply to all subdivisions and not only those in the Foothills. Accordingly, applying the rules of statutory construction referred to above, an argument can be made that the changes to the FEMA model ordinance proceeded independent of the other code provisions and at the request of FEMA. That is, FEMA required a flood plain ordinance and its amendments, regardless of other possibly more restrictive provisions that do not conflict with the FEMA ordinance. Thus, any other provisions would still be valid and not in conflict with Title 10. Mayor and City Council November 10, 1998 Page 5 Since Section H was never specifically amended or repealed, if there was a repeal, it must be found by the implication that it was repealed by the amendments to Title 9 and Title 10. An implied repeal is not favored by the Courts. Such a repeal will only be applied if there is no other reasonable construction, State v. Martinez, 43 Idaho 180, 250 P.2d 239 (1926); or when the legislative intent to repeal is clear; or the newer statute is clearly repugnant in word or purpose to the old statute. Grindstone Butte Project v. Kleppe, 638 F.2d 100 (1981), cert. and rehearing denied. Moreover, an authority in zoning law confirms that "FEMA encourages communities to adopt more stringent no -build regulations." Rathrops Law Zoning and Planning, Ziegler, Edward H. Junior, Vol. 1, § 7.06, p. 7-51. We are aware that FEMA has not required that local entities enact no -build regulations, it being an American tradition to delegate land use controls and the decision making to the local level. Id. at § 7.02, p. 7-9. Past Actions of the Council While the specific language and history of the code provisions would not compel the application of Title 10 over the provisions of Title 9, the Council's past approach, at least in the 1990's, has been to overlook the provisions of Title 9. Such neglect in applying a code provision gives rise to at least two types of challenges. First, the City runs the risk of having its decision reversed as "arbitrary and capricious." Idaho Code § 67-5279 (3)(e). Much of Idaho zoning case law has resulted in either affirming local government decisions, or reversals and remands on grounds other than whether a decision was arbitrary. However, the decisions of a city council in a similar applications are relevant to whether the council acted appropriately on a specific application. Workman Family Partnership v. City of Twin Falls, 104 Idaho 32, 655 P.2d 926 (1982). In the Workman case, the City of Twin Falls denied a rezone application, but failed to approve findings and conclusions as required by law. Because of these inadequacies, the Court remanded the case for the City of Twin Falls to hear again. However, in ruling on the remand, the Supreme Court also addressed the District Court's decision to consider evidence in the record on how the City of Twin Falls had ruled on similar applications. The Court stated: . . . there can be no doubt that the Council was aware of its own previous actions of approving the applications ... [w]e agree with the District Court's implicit determination that the evidence was relevant. Although it may be true that the prior approval of other applications ... does not establish a binding precedent, it does not follow that evidence of this nature is not relevant. Mayor and City Council November 10, 1998 Page 6 Workman, 104 Idaho at 35 and 36. The Court went on to cite a Pocatello case, Herzog v. City of Pocatello, 83 Idaho 365, 363 P.2d 188 (1961), in which the Supreme Court found arbitrary a decision by the Pocatello City Council to deny a petition to rezone property to a commercial use. The Court in Herzog reviewed evidence of the Council's previous decisions in the surrounding area in which the City had either granted permits or variances to all other commercial issues: "After careful consideration of the entire record, we feel that the evidence of discrimination of various aspects as presented to the trial court sustains this finding of the court." Herzog, 83 Idaho at 373. The Court remanded the case, exempted the landowner from the existing ordinance with a residential restriction on the subject property, and enjoined the City from enforcing its present ordinance. Id. at 373 and 374. Herzog is a case that precedes the Local Planning Act, but it has not been overruled. Moreover, a similar case Cole Collister Fire Protection v. City of Boise, 93 Idaho 558 (1970), ruled in a similar case that past approvals and variances made denial of a permit for a commercial use arbitrary and an ordinance unenforceable. Though there have been several zoning cases decided since Herzog and Cole Collister, they provide direction on how Idaho Courts will decide issues of arbitrariness. Another possibility would be a challenge for violation of the developer's constitutional right of equal protection. Such challenges have not generally been favored by courts in reviewing zoning cases. The most successful challenges involve instances of discrimination against particular groups of people such as group home for handicap persons, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 105 S. Ct. 3249, L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985), (the handicapped persons living together could not be treated differently than other individuals) or minority groups, Crow v. Brown, 332 F. Supp. 382 (D. Georgia 1971) (rentals to minorities must be treated the same as all other individuals). Moreover, as to an existing use, it is rare for Idaho courts to estop the government from forcing the terms of a valid ordinance. Kleiber v. City of Lewiston, 110 Idaho 501 (1986). Nevertheless, even where there is no discrimination based on a particular group of people, when, as here, the Council has not, at least in recent times, enforced Section H, the City may be unable to apply Section H to this present situation. See Shoemaker v. Woodlawn Equities, 313 S.E.2d 689 (1984) (county ordinance prohibiting proposed quarry unreasonably discriminatory when an existing quarry was given a permit to expand and relocate); Wolfner Mayor and City Council November 10, 1998 Page 7 v. Board of Adjustment, 672 S.W.2d 147 (Mo. App. 1984) (permit issued to previous owner found arbitrary and discriminatory where new owner's circumstances had not changed); and Durante v. Town of New Paltz Zoning Board, 465 N. Y. S.2d 485 (1982) (denial of special use permit unreasonable based solely on neighborhood objection). Since 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council have processed to preliminary plat or final approval at least the following applications for development in the flood plains: Developments Built or That Have Final Plat Approval Channel Center Island Woods Gleneagle Subdivision (Albertson's approved and built although without subdividing) Developments with Preliminary Plat Approval Eagle Pavilion Lakeland Estates Rocky Mountain Business Park In short, since 1991, no development in the flood plain has been prohibited by the application of Section H. However, we must point out that at least three developments could still be denied approval for units in the flood plain since the decision in Bothwell v. City of Eagle, 130 Idaho 174 (1997), allows changes before final plat approval. Nevertheless, the evidence of overlooking Section H is substantial. To be sure, the facts of this case differ from many cases in that Section H, if it were to be applied, would not be applied for any discriminatory reason, but rather it had been neglected or overlooked and has now come to the full attention of this Council. While a city's interpretation of its ordinance carries significant weight, South Fork Coalition v. Board of Commissioners of Bonneville County, 792 P.2d 882, 117 Idaho 857 (1990), and the language of the provisions themselves and their history allow for imposition of a more restrictive requirement, without any recent application, the scales may tip in favor of the developer were a challenge to be presented. The Council could also argue that had previous Councils been made aware of this provision, the plain language of the Section would have been applied more restrictively. While ultimately the Court may allow a more restrictive interpretation, given the past actions of this Council, such an alternative presents significant difficulties to the City's position if Section H were applied. Mayor and City Council November 10, 1998 Page 8 Lastly, there is the possibility that a taking of property would occur because of the application of Section H. However, it is my understanding that Section H was in effect before this developer purchased the property. Recent cases have found such a factor to weigh against finding a taking. When regulations existing at the time a property owner purchased the property would not have allowed such a use, courts have not found a taking. Kim v. City of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 1 (1997) (the Court should look to the law in force, whatever its source, when the owner acquired a property), Anello v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 678 N.E.2d 870 (1997) (the court rejected a rule that would be unfair to purchasers who acquired property with restrictions already in place). Moreover, the facts of this case differ from the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Counties, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992), in which a parcel was denied any building whatsoever, and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 U.S. 2309 (June 24, 1994), in which the property owner was required to dedicate portions of his property to protect against the flood. While there is always the possibility of an extension of takings law, the present trend if there are portions of a parcel that allow development, and restrictions that predate an owner's purchase, is not usually found as a taking. City's Alternatives and Amending Its Code As an alternative to the risks in applying Section H, or the possible appeal for not applying that section, the City may want to consider, and we would favor, amending the code to clarify building in the flood plain. The possibility also exists for an amendment of a code on an interim basis. The Idaho Code allows for interim ordinances when a comprehensive plan is being considered. Idaho Code § 67-6524. There is no set length of time an interim ordinance can be in effect. We suggest, should the City decide on an interim ordinance, that it be enacted for a one (1) year period with a possibility of an extension. In that manner, the City could address this situation and possibly avoid appeals and lawsuits. Even if the City decided in a new ordinance not to allow any building in the flood plain, we would know that in all likelihood the developer would proceed under the existing ordinance, however Section H is to be applied. Without an amendment, any decision the City makes would likely be challenged. In conclusion, further review of the law confirms our earlier analysis. While the provisions do not necessarily conflict, the past decisions weigh heavily against the City's Mayor and City Council November 10, 1998 Page 9 discretion to apply Section H at this time. Amending the Code may provide some clarity. We await your decision or any further questions. Very truly yours, MOORE & McFADDEN, CHARTERED DHB/dmr Enclosures eter ORDINANCE NO. 35 An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 10 3-6.5 to repeal the prohibited use of any building intended for human use or occupancy in the floodplain district and creating minimum building requirements in lieu thereof. BE IT ORDIANED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: Section 1.. Delete: Section 3-6.5, Line a of Ordinance No. 10 under the title Uses Prohibited. Section 2. Add: Ordinance No. 10 3-6.3 Line c. under the title Uses Allowed. "Any building intended for human use or occupancy if the lowest floor is above grade on all sides (in relation to the mean sea level). Passed by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of Eagle, Ada County, Idaho the 1� g � Y 1977. day of r EXHIBIT \--44"1:::-.7 3-6.2 -31- property and to prevent the erection of structures which might impede the flow of a flood, widening the area of potential flood damage Delineation of Flood Ilazard District: Those floodplain areas with- in the limits of the Intermediate Regional Flood (100 year flood) are hereby designated as the Flood Hazard District. 3-6.3. Uses Allowed: a. Any agricultural use. b. Any outdoor recreational use, such as golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, etc. 3-6.4 Conditional Uses: a. Any other land use compatible with the adopted goals and policies of the Eagle Master Plan. except those uses requiring extensive structures. 3-6.5 Uses Prohibited: 3-6.6 a. Any building intended for human use or occupancy. b. Any other building or structure which is of a size and nature such as to impede the flow and widen the area of potential flood damage or of such a nature that, in the event of a flood, it may contribute to the danger from floating debris in down- stream areas. Planned Unit Development in a Floodplain: If lands lying within an FP District are included within a proposed PUD, the total acreage used in determining the number of residential units permitted within the PUD may be increased by the number of acres lying within the FP District (up to 331 of the total number of acres in the PUD) . No buildings may be built within the FP District, however; all portions of the PUD lying within the FP District must be developed as open space for the PUD. 3-7 REGULATIONS GOVERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 3-7.1 Purpose: It is the purpose of Planned Unit Development regula- tions to provide for well planned developments that conform with the Master Plan, but which provide for a greater flexibility of land use relationships and allow for freedom of design in order to obtain development which will be an asset to the City of Eagle by equaling ORDINANCE NO. 40 AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF EAGLE, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING REGULATIONS WITHIN THE CITY: PROVIDING FOR THE TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND ENACTMENT; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS: PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATION; PROVIDING FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE OF DISTRICTS: PROVIDING FOR OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PROVIDING FOR DISTRICT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR OFFICIAL HEIGHT AND AREA REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR FLOOD PLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT (FP); PROVIDING FOR DESIGN REVIEW OVER- LAY DISTRICT (DR); PROVIDING FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD); PRO- VIDING FOR NON -CONFORMING USES: PROVIDING FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR APPEAL, VARIANCE AND ACTION BY AFFECTED PERSONS; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. SECTION A. TITLE This Ordinance shall be known as the "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Eagle", Idaho. SECTION B. AUTHORITY This Zoning Ordinance is adopted pursuant to authority granted by Title 67, Chapter 65 of the Idaho Code and Article 12, Section 2 of the IDAHO CONSTITUTION, as amended or subsequently codified. SECTION C. PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE DECLARED TO BE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements, adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety and the general welfare. Whenever the requirements of this Ordinance conflict with the requirements•of any other lawfully adopted rules, regulations, ordinances or resolutions, the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standards shall govern. SECTION D. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid. SECTION F. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCE - EFFECTIVE DATE All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict with this Zoning Ordinance or inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent necessary to give this Ordinance full force and effect. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after the date of its approval and adoption, as provided by law. EXHIBIT al EFFECTIVE DATE SECTION A. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication following passage and approval. Regularly passed and approved by the Eagle City Council on the Lath day of October , 1978. • ARTICLE VIII FLOOD PLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT (FP) SECTION A. PURPOSE The purpose of the FP District is to guide development in the floodway fringe areas of any water course that flood flows, and to minimize the expense and inconveniences to the individual property owners and the general public through flooding. Uses permitted and conditional uses that are authorized in this district are generally associated with open space, recreational and agricultural land uses and shall not hinder the movement of floodwaters. The FP District is superimposed over other districts. SECTION B. USES • All uses are permitted in the respective districts with which the FP District is combined with the exception that structure used in carrying out those permitted activities must be approved by the Council under the Conditional Use Permit procedure and deemed appropriate to be located within the floodway fringe. SECTION C. CONDITIONAL USE When authorized under the procedure provided for conditional uses in this Ordinance, the following uses will be permitted in a Flood Plain Overlay Zone: 1. Structures used in carrying out permitted activities provided detailed engineering data is supplied by the applicant who bears the burden of proof that such structures can be located in areas of plateaus, benches or upon man-made fills or can be otherwise elevated so as not to be affected by flood waters, provided that: a. Sewer and water systems shall be flood -proofed and approved by the District Health Department of Department of Health and Welfare that has jurisdiction; and b. No building or structure shall be erected and no existing building or structure shall be extended or moved unless the main floor of said building or structure is placed a minimum of one (1) foot above the elevation of the one hundred (100) year flood level. No basement floor shall be below this one (1) foot safety margin. Foundations of all structures shall be•designed and constructed to withstand flood conditions at the site; and c. The applicant will provide an engineer's certification that the above requirements have been fulfilled. 2. Other structures used in carrying out permitted activities provided such structures will not be subject to substantial flood damage and will not increase flood related damages on other lands. These may include structures which can be readily removed from flood hazard areas during periods of high water. Conditions that may be required by the Council before it approves the use of structures in a Flood Plan Overlay Zone shall include: 21 ORDINANCE NO. 82 FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF EAGLE, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, REPEALING ARTICLE VIII, FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT (FP) OF ORDINANCE NO. 40, ZONING ORDINANCE: AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION B, MEANING OF TERMS OR WORDS, OF ORDINANCE NO. 40; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT STATEMENT OF PURPOSE, METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES, AND DEFINITIONS; SETTING FORTH GENERAL PROVISIONS; CREATING A FLOODWAY DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR OFFICIAL MAPS; PROVIDING FOR COMPLIANCE AND FOR ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS, INTERPRETATION, AND WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY; ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT; DESIGNATING A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS DUTIES; PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS. BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS TO THE DISTRICT COURT; PROVIDING FOR VARIANCES; ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION, SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND FLOODWAYS; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCE- MENT AND PENALTIES, CONTENT OF APPLICATIONS, APPROVAL OF AND EXPIRATION OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR A SCHEDULE OF FEES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO: SECTION 1: That Article VIII, of Ordinance No. 40, be, and the same hereby is, repealed. SECTION 2: That Article I, Section B. of Ordinance No. 40, is hereby amended by deleting therefrom the entire definition of "flood plain." SECTION 3: That the Ordinances of the City of Eagle, Idaho, be and the same are hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW ORDINANCE, to be known and designated as Ordinance No. Rte and to read as follows: CHAPTER 1 FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE, METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT (a) The flood hazard areas of City of Eagle, Ada County, Idaho, are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, —1— EXHIBIT ri is SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage, approval and publication in the manner provided by law. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 14th day of December , 1982. ATTEST: _ `Bonnie Kras osis City Clerk atc jigga ORDINANCE NO. RR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF EAGLE; SETTING FORTH GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCE; DEFINING CERTAIN WORDS AND PHRASES; SETTING FORTH A PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION; SETTING FORTH DESIGN STANDARDS, INCLUDING LOCATION AND SPECIFI- CATIONS FOR STREETS, INTERSECTIONS AND PEDESTRAIN WALKWAYS AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC SITES AND OPEN SPACES; SETTING FORTH IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS, HYDROLOGIC CONTROLS; REQUIRING A SUBDIVIDER TO PROVIDE A FINANCIAL GUARANTEE IN LIEU OF ACTUAL INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS, PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION; ALLOWING AND PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES, INCLUDING HILLSIDE SUBDIVISIONS, PLANNED UNIT AND CONDOMINUM SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN FLOOD PLAINS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN AREAS OF CRITICAL CONCERN; PROVIDING FOR VACATIONS, DEDICATIONS AND VARIANCES; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT PROCEDURES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. EXHIBIT 1,1 �� (6) Drainageways or hydraulic structures in major waterways (defined as draining a basin area of ten acres or more) shall be designed for the 100 year flood or to accommodate the runoff projected in the Soil Conservation Service Hydrology Guide for Residential Development of the Boise Front, whichever is greater. In minor waterways (defined as draining a basin area of less than ten acres) such structures shall be designed for the 50 year flood or to accommodate the runoff projected in the Soil Conservation Service Hydrology Guide for Residential Development of the Boise Front, whichever is greater. (7) With the exception of road crossings, approved drainage structures and recreation and open space uses which do not involve the destruction of vegetal cover, development shall be prohibited within the 100 year flood plain for major water- ways, and the 50 year flood plain for minor waterways. (8) Sediment cathment ponds shall be constructed and maintained downstream from each development, unless sediment retention facilities are otherwise pro- vided. Any facility used shall provide for the removal of surface debris and contaminants, as well as sediment retention. (9) The overall drainage system shall be completed and made operational at the earliest possible time during construction. (10) Alterations of major drainageways shall be pro- hibited except for approved road crossings and drainage structures. (11) Natural or improved open channel drainageways shall be preserved or provided for in major waterways, except that at road crossings, conduits may be permitted. Minor waterways shall be permitted to be enclosed in conduits. (12) The Board reserves the right to install hydrologic measuring devices in drainageways within any develop- ment at public expense. (j) Fire Hydrants and Water Mains. Adequate fire protection shall be required in accordance with the appropriate Fire District standards; MEMORANDUM DATE: August 19, 1983 TO: Chairman Jim Hill and Members of the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: J. Patrick Riceci City Attorney RE: Amendments to Subdivision Ordinance The following are the proposed changes to the Subdivision Ordinance suggested by the Commission at its December 7, 1982 meeting. Please review these changes in preparation for the September 6, 1983 meeting at which a second public hearing will be conducted on the ordinance. EXHIBIT p E � At Chapter 5, Section 2(h) insert the following provisions relating to hydrologic controls: (i) Hydrologic Controls. (1) Interceptor ditches shall be established above all cut/fill slopes, and the intercepted water conveyed to a stable channel or natural drainageway with adequate capacity. (2) Curb, gutter and pavement design shall be such that water on roadways is prevented from flowing off the roadway. (3) Natural drainageways shall be riprapped or otherwise stabilized below drainage and culvert discharge points for a distance sufficient to convey the discharge without channel erosion. (4) Runoff from areas of concentrated impervious cover (for example, roofs, driveways and roads) shall be collected and transported to a natural drainage with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge without undue erosion. (5) Waste material from construction, including soil and other solid materials, shall not be deposited within the 100 year flood plain. (6) Drainageways or hydraulic structures in major water- ways (defined as draining a basin area of ten acres or more) shall be designed for the 100 year flood or to accommodate the runoff projected in the Soil Conservation Service Hydrology Guide for Residential Development of the Boise Front, whichever is greater. In minor waterways (defined as draining a basin area of less than ten acres) such structures shall be designed for the 50 year flood or to accommodate the runoff projected in the Soil Conservation Service Hydrology Guide for Residen- tial Development of the Boise Front, whichever is greater. (7) With the exception of road crossings, approved drainage structures and recreation and open space uses which do not involve the destruction of vegetal cover, development shall be prohibited within the 100 year flood plain for major waterways, and the 50 year flood plain for minor waterways. (8) Sediment cathment ponds shall be constructed and maintained downstream from each development, unless sediment retention facilities are otherwise provided. Any facility used shall provide for the removal of surface debris and contaminants, as well as sediment retention. (9) The overall drainage system shall be completed and made operational at the earliest possible time during con- struction. (10) Alterations of major drainageways shall be prohibited except for approved road crossings and drainage structures. (11) Natural or improved open channel drainageways shall - be preserved or provided for in major waterways, except that at road crossings, conduits may be permitted. Minor waterways shall be permitted to be enclosed in conduits. (12) The Board reserves the right to install hydrologic measuring devices in drainageways within any development at public expense. Explanation: The Commission requested at the last public hearing on the subdivision ordinance that the ordinance "address the problem of drainage and irrigation to be included by the developer before a subdivision plat is approved. This suggested language is taken from the Boise City Foothills Ordinance and applies to all subdivisions seeking approval within the City of Eagle and is not confined to hillside subdivisions only (see Chapter 6 of the draft ordinance) . At Chapter 3, Section 3(i)(1) insert the following lan- guage following the word "following": "the notice and hearing requirements as set forth in section 3, subparagraphs (f) and (g) of this chapter, the city council shall make findings as required in section 3, subparagraph (h)(2) of this chapter. The city council shall approve, approve conditionally or dis- approve the preliminary plat within thirty (30) days of the public hearing conducted to consider the commission's recommendation." Explanation: This language was inadvertently left out of the final draft ordinance presented to the Commission. At Chapter 4, Section 10(a) add the following language: (a) Zoning. Lots within any subdivision shall comply in all respects with the Official Height and Area Regulations as set forth in Article VII, Ordinance No. 40 of the City of Eagle". Explanation: The Commission requested that the sub- division ordinance contain a minimum lot size. Eagle's Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 40) contains detailed requirements for maximum height, minimum yard requirements, maximum lot coverage and minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The minimum lot area in a residential zone is 6,000 feet. This language merely incorporates the height and area regulations into the subdivision ordinance by reference. A copy of the regulations is included for your review. ORDINANCE NO. 115 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AMENDING CHAPTER 10, EAGLE CITY CODE, TO INCORPORATE INTO THE FLOOD CONTROL REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CERTAIN PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; AND PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Eagle (the "City") participates in the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"); and WHEREAS, in order to maintain the eligibility of the City and the property located therein for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, the City is required to maintain and enforce certain flood control regulations and to incorporate therein certain recent provisions required by FEMA; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its current flood control regulations,, as provided in Chapter 10, Eagle City Code, in order to incorporate the additional required regulations, for the benefit of the City and its inhabitants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO: - 'Section 1: That Section 10-1-1, Eagle City Code, be, and is, hereby, amended to read as follows: 10-1-1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE: A. F.iildings of Fact: 1. The flood hazard areas of the City are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and govern- . mental services, extraordinary public expen- ditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. These flood losses are caused by natural forces and by the cumulative effect of struc- tures located in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights and velocities, and when such structures are inadequately anchored, can damage property in 1. EXHIBIT damage potential, complies with all other variance criteria, and otherwise complies with the GENERAL STANDARDS. 8. Any applicant to whom granted shall be given written structure will be permitted to lowest floor elevation below elevation and that the cost of will be commensurate with the resulting from the reduced elevation. a variance is notice that the be built with a the base flood flood insurance increased risk lowest floor D. Records and Reports: The Zoning Administrator shall maintain the records of all variances and report any variances to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration upon request. Section 7: Except as amended hereinabove, all provisions of Chapter 10, Eagle City Code, are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 8: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage, approval, and publication. DATED this %;Z day of , 1987. CITY OF EAG By ea.ce.e. 74‘ee, Mayor 21. Federal Emergency Management Agency Region X Federal Regional Center Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Honorable Carol Haley Mayor of Eagle P.O. Box 477 Eagle, Idaho 83616 Dear Mayor Haley: We have reviewed Ordinance Number 115 that you adopted to reflect recent amendments to Federal regulations governing the National Flood Insurance Program. The adopted ordinance brings the City into full compliance with current Federal regulations, and your eligibility in the program will be continued. However, the date of your Flood Insurance Study in Section 2 should be October 15, 1985, as we previously stated in our letter to you dated March 13, 1987. We encourage you to contact us should there be any questions that arise in your enforcement actions related to the ordinance. We appreciate your cooperation in formulating the ordinance. Please feel free to call on Herb McElvaine (206) 481-8800, our representative for your area, if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Charles L. Steele, Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division Copy to: Lotwick Reese, Department of Water Resources ti EXHIBIT ORIGINAL ORDINANCE NO. t19 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AMENDING SECTION 9-5-8, EAGLE CITY CODE, TO ESTABLISH AREAS OF CRITICAL. CONCERN IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE 1993 CITY OF EAGLE COMPREHENSWE PLAN AND PROVIDJNG AN EIFECTWE DATE BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CI1Y OF EAGLE, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, as follows: Page 1 ,peon 1: That Section 9-5-8 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 9-5-8: SUBDIVISION WITHIN AN AREA OF CRITICAL CONCERN A. Designation of Areas of Critical Concern: Hazardous or unique areas may be designated as an area of critical concern by the City Council or by the State of Idaho. Special consideration shall be given to any proposed development within an area of critical concern to assure that the development is necessary and desirable and la the public interest in view of the existing unique conditions. Hazardous or unique areas that may be designated as areas of critical concern are as follows: I _ Earthquake location; 2. Unstable soils; 3. Unique animal life; 4. Unique plant life; 5. Scenic areas; 6. Historical significance; 7. Floodplain; 8. Center City; 9. Areas within the area of City impact but outside City boundaries; and 10. Other areas of critical concern. EXHIBIT h I�N E. Environmental Assessment Plan: the developer shall prepare and submit' an environmental assessment along with the preliminary minary plat application for any development that is proposed within an area of critical concern. The content of the environmental assessment shall be prepared by an inter- disciplinary team of professioonals that shall provide answers to the following questions: 1. What changes wilt occur to the area of environmental concern as a result of the proposed development? 2. What corrective action or alternative development plans could occur so as not to significantly change the area of environmental concern? 3. What changes in the area of environmental concern are unavoidable? 4. What beneficial or detrimental affect would the development have on the environment including, but not limited to, animal life, plant life, social concerns, economic, noise, visual, available farmland and other? (Ord. 88, 11-15-83) fa The following areas=specific,* identified as areas of critical coir, L Boise River Flool Plain. The Boise giver Flood Plai njnd =WA intervene andimmediaidv adjacent areas are designated ea of critical cancelsdue to their ecological and scenic simifican.ce. This sum =wises the two channel he Boirdtiver an nterve true and immediately adjacent area, as depicted on the Land UDesianation Map of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Capt of gle Qsalav 11. 1993, ILLn512=WAsea4including that portion in the Eagle Impact area. / Dry Creek FloodYlain. the Dry geek Flood Plain is desgaated as an area of critical concept due tQwits ecological an4. scenic siinificaace. This Area comprisette Dry Creek Fwd Plain as defined on the Land Tim Designation Man oftbxe CommPlan adopted by the City of Eat on May 1 L 1993. inctudiira that portion m the City of Eagje Impactrea. • firth Foothills. The.Aortir. Footb is area is deli; ated as at area c ' critical concern due o the topQg bic. ecological and semic sin canoe. This area co Il a City of Eae mnaci;,,direa rIQltth offt con Ught road as deputed on the Land Use Designation_Map ap ofthg Cgoprehensive Piga adorned by th&City clawed on May 13,. 1993_ Page 2 Amok Section 2: That this Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced after its passage, approval, and publication as required by law. In lieu of publication, the entire Ordinance and ;,........a* y thereof in compliance with Section 50-901A, Idaho Code, may be published. DATED this 25th day of October, 1994. ATTEST: CITY OF EAGLE Ada Comity, Idaho c Mayor q., L, d �•.-.._::: City Clerk �; _' ••E • 1�+,. • as �? *444'714,41 IW N A -5rs- (SEAL) Page 3 0R, ORDINANCE NO. 251 ORIGINAL AMENDING TITLE 10-1-6 OF THE EAGLE CITY CODE TO REFLECT UPDATED - FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION. MAPS AND STUDY FOR THE CITY OF EAGLE AND ADA COUNTY AND; ADDING A NEW SECTION TO EAGLE CITY CODE 10-1-7.B. 10-1-7.B($) REQUIRES A POST -CONSTRUCTION ELEVATION CERTIFICATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, as follows: Section 1: Section 10-1-6 of the Eagle City Code is hereby amended as follows: FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: The areas of special flood hazard identified by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The flood Insurance Study for the City of Eagle, Ada County, Idaho," dated—Deeember 11, 1944, dated October 15, 1985, with the accompanying flood insurance rate maps, and Ada County flood insurance rate maps, dated December 17, 1991, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Chapter. A copy of the flood insurance study shall be maintained on file at the Eagle City Hall. The flood insurance maps establish the area of special flood hazards which are adopted as the overlay zone district. Section 2: Section 10-1-7.B of the Eagle City code is hereby amended by adding a new section as follows: Section 10-1-7.b (S)Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit an post -construction elevation certificate, certified by a registered professional engineer or architect, must be received documenting the elevation of the first floor or elevation of floodproofing in relation to mean sea level. Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force after its passage, approval, and publication as required by law. In lieu of publication of the entire ordinance, summary thereof and compliance with Section 50-901A, Idaho Code, may be published. DATED this a5117 day of 04:224) , 1994. CITY OF EAGLE ADA COSILY , I ROSHOLT, ROBERTSON, & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1221 W. IDAHO P.O. BOX 2139 BOISE, IDAHO 83701-2139 (208) 336-0700 Fax: (208) 344-6034 Email: rosholt@micron.net MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Yzaguirre and Eagle City Council Members DATE: November 10, 1998 FROM: Evan Robertson RE: Brookwood Subdivision Thank you for giving me an opportunity to discuss with you the meaning and importance of Section 9-4-1-10 H ("Section H"), of the Eagle City Code, both in its relationship to other provisions of your Code and in the context of The Brookwood Subdivision applications. Section H is a troublesome provision which I will attempt to analyze for you without, hopefully, losing your interest along the way. Even without regard to its importance in your decision on the pending Brookwood applications, I cannot overstate the significance of Section H to the existing and future development of the City of Eagle. Let me start with a very brief history as to how we arrived at this point. As you know, I represent the applicant for the Brookwood Subdivision planned unit development, consisting of a maximum of 411 residential units to be developed in approximately 13 phases over a 219 -acre parcel at the intersection of Floating Feather Road and Eagle Road. Notwithstanding the "newly discovered" Section H, the development of the Master Plan for Brookwood has had a substantial input from the 1' 1 Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning and Zoning staff. There have been substantial amounts of time and money expended by the applicant to develop an exemplary plan which, consistent with the land use provisions of the 1997 Eagle Comprehensive Plan, provides a wide diversity of housing types available for a variety of different income groups desiring to reside in the City of Eagle. The Master Plan, as presented, has received a very positive staff report from the City's Planning and Zoning Administrator and the unanimous approval of the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission. The Brookwood Master Plan was intended to be an aid to the City, the purchasers of lots within the project, and neighboring property owners. It demonstrates precisely how the land will be developed, places limits on densities, and provides a more extensive amenity package for residents of the Subdivision than is found in any other development situated within the City. However, as is probably inevitable in a project as large as Brookwood, the Master Plan has been criticized as representing excessive growth for the community, even though buildout cannot realistically be expected for at least eight, and probably longer. In any event, I believe the opposition to the project has seized upon Section H as a means not of honestly dealing with floodplain issues, but disingenuously as a method of promoting a "no growth" agenda within the City of Eagle, and it is now urging the City Council to jump on the bandwagon. Not only do I doubt that you are prepared to embrace an elitest, no growth agenda for the City, but I hope to demonstrate in this memo that Section H should not, and, in fact cannot, support such a policy in any event. As you consider this complex issue, please consider the following review of Section H: 1. SECTION H HAS BEEN REPEALED BY IMPLICATION. During our recent discussions of Section H, it has been suggested that Section H governs subdivisions and developments within the floodplain, and that the much more detailed flood protection 2• I provisions of Title 10 of the City Code do not. I believe the City Attorney and others have mentioned in support of this argument a widely recognized rule of statutory construction which states that when two ordinance provisions conflict, the more recently adopted takes precedence. This concept is sometimes referred to as repeal by implication. When a court is faced with determining which of two conflicting provisions in an ordinance is to be applied, it frequently will opt for the newer provision, on the assumption that when the newer provision was adopted, the legislature (or, in this case, the City Council) must have intended to repeal the earlier conflicting provision, even if the later ordinance did not contain a written repealer clause. In considering Brookwood Subdivision, the argument seems to be that Section H, which was included in Ordinance No. 88 and became effective on November 23, 1983, takes precedence over the flood control regulations of Title 10 which were previously adopted in Ordinance No. 82, effective December 23, 1982. Note that the theory of statutory repeal by implication does not necessarily mean that Title 10 was repealed in its entirety, but only that those provisions of Title 10 which would conflict with Section H were impliedly repealed. While at first blush this argument may seem plausible, I detect at least two flaws in the logic: A. First, I would refer you to Section 9-5-7 of the Eagle City Code, which was adopted simultaneously with Section H in Ordinance No. 88 which reads as follows: "SUBDIVISION WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN: In addition to the provisions of this Title, any subdivision within the designated Floodplain of the City shall comply with all applicable provisions of the floodplain regulations of the City as now in effect or as may hereafter be amended." If Section H precludes subdivisions in the floodplain, as some are now urging, one has to ask why the City Council, in the same Ordinance No. 88, provided a specific section entitled "Subdivision Within A Floodplain". Surely, the members of the City Council 3. who developed, presumably discussed, and then passed Ordinance No. 82 in 1983, could not have intended that Section H would flatly preclude all floodplain subdivisions or it would obviously not have included Section 9-5-7 in that Ordinance. Further, the footnote at the end of Section 9-5-7 states as follows: "See Title 10 of this Code". Given the specific title and contents of Section 9-5-7, I don't think one can reasonably argue that Section H precludes all subdivisions within a floodplain, nor do I believe in the face of Section 9-5-7, and particularly the citation to Title 10 contained in footnote no. 1, that Section H can possibly be said to have repealed the applicability of Title 10 to floodplain subdivisions. B. The second argument against interpreting Section H to preclude subdivisions within the floodplain is found in Section 9-5-8 of the Eagle City Code which is entitled "Subdivision Within An Area Of Critical Concern," and expressly includes floodplains as an area of critical concern. Not only does this code section contradict any interpretation of Section H which would preclude all subdivisions within the floodplain, but it is important to note that Section 9-5-8 was adopted in 1994, long after Section H. If, indeed, the later of two apparently conflicting provisions of the ordinance control, then it is submitted to you that Section 9-5-8 controls, and it may reasonably be held to repeal, by implication, Section H. For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that Section H cannot possibly be the applicable law governing floodplain subdivisions in Eagle, if one interprets Section H to preclude all such subdivisions. (I will discuss other possible interpretations of Section H hereinbelow). Finally, on this point, I will report to you that Steve Bradbury, legal counsel for Dennis Baker, the 4 developer of Island Woods, remembers earlier conversations with then City Attorney, Mona Mack, wherein she opined that Section H had indeed been repealed by implication and was no longer in effect. I am not in a position to assert the veracity of that reported conversation, but believe it warrants your request to Mr. Bieter that he discuss the matter with Ms. Mack. 2. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF SECTION H? Even though Section H was injected into your deliberations over Brookwood Subdivision only recently, it is clear from the discussions to date between Council members, your legal counsel, and a few comments from the applicant and members of the public, that the meaning of Section H is far from clear. Basically, with few exceptions, Section H purports to do two things: a) assert jurisdiction over 100 -year floodplains for "major waterways" and 50 -year floodplains for minor "waterways"; and b) essentially preclude any "development" in those floodplain areas. Let me begin by commenting on the first portion of Section H; the establishment of the area to which it applies. The terms "major waterways" and "minor waterways" are defined only in Section 9-4-1-10G ("Section G"), which defines them as waterways draining more than 10 acres and those draining areas of less than 10 acres, respectively. These are not terms which are defined elsewhere in the City Code, nor by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and seem to have their origin in a 1972 Soil Conservation Service document referred to in Section G, entitled "Soil Conservation Service Hydrology Guide for ' Residential Development of the Boise Front". I am providing a copy of that document for your perusal as Exhibit "A" hereto, from which you can readily discern that it does not relate to area within the city limits of Eagle, but is limited to the following area: "The area considered by this guide is the foothills below 3,600 feet on the South and West side of the Boise Mountain. This area is subject to the same type of storms, and the soil is primarily deep, permeable, loamy 5. Elk sand with a few scattered locations of low permeability clay or shallow rock. The native vegetation is primarily a sagebrush grass complex. For the purpose of this guide, the soil may be considered homogeneous for each land use." Further, I have seen no document or map, officially adopted by the City of Eagle, or otherwise, which delineates major waterways or minor waterways, nor, for that matter, any 50 -year floodplains. Currently, the official Floodplain Map for the City of Eagle is dated November 13, 1997, and is contained as a part of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. No such distinctions or identifications are contained therein. It appears under these circumstances that Section H, and its immediately preceding Section G, have no current relevance for the City of Eagle, and under accepted rules of statutory construction, may also be too ambiguous or vague for enforcement. I am suggesting that both sections may be remnants of a much earlier regulatory scheme inadequately picked up or retained in Ordinance No. 88 when it was adopted, and that both should be repealed. Now, let me turn your attention to the second part of Section H, which contains a virtual prohibition against "development". What does the term "development" mean? To my knowledge, it is not an expressly defined term in Title 9. It has been suggested by some that it relates only to subdivisions, and that the term "subdivision" is synonymous with the term "development" in this context. That, however, is pure speculation, which should be rejected for a variety of reasons, including the following: A. Accepted rules of statutory construction take words at face value, and assume that the legislative body adopting statutory provisions carefully selects and intends each term used in a statute or ordinance. If the Eagle City Council, in adopting Ordinance No. 88, had intended Section H to simply preclude subdivisions within the floodplain, it 6. could have, and should have, clearly so stated, instead of using an undefined, general • term, such as "development". B. To make the terms "development" and "subdivision" synonymous is to render Section H inconsistent with Section 9-5-7 and 9-5-8. Again, accepted rules of statutory construction seek to render all provisions within an ordinance consistent one with the other. A frequently used legal reference, American Juris Prudence 2d, states the principle thusly: "In the absence of a showing to the contrary, all laws are presumed to be consistent with each other. Where it is possible to do so, it is the duty of the courts, in the construction of statutes, to harmonize and reconcile laws, and to adopt that construction of a statutory provision which harmonizes and reconciles it with other statutory provisions. These rules are particularly applicable to statutes passed at or about the same time, or at the same session of the legislature since it is not to be presumed that the same body of men would pass conflicting and incongruous acts. Likewise, the various provisions of a single act should be read so that all may, if possible, have effect without repugnancy or inconsistency, so as to render the statute a consistent and harmonious whole." 73 Am Jur 2d, Section 254 (emphasis added). As I discussed before, the 1983 City Council simply could not have intended that the prohibition on development in Section H include subdivisions, or it would not have included Section 9-5-7 in the same Ordinance No. 82. C. Finding the term "development" synonymous with the term "subdivision", for the purposes of the prohibition contained in Section H, also would be inconsistent with the interpretations evidentially given that section by the Eagle Planning and Zoning staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and, indeed, the Eagle City Council in 7 previous applications, including Lakeland Estates and at least portions of Island Woods, to name but two. If the City Council feels it should retain Section H in its City Code rather than expressly repealing it at this state, as I would recommend, then it is incumbent on you to search for an interpretation of its language which is consistent with the actions previously taken on subdivision applications within the floodplain. Frequently, courts will look to the actions of the entities charged with enforcing statues or ordinances to ascertain the meaning of imprecise provisions. The interpretation given a statute by those who must enforce it is given great weight in judicial construction, and I believe it is clear that the City of Eagle has consistently interpreted Section H in a manner permitting floodplain subdivisions. If the term "Development" is not synonymous with "Subdivision", then what does it mean? It could, I suppose, be defined much more broadly, to prohibit development of any type, including structures, subdivisions, fill or any other activities with the stated exceptions of "road crossings, approved drainage structures and recreation and open space uses which do not involve the destruction of vegetal cove". If the City adopts that position, a number of existing and potential projects would be out of compliance, including not only residential subdivisions within the floodplain, but also probably such things as the new Albertson's development, McDonalds, Eagle Plaza, the treatment plant of the Eagle Sewer District, the North Channel Center, portions of the Rocky Mountain Business Park, and perhaps even the majority of the City's pathway system and any related park improvements planned to occur within the floodplain. Such an interpretation would spell disaster for the future of the City of Eagle, rendering a number of existing structures immediately "non-conforming", thereby precluding any future expansions, structure remodeling or replacement on structures. It would also call into question the 8 right of any lot holder within an existing, previously approved floodplain subdivision to obtain a building permit for the construction of a home on the lot. (See Section 9-6-5(AX3) which states that no permits for construction of any structure shall be issued on any lot unless it meets all of the requirements of Title 9, including Section H.). I think a far better interpretation of Section H can be reasonably discerned which would permit development within subdivisions located within a floodplain. While the best choice is, in my opinion, a straightforward repeal of both Sections G and H, I believe it is reasonable to assume that the initial intent of Section H was simply to preclude the "development" of buildings and structures within a floodplain unless the lowest floor of the building had been elevated at least one foot above the elevation of the 100 -year flood level. Such an interpretation renders Section H consistent with Sections 9-5-7 and 9-5-8, and Title 10, and further validates the actions heretofore taken by the City on floodplain buildings and subdivision approvals. The term "floodplain" is defined in Title 9, Section 9-1-6 to include the "... channel, floodway or floodway fringe". "Floodway fringe" (Title 9, Section 9-1-6), in turn, is defined as follows: "That part of the floodplain which is beyond the floodway. Such areas include those portions of the floodplain which will be inundated by a flood of one hundred (100) year frequency." Since the Brookwood Subdivision is not proposing any buildings or structures within either the channel or the floodway, it appears that the City has used the term floodplain in connection with the Brookwood Subdivision application as synonymous with the Title 9 definition of floodway fringe. If you agree, then please note that the above-cited definition of floodway fringe includes only those areas which are within areas which will be inundated by the 100 -year flood level. Buildings and structures (i.e. development) which have been elevated above that level are therefore no longer within the 9 f rook floodplain. The Master Plan for the Brookwood Subdivision clearly provides that all building sites will be appropriately elevated above the 100 -year flood level, and will therefore no longer be within the floodplain or the floodway fringe. As I know you understand and appreciate, property owners, citizens, lawyers and the City could argue at length, and even litigate, over the concepts I have put forward in this memorandum. In the final analysis, however, the most important issue is one of policy, which only the City Council can determine. The question is really a simple one: Do you want to prohibit any development within the floodplain other than the "road crossings, approved drainage structures and recreation and open space uses which do not involve the destruction of vegetal cove", which are expressly permitted by Section H? If you are inclined to answer that question in the affirmative, I would only ask that you first focus on the following: • What would that do to conflicting provisions of your ordinances, including Section 9-5-7, Section 9-5-8 and Title 10 of the City Code? • Would that position allow the construction of the City's proposed pathway system, additions to the sewer treatment plant of the Eagle Sewer District, and similar public developments within the floodplain? • Since several subdivisions have already been approved within the floodplain, how will the City handle applications for building permits to construct residences on vacant lots in those subdivisions, given the prohibitions contained in Section 9-6-5{A)(3)? It seems that allowing construction to proceed would violate that section, while refusal to issue the permit could require the City to purchase the lot from the property owner. • How would projects already approved within the floodplain, and pending applications for 10• , others, be handled by the City? I have attached a list of some projects which would apparently be impacted. (See Exhibit "B"). I am not sure the list is totally accurate or complete, but definitely some of the projects listed are situated at least partially within the floodplain. ♦ How would the City deal with the request for exterior changes or additions to buildings already situated within the floodplain? Would these buildings become "non -conforming", and be denied the ability to undergo any structural changes or expansions in the future. • Looking at the official Floodplain Map dated November 13, 1997, which is contained in your current Comprehensive Plan and the large part of the Eagle city limits which it contains, does it make sense for the City to preclude development within the 100 -year floodplain? • Would the total preclusion of development within the floodplain be sustainable against allegations that such a regulation be arbitrary, overbroad or otherwise not reasonably related to a legitimate threat to public health, safety or welfare? Remember, in restricting the use of private property, a municipality can only go so far as may be reasonably necessary to address a perceived threat to public health, safety or welfare. Given the fact that cities across the United States have routinely allowed development within floodplain areas, provided they meet the requirements set for by FEMA, or similar criteria, it is questionable that the City could preclude all floodplain development. While, as Mr. Bieter indicated to you, such a restriction, if valid, may not constitute a taking of private property for which just compensation must be awarded to the owner, his opinion assumes that the regulation is valid. What I am suggesting is that such regulation may well 11' constitute an unreasonable restriction on private property rights, and goes far beyond what is necessary to adequately address any threat that floodplain development poses to public health, safety or welfare. If you look at Section 10-1-1 (Findings of Fact and Purpose), and Section 10-1-2 (Methods of Accomplishing Purpose) in Title 10 of your City Code, I think you will see that Title 10 purports to contain sufficient restrictions and special building criteria to protect the public health, safety and welfare while still allowing floodplain development. To now take the contrary position that Title 10 does not accomplish those states purposes, and to prohibit all development within the floodplain, will at the very least require the City to substantiate that conclusion with objective data and opinions by qualified hydrologists and civil engineers, which I submit are not available. Floodplain development occurs throughout the country, posing no unreasonable threat to public heath, safety or welfare, and, properly regulated, should be allowed to continue in Eagle. If, on the other hand, you feel developments within the floodplain may be appropriate, if the provisions of Sections 9-5-7 and 9-5-8, and Title 10 of the City Code are carefully enforced, then either repeal Section H immediately, or acknowledge the interpretation of its provisions which the City Council has evidently consistently followed in the past when approving many floodplain projects. Brookwood Subdivision is a very well-planned project, as even many citizens opposing it on other grounds have admitted during the public hearing process. The opposition to Brookwood Subdivision is not really about the project at all, nor about floodplain development, which occurs routinely throughout the country with no unreasonable threat to public health, safety or welfare. This "flap" is about a no growth agenda being orchestrated primarily by non -Eagle residents promoting "ranchettes", which are 12. affordable only by the wealthy and place a tremendous burden on City services without commensurate tax revenues. Please support Brookwood, as your staff and Planning and Zoning Commission have done, as a great addition to the City of Eagle, providing an unprecedented amount of open space, amenities for its residents and the public, as well as a'living environment suiting the needs of a broad variety of people and pocketbooks. Thank you for your consideration. 13. APPENDIX IV HYDROLOGY GUIDE for RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF BOISE FRONT=/ The guide is intended to: (1) provide hydrologic information for the lower Boise Front area and (2) provide a procedure for evaluating the effects of land use changes on the peak rates and volumes of runoff. In addition, proposed water control systems can be planned and evaluated using this information. Limitations If streamflow data becomes available for the area, these data should be used in preference to the following procedures: Analysis of peak rates of runoff from highly urbanized areas may require a more detailed analysis than the method presented, depending on the complexity of the proposed development and the type of collection system planned. For instance, if storm sewers carry a major part of storm runoff a more detailed subdivision of sub -areas and more refined hydraulic equations for estimating travel times may be required. The Area The area considered by this guide is the foothills below 3,600 feet on the South and West side of Boise Mountain. This area is subject to the same type of storms, and the soil is primarily deep permeable loamy sand with a few scattered locations of low permeability clay or shallow rock. The native vegetation is primarily a sagebrush grass complex. For the purpose of this guide, the soil may be considered homogeneous for each land use. Types of Storms Two types of storms may occur in the area. The most common storms are of the frontal type which most occur from October through June and provide most of the annual moisture. Precipitation may last from a few hours to a few days. Winter storms are usually snow. Snowmelt plus rain generally cause moderate flooding of long duration. The most damaging type of storm is the very short, intense, and spotty thunderstorm which occurs in July, August, and September. They characteristically cover less than 100 square miles With two or more cells of intense rainfall. They may last about two hours but are part of a storm system of longer duration. Intensities can approach 10 inches per hour for several minutes. Hail is also associated with thunderstorms and if it falls early in the storm, it can remain on the ground to run off with subsequent rainfall. Thunderstorm floods are short duration with very high peak discharge which carries a large amount of solid matter such as soil, brush, and rocks. Precipitation amounts for various storm durations and recurrent intervals are shown in Table l l I. -43 J. Evan Merrell, Hydrologist, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Boise, Idaho April 1972. 25 Oak TABLE III PRECIPITATION IN INCHES Recurrence Duration Interval (Years) 30 mins. 1 hr. 2 hrs. •6 hrs. . 12 hrs. 24 hrs. 2 .23 .32 .48 0.65 .86 1.15 5 .32 .45 .60 0.95 1.25 1.65 10 .42 • .55 .73 1.15 1.55 2.00 25 .50 .67 .90 1.40 1.90 2.50 2.410 50 .60 .80 1.05 1.65 2.18 2.85 -2..4.0 100.68 .88 1.18 1.85 2 45 3.25. - ti . �.:- r . '' . 4 .1.G . } 'i 5 -«,:. . L� 1. Source: U.S. National Weather Service revised TP -40 maps for Idaho. Flood History The largest flood in recent history occurred August 20, 1959 inundating about 50 city blocks in Boise and several hundred acres of farmland with water, rocks, and mud. Two thunderstorms occurred in September 1959 causing runoff smaller than that of August 20. A large flood in Hulls Gulch on the afternoon of July 24, 1913, was reported by a survey crew. Minor springtime flooding occurred in 1964 and 1965. Storm Runoff Volumes Precipitation may be intercepted on vegetation, may infiltrate into the soil, may be stored in surface depressions, or may run off as flood flow. The combination of soil and cover determines what portion of a storm runs off. The soil of Boise Front tends to be loose, friable, and very ,absorptive, but there is just enough clay among the sand to make it nearly impervious under the beating of raindrops, human traffic, or other types of compaction. Table IV indicates the influence of land use on storm runoff volumes for 24 hour storms shown in Table 111. 26 Ask TABLE IV THUNDERSTORM RUNOFF VOLUMES IN INCHES FOR VARIOUS COVER TYPES Cover Types Recurrence Interval (2-4 hr s4°Yw`) ca 10 yr. 25 yr. 50 yr. 100 yr. sagebrush and grass Fair condition 5.2 .0 .04 .10 .18 '':``-` `1.00 Poor condition 67 .18 4..' • .36 .51 .71 . 3.94 Bare soil 75 .38 .65 .86 1.13- .2 c inev; e"e uc y Urban areas* _ Low density m .45 .74 .94 1.18 G • s Medium density 79 .52 .84 1.08 1.31 7.2. High density g1 .60 .94 1.19 1.51 2',s 9 As the cover type is changed from native range to urban areas, there will be an increase in the volume of runoff from a given size rainfall event. Estimation of Peak Rates of Runoff Peak rates of discharge for low density urban areas or native vegetation on open areas can be estimated using Table IV, Figure 2, and Figure 3, knowing the drainage in square miles, the cover type, and the precipitation amount. Low Density >= 15i; Impervious Cover !edium Density = 25% Impervious Cover High Density SO% Impervious Cover 3.0 ":1 41 - FIGURE 2 Time of Concentration in hours versus Drainage Area in sq. mi. u - LI LI: ." --- • 1 , i , . , 1 1 -1: 0 117:. .-.L1.4:11. :i_i- - -I -11- 1.-,1-1 -hi r t ir -I • -2 F-- •-j,-1-1-1-4,- -• .-- -Tr "1-11T 7 11' ..1-r! .4- ..1.....t._.• ...• -1" toll- -111- 1 --1-1- t i t 1 41 ..,..=. •-, ••• -- -..-. (17t1 :, t. ....,, - - -r 1" T., , 1 11. - 1 r I. L... ...1-1. r._:.... +7r. ;L.L.......11.1 . 1, • - .'. ' . - 11. _.... .- 3...4 ziir.:...-.Lii- --;4...... 1 ,i -F.,,,-;,.: iii..:* !!!': .-...,. 4 ., ;-• - t; . 7.1:. 0 1 l'::: * 1:J1a.. • 1 .•:" .: ! • 1 1 :II I 1 4 11 I. j• .1-9 • ; 1 ! • - i.- ; t ' -1 i . "4 t t '1' ...,-;....1 ;a : - • - •:: ! 7. : 7--•!-:i- 0..j-- ' ' ' .--:-.4-:- -:44.-i. - ' 0 I • • • t • .. 1.; * • • 1 . .-I ;-! ,.i ,ivil ;i -..........' .1_ ...12.....„,1._' • • ......w...- +moo . i /.. Li_ - ..,;. i . i ., "I lh -=1-:..' -E-1-.--....• ::- -:.•-..., ..._., . . _,....41._. .. 11' ;1; ." I •.1 .1..;11 1 i 1 i ..1,Art. 1 1 5.-- 0.) -,----.--. ..-,..... 4.-L.... ...=.0.r--. "I :,, -.1! ii.... .1 , _ ._ • Li . • ; i .! ....I..; ;i. I. , ., r; .. :1:1, mt. -,, '1' 41 Ili! T ii II 1 ''' -1 .:-T--4-•:: .1 t".: : ' •••"' ' '•i 1.11 ' ".I,: ::*$ t 1-40 1 " .1 :, ,•, . H i ' ; 1; I .. • • ; • • ••• 11; - ••, ,..ii T. • • " *1 - 1: .'t ',-1, ; 1 i. s;1. -I, -.' ..;; 1 fi i• -F..1 1 1-1 111 ...,..1....,..... : ; .74,• 7 . . . ; • : . : . :.; I: I.; =I: J 1 i7i; . :I :ril** .,._ :!: ! .-.. 1j:-. .i.' i.: • I I 4 s --...-I--.:. ; • ' '. ,. 1 .1_,..._ 1 •it . :. ; T-7 • ••• • •;• • • • • • ot- 71-... ' : -.11 s'. -t• • • . ' 1-- • • • "n • 1.4 $. .-.-1-'' .. r-4 --3- ..;-- .": I-1-. • ' --1:1;J:., •,..,-.-• ; r-11.1 • -r -1•11 'i'144 . .:.....-:-...-.L.-, -.:. ..--.4.:7.;....1.:.- ...-..:::::.: .!.,.:•:f.r.1;.-17, - __a t:r ....76. ' -4 •.-r:- ....,.:1:7':: L-7•„•11. , rill 1111:71-; ' • ..1....1 : 7 ..:.• 't":4 i.i.(11 4-t)L14401: ..11111 ..... __122,_41..;] ••• 14 if"1 -- r• .........1::.. ii.r.i.'..t4117 1lI. 1 :: •-• -i • " A- ;If: III: ,..H.:.4 -.:.-...:::::i Fri-F-7:.F;f::. ..; -.:.-_-..:.,.::-L. . 1.44.41.1 :. -di _ity iLi_i - - 74.:. 4... ._ '-', i ill '-...-.-. ' • tri 1-. : '-1-;_, iiii ..ii, ;;;;T!'. ' -;-.; ..t. .: . • ;.• .,:.1.,. * :j....,..• .•.- 1. :1_4 ••••• • .1; :t: 4,4 ... - -1.-- - • -..--t-.- •• • 747-;17-7-, __ .- . , .,_...... . .. -.....,.....--61 71-.. ...,..,_.,_ . _t__E:. .... ........1, , ..t...1, -r .. .4- • ;.• - -;- 4- .._ --f..-.1..._. .1 ...-L-....:.-..1..-J : .. ...*.!.. • • • 1...:*7. 4:4. . .-1....,.. .:-..;_:. ....4.4......; . 4.1.ir Iii1 .,-7:: iii• --!--1-4-f---,- • 1 =1, .;,•• 71,i; ....} ..,....i.... .... . 4.-.. ;•'-4:114-, - +LI - -4+ j1- * ••'47.:r --,T t: -.,T :r. ._... .4 - i ( • ......F...,.......__,_. ..........1...46.4..; e.....,...... .....r, I ."*.i "1".***4- '4 •'...4 . *......r1.4- ' 1 IA • ' •'• ••".•"•••• ••• • . I 1- -'• • F 2-. • - '1:11.:- : --1---i-4-!- - -i-: -0' i-1-11-1- :II i i *TV j'fil i.: ; • • •-i---!-1-4" -- .i 11;,. ip. 11 , I..... .1 I. _ f -. _ -;.. . • 4.1...i.i..:, Li. 1 1 I ' TI 1;.• .L.iii_ . •t 0.1 • -- • •!--t--;-;...Lr4-71- 1- -1* •••!•••••1•• 4.. ; ; , • ; • 4. • •. • • • - •• •7 1 ;._ , 4;4.. ;,•.; *itP.-.1....1.• I -I-- 17:!. 11:! ••--t Drainage Area -11'- mi2 -7.---,--1-1- '1 : ; , i! 1 ITT : i : 1---r-i- 74 Ti 6.4.! ii_i ------- -1-4, • i t ; , 1 i, 10 20 30 •‘, .1; r. • 1i.N1RiT. • !:4=411 _ FIGURE 3 Peak Discharge in C-si/inch of Runoff versus - cFs Pc tr 14). Time of Concentration, T Type IIA - • 1 4!P !liar qii!: ;•ji ' ' •••• • • . .1.' I. •: 3:: .7r. 11-7,7 r :11:1 1 11: 11.1-Flii, • • • - • •••, . 1!• !: txample: ... •••'C'r* ••••••g.t.. . ! 1 1 i RI ' 104. . • Estimate 25 -year peak discharge from -1 =•••• ra 0. . • • di“•• • • . . • . • • 5 sq. mi. of poor condition sagebrush and grass j Table It runoff = .36 inches Figure 2 Tc = 0.8 hrs. Figure 3 q = 440 csm/inch q = (440(5(.36) = 792 cfs . : . ..::F. • !:• 17. :: : ••.:. •. J :,- • :- • .1 ••• : .2 :7 = ..• 7 ::-•=7:71.717.-.7...-- • •-•, ...•.. * :••••.:7.7. • ..7.-'i .t --it. :;-7• ,..1t:.::.:.:.::. . - :.. ,'.• ..... I.I:: ...I. . .1! _- .:••_-'L....•.I..'.-::: : .! . I .:i _ .. .'' ..1L' . 7 1 r7"tf F .-2 :11 11LJi:LT...1L:I: ' s :• - i-.Li; 1 1 ."li ! ! .• I, -1---i-- - • - " • - •- 1- -;-•:.-; • • ••-.--- t. -1••••,i-, •t •-i- • i•• i , 1, 1 .. .:, . •: : .. : ' * 1 ".7-I . • ••••% 44 i • 1 I '-:-.. :*r: • -.,.... . - .. ?...-„1.,,:..!..„___H...1.... ......t..;• :.:-.i....: :1 _ .. . : • • I . : • i. 1 • . '' ' - .. . : .1 .-... • ,- ' ; • ; ..,71 ••-- . - •._.i.- ..._.•.1.::::::_:. 1 • " .. LI.: • .0; ;I....1_ 1..-.1 . - • ...1 i -•.:: -1-17:7-7. T. • i ; I • • .! •--. • . • . -;.:1•••• .:•,.. ... . . '; .i:•• i: j • . . • I i • ! i .. : " • •••7 1 ....i. . I . • •, : .1.. -.1 1 1 • 1:. ... I I .4 .-- .--".."-1-... ...r. --I• , ! • - , • • .• a • : . . •-••• • : _ • • •-. •••.'• : ; : • • • . . . . J.. • • ; • :.• • -1, --II,- ! . .1 •• • • • • • • • •• : 1 • • •-i • • • • • •• •i• • t • • •I•••-1 • • • • * ••: • • _1: . ,...1....1 I 4. • • • • • • . • • TA I ! ; LI: : • • 14..: • :t:•:77 •tt•l• • • ••••i•• .1 It••+,44 , • • • • • ! • -1": ; • La•t.. " ''• 1 • . • : : • : . • : . : • • I. : • . . • I • • • • il !:•: 41i 77.1."7.7 •• . • . I • 1 • !•: $.• •••• - i • + •• • I • ' • •• • 1.• / . • . , ! . I .1...1 • ! t .1 •i• • . F• • . t *I ....1 A:7; t . •1 -.I: .. 1,.: ..i. , t . i. i; t at01i,.. itlINE•ii:-.41 -- •.1... i i al • • . '..i • F. . I i!::;!-.1•.-: ! ! •::-:• .4::i --. . . .... . - . • 14„...i- • • • • 1. •• 3: 1 •i i : .: - - :1 7:-..., :i • 1.:-. - • :.:Sz : • :::•141-•••• 1:rt ••• :r -:•••• • • • * ••,•:.o•oi ••• • • • • • "71L7r. • g•• . : : : : • *.-17.1171-F ••• 4.• ..4 a • .7 --••'••-•4•••-••••: i• t•ro 7 ; ; • •4.• 1•44 !".! 4••••••,!... 1.1117711P .: • I ... I •. . :IL • t 7 : 41.i.: -4. - .... :••• • • •11---• • ri ! 1 1 'II *a.: L. I 1 . : 1 t it 1 A : 1... .:., • • 4 t i ' iri : 1 1,1 LI T - Hours , , c. c 3 a 7 1.0 2 3 4 29 • • 4 • Tr r. t i Hi • • 1- •-4 !i• : • • f•-•• •t 4- • r- : • . 5 6 7 8 10.0 2 4 :1 \f I ,4"w Figure 2 relates Time of Concentration (Tc) to drainage area. This is a generalized relationship typical of Boise Front in its natural state. Constructed storage or water retarding systems can increase the time of concentration and conversely, paving or straightening waterways can reduce the time of concentration. Figure, 3 relates peak discharge to time of concentration. Peak discharge is expressed as cubic feet per second per square mile per inch of runoff. Example: What peak discharge can be expected about once in 100 years from 1.5 square miles of native sagebrush and grass in poor condition? The computations are es follows: From Table IV the anticipated 100 year runoff from poor condition sagebrush and grass is .71 inches. From Figure 2 the time of concentration for 1.5 square miles of rangeland is .45 hours. From Figure 3 the peak discharge associated with .45 hour time of concentration is 610 cfs per square mile per inch. Peak discharge from the area equals: (610 cfs ) (1.5 sq.mi.) (.71 inch) = 650 cfs (sq.mi./inch) If the same 1.5 sq: mi. is developed for low density urban use and enough storage is provided on roofs, parking lots, playgrounds, and in waterways to extend the time of concentration to one hour, the peak discharge is: (Figure 3) (390 cfs ) (sq.mi./inch) (1.5 sq.mi.) (Table IV) (1.18 inches) = 690 cfs By this methodology the hydrologic effect of proposed land use and treatment systems can be evaluated. E•, iii B AmIlk Floodplain development in the City of Eat Complete or substantially constructed: Lakeland Estates Island Woods (100 yr & 500 yr) North Channel Center Streamside Albertson McDonalds Eagle Plaza (retail center next to Albertson Eagle Sewer District treatment plant EEarly stages or vet to begin construction: Banbury Meadows ZarnZows Eagle Pavillion Rocky Mountain Business Park Boise River Greenbelt Ron Bath Dennis Baker Dennis Baker Bill Slevage & McDonald, includes Starbucks) Harvey Hoff Ron Bath Reid Merrill Jr. Yet to be approved but applications pendin' Eagle River Grossman Quarter Circle DJ (100 yr & 500 yr) Dennis Baker Wintry River Doug Jayo 61-z_ 47_ /mss �� , -- 79-/7 /t. at; .5--e9 sed Wall Displayers 400"x 84"K tg &-A4 f e,/9/3ze- cQ-z' /'E?) ?4/1 �� r CSM ��/g66LL /tit-zu 4P- - "icz• II aSG,, 641