Loading...
Minutes - 1998 - City Council - 11/17/1998 - RegularORIGINAL EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 1998 COUNCIL: 6:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: Bastian, Merrill, Sedlacek, Guerber. A quorum is present. 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Solid Waste Collection Services: Council will review the RFP'S for solid waste collection. This item was continued from the November 10,1998, meeting. Mayor introduces the issue and opens up discussion. Council has a concem with the SSC proposal that states that the prices do not include the franchise fee. Legal Counsel states that this does not necessarily disqualify the proposal. General discussion. Joe Johnson, Sanitary Services, Moscow, Idaho. Those numbers do include franchise fees and we will stand by those numbers as submitted. Discussion on recycling services. Sedlacek states for the record that Steve Sedlacek who is associated with Sanitary Services is not a relative. Discussion on the billing services that SSC provides. Pat Gavin, BFI. Recycling services within the City of Eagle presently is an optional program. General discussion. Discussion on the number of households serviced in the City of Eagle. Discussion on landfill rote changes and the Price Escalation Factor. Further discussion on the proposals. Sedlacek moves to accept the proposal from Sanitary Service, Inc. to serve the City of Eagle. Seconded by Bastian. Discussion. 2 AYE: 2 NAY: MAYOR: NAY: MOTION FAILS THREE TO TWO. Mayor: When we sent out the request for proposal it was not based on price only. There were other issues that we included. Those were experience, qualifications, financial, services provided and the ability to provide a complete package and to meet our deadline. It is my analysis at this time that BFI is stronger at this point. Based on that I would entertain another motion. Guerber moves based on those guidelines and the same reasons the Mayor discussed that we stay with BFI based on past service and the ability to provide those services. Seconded by Merrill. 2 AYE: 2 NAY: MAYOR: AYE: MOTION CARRIES THREE TO TWO ......... B. Discussion of Flood Plain issue. Mayor introduces the issue and states that this is not a public hearing and no public comment will be taken. Merrill: I went back and listened to the tapes and the motion that was made by Mr. Bastian stated, in fact a question was asked if we needed to have the ordinance amended and redrafted in order to be brought back forward to us. It was discussed and Mr. Bastian made a motion that we not have that amendment and draft ordinance brought forward to us at this time, that we take the opinions and the written briefs from both of the attorneys, discuss these and then we determine whether or not to rewrite the ordinance or whether we should go ahead with a decision with the information provided to us by the attorneys. Evan Robertson, representing the Developer. You have received my brief and I really have notK~ng further to add. General questions and answers in reference to Evan's brief. Paul Koonz. Discusses the flood plain issue and what would occur in the event of a flood. General discussion on flood plain. Dave Bieter, Eagle City Attorney. Summarizes the letter written to City Council dated November 10, 1998, addresses the City Code in regards to the flood plain. General discussion. Discussion on an interim ord'mance. Evan Robertson. Discusses an interim ordinance and inconsistencies in the City Code. Fred Eisenbarth, Idaho Department of Water Resources and NFIP State Coordinator. I was asked by your staff to review your flood plain amendment to your orcYmance. FEMA requires a nfmimum set of standards in your ordinance. I reviewed and found that it does contain all of the m'mimum requirements. Distributes a letter to Council and reads the letter. Discusses elevations of a building (BFE). We are going to see the base flood elevations increase annually. I commend you for the higher standards you have in your ordinances. General discussion. Gary Spackman, Idaho Department of Water Resources and a Delegate assigned to represent the Department on the Boise River 2000. My roll here is not to represent the Department of Water Resources. Makes reference to a water split study for the Island that the City of Eagle participated in and on the removal of gravel in the river. Reads a resolution passed by Boise River 2000 to the City Council and discusses the same General discussion. Further general discussion on how other cities and towns in the area are dealing with these issues. Mayor states that the Treasurer Valley Parmership is starting to look into this matter. Council general discussion on the conflict in the City Code and an interim ordinance. Sedlacek moves to retain Section H and move forward immediately with the amendment of the code on an interim basis. Motion dies for a lack of a second. Guerber moves to take the proposed interim ordinanee and submit it for the beginning of the process that will then come back before the Council. Seconded by Merrill. Discussion. Guerber withdraws his motion and Merrill withdraws the second. Further Couneil discussion on the conflict in the City Code and how to proceed at this point in time. Guerber moves to submit the interim ordinance for consideration and continue to treat Section H as we have always treated Section H in consideration of current items that have been submitted to the City at this point. Seconded by Bastian. Discussion. THREE AYE: ONE NAY: MOTION CARRIES .................. Mayor calls for a recess at 9:35 p.m. Mayor reconvenes the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Merrill moves for a reconsideration on the previous motion made by Guerber in regards to an interim ordinance and Section H. Seconded by Sedlacek. 2 AYE: 2 NAY: MAYOR: AYE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PASSES ......... Merrill moves that we deal with the flood plain issue in Title 9 in this manner: All applications that are in the preliminary and final plat process in the flood plain and have a vested right or have their shovels in the ground and infrastructure in the process of building be allowed to continue to their f'mal plats. That any application that is before us in a preliminary stage that has not yet started will fall under Title 9, which is no building in the flood plain. That we do an interim ordinance and an interim moratorium until that ordinance is in place. Seconded by Sedlacek. Discussion. TWO AYE: TWO NAY: MAYOR: NAY: MOTION FAILS THREE TO TWO ......... Merrill moves to submit the interim ordinance for consideration and continue to treat Section H as we have always treated Section H in consideration of current items that have been submitted to the City at this point. Seconded by Bastian. Discussion. TWO AYE: TWO NAY: MAYOR: AYE: MOTION CARRIES THREE TO TWO .................. Bastian moves to declare a moratorium because of imminent peril to the public safety, health and welfare, only on applications that have within the development land in the flood plain or flood way. Seconded by Sedlacek. Discussion. Bastian amends the motion to include a time certain of 120 days. Second concurs. Bastian restates the Motion in its entirety: That we declare a moratorium in writing, that we direct our attorney to write it, that it is for the protection of public health and safety due to imminent peril to public health and safety, and that it will last for 120 days or until a new ordinance is passed, whichever comes first. Seconded by Sedlacek. Discussion. Bashan amends his motion to state: just preliminary plats. 1 AYE: 3 NAY: MOTION FAILS ............... C. RZ-8-97/CU-6-97/PPUD-1-97/PP-2-97 Brookwood Subdivision - Mike Itormaechea: 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 acm 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 itern was continued from the November lO, 1998, Council meeting. The public hearing was closed on October 13, 199& Mayor introduces the issue. Sedlacek moves to continue Brookwood to the November 24, 1998, meeting. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... D. Discussion of requested additional funding for JUB Engineers to complete the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. This item was continued from the November 10, 1998 meeting. (MLB) Mayor introduces the issue. Butler: Nancy Taylor has left and she didn't leave anything. Maybe we can continue this to the next meeting. Council would like to see some documentation from Nancy Taylor in reference to the additional funding. Bastian moves to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Seeomled by Sedlaeek. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... 4. ADJOURIqMENT: Bastian moves to adjourn. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ......... Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. RICI~ YZA~I~i~.~.E, MAYOR ',~ RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 17 1998 Fila• Route to: City Council Eagle, Idaho 83616 212 E. Ranch Dr. Eagle, ID 83616 November 17, 1998 208-938-1307 Re: Draft -- Ordinance for Flood --Page 3 of 9 Page 3, 10-1-8-5, Section A. Residential Construction, Item 1. paragraph 2 Dear City Council Member: If the "swap" for land versus density comes to fruition as promoted in the subject paragraph, What will it cost the City of Eagle to maintain this land? Are there Federal/State regulations and requirements such as weed control, safety (liability), maintenance, etc. currently, pending or possible to appear which need to be considered before asking for such a gift? What makes the last sentence, "Approval of any density bonuses, and acceptance of any land proposed to be donated to the City, shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council" immune from Shoemaker v. Woodlawn Equities, 313 S. E. 2d 689 (1984) or Herzog v City of Pocatello, 83 Idaho 365, 363 P.2d 188 (1961?) (See page 6, Letter dated 11/10/98 from City Attorney,) If you want a park in a floodway so you agree to give even one developer a density bonus, then might you not have to do so for all others? If you never grant a density bonus, might you not have to use it to "follow the intent of the previous council?" Reminder: FEMA rules state no building may take place in a floodway unless a LOMA has been approved by FEMA, not just the Council (see page 5, D. 1. line 5,) removing the designation of floodway from the land. Violation of FEMA rules could result in no flood insurance availability for anyone in the City of Eagle. cc: Mayor Yzaguirre City Attorney Respectfully, Sharon A. Barnard � ,.P,IIII-1I9CG MPP -/-/9 RECEIVED & FILED November 17, 1998 = CITY OF EAGLE NOV 171998 Eagle City Council 310 E. State St. Eagle, Idaho Dear Councilmen and Councilwomen, File: Route to: Floodplain development doesn't make sense. After reading material sent from FEMA and other - publications, I am more convinced that residential and commercial development in the floodplain poses many risks: greater risk of flooding, more severe flooding due to stream channels being narrowed, lawsuits against developers, cities and government officials. In their own words FEMA officials did not foresee the massive development in floodplains when it made flood insurance programs available. The agency is now taking steps to reduce claims by urging communities to adopt more stringent guidelines for development in floodplains. Recently in some areas hard hit by flood claims FEMA has told property owner to purchase flood insurance through private companies. The agency cannot keep up with the claims. Weather patterns are bringing more storms, dams are filling up with sediment as are the river channels. Development further impedes the flows of water in a floodplain. All of these factors will cause more devastating floods when — NOT IF — the water rises. These events coupled with peoples wishes for open space, the need for wetlands as fisheries and preserves and the need for corridors for migratory birds make this a very Lane time for a forward thinking city government to halt development in floodplains for the long-term betterment of the community. A manual put out by the National Park Service, Floods, Floodplains and Folks gives several success stories of community partnerships with landowners and other government agencies to preserve areas and thus lessen the risks of future flooding. At a recent presentation for the Ada Planning Association, Carl Cook of FEMA spoke of the current thinking at the national level calls for reversal of floodplain development. There are many positive ways to develop in floodplains that are economically pleasing not only to the developer, but to the long term well being of the community. Please say no to development in the floodplain and vote against the Grossman and Brookwood projects. Sincerely, 2/a Marti Taylor NOV-09-98 MON 05:07 PM ,ilk, • State State of Idaho DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1301 North Orchard Street, P.O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 8372:0-0098 Phone: (208) 327-7900 FAX: (208) 327.7866 HOW E. BATT GOVERNOR KARL 3.D R DIRECTOR November 9, 1998 Mr. Mike Mongelli Floodplain Administrator city of Eagle 310 E. State Street Eagle, Idaho 83616 02 Dear Mike: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes to the city's floodplain ordinance. I have reviewed the ordinance to insure that it includes at least the minimum standards required by FEMA for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NVIP). The ordinance as amended does contain the minimum requirements. The city should be commended for taking action that insures new development will be protected to a higher standard than required by FEMA. Requiring lowest floor elevation of new buildings to two feet above BFE not only provides for a safer building but will result in much lower insurance rates. This is a very wise step and in the long term, homeowners and businesses will benefit. I do have one recommendation involving the floodproofing of non-residential structures. If you are going to require residential buildings to be elevated two above BFE, then it only seems logical to require floodproofing to the same standard, (two feet above BFE). I believe the new regulations that apply to floodways and floodway encroachments will be very beneficial in preserving your floodplain and will provide the necessary tools to insure floodplain elevations will not increase in the future. It is very important that we don't allow future development of our floodplains to result in placing existing development in harms way. We must preserve a portion of the floodplain so floodwaters always have a place to discharge downstream and not to displace flood storage. I believe that the proposed 100 foot setback from the floodway boundary along with the prohibition of fill, not only protects the new structures but will effectively protect the existing developments also. As we discussed on the phone, these new regulations will provide additional credit if the City of Eagle decides to join the Community Rating System (CRS) thus providing a discount in NOV-09-98 MON 05:07 P11 f � P.03 flood insurance premiums for all policies sold in the city. I believe a Grade 8 could be attained providing for a 10% savings to homeowners and businesses. If you would like to discuss CRS participation after you amend the ordinance, Rob Planer and I would be happy to meet with you. If you should have any questions concerning the NFIP or if I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to call me at 327-7993. Sincerel Fredisenbarth NFIP State Coordinator cc: Pat Massey, FEMA