Findings - PZ - 2013 - RZ-11-08 MOD - Reynard Subd/241 Lot/206 Buildable/3 Commercial/33 Common/80.02 Acre/990 W Chinden BEFORE THE EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION )
FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT )
MODIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY )
PLAT FOR REYARD SUBDIVISION )
FOR FOXTAIL PARTNERS,LLC )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER RZ-11-08 MOD AND PP-05-12
The above-entitled development agreement modification and preliminary plat applications came before the
Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration on February 19, 2013. The public hearing
was continued to March 4, 2013, at which time the Commission made their recommendation The
Commission, having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter,
makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law;
FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. PROJECT SUMMARY:
Foxtail Partners, LLC, is requesting a development agreement modification and
preliminary plat approval for Reynard Subdivision, a 241-lot (206 buildable, 2
commercial, and 33 common) subdivision. The 80.02-acre site is generally located on the
north side of West Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20-26) approximately 340-feet west of
the intersection of North Fox Run Avenue and West Chinden Boulevard(Highway 20-26)
at 990 West Chinden Boulevard(Highway 20-26).
B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
A Neighborhood Meeting was held at Eagle City Hall (Freedom Room) at 6:00 PM,
August 8, 2012, a second neighborhood meeting was held at Eagle City Hall (Freedom
Room) at 6:00 PM, March 1, 2013, in compliance with the application submittal
requirement of Eagle City Code. The applications for these items were received by the
City of Eagle on November 16, 2012.
C. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission was published in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code and the Eagle City Code on February 4, 2013. Notice of this public hearing
was mailed to property owners within three-hundred feet(300-feet) of the subject property
in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City
Code on February 2, 2013. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on December
6, 2012, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. The site was posted
in accordance with the Eagle City Code on February 8, 2013.
D. HISTORY OF PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
Foxtail golf course has been operating on the subject parcel since 1993, as approved by
Ada County. A series of changes have occurred over the years including expansion of the
golf course and the addition o.accessory buildings.
•
On September 14, 2004, the City of Eagle adopted the Soaring 2025 Western Area plan
which expanded the City's planning boundaries generally west to the centerline of State
Highway 16 and south to Chinden Boulevard(US 20/26).
Page 1 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
_ems
Figure 1: Chinden Bench Planning Area
CPA-11-06: City of Eagle: The Western Area Plan designated the area north of the Phyllis
Canal and west of Spur Wing Country Club as the "Chinden Bench Planning Area"
(figure 1). In 2005, the entire area was annexed into the City of Meridian to be developed
as the Tree Farm Subdivision. Since that time Meridian and Eagle City Council members
met and tentatively determined that it was appropriate to allow Meridian to annex
properties within this area and have the City of Eagle remove it from their planning area
(pending execution of a formal MOA memorializing the agreement). The City approved a
comprehensive plan amendment consistent with this action; however, a resolution to
finalize this action has not been adopted to date. A memorandum of agreement (MOA)
between the City of Meridian and the City of Eagle which outlines the conditions
regarding the allowance of Meridian to annex into the Eagle's planning area must be
executed before the adoption of a resolution by the City of Eagle.
In March 2005,the Meridian City Council approved AZ 05-004—a request for annexation
and rezone of 358.57-acres from RUT to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15
(79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm Subdivision
located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard and on both sides of Black Cat Road(west
of Spurwing Subdivision).
In the Fall of 2006, the Eagle City Council and Meridian City Council met to discuss the
Chinden Bench area south of the Phyllis Canal. At that time Meridian expressed a desire
and intent to provide urban services to the area south of the Phyllis Canal. Meridian
indicated they did not plan to service the area north of the canal (area known by the City
of Eagle as the River Plain planning area as described in the Eagle Comprehensive Plan).
In February 2007, the Meridian City Council approved AZ 06-043 — a request for
annexation and rezone of 20.51 acres from R-R to R-8 zone and preliminary plat (PP 06-
045) approval of 73 residential building lots (consisting of 46 attached single-family units
and 27 detached single-family units and 6 common/other lots)on 20.51 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision located on the northeast corner of North
Ten Mile Road and West Chinden Boulevard(west of North Spurwing Way).
In October 2007, the Meridian City Council approved CPA 07-010 — a request to amend
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to include 645-acres north of the Phyllis Canal
and south of the Boise River, extending from Linder Road to approximately '/ mile west
of Black Cat into Meridian's North Meridian Planning Area.
• • •
Page 2 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications SUBS 2012 Reynard Sub pzf doc
s MerIciinn
'I Land Use Map
(Approximofe} — "
I
I
Mencga 7s�yr' ae«+a• -4!
Figure 2:Meridian Area of Annexation
In total, Meridian has annexed and/or provided comprehensive plan land use designations
for nearly 1,100 acres of the City of Eagle's approved Area of City Impact and
comprehensive planning area (figure 2). These actions have altered the City of Eagle's
efforts to plan the forty (40) acre commercially designated area located at the northeast
corner of Highway 20/26 and Black Cat Road. Due to the future extension of State
Highway 16, that corner was recognized in the Chinden Planning Area as a regional
commercial area important to the economic well-being of the City of Eagle. Now that SH
16 is proposed to intersect Highway 20/26 at McDermott Road, Linder Road and the Rim
View Planning area may be considered an appropriate location for a regional commercial
center, in part due to Linder Road being the only north-south connection across the Boise
River in the Western Area, and recent City Council action as noted in the following
paragraph.
-, roe`
__� F € 1
_ al _=-{ ' 1 —
gym-
%ve comp
Figure 3: Linder Road/Chinden
On December 16, 2008, the Eagle City Council approved CPA-5-08 &A-03-08 &RZ-8-
08, a Comprehensive Plan Map and Text amendment changing the land use designation
on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Mixed Use and Professional Office to
Commercial for the property located on the northeast corner of Linder Road and Chinden
Boulevard (US 20/26) (figure 3). This action also approved an annexation and a rezone
with development agreement from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to C-3-DA (Highway
" Business District with a Devdlopment Agreement). As of this date, Lazy P Subdivision is
recorded and Eagle Island Market Place (EIMP) consisting of Fred Meyer and other
commercial uses are constructed on the EIMP site.
Page 3 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eag]e Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
On March 9, 2010, the Eagle City Council approved CPA-07-08/A-05-08 and RZ-11-08,
a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment changing the land use designation from
Public/Semi-Public and Transitional Residential to Mixed Use and Comprehensive Plan
text amendment associated with the Rim View Planning Area; an annexation and rezone
from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use
with a development agreement).
E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: All applications are inclusive herein.
F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
Existing Mixed Use MU-DA(Mixed Use with Golf course
Development Agreement)
Proposed No Change No change Proposed residential and
commercial development
North of site Residential Estates RUT and R1 (Ada County Winward River Heights,
designations) Bodily&Bunderson Springs
Residential Subdivisions
South of site Meridian AOI RUT(Rural-Urban Transition Vacant Parcels
Ada County designation)
East of site Transitional Residential R1 (Ada County designation) Foxtail Subdivision and
and MU-DA(Mixed Use with a agricultural ground that is
development agreement) proposed for residential
development
West of site Residential Estates, RUT(Rural-Urban Transition Vacant Parcel,Bodily&
Transitional Residential, —Ada County designation),R1 Bunderson Spring
Commercial (Ada County designation),and Subdivision No. 2,Eagle
C-3-DA(Commercial Highway Island Marketplace
District with Development commercial development
Agreement)
G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA,CEDA or DSDA.
H. SITE DATA:
Total Acreage of Site— 80.02-acres
Total Number of Lots—241
Residential—206
Commercial—2
Industrial—0
Common—33
Total Number of Units—
Single-family—206
Duplex—0
Multi-family—0
•
•
Total Acreage of Any Out-Parcels—0
Page 4 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20 12\Reyuard Sub pz£doc
ADDITIONAL SITE DATA PROPOSED REQUIRED
Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre 2.61-dwelling units per acre Less than 2.47-dwelling units
per acre*
Minimum Lot Size 5,000-square feet 5,000-square feet
Minimum Lot Width 50-feet 50-feet
Minimum Street Frontage 35-feet 35-feet
Total Acreage of Common Area 14.90-acres 13.78-acres**
Percent of Site as Common Area 21.5%** 20%
Except that, according to ECC
Section 9-3-8 (C)the City may
require additional public
and/or private park or open
space facilities in PUDs or in
subdivisions with 50 or more
lots.
Notes: *Pursuant to the executed development agreement,Instrument#110108892
** Based on excluding the lot area of lots exceeding 37,000-square feet in size, pursuant to the
executed development agreement(Instrument#110108892).
GENERAL SITE DESIGN FEATURES:
Greenbelt Areas and Landscape Screening:
The preliminary plat date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013, shows a 75-foot
wide common lot located adjacent to West Chinden Boulevard(US 20/26)to provide for a
landscaped buffer area as required pursuant to Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7(J)(4)(c).
The preliminary plat also shows a 20-foot wide buffer area located adjacent to the Eagle
Island Market Place (Fred Meyer site) commercial development as required pursuant to
Eagle City Code Section 8-3-3(D).
Open Space:
A total of 14.9-acres (21.5% of the total residential area of the subdivision minus the area
containing lots that are a minimum of one [1] acre in size) is proposed within the
residential area of the subdivision. The common areas consist of a combination of a
centralized common area with linear pathways and ponds, road buffer areas, and street
landscape islands. A minimum of 20% open space is required pursuant to the executed
development agreement(Instrument#110108892).
Storm Drainage and Flood Control:
Specific drainage system plans are to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat. The plans are to show how
swales, or drain piping, will be developed in the drainage easements. Also, the CC&R's
• are to contain clauses to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City
Attorney, requiring that lots be so graded that all runoff runs either over the curb, or to the
drainage easement, and that no runoff shall cross any lot line onto another lot except
within a drainage easement.
Page 5 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS,20I2\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
Utility and Drainage Easements, and Underground Utilities:
Eagle City Code section 9-3-6 requires utility easements to be not less than 12 feet wide.
Fire Hydrants and Water Mains:
Hydrants are to be located and installed as may be required by the Meridian Fire District.
On-site Septic System(yes or no)—yes
The golf course club house is currently served by an existing septic system. The existing
septic system will be required to be abandoned prior to development of the proposed
subdivision.
Preservation of Existing Natural Features:
Staff is not aware of any existing natural features on the site which would be required to
be preserved.
Preservation of Existing Historical Assets:
Staff is not aware of any existing historical assets on the site. If any historical artifacts are
discovered during excavation or development of the site, state law requires immediate
notification to the state.
J. STREET DESIGN:
Private or Public Streets:
The applicant is proposing to construct public streets within the development. The public
streets to be constructed consist of four (4) different street sections. The preliminary plat
date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013, shows Fox Bend Way (entrance from
Chinden Boulevard [US 20/26]) containing landscape islands with the roadway. The Ada
County Highway District will require that all proposed streets within the development are
in conformance with ACHD policies.
Applicant's Justification for Private Streets(if proposed): None proposed
Blocks Less Than 500': None
Cul-de-sac Design:
The preliminary plat date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013, shows three (3) cul-
de-sacs located within the proposed development. The proposed length of the cul-de-sacs
is in conformance with Eagle City Code. The preliminary plat does not show a street
section for the proposed cul-de-sacs, however the preliminary plat shows the pavement
located between the landscape island and the outer edge of the street to be 30-feet width.
Pursuant to Eagle City Code the pavement area width in a cul-de-sac is required to be 40-
feet in width between the landscape island and the outer edge of the street.
Sidewalks:
A detached five-foot (5') wide concrete sidewalk is proposed abutting the planter strips
located on both sides of all interior public roadways with the exception of Fox Lake Place
and Fox Troop Place which contain small loops roads. The preliminary plat does not
delineate sidewalks within the landscaped area nor does the street cross section identify
any sidewalks.
Page 6 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20 12\Reynard Sub pzf doc
Curbs and Gutters:
Curbs and gutters, which meet Ada County Highway District standards, are proposed for
the interior streets.
Lighting:
Lighting for the proposed public streets is required. Location and lighting specifications
shall be provided to the City Zoning Administrator prior to the City Engineer signing the
final plat.
Street Names:
Street name approval by the Ada County Street Names Committee has not been received
to date. Approval from that committee is required prior to final plat approval.
K. ON AND OFF-SITE PEDESTRIANBICYCLE CIRCULATION:
Pedestrian Walkways:
See"Open Space and Sidewalks"above.
Bike Paths:
Eagle City Code section 9-4-1-7 states that a bicycle pathway shall be provided in all
subdivisions as part of the public right-of-way or separate easement, as may be specified
by the City Council.
L. PUBLIC USES PROPOSED:None proposed
M. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists
N. SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern—none
Evidence of Erosion—no
Fish Habitat—no
Floodplain—no
Mature Trees — yes— The property was previously utilized as a golf course (Foxtail Golf Course)
and contains several mature trees located throughout the property.
Riparian Vegetation—no
Steep Slopes—no
Stream/Creek—no
Unique Animal Life—no
Unique Plant Life—unknown
Unstable Soils—no
Wildlife Habitat—no
O. SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLAN (IF REQUIRED):
Not required
P. AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached to the staff
report. Comments, which appear to be of special concern, are noted below:
City Engineer: All comments within the engineer's letter dated December 14, 2012, and February
20, 2013, are of special concern(attached to the staff report).
Page 7 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS'2012\Reynard Sub pzf do
Ada County Highway District — Required the applicant to comply with ITD permitting
requirements regarding access to West Chinden Boulevard (SH-20/26). The staff report also
required specific street width requirements and two additional stub streets to be constructed
internally to adjacent properties. The District is also allowing for a residential collector that
allows for front on housing to be constructed within the development.
Boise River Flood Control District#10—No comment
Central District Health — Indicated that central water and central sewage services will be
required. It also indicated that infiltration beds for storm water disposal are considered shallow
wells and an application and fee will need to be submitted.
Chevron Pipe Line Company—No conflicts
COMPASS —Indicated that the proposed subdivision access to US 20/26 is in conflict with the
US 20/26 Access Management Plan and Report, adopted by the COMPASS Board on December
15, 2008. The correspondence also indicated that it would benefit future transit service if there
were an ADA accessible bus stop located east of the proposed entrance to the subdivision.
Idaho Department of Lands —Indicated that the proposed development will not impact any State
Trust Lands
Idaho Transportation Department—Indicated the following concerns:
1. The original access permit was for a commercial golf course and a new access permit will
be required for a public street.
2. The corridor plan identifies a future six-lane roadway, raised medians and the prohibition
of left turns between signalized intersections.
3. The corridor plan requires 100 feet of right-of-way width. The right-of-way width may be
reduced to 70 feet if the city requires the sidewalk and noise attenuation be
accommodated within a common landscape lot with a minimum of 30 feet in width.
4. Provided the access conditions associated with the Eagle Island Market Place project.
5. Indicated that there is a 500 foot separation requirement between approaches.
6. Indicated that improved safety and traffic operations would occur if the development were
redesigned to take access from Fox Run Avenue at the signalized intersection.
7. The existing traffic from volumes on Fox Run Avenue are too low to juste a signalized
intersection at that location.
8. Provided requirements for additions mitigation.
a. Redesign the subdivision to take access to Fox Run Way.
b. ITD policy allows a temporary full access to the site.
c. The applicant will provide full funding for future medians to prohibit left turns
from the site.
d. ITD will construct the median island to prohibit left turns at the site approach
intersection if a safety problem develops.
e. The applicant will construct a westbound right turn lane on US 20/26 at the site
access point.
f Dedicate the required right-of-way
Meridian Fire Department —Indicated the Meridian Fire District has reviewed the proposal and
cul-de-sac layout and is in agreement with the proposal.
Middleton Irrigation Association and Middleton Mill Ditch Co. — Indicated that the proposed
development is located outside of their service area.
Republic Services—No comment
Q. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC (attached to the staff report):
Dennis S. Hanson, Foxtail Homeowners Association, submitted correspondence
requesting the public hearing to be postponed for 30-days. The correspondence indicated
the following concerns: 1) the neighborhood association has not been made aware of the
Page 8 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
list of development agreement amendments that are being requested, 2) the proposed
development appears to have higher density than anywhere else in Eagle, 3)the proposed
development may cause devaluation of the existing homes in the area, 4) may be major
safety problems as proposed, 5) could have a negative impact on the quality of life in the
surrounding area, and 6) the notice of the upcoming neighborhood meeting does not give
adequate time to prepare for meaningful input.
Ryan Moore, Foxtail Homeowners Association, sent email correspondence dated February
27, 2013, which indicated the following concerns: 1) the developer indicated at the
neighborhood meeting they would get back with the neighborhood association and the
developer has not contacted them, 2) question why the neighborhood association was not
notified the public hearing was being continued to March 4, 2013, 3) requesting
clarification regarding notice procedures based on the neighborhood meeting
requirements, 4) the neighborhood meeting that was sent out for the March 1, 2013,
meeting indicated the applicant is proposing 154 single-family homes and honoring the
requirement of constructing a 10-foot berm adjacent to Foxtail Subdivision, 5) the plan
that the applicant is proposing to ACHD contains 206 single-family homes, no berm
adjacent to Foxtail Subdivision and a stub street to the Wilson property(lot located within
Foxtail Subdivision), 6)possible access across the Wilson property has legal and financial
consequences on the residents of the Foxtail Subdivision and the residents of the
subdivision have taken steps to make sure that all entities are informed of the Restrictive
Use Agreement between Wilson and the Foxtail Homeowners Association. The email also
indicates that the Foxtail Homeowners Association that if a reasonable plan was brought
to the association they would consider an access road, 7) Foxtail Association have met
with ITD, ACHD, and City of Eagle staff in the past and informed those agencies of the
Restrictive Use Agreement prohibiting direct access to North Fox Run Avenue and asked
each agency it the agency would condemn, take by eminent domain, or force a road across
the Wilson property and it all cases were told no by the agencies, 8) with the stub street
being required to connect to the Wilson property and due to the possibility of a road
connection to North Fox Run Avenue the subsequent violation of the Foxtail Subdivision
Homeowners Association private property rights. The email also provided a conservative
estimate based on the private property rights violation in the amount owed to the Foxtail
Subdivision Homeowners Association as $4,000,000, 9) that the M3 request has quite a
few complicated issues and the planning and zoning process is very important and also
indicated the Foxtail Homeowners Association have tried to identify the Planning and
Zoning Commission member who represents the residents who live outside of the Eagle
city limits and within the city's area of impact.
The email goes on to state that Foxtail Homeowners Association would like to get their
hands around the proposal so they may understand what the developer is really trying to
do which will allow the association to participate on equal ground.
Tyson Smith, Foxtail Homeowners Association, sent email correspondence dated February
28, 2013, with correspondence attached. The email correspondence indicated that he
concurred with the other Foxtail Homeowners Association members who have requested
the application be continued to a subsequent hearing. The correspondence attached to the
email, date stamped by the City on February 28, 2013, indicated concerns that the project
as proposed is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, will have an adverse effects on
the property values of the residents living within Foxtail Subdivision, and general safety
concerns regarding the traffic flow within and around Foxtail Subdivision.
Page 9 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
6.3 Land Use Designations
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (adopted February 7, 2011), designates this site as the
following:
Mixed Use
Suitable primarily for a variety of uses such as limited office, limited commercial, and residential
developments. Uses should complement uses within Downtown Eagle. Development within this
land use designation should be required to proceed through the PUD and/or Development
Agreement process, see specific planning area text for a complete description. An allowable
density of up to 10 units per 1 acre.
6.8 Land Use Sub Areas
6.8.7 Rim View Planning Area
The Rim View Planning Area contains a large amount of existing residential uses that have been
developed as one-acre and five-acre lots through the Ada County development process. The future land
uses in the area are predicated on Linder Road being the only Eagle City river crossing between Eagle
Road and Star Road,the need to buffer and preserve the existing residential developments,and the need
to provide commercial opportunities along the regional transportation corridors south of the Boise River.
Because of the alignment of the State Highway 16 crossing moving further to the west(to McDermott),
no clear funding option or timeline for the SH 16 crossing, and recent changes in nearby city limit
boundaries (Meridian), the previously planned regional commercial area at Black Cat no longer is a
viable location for the City of Eagle.
A. Uses
The land use and development policies specific to the Rim View Planning Area include
the following:
1. A forty acre commercial area located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Chinden
Boulevard and Linder Road is to be designed and developed as a unit. This commercial
area is intended to serve the Eagle community as a gateway into town before crossing the
river.
2. Areas designated as Transitional Residential should have an average residential density of
up to 2 units per acre. Units should be clustered to provide for transitional lot sizes to
ensure compatibility of new residential uses to existing residential uses and the commercial
and office uses located at Linder Road and Chinden.
3. Patio home styles and alternative lot sizes may be allowed in conjunction with exiting open
space and recreation areas located in the Rim View Area. The patio homes and
townhouses may be located near the commercial area.
B. Access
1. Access to the area should focus on new internal linkages that allow adjacent parcels to
provide pedestrian and vehicle connectivity into the Rim View Planning Area.
2. Primary access should be on Linder Road with limited access onto Chindem
Boulevard only in accordance with ITD's access management policies. All
accesses should be designed to allow-traffic to flow through the area connecting Meridian
Road to Linder Road may provide the opportunity of future east/west residential collector
linkage within the planning area. Cross-access and local stub streets should be used to
Page 10 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
allow the planning area to be interconnected without the need to access the arterial
and state highway network.
3. Internal and interconnected circulation should be used to move traffic within the non-
residential area, helping to mitigate the number of local vehicle trips entering State
Highway 20/26 and Linder Road to access commercial and mixed use services and
create cross access into adjoining properties.
4. Chinden Boulevard should be recognized as a gateway corridor to the City of Eagle
and development should adhere to proper berming, landscaping, and appropriate
setbacks to prevent the encroachment of abutting uses into future corridor improvements.
This would protect the viability of the regional transportation corridor as well as buffer the
abutting uses from the impacts of the corridor.
C. Design
1. This area is recognized as a gateway to the City of Eagle, to be integrated with
appropriate landscaping, entry features, and place-making features in the design of
the area.
2. Design of this area should be compatible to the existing residential uses currently
present in the area and future mixed uses.
3. Design of commercial and office uses should be compatible with the existing residential
uses and contain significant landscaped buffers to reduce impacts and appealing building
design elements to promote a cohesive character. Commercial development should
provide for indirect vehicle connections and for safe and efficient pedestrian linkages to
the mixed use and residential areas adjacent to the site. (See Illustration 6.5)
4. Both Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road should be developed with a detached sidewalk
and planting strip adjacent to the back of curb, further solidifying the purpose and
character of the gateway corridor of Chinden Boulevard.
5. Signage for all non-residential uses should be designed to be consistent and
complimentary,with place-making being the primary objective and identification of uses
being secondary.
6. Non-residential areas should be designed with features and materials intended to
compliment and buffer residential uses and to avoid creating a tunnel or wall effect along
the backside of the large buildings.
D. Issues
1. One of the main concerns in the development of this area is the ability to properly
balance and buffer the commercial uses with existing residential uses. New mixed use
areas should be designed in a manner that provides a cohesive transition and
connectivity between the commercial and residential uses, incorporating elements that
will provide a common and complimentary identity between such uses.
2. Considering the large amount of undeveloped or underdeveloped land within the planning
area, each proposed project should be evaluated for the potential to provide linkages and
connectivity to adjacent parcels. This is necessary to establish a functioning local and
collector roadway system to supports the regionally significant roadways at the south and
west of this area.
3. As this area develops, consideration should be made of the transitory uses that have been
approved by Ada County which maybe nearing their end.
Page 11 of 29
K:\Plannmg Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20 12\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
B. ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
THIS PROPOSAL:
• Eagle City Code, Section 8-2A-7: Landscape and Buffer Area Requirements:
J. Buffer Areas/Common Lots:
4. Major Roadways: New residential developments, including, but not limited to,
subdivisions and multi-family developments, shall be buffered from streets
classified as collectors, arterials, freeways, or expressways, to protect residential
communities from noisy, potentially dangerous, high speed roads. The "buffer
area" shall be defined as a common lot located between the residential lots within
the subdivision and the right of way line of the adjacent roadway. This buffer is
required as part of the common area open space owned and maintained by a
homeowners' association. Any landscaping proposed to be within the public right
of way shall not be included as a part of the buffer area required below. The
height for berming/fencing, as noted below, shall be measured from the elevation
of the final grade of the adjacent roadway(measured at the centerline) to the top
of the proposed berming/fencing. The required buffer area width, plantings, and
fencing are as follows:
c. Any road designated as a principal arterial on the transportation and pathway
network plan in the Eagle comprehensive plan:
A minimum of seventy five feet(75')wide buffer area(not including right of
way) shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred(100)linear
feet of right of way: six(6) shade trees, ten(10)evergreen trees, four(4)
flowering/ornamental trees, and twenty four(24) shrubs. Each required shade
tree may be substituted with two(2) flowering/ornamental trees, provided that
not more than fifty percent(50%)of the shade trees are substituted.
A minimum ten foot(10')high, maximum twelve foot(12')high,berm,
decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed
concrete wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within the buffer area.
The maximum slope for any berm shall be three feet(3')horizontal distance to
one foot(1')vertical distance. If a decorative block wall, cultured stone,
decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall is to be provided, in
combination with the berm, a four foot(4')wide flat area shall be provided for
the placement of the decorative wall. Chainlink, cedar, and similar high
maintenance and/or unsightly fencing shall not be permitted.
• Eagle City Code, Section 8-3-3 (D): Side And Rear Yards For Nonresidential Uses Abutting
Residential Districts:
Nonresidential buildings or uses shall not be located nor conducted closer than forty feet
(40') to any lot line of a residential district; except that the minimum yard requirements
may be reduced to fifty percent (50%) of the requirement if acceptable landscaping or
screening approved by the council is provided. Such screening shall be a masonry or solid
fence between four(4) and eight feet (8') in height, maintained in good condition and free
of all advertising or other signs. Landscaping provided in lieu of such wall or fence shall
consist of a strip of land not less than twenty feet(20') in width planted with an evergreen
hedge or dense planting of evergreen shrubs not less than four feet (4') in height at the
time of planting.
Page 12 of 29
K;\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20 12\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
• Eagle City Code, Section 8-10-1(G): Modification of a Development Agreement:
Modification Of Development Agreement: A development agreement may be modified by
the city council only after complying with the notice and public hearing provisions of
section 67-6509 of the Idaho Code.
C. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
• Eagle City Code Section 9-3-2-1: Streets and Alleys: Location and Design:
C. Stub Streets: Where adjoining areas are not subdivided, the arrangement of streets in new
subdivisions shall be such that said streets extend to the boundary line of the tract to make
provisions for the future extension of said streets into adjacent areas, and shall have a cul-
de-sac or temporary cul-de-sac. A reserve street may be required and held in public
ownership.
G. Cul-De-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets shall not be more than seven hundred fifty feet
(750') in length and shall terminate with an adequate circular turnaround having a
minimum radius of fifty feet(50') of right of way including a landscape island with a
minimum radius of ten feet(10'). A minimum of forty feet(40')of pavement shall be
provided between the landscape island and the outside edge of the street as
measured from the face of curb of the island to the face of curb located on the
outside edge of the street. One traffic control sign stating that on street parking is
prohibited within the turnaround shall be installed at the entrance of the turnaround on the
driver's side of the street. The following exceptions may be considered by the council:
1. Alternative types of turnarounds for cul-de-sacs which will provide access to less than
thirteen (13) dwelling units may be permitted by the city if approved by the fire
department and the highway district having jurisdiction.
• Eagle City Code Section 9-3-6: Easements:
A. Unobstructed utility easements shall be provided along front lot lines, rear lot lines and
side lot lines. Total easement width shall not be less than twelve feet(12'), except that
lesser easement widths, to coincide with respective setbacks,may be considered as part of
the planned unit development.
B. Unobstructed drainageway easements shall be provided in conjunction with the utility
easement along side lot lines or as required by the city council. Total easement width,
including the utility easement, shall not be less than twelve feet(12'), except that lesser
easement widths, to coincide with respective setbacks, may be considered as part of the
planned unit development.
• Eagle City Code Section 9-3-7: Planting Strips and Reserve Strips:
Planting strips and reserve strips shall conform to the following standards:
A. Planting Strips/Buffer Areas: Planting strips/buffer areas shall be required to be placed
next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to
screen the view from residential properties and to provide noise mitigation for those
residents. Such planting sttps/buffer areas shall be a minimum of twenty feet(20')wide'
unless a greater width is required within section 8-2A-7 of this code. The landscape
strip/buffer area shall not be a part of the normal street right of way and shall comply with
all landscape/buffer area requirements within section 8-2A-7 of this code.
Page 13 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20I 2\Reynard Sub pzf doc
• Eagle City Code Section 9-4-1-12: Landscape Buffer Areas:
Landscape buffer areas, in accordance with section 8-2A-7 of this code, shall be required for
the protection of residential properties from streets classified as collectors, arterials,
freeways/expressways, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. Subdivision plats
shall show the location of all buffer areas.
D. DISCUSSION:
• The Eagle Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as Mixed Use. The
applicant has submitted a development agreement modification and a preliminary plat
application for Reynard Subdivision, which consists of 80.02-acres. The applicant is
proposing a 241-lot (206-buildable, 2-commercial, and 33-common) residential
/commercial subdivision. The residential area of the development contains a proposed
residential density of 2.63-dwelling units per acre. The residential area of the proposed
development provides building lots ranging in size from 5,000-square feet to 48,106-
square feet in size. The property is currently zoned MU-DA (Mixed Use with a
development agreement) which requires a minimum lot size of 5,000-square feet. The
applicant is proposing 14.9-acres of common area within the residential area, which is
21.5% of the residential area minus the area containing lots larger than 43,560-square feet
in size as permitted pursuant to the executed development agreement.
• The site was previously operated as the Foxtail Golf Course and contains several mature
trees and ponds located throughout the site. The applicant has provided an existing tree
inventory map date stamped by the City on November 16, 2012, that identifies the location
and species of the existing trees. The applicant is proposing to preserve as many as the
mature trees as possible within the proposed subdivision. All living trees that do not
encroach upon the buildable area on any lot should be preserved, unless otherwise
determined by the Design Review Board. A detailed landscape plan showing how the trees
will be integrated into the open space areas or private lots(unless approved for removal by
the Design Review Board) should be provided for Design Review Board approval prior to
the submittal of a final plat.
• The preliminary plat date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013, shows three (3) cul-
de-sac streets with a pavement area that measures 30-feet in width between the landscaped
island and the outer edge of the street. Pursuant to Eagle City Code Section 9-3-2-1(G)the
pavement area located between the landscape island and the outer edge of the street is
required to be 40-feet in width. Alternative types of turnarounds for cul-de-sacs which
provide access to less than 13-dwelling units may be permitted by the city if approved by
the fire department and the highway district. The Meridian Fire Department has provided
correspondence date stamped by the City on February 14, 2013, which indicated that they
have reviewed the proposed cul-de-sac layout and are in agreement with the proposal. The
ACHD staff report date stamped by the City on February 19, 2013, indicated that the
proposed cul-de-sac design is in accordance with District Cul-de-sac Streets Policy and
should be approved as proposed. ACHD is also requiring that the developer provide
written approval from the appropriate fire department.
• Plat note #2 on the preliminary plat date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013,
references the common area/drainage lots and commercial lots. The note references Hot
10, Block 17, as a common area/drainage lot, it appears the lot may be a buildable lot.
Also, the preliminary plat map shows two(2) separate Lot 1, Block 22, and does not show
a Lot 1, Block 21. The applicant should provide a revised preliminary plat showing the
landscape island located on Fox Bend Way immediately north of Fox Lake Drive as Lot
Page 14 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20I2\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
21, Block 1, prior to submittal of a final plat application.
• Plat note #7 on the preliminary plat date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013, does
not identify front lot line utility or drainage easements. Pursuant to Eagle City Code
unobstructed utility and drainage easements with a total easement width of not less than
12-feet is required adjacent to front, rear, and side lot lines, except that lesser easement
widths, to coincide with respective setbacks, may be considered as part of a planned unit
development. The applicant should provide a revised preliminary plat with plat note #7
revised to read, "All side yard lot lines have a 5' property utility and drainage easement on
each side of the lot line. All front lot lines and rear lot lines have a 12' utility and drainage
easement. The applicant should provide a revised preliminary plat prior to submittal of a
final plat application.
• The preliminary plat date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013, shows three (3)
structures to be vacated located approximately 200-feet north of Chinden Boulevard and
centrally located in relationship to the east and west boundaries. The site also contains a
structure that is not identified on the preliminary plat that is located approximately 230-
feet north of Chinden Boulevard and 90-feet west of the eastern boundary of the site. The
four (4) existing structures located on the site should be removed prior to the City Clerk
signing the final plat.
• The preliminary plat, date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013, delineates an
overhead power line traversing from south to north approximately in the center of the site
with an associated Idaho Power easement, Also the preliminary plat delineates an Idaho
Power easement located at the southeast corner of the site. Pursuant to Eagle City Code
utilities are required to be placed underground. All overhead utilities on the site should be
removed and/or placed underground and the Idaho Power easements should be vacated
prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
• The preliminary plat, date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013, shows a cell tower
located in proximity to the center of the site in proximity to the intersection of the existing
cart paths. The preliminary plat identifies the tower as "cell tower to be relocated."
Pursuant to Eagle City Code Section 8-2-3, Personal Wireless Facilities (height-35 feet or
less) are a permitted use; however Personal Wireless Facilities (height-over 35 feet) is a
prohibited use. The applicant should be required to provide additional information
regarding the height and the proposed area for relocation of the existing cell tower so that
the city may determine if the cell tower will be permitted to be relocated on the existing
site. The cell tower additional information should be provided prior to submittal of a final
plat application.
• The preliminary plat, date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013, indicates that the
Almaden irrigation lateral currently traversing the southwest corner of the site is to be
relocated. The preliminary plat also identifies an unidentified existing ditch (possibly the
Zinger Lateral) to be relocated. The location of the existing ditch is approximately 900-
feet south of the northern property line and adjacent to the western property line of the
site. The applicant should provide a letter from the Almaden Ditch Company and all other
appropriate irrigation/ditch/drainage companies approving any construction plans
involving the relocation or construction of irrigation facilities currently accessing the site
and under the purview ,of the Almaden Ditch Company and all other appropriate
irrigation/ditch/drainage companies. The letter should be provided with the submittal of
the final plat application.
Page 15 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
• The preliminary plat, date stamped by the City on February 11, 2013, shows two (2)
commercial lots which are located at the southwest corner of Fox Bend Way and Fennec
Fox street. The plat map or the plat notes do not identify whether or not cross-access for
vehicle or pedestrian movement is provided. The plat map or plat notes also do not
address whether or not there are any blanket utility easements to serve the proposed
commercial area. The applicant should provide a revised preliminary plat with the
following plat note added:
"All commercial lots shown hereon shall provide reciprocal cross-access for vehicular and
pedestrian ingress and egress to the public right-of-ways and to the utility easements as
delineated or noted on this plat." The revised plat should be provided prior to the
submittal of a final plat application.
• The applicant is requesting modifications to the development agreement (Instrument
#110108892) associated with RZ-11-08 to amend Article III, "Conditions on
Development" as noted within their narrative date stamped by the City on November 16,
2012, and noted within the applicant's version of the development agreement date
stamped by the City on November 16, 2012. Pursuant to Condition of Development #3.3
of the executed development agreement (Instrument #110108892) associated with the
subject property the applicant is required to provide a detailed conceptual site plan
("Development Site Plan")to be incorporated into the executed development agreement as
a modification. The applicant has provided a Development Site Plan and is also requesting
additional modifications to the executed development agreement. Due to the number of
Conditions of Development the applicant is requesting to modify staff will recommend
that an Amended and Restated Development Agreement be executed should the
application be approved. The Conditions on Development of the executed development
agreement are shown on Page 4 (of the staff report) with the applicant's proposed
modifications shown in bold. The staff comments regarding the applicant's proposed
modifications are shown in italic and the new staff recommended Condition of
Development is shown in italic and underline following the italic staff comment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
Based upon the information provided staff recommends approval of the requested development
agreement modification with conditions of development to be placed within an amended and
restated development agreement and the preliminary plat site specific conditions of approval and
standard conditions of approval, all as provided within the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on February
19, 2013. The public hearing was continued to March 4, 2013, at which time testimony was taken and
the public hearing was closed. The Commission made their recommendation at that time.
B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by no
one(other than the applicant/representative).
C. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Commission by two (2) individuals
who indicated the following concerns:
• Question regarding whether proper legal notice was provided since the public hearing was
originally scheduled for fa previous date and the Planning and Zoning Commission
continued the hearing to a specific date and whether the city was then required to re-notice
the hearing based on that date.
Page 16 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20I2\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
• Indicated that the lot owned by Wilson Property, LLC, and located within Foxtail
Subdivision has a Restricted Use Agreement associated with it and that due to the
agreement a public road may not be constructed across it to make a connection from the
proposed subdivision to Fox Run Avenue.
• The proposed density of the development is too high for the area and due to the density
there are safety concerns due to the additional traffic in the area.
• Should a street be constructed between the proposed development and Fox Run Avenue it
should be noted that due to the additional traffic from the development and the lack of
sidewalks within Foxtail Subdivision it would cause safety concerns for the residents
within Foxtail Subdivision.
• Question whether the traffic signal located at Fox Run Avenue and SH-20/26 (Chinden
Boulevard)was placed at that location legally.
• Foxtail Subdivision residents feel they have legal right to deny access from the proposed
development to Fox Run Avenue.
• The proposed subdivision will cause the property values within Foxtail Subdivision to
devalue.
COMMISSION DELIBERATION:
Upon closing the public hearing, the Commission discussed during deliberation that:
• They had a concern regarding the applicant not returning the adjacent neighbors' calls
after the neighborhood meeting had been conducted to address those neighbors' concerns.
• The applicant should work with the adjacent neighbors prior to the City Council hearing
and outside of the hearing environment to work out any issues to mitigate the neighbors'
concerns.
• The language regarding the allowance for the golf course operations should remain in the
development agreement.
• The city received two (2) untimely correspondences from Matthew Hicks with Holland
and Hart on behalf of the Foxtail Homeowner's Association. The first correspondence is
in reference to the City of Eagle's hearing procedures and neighborhood meetings. The
second correspondence is in regard to a Restrictive Use Agreement between Charles
Wilson (owner of Lot 1, Block 2, Foxtail Subdivision) and the Foxtail Homeowner's
Association. The Restrictive Use Agreement restricts any access from the property
(proposed Reynard Subdivision) to Fox Run Avenue to gain access to the signalized
intersection. The correspondence was not received in a timely manner prior to the
Commission's public hearing. Thus, while the City Attorney and the Commission briefly
addressed the concerns expressed by the Foxtail Homeowner's Association (see attached
transcript), any substantive analysis shall be addressed at the City Council's public hearing
for the proposed development.
COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
MODIFICATION:
The Commission voted 4 to 0 (Villegas absent) to recommend approval RZ-11-08 MOD fOr a
modification to the Conditions of Development and associated exhibits for Reynard Subdivision,
with the following staff recommend modified Conditions of Development to be included within an
Page 17 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
Amended and Restated Development Agreement with underlined text to be added by the
Commission:
3.1 Golf course operations may continue on the Property, or such portions of the Property.
until Foxtail elects to abandon such operations. Foxtail and Wilson will develop the Property
subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in this Development Agreement. Further,
Foxtail and Wilson, as applicable will submit such applications regarding design review,
preliminary and final plat reviews, and/or any conditional use permits, if applicable, and any
other applicable applications as may be required by the Eagle City Code,which shall comply
with the Eagle City Code, as it exists at the time such applications are made except as
otherwise provided within this Development Agreement.
3.2 The Development Site Plan(Exhibit B)represents the Owner's current concept for
completion of the Project. As the Concept Plan evolves, the City understands and agrees that
certain changes in that concept may occur or be required. If the City determines that any such
changes require additional public comment due to potential impacts on surrounding property
or the community, a public hearing shall be held on any proposed changes in the Concept Plan
and notice shall be provided as may be required by the City.
3.3 The uses areas depicted on the Concept Plan(herein referred to as"Use Areas") shall be
subject to the following use, size and/or density limitations:
3.3.1 For the"MU-DA(Commercial)Mixed Use Area"consisting of approximately
1.74-acres as indicated on the Concept Plan, the permitted uses shall be all those that
are permitted or conditional uses identified under the Mixed Use District in Eagle City
Code 8-2-3 except for the following uses, which are prohibited:
• Cemetery
• Circuses and Carnivals
• Drive in Theater
• Kennel
• Mortuary
If the permitted and conditional uses in the MU zoning designation are expanded,
such expanded uses shall be allowed as permitted or conditional uses as the case may
be. As depicted on the Development Site Plan; the MU-DA(Commercial)Mixed Use
Area shall be limited to 1.74-acres. Mixed Use Area development shall be subject to
design review compliance, with design review approval by Eagle consistent with
Eagle City Code. Any commercial building shall be set back a minimum of eighty
(80) feet from any existing adjacent residential structure. Applicant shall endeavor to
locate one or more of the following uses in the Mixed Use Area:
• Church
• Computer Store
• Book Store
• Restaurants
• Banks/financial ihstitutions(including drive thru)
• Specialty retailers
• Fitness centers
• Sporting goods stores
Page 18 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzf doc
• Retail pharmacies
• Office, business and professional
• Professional activities
3.3.2 The"Residential Use Area"consists of approximately 78.28-acres(inclusive of
open space). The maximum density for the Residential Use Area shall be
approximately 2.63 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 206 dwelling units.
Residential uses in the Residential Use Area shall not require a conditional use permit.
Sidewalks and pathways shall be constructed in appropriate locations to provide
pedestrian connectivity throughout the Property, which pedestrian connectivity shall
be reviewed by Eagle upon the submittal of a preliminary plat application. The
Residential Use Area shall emphasize transitioning with patio home dwellings(higher
density)located in proximity to Chinden Boulevard to single-family dwellings(lower
density)located adjacent to existing residential uses. The minimum required open
space shall be comprised of no less than 20%of the total gross land area of a
particular portion of the Residential Use Area; provided, however, that that portion of
the Residential Use Area containing lots greater than 37,000 square feet in size shall
be excluded from the minimum open space calculations. Minimum lot sizes and
setbacks shall comply with the following table:
Commercial
Front 10 feet
Rear 20 feet
Side 7.5 feet
Residential
Minimum Lot Size: 5,000 SF
Front 15 feet to living area/25 feet to garage
Rear 15 feet
Side/Street Side 5 feet/15 feet
Minimum Lot Size: 10,000 SF
20 feet to living area/25 feet to garage(front)/30 feet to
Front garage(front)on loop roads.
Rear 20 feet
Side 5 feet(additional 2.5 feet per story)
Side Block 16 Lots 7, 8 and
Block 17, Lots 9, 10, 13, 15 5 feet
Collector Front 25 feet to living area/30 feet to garage(front)
Minimum Lot Size: 17,000 SF
Front 25 feet
Rear 20 feet
Side 7.5 feet(additional 2.5 feet per story)
Side Block 16, Lots 4 and 5 5 feet(additional 5 feet per story)
Minimum Lot Size: 37,000 SF
Front 30 feet
Rear 30 feet
Side 15 feet(additional 5 feet per story)
Page 19 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS N2012\Reyrtard Sub pzfdoc
* Lots adjacent to the boundaries of the Sandy Court and Winward River Heights
Subdivisions shall not be less than 43,560 square feet in size. The minimum lot size of lots
adjacent to the west boundary of Foxtail Subdivision shall be 17,000 square feet.
3.4 Eagle shall not issue any development permits for any portion of the Commercial/Mixed
Use Area until Eagle approves the following requirements for such Use Area(or portion of a
Use Area):
3.4.1 Foxtail shall develop and submit a master signage plan which includes exhibits
and guidelines necessary to achieve a visually-coordinated,balanced and appealing
signage environment. The master sign plan shall include monument and wall sign
styles,themes, and locations. It is the intent for the master sign plan to govern all
signage within the Mixed Use Area in accordance with Eagle City Code § 8-2A-8.
The master sign plan shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the Design
Review procedures in Eagle City Code prior to the issuance of a zoning certificate.
3.4.2 Owners shall construct a minimum 6-foot concrete sidewalk along Chinden
Boulevard compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
3.5 Prior to submittal of any final plat application for any portion of the Property, such portion
of the Property shall(i)be annexed into Eagle Sewer District's boundaries and shall comply
with all applicable Eagle Sewer District's regulations and conditions, (ii)have been issued any
required approval letters from Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, and/or Central
District Health. Further, prior to issuance of a building permit for any non-residential buildings
that are not the subject of a final plat application, Owners shall provide proof of adequate
sewer service to the proposed habitable buildings by causing a letter of approval to be
provided to Eagle from Eagle Sewer District.
3.6 Concurrently with the recordation of a final plat, or prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for any non-residential building, for any portion of the Property, Foxtail shall
record conditions, covenants and restrictions("CC&Rs")against such portion of the Property
that contain at least the following provisions:
• An allocation of responsibility for maintenance, in perpetuity, of all community and
privately-owned landscape and amenities;
• Establishment of an architectural control board for all buildings consistent with
approvals and Eagle City Code prior to building permit; and
• An allocation of responsibility for the operations and maintenance of the pressurized
irrigation system for the Property.
• A provision for a reciprocal cross-access for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and
egress to the public right-of-ways and to the utility easements on the commercial lots.
3.7 Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for any building within any Use
Area, Owners will construct such normal and customary phased improvements and satisfy
such normal and customary conditions required by the Ada County Highway District
("ACHD")and the Idaho Transportation Department("ITD")for such Use Area. In the
design of these improvements, consideration shall be given to US 20/26 corridor studies that
have been completed and applicable Access Management Plans that have been adopted. Eagle
supports the continued use of the existing full commercial access to Chinden Boulevard.
These phased improvements include,but are not limited to, dedication of right-of-way for
Page 20 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
future road widening, roadway and intersection improvements commensurate to development
traffic impacts, construction of sidewalks along Chinden Boulevard, and construction of
driveways in the locations and configurations as determined by the aforementioned entities or
as otherwise may be required herein. The obligations set forth herein are without prejudice or
waiver of any right of Applicant to compensation from ACHD or ITD for such dedications or
improvements required by ACHD or ITD. Approval letters from these entities approving the
design of the required improvements shall be provided to Eagle prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit.
3.8 Due to the high visibility of Chinden Boulevard, special attention shall be given to the
design, configuration and position of the buildings abutting the roadways consistent with
Eagle City Code. Building placement shall be designed such that parking areas are not
concentrated between the buildings and Chinden Boulevard. The side of any buildings facing
the roadways shall be provided with architectural design elements and architectural relief, as
may be approved by the Eagle Design Review Board.
3.9 All buildings shall be set back a minimum of 105-feet from the centerline of Chinden
Boulevard to accommodate future corridor widening.
3.10 Internal roadways connecting any residential and non-residential areas shall be designed
with traffic calming devices in an effort to reduce cut-through traffic, to create lower vehicle
speeds,to act as a delineator between differing uses, and to ensure the safety of the pedestrian.
Plans showing traffic calming devices shall be submitted to Eagle and ACHD and/or ITD
(pursuant to jurisdictional authority) for review and approval in conjunction with any proposed
development plans or preliminary plat,whichever may be the case.
3.11 Foxtail shall work with Eagle Island Marketplace immediately west of the Property to
locate one vehicular and pedestrian cross access approximately as shown on the Development
Site Plan. The opening and use of such cross access requires a mutually acceptable reciprocal
easement agreement between the owner(s)of Eagle Island Marketplace and the Property.
3.12 Foxtail shall work with the neighbors to the east and west of the north half of the Property
to coordinate location of not less than one road connection suitable for a future road between
Linder Road and Meridian Road. Such road connection shall be constructed to the roadway
classification and specification required by ACHD's Policy Manual for the anticipated traffic
volumes. If a collector road is required, front-on housing shall be allowed without buffers.
Setbacks described in Section 3.3.2 shall be adhered to along both sides of the roadway.
3.13 Foxtail shall construct a ten(10)foot high landscaped berm along the western boundary of
Lot 2, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 2, of the Foxtail Subdivision if the owners of either such lots
so request, in writing,prior to Eagle's approval of a design review application for development
immediately adjacent to Foxtail Subdivision. If such owners both request construction of such
berm, the berm shall be located on the Property. Foxtail shall be required to landscape the ten
(10)foot high berm pursuant to Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7(J)(4)(c). If such berm is
constructed as provided in this Section, the proposed landscape plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Eagle Design Review Board prior to the approval of a final plat application
for any development immediately adjacent to Foxtail Subdivision.
3.14 Any building with a proposed drive-thru shall be designed in such a way as to compliment
the entirety of the Property and, if located near residential uses or a public way, shall provide a
Page 21 of 29
K:\Planting Dept\Eagle Applcations\SUBS\20 12\Reynard Sub pzf doc
minimum of forty-eight inch(48")grade separated berm and/or screen wall with vegetation
adjacent to the drive-thru lanes to reduce the impact of the vehicles utilizing the drive-thru
lanes(i.e., vehicle headlights and vehicle cueing). Eagle may place reasonable limits on the
hours of operation of all drive-thru uses to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.
3.15 Foxtail shall provide bus stops or other similar public transportation mode improvements
on Chinden Boulevard if required by the applicable governmental agency when platting the
Commercial/Mixed Use Area. The location and placement of such improvements will be
completed in cooperation with ITD and/or ACHD.
3.16 Deliveries to commercial buildings within the Commercial/Mixed Use Area shall be
conducted from the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. All other operations of the commercial
buildings within the Commercial/Mixed Use Area shall comply with Eagle City Code"Loud
Amplification Devices;Noise Ordinance" Section 4-9, or as thereafter amended.
3.17 All non-residential(commercial)buildings in the Commercial/Mixed Use Area shall be
subject to dark-sky lighting, or related limitations in compliance with Eagle City Code, as it
exists at the time such applications are made, to address additional concerns that may arise.
3.18 The Property is currently located within the Meridian Fire District and, therefore, Owners
shall work with the Meridian Fire District for all fire service/protection issues,unless the
Property is annexed into the Eagle Fire District.
COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT:
The Commission voted 4 to 0 (Villegas absent) to recommend approval of Reynard Subdivision
(PP-05-12) for Foxtail Partners, LLC, with the following staff recommended site specific and
standard conditions of approval with strike through text to be deleted by the Commission and
underlined text to be added by the Commission:
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Comply with all conditions within the development agreement for rezone application RZ-11-08
and as may be modified by RZ-011-08 MOD.
2. Comply with all requirements of the City Engineer.
3. The applicant shall submit payment to the City for all engineering fees incurred for reviewing this
project,prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
4. Add a note to the final plat which states that, "Minimum building setback lines shall be in
accordance with the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations at the time of issuance of a
building permit or as specifically approved and/or required in connection with RZ-11-08 as may
be modified by RZ-11-08 MOD."
5. All overhead utilities on the site shall be removed and/or placed underground and the associated
Idaho Power easements shall be vacated prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
6. Provide a letter from the Almaden Ditch Company and all other appropriate
irrigation/ditch/drainage companies approving any construction plans involving the relocation or
construction of irrigation facilities currently accessing the site or particular phase of development
and under the purview of the Almaden Ditch Company and all other appropriate
irrigation/ditch/drainage companies. The letter shall be provided prior to the City Engineer signing
with-the-submittal-of the final plat application.
Page 22 of 29
K:APlanning DeptAEagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
7. The four(4) existing structures located on the site shall be removed prior to the City Clerk signing
the final plat. These structures include: the clubhouse, the driving range shelter, and the two
clubhouse outbuildings. They do not include the maintenance structure or the pump house.
8. Provide a revised preliminary plat showing the landscape island located on Fox Bend Way
immediately north of Fox Lake Drive as Lot 21, Block 1, prior to submittal of a final plat
application.
9. Provide a revised preliminary plat with plat note#7 revised to read, "All side yard lot lines have a
5' property utility and drainage easement on each side of the lot line. All front lot lines and rear lot
lines have a 12' utility and drainage easement. The applicant shall provide a revised preliminary
plat prior to submittal of a final plat application. (ECC 9-3-6)
10. Provide a revised preliminary plat with the following plat note added:
"All commercial lots shown hereon shall provide reciprocal cross-access for vehicular and
pedestrian ingress and egress to the public right-of-ways and to the utility easements as delineated
or noted on this plat." The revised plat shall be provided prior to the submittal of a final plat
application.
11. The applicant shall provide additional information regarding the height and the proposed area for
relocation of the existing cell tower prior to submittal of a final plat application. (ECC 8-2-3 and
ECC 8-2-4)
12. The applicant shall submit a Design Review application with a landscape plan showing the
required improvements (berming, landscaping, sidewalk, and irrigation pumphouse) within the
common lots pursuant to Eagle City Code 8-2A to be reviewed and approved by the Design
Review Board prior to the submittal of a final plat application. (ECC 8-2A-7)
13. The developer shall provide shade-class trees (landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Design Review Board) along both sides of all streets within this development. Trees shall be
placed at the front of each lot generally at each side property line, or as approved by the Design
Review Board. The trees shall be located in an 8-foot wide landscape strip between the 5-foot
wide concrete sidewalk and the curb. Prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat the applicant
shall either install the required trees, sod, and irrigation or provide the City with a letter of credit
for 150%of the cost of the installation of all landscape and irrigation improvements. Trees shall be
installed prior to obtaining any occupancy permits for the homes. A temporary occupancy may be
issued if weather does not permit landscaping. (ECC 8-2A-7)
14. All living trees that do not encroach upon the buildable area on any lot shall be preserved, unless
otherwise determined by the Design Review Board. A detailed landscape plan showing how the
trees will be integrated into the open space areas or private lots (unless approved for removal by
the Design Review Board) shall be provided for Design Review Board approval prior to the
submittal of a final plat. Construction fencing shall be installed (pursuant to the Design Review
Board's direction) to protect all trees that are to be preserved, prior to the commencement of any
construction on the site.
15. The Reynard Subdivision shall remain under the control of one Homeowners Association for
residential uses.
16. The applicant shall place a note on the final plat that the pressurized irrigation system and all
common lots are to be owned anfl maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
17. The applicant shall provide CC&Rs that the Homeowner's Association shall have the duty to
maintain the pressurized irrigation system and all common landscape areas in the subdivision are
maintained in a competent and attractive manner, including the watering, mowing, fertilizing and
Page 23 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
caring for shrubs and trees in perpetuity.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Ada County Highway District and/or the
Idaho Transportation Department, including but not limited to approval of the drainage system,
curbs, gutters, streets and sidewalks.
2. Correct street names, as approved by the Ada County Street Name Committee, shall be placed on
the plat prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
3. Complete water and sewer system construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer. Required improvements shall include, but not be limited to, extending all utilities to the
platted property. The developer may submit a letter in lieu of plans explaining why plans may not
be necessary.
4. Idaho Department of Health &Welfare approval of the sewer and water facilities is required prior
to the City Engineer signing the final plat(I.C. Title 50, Chapter 13 and I.C. 39-118).
5. Written approval of all well water for any shared or commercial well shall be obtained from the
Idaho Department of Water Resources prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
6. Unless septic tanks are permitted, wet line sewers will be required and the applicant will be
required to furnish the City Engineer with a letter from the sewer entity serving the property,
accepting the project for service,prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
7. All homes being constructed with individual septic systems shall have the septic systems placed on
the street side of the home or shall have their sewer drainage system designed with a stub at the
house front to allow for future connection to a public sewer system.
8. Per Idaho Code, Section 31-3805, concerning irrigation rights, transfer and disclosure, the water
rights appurtenant to the lands in said subdivision which are within the irrigation entity will be
transferred from said lands by the owner thereof; or the subdivider shall provide for underground
title or other like satisfactory underground conduit to permit the delivery of water to those
landowners within the subdivision who are also within the irrigation entity.
See Eagle City Code Section 9-4-1-9(C) which provides overriding and additional specific criteria
for pressurized irrigation facilities.
Plans showing the delivery system must be approved by a registered professional engineer and
shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
9. The applicant shall submit a letter from the appropriate drainage entity approving the drainage
system and/or accepting said drainage; or submit a letter from a registered professional engineer
certifying that all drainage shall be retained on-site prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
A copy of the construction drawing(s) shall be submitted with the letter.
10. Drainage system plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the
City Engineer signing the final plat. The plans shall show how swales, or drain piping, will be
developed in the drainage easements. The approved drainage system shall be constructed, or a
performance bond shall be submitted to the City Clerk, prior to the City Engineer signing the final
plat. The CC&R's shall contain clauses to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and
City Attorney, prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat, requiring that lots be so graded that
all runoff runs either over the curb, or to the drainage easement, and that no runoff shall cross any
lot line onto another lot except within a drainage easement.
Page 24 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20 I2\Reynard Sub pzf doc
11. No ditch,pipe or other structure, or canal, or drain, for irrigation water or irrigation waste water
owned by an organized irrigation district, canal company, ditch association, drainage district,
drainage entity, or other irrigation entity, shall be obstructed,routed, covered or changed in any
way unless such obstruction, rerouting, covering or changing has first been approved in writing by
the entity. A Registered Engineer shall certify that any ditch rerouting,piping, covering or
otherwise changing the existing irrigation or waste ditch(1)has been made in such a manner that
the flow of water will not be impeded or increased beyond carrying capacity of the downstream
ditch; (2)will not otherwise injure any person or persons using or interested in such ditch or their
property; and(3) satisfied the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction. A copy of such
written approval and certification shall be filed with the construction drawing and submitted to the
City Engineer prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
12. Encroachments including,but not limited to, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and/or pathways shall
not be located within any easement or right-of-way for any ditch, pipe or other structure, or canal,
or drain,used for irrigation water or irrigation waste water without the express written approval of
the organized irrigation district, canal company, ditch association, drainage district, drainage entity
or other irrigation entity associated with such ditch,pipe or other structure, drainage or canal. The
applicant shall submit a copy of the written approval from the irrigation entity, drainage district, or
drainage entity prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
13. Street light plans shall be submitted and approved as to the location, height and wattage to the City
Engineer prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat. All construction shall comply with the
City's specifications and standards.
The applicant shall delineate on the face of the final plat an easement, acceptable to the City
Engineer, for the purpose of installing and maintaining street light fixtures, conduit and wiring
lying outside any dedicated public right-of-way,prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
The applicant shall pay applicable street light inspection fees on the proposed subdivision prior to
signing of the final plat by the Eagle City Engineer.
14. The applicant shall provide utility easements as required by the public utility providing service,
and as may be required by the Eagle City Code,prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
15. An approval letter from the Meridian Fire Department shall be submitted to the City prior to the
City Engineer signing the final plat. The letter shall include the following comments and
minimum requirements, and any other items of concern as may be determined by the Meridian Fire
Department officials:
a. The applicant has made arrangements to comply with all requirements of the Fire
Department.
b. The proposed fire hydrant locations shall be reviewed and be approved in writing by the
Meridian Fire Department prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
c. Minimum flow per hydrant shall be 1,000 gallons per minute for one and two family
dwellings, 1,500 gallons per minute for dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3,600
square feet, and 1,500 gallons per minute (i.e.; Commercial, Industrial, Schools, etc.).
Flow rates shall be inspected in accordance with all agencies having jurisdiction, and shall
be verified in writing by the Meridian Fire Department prior to issuance of any building
permits.
d. The proposed fire protection system shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle
Meridian Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
16. Covenants, homeowner's association by-laws or other similar deed restrictions, acceptable to the
Eagle City Attorney which provide for the use, control and mutual maintenance of all common
areas, storage facilities, recreational facilities, street lights or open spaces shall be reviewed and
Page 25 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pz£doc
approved by the Eagle City Attorney prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
A restrictive covenant must be recorded and a note on the face of the final plat is required,
providing for mutual maintenance and access easements.
Appropriate papers describing decision-making procedures relating to the maintenance of
structures, grounds and parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle City Attorney
prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
17. Should the homeowner's association be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the storm
drainage facilities, the covenants and restrictions, homeowner's association by-laws or other similar
deed restrictions acceptable to the Eagle City Attorney shall be reviewed and approved by the
Eagle City Attorney prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
18. The applicant shall submit an application for Design Review, and shall obtain approval for all
required landscaping, common area and subdivision signage prior to the City Engineer signing the
final plat.
19. Any recreation area, greenbelt area or pathway area along the Boise River, Dry Creek or any other
area designated by the City Council or Eagle City Pathway/Greenbelt Committee for a path or
walkway shall be approved in writing by the Eagle City Pathway/Greenbelt Committee prior to
approval of the final plat by the City Council.
20. Conservation, recreation and river access easements (if applicable) shall be approved by the Eagle
City Pathway/Greenbelt Committee and shall be shown on the final plat prior to approval of the
final plat by the City Council.
21. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the plat which states: "Minimum building setback
lines shall be in accordance with the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations at the time of
issuance of the building permit or as specifically approved and/or required".
22. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Eagle City Code, pertaining to floodplain
and river protection regulations(if applicable)prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
23. The development shall comply with the Boise River Plan (if applicable) in effect at the time of
City Council consideration of the final plat.
24. The applicant shall obtain written approval of the development relative to the effects of the Boise
River Flood Plain (if applicable) from the Corps of Engineers prior to approval of the final plat by
the City Engineer.
25. The applicant shall obtain approval of the development relative to its effects on wetlands or other
natural waterways (if applicable) from the Corps of Engineers and the Idaho Department of Water
Resources and/or any other agency having jurisdiction prior to the City Engineer signing the final
plat.
26. Basements in homes in the flood plain are prohibited.
27. The Americans with Disabilities Act, Uniform Building Code, Eagle City Code, Eagle
Comprehensive Plan, and all applicable County, State and Federal Codes and Regulations shall be
complied with. All design and construction shall be in accordance with all applicable City of
Eagle Codes unless specifically approved by the Commission and/or Council.
28. Any changes to the plans and Specifications upon which this approval is based, other than those
required by the above conditions, will require submittal of an application for modification and
approval of that application prior to commencing any change. Any change by the applicant in the
planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to
comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in
Page 26 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzfdoc
force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest submits application to the City of Eagle
for a change to the planned use of the subject property.
29. No public board, agency, commission, official or other authority shall proceed with the
construction of or authorize the construction of any of the public improvements required by the
Eagle City Code Title 9 "Land Subdivisions" until the final plat has received the approval of the
City Council(ECC 9-6-5 (A)(2)).
After Council approval of the final plat, the applicant may construct any approved improvements
before the City Engineer signs the final plat. The applicant shall provide a financial guarantee of
performance in the amount of 150% of the total estimated cost for completing any required
improvements (see resolution 98-3)prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat. The financial
guarantee shall be a Letter of Credit, Certificate of Deposit, cash deposit or certified check.
30. In accordance with Eagle City Code, failure to obtain a recorded final plat for the subdivision
within one year following City Council approval shall cause this approval to be null and void,
unless a time extension is granted by the City Council.
31. Prior to submitting the final plat for recording, the following must provide endorsements or
certifications: Owners or dedicators, Registered Land Surveyor, County Engineer, Central District
Health Department, Ada County Treasurer, Ada County Highway District Commissioners, City
Engineer, and City Clerk.
32. The City's actions on the application does not grant the applicant any appropriation of water or
interference with existing water rights. The applicant indemnifies and holds the City harmless for
any and all water rights, claims in any way associated with this application.
33. The applicant shall submit cut sheets showing street lighting details for review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator prior to the submittal of the final plat. The plans shall show how the
streetlights will facilitate the"Dark Sky"concept of lighting.
34. The applicant shall take care to locate and protect from damage existing utilities, pipelines and
similar structures. Documentation indicating that "Digline" has performed an inspection of the
site shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site.
35. Place a note on the final plat which states in general that surrounding land with farm uses and
related activities shall be protected pursuant to the Idaho Right to Farm Act.
36. The applicant shall install at the entrance to the subdivision a 4' x 4' plywood or other hard
surface sign (mounted on two 4"x 4"posts with the bottom of the sign being a minimum of 3-feet
above the ground)noticing the contractors to clean up daily,no loud music, and no dogs off leash.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. A Neighborhood Meeting was held at Eagle City Hall(Freedom Room)at 6:00 PM, August 8, 2012, a
second neighborhood meeting was held at Eagle City Hall (Freedom Room) at 6:00 PM, March 1,
2013, in compliance with the application submittal requirement of Eagle City Code. The applications
for these items were received by the City of Eagle on November 16, 2012.
2. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was
published in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City
Code on February 4, 2013. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three-
hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67,
Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on February 2, 2013. Requests for agencies' reviews
were transmitted on December 6, 2012 in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code.
The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on February 8, 2013.
Page 27 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20 I2\Reynard Sub pzf doc
3. The Commission reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed rezone modification
(RZ-11-08 MOD) with regard to Eagle City Code Section 8-7-5 "Action by the Commission and
Council", and based upon the information provided concludes that the proposed applications are in
accordance with the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and established goals and objectives because:
a. The requested zoning designation of MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) is
consistent with the Mixed Use designation as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map since the proposed zone will allow for a transitioning of both commercial and residential
uses to mitigate impacts upon existing residential uses from the existing commercial uses and
the transportation corridor (State Highway 20/26). The residential lot sizes will transition
from 5,000 square-feet to one (1) acre(with smaller lots adjacent to the commercial areas and
larger adjacent to existing residential) in size, which provides for a well-planned community
that encourages diversity in housing opportunities and fosters economic vitality.
b. The information provided from the agencies having jurisdiction over the public facilities
needed for this site indicate that adequate public facilities exist, or are expected to be
provided, to serve the uses allowed on this property under the proposed zone and conditions of
the development agreement;
c. The proposed MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) is compatible with the
RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County designation) zone and land use (Winward
Heights Subdivision)to the north since the applicant will be required to transition the intensity
of uses and residential density as well as develop parcels (Lots) that are to be a minimum of
one(1)acre in size adjacent to that area, and;
d. The proposed MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) is compatible with the
RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County designation), R1 (Residential — Ada County
designation), zones and land uses to the east since the applicant will be required to transition
the intensity of uses and residential density as well as possibly be required to construct a ten
foot (10') high landscaped buffering berm (at the adjacent landowners request) adjacent to
Foxtail Subdivision, and provide connectivity and a transition to the proposed development
located north of Foxtail Subdivision, and;
e. The proposed MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) zone is compatible with
the C-3-DA (Highway Business District with a development agreement), (RUT (Rural-Urban
Transition — Ada County designation) and R1 (Residential — Ada County designation) zones
and land use to the west since that area is developed with commercial uses in a manner similar
to those proposed within this development, and existing residential uses will be compatible
with the residential uses proposed with this development, and;
f. The proposed MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) zone is compatible with
Chinden Boulevard (US 20/26) and the R-1 (Up to one unit per acre one acre) zone and land
uses to the south since a development that is contains a mix of commercial and residential uses
tends to capture a portion of both internal trips and the passing vehicle trips, thereby
alleviating some of the congestion on the adjacent roadway system. In addition, the roadway
improvements required with the development of this property will also contribute to the better
traffic-functions of the adjacent roadways. The properties south of Chinden Boulevard, and
located within the City of Meridian's Area of Impact, are anticipated to be developed with
uses in a manner similar to those approved with this application and development agreement;
and;
g. The land proposed for rezone is not located within a "Hazard Area" and "Special Area" as
described within the Comprehensive Plan; and
h. No non-conforming uses are expected to be created with this rezone if the conditions of the
development agreement are fully executed.
Page 28 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\20I2\fteynard Sub pzfdoc
4. The Commission reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed preliminary plat
(PP-05-12) and based upon the information provided concludes that the proposed preliminary plat
application is in accordance with the City of Eagle Title 9 (Subdivisions)because:
a. The requested preliminary plat complies with the approved zoning designation of MU-DA
(Residential-One dwelling unit/acre with a development agreement).
b. Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives of Title 9 of the Eagle
City Code since the development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designation of Transitional Residential (Chinden Bench Planning Area) and provides the
required improvements for a subdivision or as may be conditioned herein; and
c. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in
appearance with the existing and intended character of the general vicinity and that such use
will not change the essential character of the same area and because this site will be designed
in accordance with the standards of Eagle City Code and the Eagle Architecture and Site
Design book(EASD); and
d. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for facilities and services as
the site will be served with central sewer from the Eagle Sewer District and will use public
water to be served from Eagle Water Company. Fire protection will be available from the
Meridian Fire Department and fire hydrants will be provided where required; and
e. Will have vehicular approaches to the property designed to not create an interference with
traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares since the project is required to be reviewed and
approved by the Idaho transportation Department and the Ada County Highway District and is
subject to the conditions herein; and
f. While there is no capital improvement program (excepting Capital Improvement Plan for
parks), the developer is required to install public improvements as conditioned herein, or are
expected to be installed with the development of individual lots as conditions of approval; and
g. That based upon agency verification and additional written comments provided, or as
conditioned herein, there is adequate public financial capability to support the proposed
development; and
h. That any health, safety and environmental problems that were brought to the Commission's
attention have been adequately addressed by the applicant or will be conditions of the
preliminary plat and subsequent final plat approval as set forth within the conditions of
approval herein.
DATED this 18th day of March 2013
PL• ■ • G • P ZON ■ . MMIS •
� ' THE CIT OF
Ada Count;, Id., o
CIT Y 0 ,,,,,
David Aizpitarte, Chai • an ; .••'••,'•••
•
• TEST: 9
ir
rc] P '
A- - LAIL f /�;.4/Art /I e
Sharon . Bergma , Eagle Cit Clerk ••,j� .
Page 29 of 29
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2012\Reynard Sub pzf doc
•
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION
Eagle City Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing
RE: Reynani Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC
Dated: March 4,2013
The undersigned does hereby certify that she accurately transcribed the attached transcript to the best of
her ability from the : a ng of the Eagle City Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing that was
recorded on March 4,2013.
Dated nd certified • = 1a'day of March 2013.
Ar
•: imith ;Pc ants by Djwn),Transcriber
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE Rem subdivision-Fada Partners,LLC.
Dated: Allah 4,2013
Page 1 of 73
Eagle City Planning &Zoning Commission Hearing
RE: Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners, LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Chair: David Aizpitarte DS: Derek Smith
GT: Gary Tanner DR: Don Roehling
MW: Michael Williams BB: Bill Brownlee
SB: Susan Buxton JB: JoAnn Butler
MT: Mark Tate DS2: Dave Szplett
KG: Katherine Georger BS: Brian Schlader
UnkM: Unknown Male Voice UnkF: Unknown Female Voice
[CD1 Start: 10:00]
Chair: Okay, now we're onto RZ-11-08 MOD with PP-05-12, Reynard Subdivision, Foxtail
Partners, LLC,so.
DR: Okay, Mr.Chair?
Chair: Yes.
DR: I have a discloser to make that I need to share. On the night of February 23rd I received a
phone call from one of the citizens of--one of the neighboring subdivisions who asked
me about the procedure regarding Planning and Zoning,and what we're doing, etcetera.
The question was basically, I think, it started with who is the Planning and Zoning
Commissioner who has the responsibility for this particular area. I indicated that I didn't
know that. The question was well,we're going to have a public hearing on Friday night
March the 1s`, etcetera,what is the procedure, and what do we do? So my
recommendation was to attend the neighborhood meeting that was scheduled for Friday
night and to make sure that any of his concerns were brought up at that particular
meeting. And also that if the feelings warranted that he submit a letter to Eagle City. And
then anyone else who wishes to write to do so,so it could become part of the record. So,
that was February 23'", Saturday at 6:00 p.m., I had that conversation. Various questions
were asked back and forth. Everything I spoke about was public record,you know,what
the general proceedings are and what have you. There was no particular information
submitted. There was no favors being asked. Just inquiry as to the process. Okay.
SB: Mr. Smith, for the record,could you identify who the caller was please?
DS: Yeah, Mr. Dennis Hanson (phonetic).
SB: Thank you.
DS: Uh-hmm.
UnkM: And for the record(inaudible)as well.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 2 of 73
SB: And then for the record,Mr. Hanson did provide correspondence to the city dated
February 26th.
DS: Okay.
Chair: Very good. Okay.
DS: Also I would say,that in general I found this material to be taxing,demanding,very
vigorous,a lot of reading. And I did not read every single page in this document. I'll tell
you that right now. I've read it both electronically and physically and I believe, I've read
the large chunk of it, but I've not read every single page,jot and tittle,so. I share that
with you for what it's worth.
Chair: Okay.
DS: If I had a few more days I would have, but.
Chair: Comments?
SB: I think I understand it's a lot of information--
Chair: Yeah.
SB: When we do these and, but I believe that the staff has meet the requirements set by the
City Council for their policy of providing information for this stuff because it all comes in
from the applicant and we get it out to everybody. So with that Mr.Chairman, is there
anybody else who had an ex parte contact or has a conflict of interest that they need to
disclose?
Chair: Yeah, I'm the President of Banbury Homeowner's Association and so I went to the
Zinger's Lateral Meeting and they talked about this but it wasn't any kind of discussion
that I could actually-- I mean it was pretty conceptual about this and another
development, and water, but it probably was a two minute conversation. And so I
wouldn't say that there was any issues. I was more interested in my home and my own
HOA than anybody else,sorry.
SB: Mr. Chairman, I don't see anything that's been raised at this point that would indicate that
any member sitting tonight would have a conflict of Interest or biased that would cause
them not to be able to participate in the decision on this item.
Chair: Yeah,okay very good.
UnkM: (Inaudible).
Chair: Mike,you have comments or? Okay. Okay, can the applicant--
SB: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr.Chairman,actually--
Chair: Yes.
SB: One more other thing, I apologize.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtall Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 3 of 73
Chair: Okay. No problem.
SB: Eagle City Code does not allow written documentation to come into the public record if
it's not received five days prior to the hearing so that we can get in the packet,so for the
public and on the website. The city did receive today from Matthew Hicks of Holland&
Hart and I just saw it too because he did not send it to me either. But this afternoon,
dated March 4th,and we did provide that in your packet because the applicant through
their legal counsel,JoAnn Butler,does not object to having this in the record. I realize
you don't have time to read it nor do I, so I did not receive any phone calls from Holland
Hart with regard to any of these issues, so it's news to me. They've raised generally
some issues of the notice that we will go into at the time of the hearing once you open the
hearing. So with regard to that I will address issues as they arise and as you have
questions. So with that--
Chair: Okay.
SB: Any objection from the Board to allow this as a late submission into the record it has like I
said has not been objected to by Ms. Butler. In fact,she's asked that it be put in the
record,so. Is that correct,JoAnn?
JB: (Inaudible).
Chair: Okay. Well, okay...
SB: Basically, what I'll tell you to do is your recommendation to the City Council if you are
able to make one tonight will be based on what you hear from the public tonight--
Chair: Okay.
SB: As well as what was in your packet. Realizing this is a late submission something that
City Council will have for their packet. If you have a chance to kind of look at it or if
somebody addresses it here tonight and with enough detail then you can certainly
consider that.
Chair: So we are going to ignore this last paragraph that says, because notice was not properly
provided plan modifications cannot be considered,see Idaho Code such and such
providing--well,say see Idaho Code 67-6511A providing that Commission can act on
new action or modification existing plan only after notices has been properly effectuated.
Accordingly,the Commission cannot go forward with the hearing on the Foxtail Partners
application as stated in the Commission March 4th agenda. We are going to move
forward in spite of that, is that correct?
SB: That was one lawyer's opinion of the law and understanding of some of the facts that he
is relying upon.
Chair: Okay. Can the applicant please come forward and(inaudible)?
JB: JoAnn Butler, representing Foxtail Partners,251 East Front Street. Did you want me to
address-- I'm not going to be the one addressing the overview, Mark Tate will for the
project. But do you want me to address this notice issue?
Chair: You know what, I think do you want to? Okay.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 4 of 73
UnkM: Yeah.
Chair: Yeah,the Commission would like to have that. Okay.
JB: Okay. We did get a letter today earlier this afternoon from Mr. Hicks representing the
Foxtail Homeowner's Association saying that incorrectly indicating that this property
surrounded is homeowner's association property and as you know it's immediately to the
west. But he asked that this be continued or saying that your notice was improper. As
you could hear Mr.Williams say earlier you're very particular about notice. It has to be
sent out to the(inaudible)number of people within a certain radius. It has to be
published. And it has to be posted and that's exactly what did happen here. And then on
the 19th of February there was a(inaudible)tonight and you noticed where you would
announced that an open public hearing sending it over to a date certain which under
Eagle City Code you are allowed to. So, with all those facts that's as Susan would say
one lawyer's interpretation of the facts as is to know to her, but that is not my take. Is
that the notice was proper and that you had can hear this matter and you will want to
hear it from your attorney as well.
Chair: Any questions for JoAnn?
UnkM: (Inaudible).
Chair: Do you have any questions?
DR: I think you answered it, but I'm assuming that you're comfortable moving forward
notwithstanding the letter?
JB: Yes.
DR: Okay.
JB: Okay.
SB: Really quickly,Susan Buxton for the record, I'm the city attorney. With regard to the
notice issue the city sent out notice to all the property owners within 300 feet of the
subject property. And then at the hearing when it was noticed for that hearing you came
on the record and the record stated that you had noticed it for--put it forward to a date
certain. That is a common practice. It is allowed by law. And it's allowed by Eagle. The
city of Eagle does that often. And whenever we've been challenged upon that we've
succeeded in showing that the notice was proper and it was on the agenda properly,and
we've met all the Open Meeting Act requirements. So with regard to the notice of this
application for your action we believe that the notice has met all legal requirements. With
regard to the question about the neighborhood meeting notice, neighborhood meeting is
something that we require as a--it's almost like a pre-application meeting. So that the
neighbor's know that someone's going to come in and change the land use near their
property. So the neighborhood meetings are held,they're required to be held,and a
notice is required to them of having a meeting some place where they can all attend. The
city code does not put forth what has to be in that notice as far as a description or
anything like that. There was a public neighborhood meeting on this property and on this
project held in August of 2012. Our code says that you should try to have the hearing
prior to,you know,within six months of that neighborhood meeting. I don't believe that
it's a jurisdictional issue. However, I did note that to Ms. Butler and said that maybe you
would have another neighborhood meeting. There had been subsequent meetings with
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 5of73
neighbors. The notices have all gone out from the city that they are the official notices
under the statute and under our code as far as any action that you could take with regard
to that. A neighborhood meeting was noticed properly as far as timing and the place,and
those things. My understanding is that the notice that was provided to the second
neighborhood meeting that was held last week was the same notice that they provided in
August with a general description of what they thought they might do in August, but that
has changed obviously. But the actual changed information was accurately provided to
them by the city as is required by law.
Chair: Okay.
SB: So with regard to the neighborhood meeting,the neighborhood meeting is again, it's an
idea that got started about 10 years ago for a lot of cities to just provide neighbors with
the opportunity to talk to developers prior to them providing and submitting an application.
The application that was finally submitted after that neighborhood meeting and after
meetings with some of the other neighbors was different than what they provided for in
that neighborhood meeting in August to address neighbor's concerns. That's exactly why
we do those things, but again,the legal requirement for notice is really,those legal
requirements for notice is to have this hearing and this potential recommendation to the
City Council from this Board and those notices were accurate.
Chair: Okay. Great. Okay.
DS: So, Susan, could I ask you a clarifying question?
SB: Mr. Smith?
DS: So, Mr.Chair and Susan,so the purpose of the neighborhood meeting then is although
it's required by statute?
SB: No.
DS: It is not. So the information that's shared there is more of a courtesy than a requirement.
SB: Yes, it's a requirement only by city code.
DS: Oh,city code,okay.
SB: So city code requires that a person that's going to come in and ask for a change in land
use--like if you have a field behind your house then someone else buys it and decides
they don't want to be a farmer anymore,which is pretty common,and they want to put
houses there then they have a notice--the city basically provided a standard by which to
give notice to the neighbors that there's going to be a neighborhood meeting that says
hey, neighbors,we bought this,we don't want to farm anymore, we don't want to farm it,
so we want to put houses on it or whatever they want to do,and so we want to have a
meeting and kind of give you an idea of what we want to do. What are your thoughts?
And that's the whole idea because what had happened is you'd get people in here I had
no idea until I got this notice. I had no idea this was happening. It's going to change my
entire lifestyle or whatever their arguments were,so the whole idea was to try to get
people talking ahead of time so that they could address the issues and try and work
through those problems before. And as you'll note in this case in the Holland Hart letter
does provide a document that I did in 2010, almost exactly three years ago, I think it was
March 3rd or something,that was a result of a mediation between the then developer and
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 6of73
the city basically,as the mediator, and the neighbors to try and figure out what they all
needed, and what they wanted,and how they could work things out. And so,that
document was accepted by the City Council,cause some of them were present as part of
the mediation and that was accepted by the Council, by the developer, and by the
homeowners at the time as being an accurate portrayal of the issues at the time. And so
as far as that document being attached to Mr. Hicks'letter I don't have any objection to
that because I think it still provides relatively accurately and timely information with regard
to issues that arose then that the city tried to address that might be applicable--you
know,what they're trying to address here today.
DS: Yeah,thank you. I remember reading that particular discussion, page 41 of 55 on that
particular document. I did read it. But I'm just curious one last question,so when a
regular citizen like myself, receives a notification from a developer and a notification from
the city and if there are differences how do I resolve those differences?
SB: Attend all the meetings like you said that they should do Mr. Smith.
DS: Okay. Fair enough,thank you.
SB: Thank you.
Chair: Any other questions. I guess, I speak for the Commission let's proceed. Forward ho.
Mr.Tate? Name and address for the record too please. As if you don't know how to do
that by now.
MT: My name is Mark Tate with the M3 Companies representing the applicant,533 East
Riverside Drive. Good evening. As I mentioned my name Is Mark Tate. I'm with the M3
Companies representing the applicant here who is Foxtail Partners, LLC. Many of you
have actually seen this project before. It came before you a number of years ago.
Commissioners, I believe three of you I think we're here when it was originally filed in
2008. It was filed as a comprehensive plan text amendment and map amendment as a
mixed-use zone with a development agreement. The project was proposed for 210,000
square feet of commercial with 70,000 square feet of neighborhood business and a mix
of residential densities. The first P&Z hearing was originally scheduled for June, but not
held until November of 2009. The first three City Council meetings were held. The first
one being December 15t and the final approval was granted on March 9th. The final
approval was for 210,000 square feet of commercial. I believe at the last minute the
neighborhood business was changed from a residential to or from a commercial to a
residential use,excuse me. And the development agreement states that all future
development of the property shall be generally consistent with the concept plan.
Provided however, it is the intent of this agreement to allow flexibility in the development
of a detailed conceptual site plan. The conceptual site plan, if you recall, actually
included some of the adjacent properties. We're here specifically just to talk about the
Foxtail property. The 80 acres in particular. And I was going to quickly review what is
contained in the existing approved development agreement. The mixed-used
development agreement commercial use area Is located in the southwest corner of the
property. It's 23.4 acres. It is limited to 210,000 square feet of enclosed building area,so
that is the approved commercial amount. No single structure shall be greater than
120,000 square feet and in the mixed-use area just for reference I believe the city code
allows for up to 20 units per acre now is a mixed-use zone. Section 3.42 of the approved
development agreement discusses the neighborhood business area. As I mentioned
before, I believe it was at the City Council that they made a change to that area that you
see down here in the southeast corner. Represented by the blue square. Rather than
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard SubdMsion-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 7 of 73
have it 70,000 square feet of neighborhood business the then developer agreed that that
could be included in the residential area and approved at up to eight units per acre,which
is further described in Section 3.5 of the residential area. So,while the concept plan
shows it as a neighborhood business the actual text of the development agreement
shows it as residential up to eight units per acre is what's currently approved. The
residential area shall be approximately 2.47 dwelling units per acre. It includes 60.4
acres. With a minimum of 20%open space not including the one-acre lots greater than
37,000 square feet. As you have noticed from the concept plan, there are four different
residential types in this plan. The furthest north is one unit per acre. As you travel south
it goes from two units to three units,to patio homes,which is defined in the development
agreement as up to eight units per acre. You'll see on the east side of the property there
is a two unit per acre buffer and I kind of cut it off there in the corner,but there is a five-
acre parcel between the 80 acres that is our application and Fox Run Drive that is limited
to one unit per acre. So,and just to be clear our application is for only the 80 acres
included in this exhibit. That's all that's included in our preliminary plat application.
DS: Excuse me,sir.
MT: Yes.
DS: Mr. Chair, oh,could you just put that back up again please. That last slide that
(inaudible). Would you share with me,you mention that there was a transition in a
southerly direction did you say, but I lost which densities are moving.
MT: That's correct.
DS: The densities are moving north to south?
MT: Uh-hmm.
DS: And would you share with me where the greater densities are?
MT: Yes. From north to south it's kind of difficult to see with this lighting but there's actually
four different shades of green on this exhibit. The lightest shade is the one unit per acre
area.
DS: Oh,okay.
MT: Directly adjacent to the north.
DS: I see,okay.
MT: Then it moves down to two units per acre,three units per acre,and then this is eight units
per acre right here. It also transitions from east to west. So along the western boundary
we have a one unit per acre area and we have a two unit per acre area. And then this
would be considered at eight units per acre and this is eight units per acre as well.
DS: Okay. Thank you.
MT: Any other questions?
DR: Yeah, Mr.Tate, on this diagram would you please just once again point out the 80 acres
under consideration here?
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Heating
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 8 of 73
MT: It would be to the east just to give you guys bearings. This is Chinden Boulevard in front,
then Linder, Fred Meyers is located right here. And it would the 80 acres delineated by
this yellow line and not including the five acre parcel between Fox Run Street and the golf
course there. Yeah, right. In this area.
DS: So essentially,that area circled with the red.
MT: Yes. Yeah--
DS: Right.
MT: Not--and this commercial area is--
DS: Right, I got that,okay.
MT: 23.4 acre commercial area.
DS: Okay.
MT: Any other questions?
Chair: Any other questions,Commissioners? Okay. Proceed.
MT: On August 8th,we held our first neighborhood meeting. We brought this proposed project
in, met with a pretty large group of residents in the area. And there was three main
issues that seemed to reoccur in our discussion. The first,we were originally proposing
muftifam ily as part of this application due to the proximity to transportation,to commercial
access,and the property is in a growth corridor. Felt like it was appropriate for
multifamily. The neighbors disagreed. And you'll see for our next application we've since
made some modifications. Number two was move the mixed-use back towards the Eagle
Island Marketplace. And number three was do not realign or take your primary access
from Fox Run Boulevard. You'll see our original application did include the five-acre
piece and access from that signal.
DS: Excuse me, could you point out that Deer Fox Run?
MT: This is the signal--
DS: Okay.
MT: On Chinden, Fox Run it lines up with the Paramount Subdivision entry. It's actually off of
the half-mile. So the half-mile is the boundary of our preliminary plat application which is
the boundary between this five-acre parcel and the rest of the 80 acres. As a result of
the comments that we received on the neighborhood meeting on the 8th,we made some
significant changes to the project and we resubmitted to the City in the form a preliminary
plat for the 80 acres on November 15th, I believe. The new plan eliminated the 200 unit
multifamily portion of the plan. We decreased the mixed-use area from 17 acres to 1.74
acres. And we removed the primary community access from Fox Run Boulevard
actually, removing the five-acre parcel from our application. You'll also notice on this
slide we show a stub street to that five-acre parcel. Our November 15th,application to
the City did not include a stub street to that five-acre parcel and it also did not include a
stub street to the north to the property line here. After meeting with the City and ACHD,
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foil Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 9 of 73
ACHD made it very clear that they were not going to approve our project without that stub
street. And last week we received approval from Ada County Highway District. They
made it quite clear in their staff report that it was at their request that we were adding that
stub street to the parcel to the east.
DS: So, if I can just get a clarification. So, the purpose of a stub street is to anticipate--it's
purpose to anticipate some sort of connection to it,adjacent property sometime in the
future?
MT: ACHD would like and ITD is here also to comment in their letter making a
recommendation that that ultimately connect to Fox Run,but as I mentioned before that
five acres is not part of our application and thus that's not part of what we're here to
discuss.
DR: So, Mr. Chairman, Mr.Tate,are there on that eastern boundary are those three stub
streets that I'm seeing there?
MT: That's correct.
DR: And the southern most of those three would affect the five acres that is no longer a
portion of this proposal, but it is owned by M3?
MT: It is not currently owned by M 3. All the property is owned by the original applicant at this
point.
DR: Okay. All right, I'm sorry.
MT: And it would still remain as I showed you on the previous slides under the current
development agreement at one unit per acre.
DR: Right,thanks.
MT: So if there is any application in the future it would have to comply with the one unit per
acre.
Chair: Okay.
MT: This is an overlay of our proposed land plan with the approved concept plan. As I
mentioned when I was going through the existing entitlements,there's a one unit per acre
area,there's a two unit per acre area,there's a three unit per acre area, and there's a
eight unit per acre area. It's kind of difficult to see in this light,but if you look at the lots
and the land plan underneath those boundaries you'll notice on the very northern portion
of the property we have full acre lots. Just to the south of that we have two unit per acre
lots. To the south of that three unit per acre,which ranges from 10,000 to 20,000 square
feet. Inside of that, we have lots up to eight units per acre. In this two unit per acre area
we've actually created a large central park. And the distance between the closest house
to the nearest neighbor would be over 400 feet or a football field plus a third. You'll also
notice that it's still one unit per acre over there. While that's not included this is now eight
units per acre, not neighborhood business.
DS: Excuse me,one sec.
DR: Absolutely
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 10 of 73
DS: Mr. Chairman,just for the consideration of the public audience here is there anyway--do
we have any capability of dimming some of the lights so that they can see it clearly cause
it's been referenced a couple of times that it's not easy to see.
Chair: Okay,thanks Tracy.
MT: You can see the lot lines a little bit better now. Excuse me. And as I mentioned there's a
large central park which includes over an acre and a half of lakes,walking trails,
landscaping. It's quite a nice amenity and buffer that really adds a lot of value to the
adjacent neighbors. You'll also notice on the underlying plan that the 23.4 acre
commercial center now contains 21 acres of residential and only 1.74 acres of
commercial uses. So,we have actually decreased by a significant margin the intensity of
the development that is already approved for this site. As I mentioned there was 210,000
square feet of commercial approved for that 23.4 acres at 1.74 acres,the amount of
square footage would fall under probably 30,000 square feet. In place of the roughly
180,000 square feet of commercial what we are asking for is approval of residential at
3.47 units per acre. This is really the crux of the development agreement modification
that we're asking for. We,as I mentioned on the last slide,comply with the approved
residential area on the north part and on the east part of the project. The only
substantive development agreement modification that we're here to talk about is actually
decreasing the intensity of the commercial area from 210,000 square feet to roughly
180,000 square feet. The result of that yields about 5,000 less trips per day to and from
this site than what was originally contemplated and already approved.
DS: Mr.Tate, Mr. Chair, I'm only going to reference and I'll ask Mike about it later when he
presents because on page 24 of 39 there's a table. And in that it says that the proposed
--and I assume when I hear proposed that that was the agreement that we were talking
about 2.61 dwelling units per acre. Okay. And you have a new number here of 3.47, is
my understanding correct? That it was agreed to at 2.61 and it's now going to be at
3.47?
MT: And I'll get to a slide to--
DS: Okay.
MT: Really clarify that.
DS: Okay.
MT: But just really quickly the residential use area that you see on the slide is the approved
residential use area under the existing development agreement. That was approved at
2.47 units per acre. We're actually under that density for that area. It was approved for
128 units in that yellow area we have 126 units. It was staff's recommendation that the
21 acres from the commercial area be combined with the residential area. But it's worth
noting that when taken by itself and when analyzed in the context of the existing
approvals we're actually under the existing approvals in the residential area and simply
asking for a decrease in intensity within that commercial area. But to your question about
the 2.6 versus the 2.4, if you were to combine those 21 acres of residential into what was
only 60 acres before getting 78.25 acres and 206 residential units the overall density I
believe is 2.63. When you lump them together. But for clarification sake it's been easiest
for us to really stick to the borders and make sure that we're representing that we are
complying with the existing entitlements or the approved entitlements.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 11 of 73
Chair: Or if I can interject,Mark, I think it's 2.61, isn't it right? Is that what the application says?
MT: 2.61 or 2.63--
Chair: Okay. It's yeah,two-tenths.
DR: That's correct.
Chair: Okay. Very good.
DS: 206 units(inaudible).
DR: Mr. Chairman,Mr.Tate, in this diagram the portion of the development, residential
portion, immediately east of what had been commercial that I guess,the more lavender
rectangle that--
MT: Yes?
DR: Rectangular area there.
MT: This area.
DR: Yeah,directly to the east in that yellow portion—
MT: This here.
DR: What is the local density of just that, I guess if we were to make another rectangle there
around that yellow area?
MT: It's probably about four units per acre. You'll see the buffer area along the western
boundary is quite large. And while there is density in this area when I go to the previous
slide you can see that we are complying with the eight unit per acre boundary roughly
that was already approved by City Council that showed those residential areas.
DR: Do you know the approximate dimensions of that buffer area?
MT: From the property line to the back of the lots I want to say it's around 200 feet,roughly,
by 800 feet. This whole central park through the middle is nine and a half acres,so if one
was to look through it I mean you get almost a quarter mile view of open space through
there. And that was really one of the keys when we considered how to design a buffer for
the neighbors when you look at the view angles. How long of a view of open space
you're going to get between the neighbors and our property.
DR: And in the extreme lower right area of that again,yellow residential area. Just to the east
of that is the five acres that we--
MT: Five acres--yeah.
DR: Had discussed previously.
MT: And that is still planned for one unit per acre while it's not part of our application. If your
concern is buffering that that five acres is approved at nothing more than one unit per
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 12 of 73
acre,so that area is five acres several hundred feet. Probably 300 feet deep.
DR: And you use the term buffering, I think appropriately there and that is--would act as a
buffer to the existing Foxtail Subdivision, is that correct?
MT: That's correct.
DR: All right,thank you.
MT: So I'm quickly going to go through I know Mike hasn't done his staff report,so some of
these may or may not make a lot of sense, but we just had a couple of comments on the
staff report as it relates to the development agreement. We're generally in agreement
with staff's report,but just a couple of cleanup items on page 4, Items 3.1 and 3.2. Mike
was making a recommendation to remove some language that allowed the site to
continue operating as a golf course. We're just recommending that he leave it in the
development agreement just in case to give the opportunity to maintain the golf course
and keep it going should the project not move forward as planned. On pages 6 and page
10, under Uses,staff is recommending that the list of uses be pared down,which makes
sense in some cases some of the uses were like sporting goods stores or home
improvement stores. I believe at one time the site was contemplating a Home Depot.
Obviously,with a 1.74 acre commercial site Home Depot is not going to be feasible,so
we're generally okay with removing some of the uses. The one exception was that the
site was approved for a restaurant with a drive-thru. We understand that it's not the
same commercial development in size and scale that came through before, but we are
still located adjacent to the Eagle Island Marketplace and feel that it could be an
appropriate use on that smaller commercial footprint.
Chair: So Mark, I'm looking at...3.4.1 and it shows restaurant including drive-thru, you're saying
it's not.
DS: Yeah, but later it says no.
Chair: And later it says no,okay. Yeah.
DS: Oh, I think,cause I have a note on this subject.
UnkM: In the staff report(inaudible).
Chair: Okay. Very good. Okay,thanks. Okay.
MT: Page 7--
DS: (Inaudible).
MT: Section 3.5.
Chair: I bet you(inaudible) --
MT: I touched on this earlier. Staff as you mentioned,has made a recommendation to take
the commercial that we switched to residential and add it to the residential area. As you
noted, Commissioner Smith,that changes the overall density from 2.47 to 2.63 for an
overall residential I just wanted to reiterate I thought it was worth noting for the record
that we are in compliance with the 2.47 units per acre in the area that was originally
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 13 of 73
designated as residential. We're simply adding the additional residential at 3.7 units per
acre on the 21 acres. And decreasing by 5,000 vehicle trips. In the staff report there is a
table--
DR: Excuse me, Mr.Tate,could you--
MT: Yeah?
DR: Return to that slide? And what is the issue that you're saying with the staff
recommendation on(inaudible)?
MT: We have no issue with the staff recommendation. I just wanted to make note that while
the staff report says 2.63 units per acre in the residential area just wanted to reiterate that
we were actually under the 2.47 in the area that was originally contemplated as
residential.
DR: Okay. Thanks.
DS: I hate to be a nuisance about this because at the end of the day these are fractions, but
when I see that you say the overall density changes from 2.47 to 2.63 and so what area
is less than the 2.47? I mean I'm looking at the numbers there. I see 2.47,2.63. And
one is less than the other. Well,2.47 is less than 2.63,so what is less than the 2.47?
MT: That's correct, the area in yellow.
DS: Yes.
MT: The average density of the area in yellow--
DS: Yes.
MT: Is under 2.47.
DS: Is under 3.47?
MT: Under 2.47.
DS: 2.47.
MT: Which was the maximum density--
DS: Okay.
MT: Allowed--
DS: (Inaudible)--
MT: Under the development agreement.
DS: Right,that's right. So it's less than that. So what is the number? It's less than 2.47?
MT: It's actually 2.23 units per acre.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 14 of 73
DS: Oh,okay.
MT: And 126 units.
DS: Okay. Okay. Well,that's a valuable number,2.23. I don't think I read it yet. I hope I
didn't miss it. Okay.
MT: And then as I had mentioned before,sorry to keep belaboring the point,when the
additional 21 acres shown in the purple color is then added,so you go from the yellow
boundary to now the--
DS: Okay.
MT: Larger boundary that's when it goes to 2.63. And the result of that was not because we
were asking for an increase in density to the residential area, but simply because we
were making the residential area larger and removing the commercial. There's a setback
table in the staff report. The approved setbacks in the development agreement that are
slightly different from city code. The right column here existing improved setbacks is
what's called for under the current DA,which is what's currently approved for the site.
You'll notice in red that our proposed setbacks in some cases vary from the setbacks. In
cases where you see the same thing it maybe that staff was recommending something
different. I just wanted to quickly go through those. Maybe even save Mike some time
on his staff report. On the 5,000 square foot lots the reason that staff has requested that
we increase our buffer to the front of the lot is because we have shown our property line
in front of the sidewalk. So,when they originally looked at the setbacks sometimes
they're taken from the back sidewalk. When it's taken in the front of the sidewalk he was
uncomfortable that cars would be hanging over the sidewalk. Therefore,we agreed in
some cases to increase the setback on the front of the lot. In other cases,you'll see the
front setback changing. Ada County Highway District recommended that on one
particular street, an east west collector designated street that those houses fronting on
that street should have a 30 foot setback to their garage and we've recommended 25 feet
to the living area,which we've agreed to. The side setback for the 10,000 square feet lot
in the staff report staff recommended that the side setback increase to five per additional
story. We'd prefer to keep it at what's already been approved at the two and a half per
story. And on the 17,000 square foot lots we felt that a 10 foot setback on either side
was plenty. You'll also notice that there's some instances that we've asked for a waiver
from the setback. These lots are corner lots,so they're triangular in shape. Sometimes
homebuilders have to come in and ask for a variance later on to those setbacks because
when a lot is shaped like a triangle and the front of the triangle is the part that's adjacent
to the street,you have to push the house all the way to the back of the lot and then you
just end up taking up all of your backyard to try accommodate that setback. So it's really
only the corners of the houses that would be inside of that because they're kind of facing
the same angle. So,we felt like it would save some time down the road and work for
people just to call out those corner lots and ask for that right now. On page 16 of the staff
report,Condition 3.17 of the development agreement calls for a 10 foot berm against the
western boundary of the Foxtail Subdivision. We agree with staff's proposed language,
that basically if the owners of the lots next to us would like to request the berm then we
will provide the berm. And the reason that we asked for at least the option for those
neighbors to not have the berm is that we wanted to be able to sit down with them or at
least show them,take the opportunity to show them what we've planned. A large park
behind their house with a water feature. A one and a half acre lake,which is fairly
substantial. And really feel that being on that open space, a large park,and really nice
amenity would probably be more valuable or be nicer than looking at a berm. And so,if
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 15 of 73
they want it we'll still provide that berm, but having your property on water is always going
to bring up your property values and it will be a nice amenity. The only thing that I
wanted to note that I would ask that staff also add to their notes for the development
agreement is that if a response from the neighbors is not received for one reason or
another that the berm would not be constructed. So,wanted to make sure that they have
ample time, but in the event that they just don't feel like responding then we would at
least have a definite path forward.
DS: So, Mr. Chairman, Mr.Tate, so in that little case there do I assume that when the
homeowners are advised of their option of having this berm that no response will be
taken as an approval of no berm? Will that be part of it or will that be left for them to
imagine?
MT: That would be part of it. So a no response would indicate no berm.
DS: Okay.
MT: And we did on Friday I had a conversation with one of the neighboring property owners
that has most of the border there,so were able to show him the following slide that it's a
rendering of what that park would look like. This is a perspective from 150 feet west of
the property line. Roughly right between the two properties where they intersect,so
looking west into that park,into the lakes,open space,trails, landscaping, so really just it
wasn't to try to get out of anything. It really was to allow them the opportunity to have
this. It's also worth--
DS: Okay.
MT: Noting that their houses-- I think I mentioned before would be approximately 450 feet
from the closest neighbor. So from house to house it's a pretty good buffer.
DS: Thank you.
DR: So, Mr. Chairman, Mr.Tate, if you could just go back to that view. In 3.17 it's talking
about a berm on the western boundary on these lots. I assume you're referring to lots
contained?
MT: I apologize for the confusion. The Foxtail Subdivision referred to in 3.17 is actually the
non-farm subdivision that was done and it's adjacent to us. It's actually on the east side
of the Foxtail Golf Course. So it would be between the Foxtail Golf Course and the
existing neighborhood.
DR: Okay. So--
MT: It would be these two neighboring lots.
DR: Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
MT: And just also to note the modification of this berm requirement would extend the entire
property line between the Foxtail Subdivision and I believe that the berm was
contemplated or possibly contemplated the neighbors have indicated along the entire
boundary. I would assume and you guys may have been a part of this conversation
before,the purpose of that was because there was 70,000 square feet of neighborhood
business there previously. It's all under the same ownership and thus don't feel it's
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 16 of 73
necessary to have a berm between the two residential uses right there. This is just a
conceptual rendering of some of the work that we're planning. I'm just wrapping things
up right now, but Eagle Planning and Zoning has seen M3 numerous times. We've been
here talking about Spring Valley for a very long time and we're very excited that we would
have an opportunity to do another project in the Treasure Valley. And this is not going to
be the only other M3 project in the valley and we're quite excited to have the opportunity
to show the residents of Eagle and the Treasure Valley the type of work that we do. It's
going to be a very high-end community. It's going to add a lot of value. Some of the
neighbors have indicated that they have a problem with the density that has already been
approved. That it could have impacts on their subdivisions and I feel that when a
community does a mix of densities correctly it can add a lot of value. It can support
better amenities. It can support better parks. It can support public services that are
better than very rural type subdivisions. Adding a lot of value. And there's countless
examples of projects with mixed uses and mixed densities. Bound Crossing for example
has very large lots,very close to actually attached and commercial uses, so it certainly is
not unheard of to buffer and transition, but also to have a mix of uses and see that
property values may actually be increased or be a bit of a benefit to the area. One of
these such amenities that we're planning for the community is a community pool, and
park facility, and playground area, community park. You see the pond in the background
along with a very nice tree-lined boulevard going north and south in the project. And that
is all I have for you. Do you have any questions?
DR: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, Mr.Tate,one additional question on the stub streets.
MT: Yes.
DR: I didn't see a cul-de-sac at the terminus of those stub streets,any of them.
MT: On the preliminary plat we can accommodate a cul-de-sac and we've been talking about
possibly temporary turnarounds,off-site. But in the event that we make those stub
streets we would agree to put those cul-de-sacs there at the end before the stub. It's
also worth noting that the cul-de-sacs that we do have in this plan have a 30 foot
pavement section between the landscape planting island and back to curb. Typical city
of Eagle would require a 40 foot. After meeting with Meridian Fire Department,which
we're actually a part of strangely enough,their requirement is just 30 feet and they were
comfortable. They submitted a letter to the city saying that they had reviewed our cul-de-
sac and street designs and were comfortable with that.
DR: You did touch on the issue there and it is for fire access,fire department access?
MT: Uh-hmm.
DR: Stub streets without at least a temporary cul-de-sac--and there is the issue with stub
streets going forward anywhere, but that would have to be accommodated with a cul-de-
sac is my understanding. Mike, perhaps you can address that when you present.
MW: Mr. Chairman,Commissioner Roehling, I already have it written down so I will address
that.
DR: All right,thanks.
MT: And also,JoAnn Butler was going to touch on a couple things with the site-specifics and
I'll be able to answer any more questions you have.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LW.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 17 of 73
DS: I do have a question.
Chair: So,JoAnn, are you going to be doing a presentation? Are you giving a presentation
after?
JB: (Inaudible).
Chair: Oh,okay.
JB: (Inaudible).
Chair: Do you want to--
JB: (Inaudible).
Chair: Yeah,do you guys want to hold your questions? And then she can give her--and then
we can ask at the end, is that okay? Because it looks like she was going to talk. Would
that be okay with you?
DS: Sure.
DR: (Inaudible).
Chair: But hey, why don't you go ahead and that way if they have questions they can ask both
you guys.
JB: Oh,okay.
Chair: Mark,you're not sitting down.
MT: Okay.
Chair: Okay. You'll still standing up. Okay. Okay,so JoAnn, did you want to talk just for a
second or?
MT: Now can I sit down?
JB: And is he done?
Chair: No.
MT: Oh, I'll stand.
JB: No.
Chair: Yeah. I'm sorry.
JB: Okay.
Chair: The chairmanship goes to my head I guess, but.
UnkM: (Inaudible).
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 18 of 73
Chair: Yeah,cause what we'll do is we'll ask questions of both of you guys if the--
JB: Okay.
Chair: Commissioners have questions.
JB: Well,JoAnn Butler, I'm not sure which is the microphone,251 East Front Street in Boise.
Again, representing Foxtail Partners,which is an M3 subsidiary and Foxtail Partners is
the equitable owner of this property. The contract purchaser. The property is still legally
owned by Mr.Wilson's entity and just so there's no confusion on that. I did want to just
speak to you briefly a little bit about the development agreement. It was the same four
Commissioners that were here in November of 2009. And it was these same four
Commissioners that unanimously,excuse me, I've got a terrible cold. Unanimously
recommended the approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to the City Council
that was eventually adopted. You did split your vote on the annexation and the rezone.
And we went back and looked at the transcript from that time to look and see what some
of your concerns were because we've been very conscious, we think, because I was
involved with Eagle Island Marketplace as many of you know. So we are very much
aware of how much was being bandied about that there was a mediation,that the city
participated in. And we were very concerned to strictly conform to the comprehensive
plan,to be in substantial compliance with that, and with the development agreement that
was finally approved by the City. Because what the development agreement said was it
attached a concept plan and it asked for a development site plan to come forward as
further refinement and that's where we are tonight. Taking that original development
agreement and coming forward with a development site plan, which is a further
refinement of that plan. And what we have had is a number of neighborhood meetings.
And looking back at the transcript from this Commission what I was able to see were a
couple of things. Commissioner Smith, you were very concerned that perhaps the then
applicant had not listened to the neighbors.
DS: Yes, I remember.
JB: Commissioner Roehling, you were very concerned about the amount of commercial in
the area and the fact that it was near the neighborhood. And what we did and what one
of your neighbors did was talk about decreasing that amount of commercial. And that's
exactly what we've tried to do in this. Taking it from the 23 acres that was ultimately
approved by the City down to less than two acres. One of the things that I want to
address briefly too. The letter that Mr. Hicks wrote,the second letter. I know you haven't
had a chance too much to read it, but I will just talk to you a little bit about that because
what Mr. Hicks raises in his letter, not the notice provisions, but the letter, is what the
neighbors in Fox Run have consistently, and he says it again, have consistently tried to
get across to people. Their concern,and even though and I might mention that even
though he had a concern with notice, he was obviously able to put together a letter to
address,as he calls the substance and challenges to the application. And what he said
is,the specific issue he wants to address is the existing stoplight on Chinden at Fox Run.
And the fact that over the course of time his clients,the neighbors, have consistently said
traffic cannot come through Fox Run to that light. They don't like the fact that the lights
there and I'm sorry,we can't do anything about that. It is what it is. But we could do
something and did do something about the fact that they did not want traffic to come
through their neighborhood. We thought the best design and we actually thought it was
the best design for the neighbors,was to take a sweep from that light into our subdivision
as was originally shown and create a great deal of buffering and berm ing so that yes, it
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 19 of 73
took access to the light,but it really didn't penetrate into their neighborhood. They didn't
want that and you can see that we've taken the five acres off of the application and
completely divorced that access from our application. Mr. Hicks in his letter,also talks
about the fact that he reminds everybody about that mediation that happened back in
2010. And he attaches the mediation summary. And for those of you that have in front of
you on page 9 of that mediation summary are the concerns and the comments by Ryan
Moore(phonetic)representing the homeowner's association. And what he said at that
time is he agrees with the arrangement for a four unit per acre by an adjacent subdivision
as a density. And that's what we are cognoscente of that and we are obviously much
less than that. And we also transition away in density from higher density away from the
Fox Run neighborhood. Mr. Moore, reported back during the mediation that they
appreciated what the City did at that time by reducing the amount of commercial. And as
you might remember the commercial was reduced to 23 acres. I think it was even more
than that. And again, we've listened again and taken it much further down to less than
two acres. He talks about again, not having any commercial traffic going through their
subdivision. I think again we've listened to that. We have no traffic going through their
subdivision. So,that's my addressing Mr. Moore's letter and by doing that and trying to
provide this Commission with, I hope, a sense of the fact that when we've brought what
was expected, once the original development agreement was done, it was expected that
a more refined site development plan would come before you. And I hope we've been
able to show you, because clearly two of you had concerns way back when,are they
going to listen to the neighbors, and I hope that we were able to show you tonight in our
presentation that yes,we have listened very clearly. The staff report shows consistency
with the comprehensive plan just as it shows with the concept plan under the original DA.
A couple of comments, if I remember, (inaudible)my notes. Ah. Mr.Williams may bring
this up but because he's going up last I'll bring up a couple of things that were in his
comments under the development agreement that I'd like to just remind to ask the
Commission to okay a change on. One was a comment that future applications would be
subject to future Eagle City Code. Whatever Eagle City Code is in the future. And
although that it is true for building permits,as you know land use applications are judged
or governed by the rules in effect on the time of the application. And so any future land
use applications that may come about we'd want to make sure that we were governed by
your rules at the time of our application. Did you mention golf course? Okay. We would
recommend that with whatever happens here tonight that any changes to the
development agreement that we propose or staff proposes or that you okay,that you ask
us to take the modification to the development agreement back to the table, insert all
those changes and get it back to the city attorney for their review. Finally, and I'll let Mike
speak to these a little bit more closely. I've provided you with a markup of the Site-
Specific Conditions of Approval and the Standard Conditions of Approval with a few
clarifications and modifications. But I think that they're pretty much just straight up
clarifications. And I'll wait to give you some time to look at that,to ask questions if you
have. Mr.Williams and Ms. Buxton are looking at them too and if you have any
questions later we can answer them.
Chair: All right. Okay. Hey,JoAnn,don't sit down. Okay. So--
JB: Can Mark join us?
Chair: Yeah. So, I'll go back to Commissioner Roehling now that we've had a little bit of
testimony from JoAnn Butler, do you have any questions for her or any additional
questions?
DR: Yeah, I do have an additional question. I think,for Mr.Tate. I'm looking at the letter from
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 20 of 73
Dennis Hanson stating that he had tried to reach you several times, left voicemail, left a
message asking for you to return his calls. And it goes on to state that he hadn't received
a phone call from you, is that accurate?
MT: That is accurate. And that was along the same time that we were getting the
neighborhood meeting scheduled. So I was aware that he had left a message with me
and we had an impending neighborhood meeting so I wanted to go ahead and make sure
that we could capture all of his comments at that time.
DR: So rather than just calling him you planned to talk to him at the neighborhood meeting?
MT: I felt it would be beneficial to have that discussion with others present.
DR: Okay, all right,thank you.
DS: Mr. Chair,and Mr.Tate, I'm so sorry,we will give you your exercise here.
MT: Appreciate that.
DS: One thing that I always look for in the application I like to have a look at the neighborhood
meetings. I look at the attendance. And I like to get an idea other than those who are for
the project,the promoters of the project. And because of the meeting on Friday night we
don't have that information in front of us. Although, I did look at the ones from previous
times. One of the things I'm curious about is the presentation that you make at that
meeting on Friday night for example, was this presentation that you shared with us is that
the type of thing that's shown?
MT: I was similar and I think,there's just one--he's shaking his head no. I had four items for
display in that meeting and I brought a large format printout of the original,what I had
showed them at the first neighborhood meeting. I brought a large printout of our concept
plan. The entire revised concept plan. I showed the overlay of the concept plan on top of
our site plan that showed the compliance with the concept plan. And then I actually
brought a printout of this rendering here that I had there. And I told the neighbors,they
had asked for a copy of the updated site plan and the rendering here and so Tyson
(phonetic)had asked for a copy of that. I emailed that to him I think around 9:00 o'clock
in this morning and it was Friday afternoon that we had done our neighborhood meeting.
In that presentation, I'm sorry, I know your question was kind of what did we cover--
DS: Yeah.
MT: Basically.
DS: I have to say that your response about not responding to the people who left messages
with you in good faith is disappointing I would say. You're under no legal obligation I
guess, but there's certainly a moral obligation that as a developer you have. As was
stated earlier one of my concerns is the talking to the people. Now, it sounds like you've
done some to be sure,but I think,that that it has to be black eye on communication. And
I'm not picking on you cause you're art easy target. I've said this before to others. I
worked for a company that had business in the Far East. One of the things that upset the
people on the American side was the fact that on the Asian side they wouldn't get a
response to their questions. And when I went to Asia I shared with those people the
concerns of the American side and they were very surprised because they saw the
question by email, response, started to find the information and started working on it, but
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 21 of 73
I pointed out to them, but the trouble is that silence in between you don't know, did they
receive the message or not. And so sometimes it's a simple thing just to reply with got
your message,blah,blah, blah,whatever it is. At least you know that the communication
took place. And so I think,all of those things conspire to make people distrust what's
happening and what they're being told, and when they're being told. Enough said on
that.
MT: Well, in the future, I appreciate your comments, I think it would be best that I reach out
and just let them know my thinking and that, I think, it would be best to do it in a public
forum with others present to be able to verify and hear what was being said.
DS: Whatever.
Chair: Okay.
DS: I think my sympathy is with the neighbors,with the people who are going to be affected
by your actions because once you get a go ahead it's go ahead and it's not going to be
any chance for anyone to say anything then. So my recommendation just as a regular
John Q. Citizen is talk to the people and either if you want it to be not misunderstood then
write a letter to them and what have you. Anyway,can you recall how many people
attended that meeting on Friday night?
MT: There were three.
DS: Pardon?
MT: Three neighbors,myself,and Richard Andrus.
DS: Interesting,very interesting. Okay. Good. That's all I have for now. Thank you for your
patience.
MT: You're welcome.
Chair: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Tanner?
GT: I don't have any questions.
Chair: Boy, as you can tell we're all pretty sensitive about public involvement and our neighbors
and stuff. And so, I'd say it sounds like you made a comment that in the future that you
will reach out and call the neighbors and I would just say you better,okay.
MT: I will.
Chair: Okay. Because as you--
MT: No more black eyes.
Chair: Can you tell you're getting hammered right now. Okay? Cause it's funny cause I think
we all three circled that. I went right to there and I thought, Susan Buxton said hey, let's
go ahead and continue this or not continue this but see it tonight as opposed to the letter
we got from Holland&Hart and you're thinking--you look at something like this, luckily
our astute legal counsel here has told us well, let's go ahead and move forward. But I
mean I look at something like this and in the future this--and I will say,and then I will
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 22 of 73
move onto my questions, makes you look really bad. Okay? So, now, not based on that,
I didn't understand on page 5 it talks about the restaurant drive-thru and this is on line 40.
And it says,and Mike, maybe you can address it, but says restaurant with drive-thru
which use is prohibited in Eagle City Code 8-2-3 shall be permitted on not more than and
then you have a strikethrough 10%of the MUDA commercial use area. So to me it's like
so because you said that we don't have--
DS: I have the same thing. Not defined(inaudible)--
Chair: Yeah,see I didn't get that, but we're not doing a drive-thru, is that correct? Is that--
we're saying the drive-thru is--
MT: We are asking to retain that drive-thru, yes--
Chair: To include the drive-thru and stuff, but we have it specifically--okay, so I think Mike will
probably address that.
DS: Yeah. Yeah.
Chair: I notice that there's no circus or carnivals. I thought that was--
DS: Or cemeteries.
Chair: Or cemeteries. I thought what kind of applicants are you guys--
UnkM: Strange.
Chair: If we have to restrict you from circus and carnivals--
UnkM: Who doesn't like a carnival?
Chair: And then JoAnn, I had a question for you. Oh,that you sat down. Okay, you're out of
order. Now, you're talking about was that under 3.3? That you're saying Eagle hereby
acknowledges that all bubble plans shown on the concept shall represent applicant's
future development of the property shall generally be consistent with the concept plan,is
that what you were talking about? That language?
JB: No.
Chair: It's under page 4 of 39 and it is--
JB: (Inaudible)--
Chair: 3.3.
JB: No, if you'd just hold for two seconds and I'll find it. (Inaudible).
Chair: Was it on 3.3 Mike? Or was that
DS: 3.3 is correct.
JB: Or maybe--
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 23 of 73
Chair: Yeah.
DS: Page 4 line 38.
Chair: Yeah,and it talks about--
MW: Mr. Chairman,are you referencing for the future that they come back forward with the
more detailed development site plan?
Chair: Yes,or that they're governed under future--
MW: Oh.
JB: (Inaudible).
Chair: See I thought I read it under 3.3.
MW: Mr.Chairman and Members of the Commission, under the staff recommendation if you
go to page 4 of 39, it would actually be in the 3.1 staff proposed language and it's
probably--no, it is, it's the last sentence. Land use does stick with whatever ordinances
were in effect at the time of the application versus building permits,which goes to the
current building code. So that would have to be revised if you choose to approve this
application.
DS: Could you recite that line please, Mike?
MW: So, Mr. Chairman, on 3.1 on page 4 of 39--
JB: 4of39.
MW: 4 of 39,thank you. I don't know who writes these long staff reports. On line number 20,
the second sentence starts with further Foxtail and Wilson is applicable will submit such
applications regarding design review,preliminary and final plat reviews, and/or any
conditional use permits if applicable, and any other applicable applications as maybe
required by the Eagle City Code, which shall comply with Eagle City Code as it exists at
the time such application are made except as otherwise provided with in the development
agreement. That last very--after the last comma there would have to be changed, shall
apply with the ordinance in effect at the time the development agreement is executed.
Correct,JoAnn?
JB: Or the date of application.
Chair: But for the sake isn't the applicant asking for 3.1 to be completely stricken through?
Cause they're talking about the--oh,no,never mind. I withdraw that question. Sorry.
DR: Mr.Chairman, I actually had the same note here. The applicant has requested to retain
3.1 and 3.2 as originally written.
Chair: Yeah,exactly.
DR: I think we were just talking modification to the staff recommended 3.1, is that correct
Mike?
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 24 of 73
MW: Correct. And Mr. Chairman,when I do the staff presentation we'll have that discussion.
Chair: Okay.
JB: And I'll add to that,but similar language is found in 3.7 on page 13 of 39 and so that
would have to be modified. And if I might also point out that, I think I talked to Mike about
this and he probably would have made this part of his staff presentation. In 3.1 in that
staff language it says, and this is the only time it does say this, it says Foxtail and Wilson,
but of course Wilson would not be involved, so the Wilson would come out and I'm sure
Mike was going to mention that. That is the one and only time that it's found in the staff
report.
Chair: Okay. Okay, now, Mark, your turn. I think you're good JoAnn.
JB: Okay.
Chair: You may be seated. Okay, so I have a dumb question for you Mark, but I noticed you
said it's the Almaden (phonetic) Ditch Company, is this off the Zinger's Lateral? Is that--
so, is that cause so you're Settler's right? Settler's,Zinger, but then it's the Almaden
Ditch Company. This is just for my edification, I guess.
MT: There's actually two user ditches that go through the property,so there's the Almaden
Lateral,which bisects the southwest corner and it goes under Chinden and cuts over and
goes under the Eagle Island Marketplace. That's going to be rerouted to follow Chinden
Boulevard and be picked up on the property line.
Chair: Right.
MT: The Zinger Lateral,which is part of the Settler's irrigation system it's a user ditch.
Therefore, it's not technically under Settler's, but they do work with the folks from Zinger
and they have jurisdiction over the ditch that would actually be feeding these lakes and
park that runs--
Chair: Right.
MT: East to west through the center of the property.
Chair: Okay. For everybody's edification. Settler's sells-- I live in Banbury,sells us the water,
Zinger's gets it to us. (Inaudible) lateral, I think same with you guys on the south side.
More or less.
MT: There's some gray area on exactly who controls the user ditch.
Chair: Okay.
MT: Because it's basically the end of the line and so--
Chair: Oh,okay.
MT: It just goes to(inaudible)or whoever owns it.
Chair: Huh,you guys are the end of the line,okay. Let's see and your sewer supplied by
Meridian?
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard SubdMsion-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 25 of 73
MT: Eagle Sewer District.
Chair: Oh, Eagle Sewer District, okay. I'm sorry I misread that.
MT: And we have the approval from them to serve the proposed uses.
Chair: Perfect. Let's see what else I have for you. Okay. So we have frontage,backage,and
cross access,and who did your traffic analysis cause you dropped from 5,000.
MT: Kittelson and Associates--
Chair: Oh, Kittelson and Associates,okay.
MT: And there's representatives here if you'd like to ask them questions. The original traffic
impact study was not done by Kittelson. It was done by--
Chair: It was done by Dan Thompson, right?
MT: Yes.
Chair: Thompson, yeah. Small world. Okay. Okay. And let's see. And ACHD and ITD have
already gone through this cause I just understand--
MT: ACHD has approved it and Mr. Szplett is here with ITD. There should be a letter dated
December 1r in the staff report that discusses ITD's comments.
Chair: Okay. Very good.
MT: There's a number of ITD letters in there, but I believe December 19'h was the final.
Chair: Oh,cause I noticed too is that Dave Vail came to one of your neighborhood meetings and
he's the Zinger Lateral guy stuff,so okay. Well represented I see. Okay. I think I'm
done too. Any other questions from Commissioners? Okay. Thanks Mark. All right,
Mike,you're up.
MW: Do I get the same hour and half? Mr.Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mike
Williams, planning staff for the record. What you have before you is a request for a
development agreement modification pursuant to the original development agreement.
The applicant was--well, not necessarily this applicant, but upon further development
and refinement of a proposal on this property pursuant to that original development
agreement they were required to bring back a more detailed conceptual plan if you will,
so we could understand truly what was going to be proposed on this property. The
applicant has brought back a development agreement modification and what the
applicant is requested is an amended development agreement not so much amended
and restated,which staff is recommending that we do a restated development
agreement. Based on if you just amend the development agreement the original
development agreement is maintained so we're having--and we've had this discussion
in previous hearings,so you have your amended development agreement, your original
development agreement,so you have to review both agreements per se when you're
looking at future development of the property. Staff Is recommending that an amended
and restated development agreement be proposed so that we can void the original
development agreement so we're just dealing with one document when we deal with the
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 26 of 73
development of this property. Staff has provided you with recommended conditions of
development for that development agreement based on our analysis and what's coming
forward. The applicant's requested that the golf course language remain, I'll leave that
basically for your discussion and your decision, which that's why we're here. My question
is on leaving the golf course language in if the applicant does not develop this property in
the future based on the an amended development agreement,we're going to be back in
front of this body anyway, readdressing another modification because we would have
executed development agreement based on this plan. So with that being said if they
wanted the golf course to remain when they modify the development agreement in the
future, if they didn't so choose to move forward with the development we could make that
golf course,take it right back to where we were and recognize it has a permitted use. In
regard to when we're talking about the densities what you had before you is 206 lots
proposed on 78.28 acres with 1.74 acres of commercial. So, I'm going to break down the
residential section versus the commercial section and then we'll have the discussion
about restaurants with drive-thrus. In the original development there was 23 acres that
were proposed for commercial. As Mr.Tate has stated 210,000 square feet of
commercial area had plazas,walking areas, it was all tied, linked together to compliment,
if you will, Eagle Island Marketplace. When you're looking at 23 acres of commercial
development agreement similarly to what's constructed to the west of this with the Fred
Meyer site, if you will, and there's three drive-thrus I believe,that were approved with the
Fred Meyer site for restaurants. If you're looking at 23 acres on this site,210,000 square
feet of commercial, yes, it would probably make sense to allow for some drive-thru
restaurants. But that isn't what we're looking at and that isn't what is proposed today.
We're looking at 1.74 acres,two lots,Just immediately south of a residential area.
Basically,a residential subdivision, if you will, with those two acres that both those lots
are directly across a street versus a commercial development next-door that's nothing but
commercial. So these two lots are directly across the street from a residential area. Staff
didn't feel it was appropriate for drive-thrus with restaurants. The other side of that in the
mixed-use zone drive-thru restaurants are prohibited pursuant to 8-2-3 of Eagle City
Code and I don't know whether or not you're going to see any changes with the zoning
ordinance amendments coming before you,but that's why staff's not recommending at
this time for restaurants with drive-thrus. Now, banks with drive-thrus, interesting enough
are a permitted by a conditional use permit, I believe, within the MU zone. So that
addresses the commercial area and why staffs not recommending the restaurants with
drive-thrus. So, as we move into the residential area in the original residential area
they're granted 2.47 units per acre, 128 lots. As Mark has shared with you in the original
residential area and let me put that up on....so the original residential area took in this
area right here. This was the neighborhood business area to the south, so they are
below the density for this area. Now when this was originally submitted the area you see
that's shown as residential mixed-use area, Mark was--M3, if you will,sorry Mark. Was
showing this as commercial area still and wanted to recognize the commercial area with
a residential use. To simplify-- I mean we're bringing back a detailed conceptual plan,so
to simplify what we're doing here staff requested that they bring it back and actually
recognize this for residential mixed-use area and still encouraging the applicant to go
ahead and have the discussion regarding--and that's why it's shown--and I want to go
with purple, cause you know about my color blindness, but I'll go with purple on this one.
Recognizing that that was the original commercial area and the intensity of the use that
was originally approved for that area. The intensity of the use back to it,23 acres and
210,000 square feet, I believe it's over 6,000 trips based on that commercial use. What
they're proposing in this area now is 3.47 units per acre and that is just within the purple
area. That's not the overall site. And then what has been referenced is they have one
unit per acre,two unit per acre,three unit per acre,and I believe eight unit per acre and
those are different areas if you look at the original development agreement. And let me
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 27 of 73
pop that concept plan up for you. You see where it references two unit per acre, patio
homes,three units per acre,two units per acre,and the very northern portion of that was
actually one unit per acre. Now although that states all those different densities and the
patio homes,the overall density of this area that was approved was 2.47 units per acre.
So you get eight units per acre here we looked at an overall density and some of you
folks remember when we were going through that hearing process all the testimony and
everything,but there was an overall density that was approved. What's key here,so we
can touch on the berm requirements is the berm was originally required adjacent to the
Foxtail Subdivision. There's three lots. Well,one of them still owned Wilson. And I have
to apologize I can't remember the owner of this lot, and then the Ryan Moore lot that's
adjacent. But what's key here is the reason for the requirement of the 10 foot berm is
Foxtail Subdivision is one unit per acre. And what was being proposed at the time was
adjacent to, I mean right adjacent to, backed up to those lots was two units per acre. And
that's why the request for the berm has come through. The plat that has come before
you along with the concept plan shows open space and they're requesting that that open
space be allowed and not be required to construct a berm and only be required to
construct that berm if the adjacent property owners request that. There is significant
buffer as Mr.Tate called it,that is being proposed. With that being said, staff is
recommending that the language remain with a little modification in regard to at what
point in time would the berm be required. Originally it was proposed by the applicant
when you look at their proposal it talked about at the time of preliminary plat if they want
the berm to be constructed, if the neighbors would request the berm to be constructed it
will be at the time of preliminary plat. Gentlemen,what you have before you tonight is a
request for a development agreement modification along with the preliminary plat so once
a preliminary plat is approved you're done. So what staff is recommending is that the
berm request be pushed out to when your design review application is submitted so that
allows them sufficient time if they want to request a berm adjacent to their property,it
gives them time to do so.
DS: Yeah.
DR: So, Mr.Chairman, Mike,just for clarification then would there be any need to modify
3.17?
MW: Mr.Chairman,staff is not recommending any additional need. Mr.Tate requested that if
the berm is not requested then the berm will not be required to be constructed. It's
already built into the condition. If the berms not requested prior to that design review
application it's not going to happen. So the neighbors would have to provide that request
prior to that design review application.
DR: So, Mike you're contention is that there's no need to modify 3.17 because the concern of
the applicant is already addressed.
MW: Mr. Chairman,Commissioner Roehling,that would be my contention, but you can so
choose, I mean staffs agreeable if you want to modify that and add that additional we
can do that for you.
Chair: Okay. (Inaudible).
MW: So we've addressed the golf course language. Staff has indicated in regard to the golf
course language that if this development would not be brought forward at a future date
they're going to be back in front of this body and more than likely the Council for the
development agreement modification and we can go back and recognize that as a
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 28 of 73
permitted use at that time cause golf courses are allowed through conditional use. I've
addressed the drive-thrus. The residential density. So let's go to the residential area.
The residential area originally only took in...everything and I'm going to go with yellow
and blue. And it's questionable whether or not the blue at the time,that was the
neighborhood business area,whether or not it actually was inclusive of that. At the time
the development agreement was approved or this was approved and a recommendation
was provided and it was executed, Eagle recognized that for neighborhood business and
It wasn't 70,000 square feet. If you look at the original development agreement it was
55,000 square feet. The original request was 70. But Eagle did encourage instead of
doing a neighborhood business adjacent to that area that it be residential and that's what
they've brought forward to you. So, you have 2.47 that was approved for the area in
yellow per se. They're asking 3.47, I believe for the commercial area, so the overall
density, if you will,and I believe I put 2.61 and I got out my calculate a minute ago, it is
actually 2.63. So the overall density they're proposing for this site is 2.63 units per acre
with a reduction of vehicle trips,and this is their contention, is because they're removing
21 acres, if you will, of commercial area,that the intensity of the use for the site is
substantially less based on the reduction of vehicle trips of approximately 5,000 vehicle
trips. And I'm glad they have their gentleman who did their traffic impact study, cause he
could probably address that for-- I like numbers, but not to that intensity. I mean
originally staff was not going to recommend or I was going to leave it open and defer to
the Commission and the Council in regards to the density, but if you look at the
comprehensive plan one of the main issues that was discussed during the hearing
processes for the original application was the two units per acre. And I think,you
gentleman probably will recall when it talked about two units per acre and they were
changing some language within the comp plan at the time,which is approved
unanimously by this body and the Council, its specific to the transitional residential area.
The transitional residential area is east of this property. There's 107 acres east of this
property and they're building through a development agreement as well. That's probably
right around 2.47, 2.3 something,2.3 something. This area was comp planned amended
to a designation of mixed-use. Today in our ordinance and in our comp plan,mixed-use
areas are permitted up to 20 units per acre. They're only bringing to you and proposing
2.61 units per acre. And the original area that was proposed for residential is actually
less than what was originally approved for in density. In regard to--and there's two
things to address,the setbacks, Mr. Tate provided a revised setback schedule to you, if
you will. And he referenced them to the corner lots. Most of the lots we're looking at for
those reduced setbacks aren't corner lots per se. They're actually somewhat of a corner,
but not a typical corner where you have two streets. It's almost like a cul-de-sac corner, if
you will. Staff is open to revising those setbacks to allow for that. We have found with
past developments that when those lots do the pie shape it pushes the home so far back
when you're trying to meet those side setbacks cause your lot sides aren't perpendicular,
if you will,from the street. They go more up at an angle. That makes it difficult. So you
literally end up with no backyard cause you have to push the house so far back on the
site it eats up the backyard. You have this huge front yard and most people probably
want to get away to the backyard. Staff would be open to the applicant's request for the
modifications of those setbacks. Commissioner Roehling, when you asked about the cul-
de-sacs there are three stub streets proposed, if you will. The city doesn't regulate
streets and temporary turnarounds,and everything. That is built into that ACHD
approval. ACHD will require temporary turnarounds along with, I guess it would be
Meridian Fire instead of Eagle Fire. But ACHD does require temporary turnarounds until
such time as those properties are developed in the future or that stub street makes
further connection. And then in regard to, Mr.Tate also discussed a community pool.
We want to make it very clear that when he references this as a community pool,it's not
a public pool for the city of Eagle. It's actually a community pool for the Reynard
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard SubdMsion-Foxtall Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 29 of 73
Subdivision and then they will be the ones responsible for the upkeep,maintenance,and
operation of that pool.
DR: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, Mike,the open area then I just want to clarify. Is common
area for the subdivision, it's not city park or anything like that?
MW: And Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Roehling,at this time it will all be common area for the
subdivision. So let's talk about the plat. 206 lots. Pretty much, I mean with the
exception of the area that was originally scheduled or shown with commercial
development agreement, if you will, meets the original concept plan for the development.
Now the concept plan at the time did not show the stub street to the south to the adjacent
parcel,which is required pursuant to the Ada County Highway District. The original
proposal that was submitted only showed one connection on the northern portion. The
applicant and staff did go a couple rounds on that. They insisted that because of
development agreement and the condition of development indicated a minimum of one
connection. The concept plan showed two. And the reason that concept plan showed
two connections was at the time,and you gentlemen probably recall this when this was
originally coming through the original applications, if you will,there was two applications
before you. It was this site and the site immediately to the east,which is 107 acres,
which provides further connection Meridian Road. And at the time there was one
developer, if you will,that was going to probably develop all the residential portions of
both properties. And one of their concerns was that if they did just one connection they
would be required to construct a collector all the way through this site. And I'll let their
expert get up and discuss the TIS,which is traffic impact study, and what's being
required there. But because the concept plan showed two connections and what we've
seen so far from meeting with the applicant to the east of this is two connections,staff
insisted that we keep those two connections in place to allow for, if you will,the traffic
impact study and all the traffic associated with this. And that's what slowed down the
timing of this because ACHD when they're reviewing the traffic impact study they had to
ensure whether or not a collector would be required. They did require a collector,which
is this street right here. And what's unique about what's being proposed here is normally
pursuant to Eagle City Code 8-2A-7J-4A,talks about 35 foot buffer on each side of
collectors or on a collector between residential. What's being proposed is and was
approved by ACHD, normally ACHD does not allow front-on housing on collectors, and
staff is also recommending that that buffer not be constructed and ACHD is allowing for
front-on housing on that collector with additional setback. That's why when you look-- I
believe it's in the 10,000 square foot lot schedule of the setbacks, it speaks to collector
road where it has an additional setback. Normally it's 25 feet and it's 30 feet to the
garage on that street. Then the area that's 3.47 units per acre as shown in the original
concept plan is this area right here,which is substantially buffered,if you will,from the
adjacent property. I mean even if this were at one unit per acre in this area,you would
not be able to see that area anywhere from the east. And then the original proposal
showed, I believe it was 10 feet adjacent to the Fred Meyer site. Normally,pursuant to
Eagle City Code there's a 40 foot buffer requirement, if you will,and that's usually--it's a
little bit different in this case and this is why. Normally,what we deal with,what we see is
we see a residential development and a commercial coming in next-door, so the
commercial has to provide the buffer from the residential to help mitigate the impacts of
that commercial on there. What's interesting here is the commercial's already in place
and they have provided somewhat of a buffer adjacent to their eastern boundary. And
what staff requested and the applicant has provided with that request is they took their
buffer area from 10 feet to 20 feet in width. More than likely they'll probably do a pathway
down through there to provide connectivity to the adjacent site along with some
landscaping that will also help mitigate any kind of impacts they may have. The only
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Portal!Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 30 of 73
thing that's on this site adjacent to there right now is a service road for the Eagle Island
Marketplace development and that Eagle Island Marketplace development in that area
right adjacent to those lots is a back of a building once constructed. So,there's no
parking area that will be adjacent to this, if you will. It's a service road that will travel up
the back side of a future building on that pad site.
Chair: So, Mike, we're not looking at any kind of berm, is that correct in this area?
MW: Correct.
Chair: Okay.
MW: Correct. And Mr. Chairman, you're talking about adjacent to the commercial area?
Chair: Yeah,exactly.
MW: Correct.
Chair: Only on the east side,okay.
MW: Mr.Chairman,the only berm that will be proposed at this time is the required berm
adjacent to Chinden. They have provided a substantial common lot to accommodate that
berm. And then any berming that maybe requested, if you will, by the adjacent property
owners in Foxtail located to the east of the development.
Chair: Very good.
MW: Mr. Chairman,with that I'd actually stand for any questions. Oh, no,take that back. Let's
walk through the Conditions of Development real quick. And I'm talking about in regard
to the changes that the applicant is proposing. And Mr.Chairman and Commission, bear
with me here cause with the lights dim and I'm of that fine age too that it makes it difficult
to read, and my bionic eyes(inaudible). So on Conditional of Development No. 1,excuse
me Site-Specific Condition No.1 staff would be in agreement on the RZ for the
modification of development agreement because this development agreement may be
modified at a future date. Site-specific Condition No. 4, staff would be in agreement also
just based on if a future modification were to occur. Condition No.6...and that would
make sense for the future phasing because until they get to this area,this development
will be built in phases and until they get to each phase unless you know where exactly if
you're having to move a ditch or provide additional easements and there are two laterals
associated with this,the Almaden and the Zinger. Typical we will require that approval
prior to the signature of the final plat. That's something normal that we do require to
ensure that that ditch, irrigation lateral company Is protected. And it goes back to
typically what you see on a plat or what you see in a subdivision, 31-38-05,to ensure that
the water is getting from Point A to Point B. Number 13, I enjoy that they slipped this in,
but let's go look at your staff report real quick. On Site-Specific Condition No. 13 if you
look at page 19 of 39,and I think they pulled this condition-- I had emailed them a draft
staff report to start reviewing. As you know,when we write an application, a staff report
staff writes the application based on Eagle City Code. Staff doesn't have the latitude, if
you will,to write anything,and we've had this discussion many times,outside of Eagle
City Code. That's up to you to make a recommendation, it's up to the Council to make
the final approval. But if you look at Condition of Development No. 13 they're requesting
two inch caliper be plugged in there. What we're seeing with the Design Review Board
and what we're seeing at Council with developments that are going before them now and
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtali Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 31 of 73
you'll probably see this in a zoning ordinance amendment as well,originally and it's still
written in code today,three inch is required. What we're seeing is two inch,two and a
half inch,varying, on a design review approval. They have the authority to make that
decision. We don't. But on 13 what is proposed before you on the staff report that's of
the record it states the developer shall provide shade class trees, landscape plan to be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. I'm not going to go into further on
that. Staff did remove the three inch language so let's just drop it back into the lap of the
experts that we have on our boards and the commissions and let them make the
decision. That way I'm still not getting outside of the code.
DS: Amen. Well done. In fact when I read that particular(inaudible)Mike,that's exactly what
I thought had been accomplished there. That we no longer talked about the inch
diameter.
MW: And Chairman Aizpitarte and Commissioner Smith,the Administrator and I discussed our
options on that and because it's been brought to our attention going through hearings we
just decided instead of writing it per se straight to the three inch,we'll just drop it in the
lap of the Design Review Board and just say as approved by Design Review.
DS: Okay.
Chair: Okay.
MW: Regarding No. 14...in a discussion with Ms. Butler today they want to strike the first
sentence, if you will. Gentlemen,what we have today is a golf course. I don't golf, but
I'm very aware that golf courses always have lots of ponds, lots of sand traps,and lots of
trees. Staff is very aware of the number of trees on this site. In fact,one thing that was
nice that was provided to staff is they actually did a tree inventory of the site. Now,what
the applicant's requesting is we'd strike the first sentence that states all living trees that
do encroach upon the buildable area on any lot shall be preserved unless otherwise
determined by the Design Review Board. They want to strike that,but my argument is
let's read the condition in its entirety so we see what's being stated. So it will go all living
trees that do encroach upon the buildable areas on area lot shall be preserved unless
otherwise determined by the Design Review. A detailed landscape plan showing how the
trees will be integrated into the open space areas or private lot, in parenthesis now,
unless approved for removal by the Design Review or it shall be provided for Design
Review Board approval prior to the submittal of a final plat. And I'm not going to go into
the fencing portion of this condition, but common sense and I can appreciate where
they're coming from in regard to the removal of the trees, it's difficult for us at this time to
actually know because we don't have-- I mean we have a tree inventory, if you will. We
have a plat, but we don't have where they're married together yet. Let the Design
Review make that determination because once they go back before Design Review
they're going to be able to clearly show a lot of these trees I'll guarantee you will be in the
middle of buildable lots,which will make it difficult. It's not like the old days,folks where
we'd send the--and I'm not going to the name we use, but when we'd send the forester
out there, and they'd go out there and make a determination and do all the inventory on
all the trees,do a valuation, if you will. There were sites out there as you know when we
brought them through the hearing process he said I mean there was a million dollars in
tree mitigation. That isn't where we're at today. Where we're at is bring us to Design
Review. Let the Design Review make that determination on yea or nay on tree removal
or retention and then let's move forward. But that's their request that's in front of you.
And then No.15 staff is in agreement on that clarification because of just due to the fact
you have two lots that are commercial lots. That probably are not going to be part of the
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 32 of 73
homeowner's association in regard to the requirement of the operation and maintenance
of all the open spaces and the swimming pool,and everything. So staff would be in
agreement with that modification.
Chair: I think that's it.
MW: No, I have a couple more.
Chair: (Inaudible).
MW: And then the other one was on the Standard Condition of Approval No. 15,and I
apologize I don't know I how I missed this one, but it is not Eagle Fire. It is Meridian Fire.
And in regard to the cul-de-sac requirements in Title 9,which is Chapter 3 on Required
Improvements, Eagle City Code does require that 50 foot radius on cul-de-sacs. The
applicant has provided the necessary documents,if you will,allowing or to allow for the
reduction of that width requirement of 50 feet down to whatever is being requested. And
that was provided by both Meridian Fire and the Ada County Highway District. The Ada
County Highway District report that's in front of you is the finalized report with the ACHD
Commission approval. So it's not a draft staff report. That is the finalized report with
their conditions of approval. And with that I think I can stand for questions now.
DS: Thank you.
Chair: Commissioner Tanner, I'll go to you first.
GT: I don't have any questions.
Chair: Okay. Very good. Mr. Roehling?
DR: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Mike,access to Chinden Boulevard is that--oh, it's not controlled
access any longer. Is that right in, right out only or anything like that?
DS2: Uh, Commissioner Aizpitarte--excuse me. Chairman Aizpitarte and Commissioner
Roehling, Dave Szplett from Idaho Transportation Department's here and I would rather
yield the floor to let him address the Chinden access concerns that may be--let's put it
this way. He could address those far easier than I could.
DR: Okay,good. Thank you.
Chair: Very good. Do you want to-- Dave, do you want to step up and-- I might want the
Kittelson guy too,from the traffic analysis. We had some questions. The Honorable
Dave Szplett.
DS2: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Dave Szplett. I'm the Manager of
Development Services for ITD District 3. 8150 West Chinden in beautiful downtown
Garden City. You have a number of ITD letters in your packet and ITD has no issues
with this development. I only came because I expected questions and concerns about
the access to US 20-26. Actually listening to the talk now, I do have a concern with the
development,and that's that it's not dense enough. The applicant's first plan, I thought
was much better. You have an 80 acre project on a future six lane state highway. Any
increase in density in that location will reduce regional travel,which benefits all of us. But
ITD is not a land use agency,so your land uses are your own business. I'm just telling
you that there is a social cost to having such a low density. And actually it's our social
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 33 of 73
cost as well as yours. The only issue for ITD is the state access to US 20-26. The
location of the existing access and location of the proposed access both meet current ITD
policies. No variance is required. The existing golf course has a permit. The proposed
one is eligible for a permit, but they have not completed the application because the
completion requires the approval of the zoning,but I don't expect there would ever be an
issue. However,there's always the however, right? Any new intersection has potential
safety issues. As we talked about with Mace Road,where we try to take one away
successfully. Changing this one does have a potentially negative impact upon traffic
operations and safety. We would have much preferred the original site plan,where the
site took access to the Foxtail signal. The neighbors in the adjacent subdivision are with
me on this one. Three of the fourteen homes came and asked not to have this new
access, so they recognize it too. However, the site is landlocked,so if they don't have
access to Chinden,which is what everyone seems to want,the only possible access is to
Foxtail. If you can find a way to get to that Foxtail signal,you'll help us and help the
neighbors reach their goal of minimizing the impact of that access. But if you leave it as it
is, ITD has no issues at all. We have an eastbound left turn,center turn lane, and when
they get their permit we'll make them do a westbound right turn lane. And the letter that I
wrote says it will prohibit left turns if there's a accident issue. And when the
neighborhood develops,they can get access to other streets and then we'll prohibit the
left turn. So from ITD,there's no issues at all. Although we would rather get to the
signal. Anyway,that's the end of my very brief presentation. If you have any--
Chair: Questions?
DS2: Questions for me?
DR: Yeah, Dave. Just a couple of points of clarification. So it would appear at some point in
the future this would be right in, right out only?
DS2: Yes. In our letter, I think, I put three conditions in there. One was that there's a
significant accident history. Two is when we widen the roadway to five lanes. And three
is when they have access to the parallel arterials.
DR: And surprisingly, you were contacted by current residents of the adjacent subdivision--
DS2: Three.
DR: All in support of allowing access via the existing traffic signal?
DS2: Not quite. They were in favor of not improving the new access. It's not the same thing.
They didn't say we want access to Foxtail. They said we don't want that new access to
Chinden. I interpreted it for you that that meant that we wanted access to Foxtail, cause
that's the only other route that they have.
DRM: Okay. All right. Thanks for the clarification.
DS2: Oddly enough,and it's a good thing I saved it. Oddly enough,they offered to sell it to us,
but I can't take public money to give one developer to another to sell an access,so. I
didn't even put that in my staff report,only that we'd like to have it if you can get it there,
but if you can't,you can live with it.
DS: Just anecdotally is Chinden becoming a five lane highway?
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 34 of 73
UnkM: Six.
DS: Six? Oh,even more. Six.
DS2: We've been reserving 140 feet of right of way,which allows six lane roadway. We are
currently reserving that through the whole length all the way out to Caldwell. We are
currently designing the first segment west of Eagle Road,the first mile, and every
subsequent one is real easy because we have enough right of way to get four lanes in all
of it now. Or almost all of it now. And there's no major bridges, so it's real easy. It's the
same issue that we talked about with State Street out here,getting out from Ballantyne to
Linder. If we have the right of way and there's no major bridge. We can build it fairly
quick and easily. And that's what our plan is here.
DS: Well, I've only lived here for about 15 or 16 years,and cry about the state of Chinden,
and figured It was going to be another 20 years before anything was done given the pace
of change. However, it sounds like there's something imminent?
DS2: Yes, sir. It all depends on people above my pay grade,cause it's the Board and the
Legislature that decide where money goes. And for example,you know-- I'm not saying
this is a trade off. I'm just telling you where the money goes. You know,with the Ten
Mile interchange it was$32 million. And then we did Vista and Orchard, and now
Meridian interchange. Those are big ticket items and every year we have less money
coming back from the Feds, so we've just become a maintenance district and the big
ticket items are all going to the Garvey group. But those decisions are made by the
Board and(inaudible). But you are gonna get 16 across the river. The bridge is under
construction now and my perception is once we get down to Chinden,we'll get a lot more
impetus for getting it.
DS: Yeah. Just finally, at another time and place I would love to sit down and chat with you
about your insight into an underdeveloped piece of property and its impact on society,so,
a future conversation.
DS2: I'm a public servant, sir. You call me anytime and I'll do what I can to help.
DS: Thank you. That's all I have.
Chair: Commissioner Tanner? You want to go? So being El Presidente of Banbury
Homeowner's Association,this is kind of off topic,but--so the Eagle to--
DS2: Out of order.
GT: Out of order. I'm out of order. (Inaudible), so the Eagle to Locust Grove,that's in the
STIP, right, now? They put it in the STIP?
DS2: Yes.
Chair: Oh,wow. Okay.
DS2: We have(inaudible)--
Chair: State Transportation Improvement Plan for everybody. I'm sorry.
DS2: Yeah, now it's called lTIP.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 35 of 73
Chair: Oh.
DS2: Which means you're not current.
Chair: Okay.
DS2: But I won't hold it against you.
Chair: It's my age,yeah.
DS2: Yes, we have--
Chair: Okay.
DS2: A very good designer working diligently on that as we speak.
Chair: Okay. And then in the area of this particular development, is this where it's--cause what
happens is, in front of my neighborhood it's like a five lane cause it's so constrained, I
think. I mean,you know, stop me if I'm wrong.
DS2: It's five lane for the first--
Chair: For the first mile.
DS2: (Inaudible).
Chair: Yeah. And then it splits out to a median, right? There's a median in the middle, so then
it's like three lanes with a--
DS2: Median with a center turn lane, is that right?
Chair: Yeah. Kind of median, I think--
DS2: Yes.
Chair: It actually comes out to like a--kind of a--
DS2: It's a three lane, yeah. After that, one in each direction west of your place.
Chair: Right. So that's in front of this development, right? Okay.
DS2: All the way--yes. We have it widened for turn lanes at the major intersections,and then
of course Linder--
Chair: Okay.
DS2: We call it Chinder,cause it's Chinden and Linder--
Chair: Yeah, Chinder, yeah.
DS2: That's fully widened. So we're working our way westward.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtaii Partners,U.C.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 36 of 73
Chair. Very good.
DS2: But we spent all this money widening State Street out here,from Linder to Ballantyne,
and I don't know--we're working on it one--one at a time. And these are all--see,
someone in my job in the past was good and they saved--and your city--helped us
save enough (inaudible)so now when we can come back and widen, it's a real easy
thing.
Chair: Yeah. Yeah. And then I don't want to put the Kittelson guy on the spot, but I mean I
noticed his traffic report said 5,000 average daily traffic count less ADT? What do you
think? I mean,that's a lot. And that's--
DS2: Well,they followed the standard procedures--
Chair: Okay.
DS2: And we had no issues with their traffic study. The firm does fine work. No questions--
Chair: They do good work. Yeah,they do.
DS2: Yeah. But from ITD's perspective--
Chair: Uh-hmm.
DS2: That's diddly-squat,to use a highly technical term that I'm a trained professional--
Chair: Oh, yeah.
DS2: (Inaudible).
Chair: Can you spell that for me, please? I'm --yeah.
DS2: I mean,we've got 35,000 a day out here on State Street,another five grand, you know. I
mean, it's--
Chair: Yeah, I get ya.
DS2: It's an issue and the road is filled up. But I have learned that if we don't push traffic down
these streets,they'll never get widened.
Chair: Yeah.
DS2: And we got to get it up to that 18 to 20 level on a three lane street,and then the impetus
to get it fixed--
Chair: Okay.
DS2: (Inaudible).
Chair: Okay.
DS2: So you're actually helping your city get the roadway widened. If you'd allow more density
you'd be helping it faster. But I won't bring that up because it's out of order too.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 37 of 73
Chair: Yeah.
DS2: Okay.
Chair: Yeah, you're okay. Okay. I think that's good. Thanks, Dave,as usual.
DS2: Okay. I was going to stay if something comes up you need to ask me more.
Chair: Okay.
DS2: If not, I'll sit down and shut up like I was told to do.
Chair: Okay. You did good man. Appreciate it. Thank you,sir. Okay. And then,the Kittelson
people are off the hook then,cause you know.
DS: I did--
Chair: Well, unless you want to step up and maybe give us--
UnkF: (Inaudible)--
Chair: You know, I think your traffic--you guys do pretty good work, so I think your traffic study
UnkF: (Inaudible).
Chair: You did--yeah, I think you're okay. So you may sit down. Okay. Okay. Okay.
UnkF: (Inaudible).
Chair: Okay.
MW: Mr. Chairman, I also want to follow-up. This application,just to follow up on Susan's
earlier comments,was duly noticed pursuant to Eagle City Code and state statute,and in
regard to the concern by Holland&Hart,this was sent out--a 300 notice, if you will.
That's how we reference, when we send out--the notice to the neighbors was sent out
on February 2nd,which was 17 days prior to the originally scheduled hearing. Along with
that notice--it's not just a notice per se saying hey,we're gonna have a hearing. We
attach a concept plan with it. We attach a vicinity map with it. And we also attach the
plat with it. You do have--and it's referenced in your staff report,that we did receive
three correspondences from the adjacent landowners requesting this to be continued
because they haven't had the opportunity to grasp the development or grasp what's
being proposed. The notice went out a month ago. And just to let you know, staff or the
City did not receive a single public records request for a copy of the staff report.
Chair: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mike on that?
DS: Yeah, not on that particular subject--
Chair: Okay.
DS: But I have a question.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 38 of 73
Chair: Okay,sure.
DS: Or two.
Chair: Go ahead. Mike?
DS: Mr.Chair, Mike, on page 20 of 39, staff Findings of Fact, Item B as in boy. I just need a
clarification. It's minor, but bear with me. A neighborhood meeting was held at Eagle
City Hall, Freedom Room, at 6:00 p.m.August 8,2012,which we've all heard about. A
second neighborhood meeting was held at Eagle City Room, Freedom Room,at 6:00
p.m. March 1,2013,which we just heard about. In compliance with the application
submittal requirement of Eagle City Code. The application for these items-- I presume
you mean those two meetings, were received by the city of Eagle on November 16,2012.
So was that meeting on March the 1a anticipated on November 16, or was the result of
some other action?
MW: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith and I may let Susan weigh in on this as well. What
happened and it was mentioned-- in fact, Susan mentioned in previously. Pursuant to
Eagle City Code as it is written, once you conduct a neighborhood meeting it's required
that the public hearing occur less than six months, if you will, and it wasn't anticipated at
the time due to the timing, and nothing against Kittelson,cause Kittelson kicked out a
traffic impact study rather quickly,and it was a good traffic impact study. But the timing it
took ACHD to review that traffic impact study submit it back to the applicant to have
Kittelson come back forward with additional--ACHD was requiring additional information.
That's what it boils down to. So it put us out further than was originally anticipated to get
this to hearing. We--that six month window lapsed, so as a cure to the neighborhood
meeting requirement,we requested the applicant to come back forward,conduct another
neighborhood meeting,which they did conduct another neighborhood meeting on March
1,which they duly noticed 15 days prior to that hearing,excuse me, meeting. And that's
why the second one was required.
DS: Okay. So my--
SB: I would also bear in mind that you had, in the months of February and January,two
federal holidays where we did not have--on Mondays,we did not have available--
UnkM: Hearings(inaudible).
SB: For meetings as well.
DS: Oh, I'm not--yeah, my question is just simply--is that last sentence correct? That the
application for these items was scheduled on November 16,2012? So, March the 1'r
wasn't actually anticipated at the time?
SB: No.
DS: So, I'm just asking, is the that last sentence correct? If it's real correct,then I have no
(inaudible)--
MW: And Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith,the last sentence is correct. That Is when the
original--
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 39 of 73
DS: Okay.
MW: The original application was submitted to the city of Eagle,was on November 16 of 2012.
DS: Okay. All right. Page 22 of 39. By the second diagram, I was trying to figure out what
was happening here. Looking at the page, I'm assuming left is west and east is right.
And then, so there's this arrow indicating to move commercial from the west side of
property to the east side. I lost the meaning of that particular item.
MW: Mr.Chairman and Commissioner Smith,staff could have probably actually removed all
this and just kept it very simple. When we were going through the history of this site to
grasp everything that was taking place at the time, I actually took this from the original
comp plan amendment and then added the additional things that have happened since
then, but what you're seeing there is, Black Cat was originally proposed to have the
commercial area where Eagle Island Marketplace is today. I won't mention which city to
the south of us kind of messed that whole plan up, but the city of Eagle moved that
further to the east to get it back, keep it within the city of Eagle. And then that area is
now part of that other city's area of impact. So, it has no bearing,if you will, on this
specific application.
DS: I'm relieved to hear that.
MW: Okay.
DS: Cause I lost sleep on this. Okay. Now, let's see,go back to page 17. I'm going to go
back to page 17. Just for final clarification in my mind here. Page 17 of 39. Item
underlined italics on line 32, 314. And forgive me for coming back to a drive-thru
restaurant, but I just wanted to make sure. I read that particular item there. And then my
note is, is this a moot point or is it correct? Cause on line 13 on page 6 of 39, line 13,
you know,at some point I read through where that item --you know,where we have
chairs,computers or a bookstore, restaurant,that was to be removed because it was not
going to be considered a use. Now I'm in general agreement with that, but I just wanted
to make sure, ultimately I want to be sure that your recommendation is not for a drive-thru
restaurant in that small commercial zone there, is that correct?
MW: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith,that is correct. But bearing in mind that although
staff is recommending that drive-thru restaurants be a prohibited use within this
development,there still are the allowances of a drive-thru bank pursuant to Eagle City
Code. So we still have to address--
DS: Sure.
MW: That drive-thru.
DS: Personally, I don't see that as contradictory, given the hours of the bank versus the hours
of a drive-thru restaurant, so I don't see them as contradictory from my inexperienced
viewpoint cause I ain't a city planner. So--
MW: And Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith, I'd still request that that be left in to mitigate any
(inaudible) based on--we're not starting daylight savings time till next week.
DS: We're in agreement.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 40 of 73
Chair: Okay.
DS: I'm okay with it there.
Chair: Very good.
DS: Okay. Bear with me.
Chair: Oh,take your time. Take your time.
DS: Okay, Mike,that's all I have for now. Thank you.
Chair: Okay.
DS: Thank you, Mr.Chairman.
Chair: Have you got any other questions? Commissioner Roehling, are you good?
DR: No questions.
Chair: Okay. Commissioner Tanner, no questions? Okay. Good to go. Okay, so at this time
we have public testimony. I guess we can go ahead with the hearing tonight. I will throw
this out to the Commissioners. We can continue this based on the fact that there's some
people that might want to testify for additional public comment. I will throw that out for
discussion. I don't know what does everybody think? I mean,we have three people and
one of them is Dave. Dave,you were signed up so--
DS2: (Inaudible).
Chair: Yeah,you already--yeah. You need to step up again. Okay. So I don't know what the
Commission would like. I mean,we can, you know,we have three people to testify.
They're here,this thing has been noticed. My druthers are--oh,just a second sir. Is that
we move forward and have the--wow. That was pretty telepathic. Is that we move
forward and allow testimony, but I will throw that up to the Commissioners.
SB: You have to allow public testimony.
UnkF: Yes.
SB: You know, hear the testimony tonight so there's your(inaudible).
Chair: Oh, and then we can continue it?
SB: And if you decide you want to continue it you can or if you want to make a decision and
make your recommendations to the City Council,you can do that too.
Chair: So what does the Commission think? I mean,any ideas here on stuff like--
DSM: Well,why don't we have the public testimony--
Chair: Okay.
DS: First,and then we'll discuss that--
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 41 of 73
Chair: Okay.
DS: That's my recommendation.
Chair: Okay. That's a good idea.
DR: Yeah, it was noticed. We have people here and have been waiting to testify.
Chair: Okay.
DR: Let's honor that.
Chair: Okay. Gary,what do you think, same? Same, okay. Okay,great. Okay. Okay. And
then I'm really good at coaxing people up,so Dave Szplett, it says testify yes, but Dave is
like--you're absorbed with your novel, Dave,so I won't bug you anymore. It's okay.
DS2: Since I don't know whether you were going to call me up as part of your team or whether
you were going to call me up as a part of the audience, so I always put my name--
Chair: Oh.
DS2: On there. Do whatever you want.
Chair: I mean,there's two other people here but I'll start begging,you know, other people to
come up, so anyways. Okay, but thanks, Dave, you're good. Okay. I have Katherine-- I
want to say Geiger(phonetic)?
KG: Georger.
Chair: Georger. I'm sorry. Georger, okay. And you're from Holland&Hart,so--
KG: I am,yes.
Chair: So,your name and address for the record.
KG: It's Katherine Georger, 101 South Capitol Boulevard. And I'm here on behalf of Matt
Hicks,who couldn't be here. You've heard a lot about his letters. And I just wanted to
clarify what letters you have with your(inaudible). I brought copies in case you didn't
have them. There was a notice letter and there was a subsequent letter as(inaudible)
noted.
MW: Mr.Chairman,for clarification,they have both letters that were provided.
KG: (Inaudible)exhibit.
MW: With the exhibits.
KG: Okay.
MW: Yes.
KG: The exhibit is really what I think is going to be important. So with respect to that,first of
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 42 of 73
all I'll address the notice issue. With respect to the notice issue,the statute and the
ordinances aren't very clear,and so Holland&Hart's interpretation of the statutes that
notice was proper for the February 18th meeting. It was properly circulated on February
2nd and then published in the Valley Times on February 4th, but no subsequent notice was
circulated out and it appears that Ms. Buxton and Mr.Williams, is that correct?
Chair: Yeah, Mike Williams,yeah.
KG: Have talked about the fact that it's sort of protocol where something has been continued
or put on the agenda for a subsequent meeting,that that's the practice of this
Commission, is to have sufficient notice. So we'll just-- I'll guess we'll agree to disagree.
Chair: Okay.
KG: And we can go on to the substance at this point.
Chair: Okay.
KG: The letter that we wrote with respect to substance just sort of addresses the two major
points. One relates to access and the other one relates to density. If the Commission
will look to Exhibit B. (Inaudible).
UnkM: Here you go.
Chair: At the--oh,there it is.
KG: And so what this shows is it's sort of a artistic rendering courtesy of(inaudible)of what
the properties are. So what's titled Lot 1 Wilson Property LP. That is the five acres that
apparently are divorced from the application, but in reality aren't so divorced. It's
somewhat inextricably(inaudible)because as we know the access point that ACHD has
required,the stub access,is going to abut the I guess, the western edge of Lot 1 of
Wilson Property. And I should reiterate that Lot 1 is part of the Foxtail Subdivision,so it
is not a standalone. It is actually part of the subdivision. And so in Mr.Tate's
presentation, he discussed the fact that there would be a wide I guess,a zone of--not a
berm but sort of a protection of the two acre lots would be adjacent the subdivision,but
that's not really I don't think an accurate depiction. It's going to be right up against it.
DS: Could you point to that spot? You can--
KG: Yeah. That's fine.
DS: Where you point,we can see.
KG: Okay.
DS: All right,there you go.
KG: Okay.
DS: Yeah.
Chair: Yeah.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 43 of 73
KG: So as I understand it,and this is just my understanding of it. I've(inaudible)places for
three days--
Chair: Okay.
KG: So bear with me, I'm not familiar with as much facts as everyone in here, but,this is Lot
1,this is the five acres that's not provided in the plan. This is the plan. And as I
understand it,there's going to be eight units per acre and then eventually this would be, I
think it was two units per acre, is that correct? One, but one abutting the other.
DS: Transitional,yeah.
KG: So this is one. But this will be one unit per acre on the five acres, and I guess their
understanding,then there will be two acres but then it will be--immediately adjacent to
the eight units per acre. So it is somewhat dense. And! believe the access, as I
understand it, would end here by the curb. Access would be there to eventually run
along into North Fox. And with respect to that issue, I think that's what the letter
addresses, is the fact that Berm A is written into the,there was a restricted agreement
that was entered into with Wilson Properties and the Foxtail Subdivision in 2002 and they
are required to meet this Berm A, and that any sort of access that's going to be cut in to
that will run afoul of--
Chair: Yeah.
KG: What the agreement provides.
Chair: Well,you know, I think I'll let the applicant probably on rebuttal, I think(inaudible)--
KG: Oh.
Chair: Because--but I think your access is somewhat higher. I think that it's quite a bit higher
than what you're pointing out here. The stub street goes up-- I mean, if you had this
screen right here, it's up here. But I'll have them do--
KG: Okay. Sure.
Chair: Deal with that on rebuttal.
KG: Yeah.
Chair: Yeah. Okay.
KG: I just again,so I guess,the other point would be just that the homeowners have
expressed their concern and that gets to the point, you made this about 10 minutes ago,
as to whether we decide to continue this or not. I'm really here on behalf of Ryan Moore
and Tyson Smith who are homeowners who are impacted by this who could not be here
this evening. And can speak a lot more to the impact that they will feel in terms of land
valuation and depreciation by bringing in a more dense housing units close by as well as
commercial units. So I don't know if I artfully articulated those points, but I think Mr. Hicks
expressed them --
Chair: Okay.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 44 of 73
KG: Quite well in his letter,so if(inaudible)that--
Chair: Okay.
KG: That was really the purpose for me to come here.
Chair: Okay,very good. Thank you. Just a second. Does anybody have a questions for
Katherine? Okay. Okay,thanks Katherine.
SB: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Georger,my name's Susan Buxton --
KG: Yeah.
SB: The city attorney.
KG: Yeah.
SB: Mr. Hicks and your clients do understand that this is the Planning&Zoning Commission
hearing,that there will be another subsequent hearing duly noticed by the City Council on
this matter before it's approved,do you understand that?
KG: That is my understanding,yeah. I believe April?
SB: We don't have it set yet.
KG: Okay.
SB: We don't set those hearings until after the recommendation from the Commission is
completed and then goes up to the City Council.
KG: You are correct. It was my understanding, I think there's an April 9th City Council meeting
that I can--
SB: That's tentative.
Chair: That's tentative.
KG: Correct. Was the fact that we assumed,so you are right.
SB: Yeah, it's tentative. Thank you.
Chair: Yeah,when we make a motion we recommend for approval,that's been beaten into me
for years now and stuff,so it's the Council's the deciding body. Okay, any other
questions? Okay. Thanks, Katherine. Okay. And then I have Brian Schrader
(phonetic).
BS: Schlader.
Chair: Schlader, I'm sorry. With a name like this, I have to be real sensitive about that.
BS: Brian Schlader, I live at 6620 North Fox Run Avenue in the Foxtail Subdivision. And to
kind of reiterate a little bit,hopefully not very much, of what was just mentioned,that I'm
here representing the homeowner's association,most of the board members,and a lot of
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 45 of 73
the neighbors are traveling on business or pleasure. They couldn't rearrange and others
had(inaudible)they couldn't move, so that's why so sparse tonight. And I believe you do
have a letter from Tyson Smith asking to reschedule this meeting, as was done to us on
February the 18th. We were all ready to go, had everyone lined up the time and then it
was rescheduled on the day of the meeting so that they could hold that neighborhood
meeting(inaudible). So it could be good if we could,you know,finish tonight and then
allow those people to come back another time and testify(inaudible)because just the
circumstances of what happened with the schedule,so.
Chair: Okay.
BS: Okay. So let me kind of get to the crux of what I want to get through. So our issue with
this development has always been about density. Density causes two issues for us. One
is property value and the other is safety for the Foxtail Subdivision. You're right, it was
presented earlier, is that Ryan and others negotiated with the help of the City a
appropriate agreement or development agreement, I'm not sure of the right words. Okay.
And the reason that we were happy with that was not because of the density. We never
liked the density. But there was-- I'm going to put a map up here, if I may. One of the
things that they did in that agreement is along this full border was,they put a berm,that
10 foot berm we discussed. Okay. And the way that it was presented by the applicant
was, it was for the benefit of the people along that property line. Okay. I live in this
house on the corner of Fox Run. (Inaudible) live here and the(Inaudible)live there. We
all look directly across that property. If you stand in my front yard or any of those other
people's front yards, you can look all the way into the golf course. Okay. You can see all
the way down. So that berm was not just for those lots that abutted the property,but it
was for the whole development. Okay. And so for the applicant to come before us and
say, hey,we want to change that agreement that we signed off on as a homeowner
association,to say only those that abut can now choose not to get that berm. Okay. So
Tyson and Ryan can make that decision. Well,who owns that five acre lot right there?
Wilson Properties owns it. Wilson Property owns the other side. So there can be some
agreement that's not written down and say, hey, yeah, you give us the development
agreement before and when it comes through,we'll say no,we don't want the berm. So
that you can have your property lines closer than you have them. And if you look at their
plat,those properties that abut the west side of Foxtail are right on the property lines.
They come right up to it. There's no buffer. Okay. The other thing I'd like to point out is
that they keep saying that's going to be one acre lots. Five homes in there. That is
currently platted as part of Foxtail Subdivision as one lot. Okay. So we're assuming facts
not in evidence to say that it's going to get replatted into one acre lots,or that anything's
going to change. Right now, it's one lot,so there'll be one home on there. And as you
know, one home does not take up five acres. People are going to be able to see right
through that into a very dense neighborhood. Okay. So that again is why we want that
berm to stay there. Okay. The second issue is safety. Okay. This is a very dense
neighborhood and if I can get it to work here real quick, I'll show you a picture of our
street.
Chair: Hey,Susan--oh, you're going to put it down there. All right, never mind. Susan?
SB: Yes,sir.
Chair: He's showing a picture on an (Phone.
BS: Can I move closer?
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 46 of 73
Chair: That's okay Brian.
SB: If you wanted(inaudible) it's a public meeting. I need you to email that picture to Mike if
you can so I can add it to the record,that's all.
Chair: Yeah.
SB: Thanks.
MW: Mr.Chairman, may I make a request? The picture on your phone, is that a picture of
Foxtail Street?
BS: That's Fox Run Avenue.
MW: Fox Run Avenue in proximity to the five acre parcel?
BS: It is just past the lake,the five acre parcel is on the left and the other house is on the
right. And so we see(inaudible).
MW: Here you go.
BS: Well,you want me to look down the street, really,to get the effect of the road here.
MW: Mr. Schlader,do you want to look down the street south or north?
BS: North. Thank you.
MW: There you go.
BS: If you look at that street, it's not very wide. Okay. There's no curb,there's no gutter.
Okay. On the corner of Fox Run Avenue and Grey Fox is where the kids are picked up
every day for school. So you got, you know,five,ten kids sitting at the corner messing
around waiting for their school bus. Okay. So having that density there and then having
—you know,one of the things we liked about the agreement was,there wasn't going to
be any activity. So we're not opposed to people using our light. We're opposed to that
much density and coming in and using the neighborhood light. Cause that's where
people are going to come. I would, if I had to get out to Chinden and I need to take a left.
I would come through and go over that. So you're going to send 200 plus homes through
our neighborhood, right, until they get access other places. And you know that each
home has an average of two cars. And if you have a house like me, right now I've got
four drivers and they're all home, (inaudible)college. Okay. So you just put that many
cars through that neighborhood. That's a lot of traffic for this size street. Okay. And so
that's why we signed off on that agreement that said,put that berm in and you would not
connect us to that neighborhood. Okay. A little history for you on that light for that
intersection,just to give you some more background. Around 2004,2003, I can't
remember the exact year,directly north of our subdivision, (Inaudible)Subdivision was
being considered. Ray Perez was the developer. We met with him in my home and
some other people. We were concerned about traffic coming through our neighborhood.
There was no light at the time. We sat down with Ray and had a good conversation. We
said hey, listen,you know,just to preserve traffic and safety,would you be willing to allow
us to access out through your subdivision out to Meridian and we would close off our
access to Chinden. Ray agreed to that. We wrote a letter. I believe the gentleman here
wrote a letter, if I remember,the name was on the letter saying hey, when that
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 47 of 73
subdivision was part of the development agreement, please include blocking off that
street and driving it back through Chinden or out to Meridian.
Chair: To Meridian,yeah.
BS: Okay. So again,we were willing to do some things differently. Then, Paramount went
across the street. Okay. And I forgot my folder and I apologize. But I have the original
application or a copy of the application for the light that Is there now. Okay. The light
there was a permit put in on 2004 for that light. The signature for final approval was
2005. On that application at the top, it's whited out and changed,which in my experience
is not something you do on official documents. You don't white them out and change
them. There's also--the original application calls for the light to be at half mile marker,
which is right on the boundaries between the Foxtail Golf Course and the Foxtail
Subdivision. Okay. It's crossed out and changed to be our street,to line up to our street.
Okay. We were never notified they were going to put a light in. Paramount paid for the
light because they wanted the light controlled access. But our subdivision was never
asked about that or discussed about it. It's partially on one of the neighbor's property.
Now,there's some controversy. ACHD says it's on their right of way, but it was placed on
the property of one of the homeowners. So all that to say is,we never asked for that
light. Okay. And if that light had been discussed and there's been some forethought, it
would be on the half mile marker. Okay. There'd be no issues today before you. They
would have their access and things would go. Okay. So that all brings us back to that
one line,that five acre lot. What is the legal ability of some agency to say,hey,we're
going to punch a road through there and get to that lot? Our neighborhood,you know,
we think we have the legal means to say no. Okay. I get the feeling that ACHD or ITD,
or even the developer, someone,thinks that they can. So from my perspective, I have to
assume that someone's going to prevail and they're going to get that road through there.
Okay. So I have two comments. One is,why wouldn't you line it up with the existing
street? Why would you line it up to Fox Run or Grey Fox Avenue? Instead of Grey Fox,
their street comes up and goes over and creates another street less than, you know--it's
got to be 200 feet from another intersection. Okay. So first,why would you do that? On
the original ACHD staff recommendation, it showed it lined up with Grey Fox. Okay.
Okay. I'm assuming the developers decided to put it up in that space up there because it
doesn't eat up any profit for a while. I can understand that,but is that the best place for it
to be to create kind of this puzzle of streets in a neighborhood that isn't designed for
traffic. So that's one thing.
UnkM: It's kind of an afterthought.
BS: We did meet with the developer on Friday. We did propose some alternatives,where we
said hey, if you would do these things,we know at least six of us,Tyson, Ryan, myself,
the(Inaudible),the Kirkhams(phonetic),the properties surrounding that interest,we
would sign on and to be able to support development. And those were one of two things.
Okay. The first one was, bring the density that you have up in the northern section and
bring it down. Okay. Cause lowering the density will lower the traffic and we can then
sign off on that and punch a street through--
UnkM: Not if you eliminate the fricking Chinden access it won't--
BS: And connect. Okay. Another option was, hey, work with us. Let's go fight that the light
was put in the wrong spot, put it at the half mile marker, and we will cut off our access
and we'll come over and use your street again. It restricts the issue of access into our
neighborhood. We know this is going to be developed. Yeah,we have our concerns.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 48 of 73
We don't like the density. We've always said that. But we know it's going to be
developed and we're willing to work to come to a solution that we can all live with. It's
unfortunate that they canceled one meeting and they--
UnkF: (Inaudible).
BS: Put out a notice so they could hold the neighborhood meeting with no chance to take our
input. And then modify their plan or look at it or give us feedback and,you know,
thoughtful thinking about what we proposed. Okay. No way to do that on March 1 st in the
meeting here on March 4th--or March 5th,whatever it is, I'm sorry. I think that they kept
the letter of the law but they have not kept to the spirit of the law. So, let me see if there's
anything else. Okay. And the final thing is home values. Dennis Hanson-- I don't know
if it was this year or last year. But he put in for his taxes to the Ada County Tax
Assessor. He said, hey, I want to contest my property taxes. And what he did to go to
that meeting is he said, I'm pulling up a house that's similar to mine that's within a couple
miles and it's valued at$100,000 less than mine. Same size lot, same size house. So
he went before the Commissioners and he lost. And what they told him was,yeah,that's
great, you're right,they're the same size,they're the same lot size,but guess what,your
house is in an area that is lower density and the house that you bought as comparable to
Meridian. And just across the street is higher density houses. That knocks down the
value of that house by$100,000. Okay. So for our houses,that are around$500,000,
that's a 20%devaluation of our property because we're next to high density. We've also
talked with a person who goes and appraises big developments,and just through a
verbal phone conversation he said that your properties will devalue by 25%with this
development next to it and that density. Okay. So we're going to take a$100,000 hit
potentially in our land values because of where we are. Because if you look at it and that
whole corridor from where you live all the way to Under,this will be the only development
that is of that density. So if I am a person coming to buy a house that is a large country
estate on a acre or more,property,this will be your last choice in that Foxtail Subdivision.
You will go to Banbury, Castleberry, Sugarberry. Okay. And you choose those first.
Chair: Hmm.Okay.
BS: So and then my final question.
Chair: Okay. You can't ask the Commissioners questions,but that's okay. This is rhetorical.
It's -
BS: Well, (inaudible)who do you ask?
Chair: Okay, it's a rhetorical question then.
BS: Well, I guess if you ask the staff or somebody. But when I talked to the neighbors in
subdivisions touching the northern end. The Sandy Court and the Windward,they were
never noticed. Or thus they don't remember getting notices. Okay. They're usually very,
very good about coming to public meetings. To neighborhood meetings. And you can
see that none of them are here. And none of them came on Friday. So I have to ask,
was those two neighbors notified (inaudible).
Chair: Well, I'm sure that the applicant will respond to(inaudible).
BS: Yeah.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 49 of 73
Chair: Yeah. Okay. But don't sit down.
BS: Okay.
Chair: Okay, Brian, cause does anybody have any questions for Brian? Any questions?
DS: I don't have a question, but I do have a statement,and that is you're very well informed
and very active in your subdivision. I only wish I were half as informed as to what goes
on in my own,so I thank you very much for the knowledge that you've acquired and how
well you've presented it. Thank you.
Chair: Very good, okay. Okay,thanks, Brian.
BS: Thank you for your time.
Chair: Thank you. Okay. Would anybody else like to testify? Anybody? I don't bite. Pretty
good. Public involvement, it's always good. Okay. Going once. Scott,about you? Scott
(Inaudible) in the back. Never mind. I'm just giving him grief. Okay. So I am going to--
wait a moment. I get out of sequence here,Susan. I don't close the public hearing
cause we have to have rebuttal, right?
SB: That's right.
Chair: Okay. So would the applicant come on and rebut or I guess--do we want to continue
this?
SB: (Inaudible)usually cause--
Chair: Yeah(inaudible).
SB: I would usually prefer that you have rebuttal tonight so everybody can hear it,and then in
the event that--
Chair: Okay.
SB: You decide that you want to continue the hearing or keep it open or something,that they
would have another chance to rebut any new testimony(inaudible).
Chair. Testimony. Okay, I gotcha. Okay. Okay,so will the applicant step up for rebuttal
please? And then we'll cogitate on (inaudible).
MT: Commissioners,again, Mark Tate, M3 Companies. Chairman Aizpitarte, I'd first want to
thank Mr. Schlader for coming in and testifying. I can appreciate what he's saying. We
did hear some similar comments when we met on Friday, particularly that they had
concern with the density of the project that we've brought before you. I just want to
reiterate that we're not here with a new project to bring in front of you. We're here to
implement a project that was brought before the P&Z Commission and City Council and
approved back in 2010, and we're simply asking to move the project forward as
contemplated in that development agreement with a couple of minor modifications. As I
mentioned before,the most significant modification was to actually decrease the intensity
of the development,which actually,you know, in a lot of the neighbors'minds should
provide a benefit. The other thing that we've talked about is that five acre parcel,and I
just want to remind the Commission that for any development to move forward on that
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 50 of 73
five acre parcel, there would need to be a new application that is not part of our
preliminary plat. It would have to have its own hearing and its own notice and its own
1382 and Council approval. So there is no ability to move forward with any sort of
development or preliminary plat on that project right now. It's just not part of our
application,so there is no imminent plan for how to treat that. We simply wanted to move
forward with the project that we could move forward with. You saw on the preliminary
plat that Mr. Schlader showed that our application in November actually did not contain a
stub street to that five acre parcel. It was only after the request of ACHD that we add
that. And that was something that they required of us. We talked about the berm issues
and we've agreed that that berm, if those neighbors would like it,could be built. We're
asking that that berm not be built on that five acre parcel. I feel that a one unit per acre
density on a five acre parcel provides a pretty substantial buffer,and I think that's why the
project was approved as it was,with that a unit per acre next to the one acre. So with
that--
JB: (Inaudible)
MT: That's right. JoAnn just reminded me,while we've got this street view up right there,
there's actually a berm on North Fox Run today. And that's what you're looking at. It's
not a 10 foot berm, but it's a pretty serious berm and a lot of trees. And as the neighbors
have reminded you,they feel they have a right to that berm. With that, I would stand for
any questions.
UnkM: (Inaudible).
Chair: (Inaudible).
DS: I'm ready for one.
Chair: Okay. Go ahead.
DS: Put your(inaudible). I'm curious, Mr.Tate,why you persist in referring to a one person
per acre on the five acre lot. That is occupied by one person right now. And the
testimony of Mr. Schrader--forgive me if I have it wrong--was essentially right now it's a
five acre lot and no one has any plans to make it one unit per acre. Therefore, your
presumption of a buffer being developed because of the development of that five acres
into single acre residence doesn't seem to be correct. Am I missing something here?
MT: You are absolutely correct. There's actually no residence on it. It's a large maintenance
facility related to the golf course on that property, but since I had it in front of me here,
this is the view of that property today. And kind of off in the distance you can see a
parking lot. It's maybe back there somewhere, but I just--even if--
DS: I -
MT: Even if there is not any homes built in the near term it's a pretty substantial distance still
between that street and that other property.
DS: Yeah. I apologize for the belaboring it. It's just a matter that there's an assumption that
it's going to be developed. And in that development,you're going to get your default
berm or default buffer. Default buffer,you know,that's going to break up that view. But
that truly isn't known to be in the future,the immediate future.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtall Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 51 of 73
MT: That's correct.
DS: Okay. That's fine. Okay,that's all I have. Thank you.
Chair: Well, Gary, you're good, right?
GT: I'm good.
Chair: Okay. And then, Mark,Brian brought up a pretty good point about notice of the
developments to the north, I think? Nod your head. North. But did you notice those
people?
MT: We did.
Chair: Okay.
MT: We actually went quite a ways above and beyond what a typical radius would be. We
went back to the original list for the hearings back in 2010 for any of the interested parties
Chair: Okay.
MT: And sent it.
Chair: Okay. And then, you know,there's a big question about access to the light, but what I'm
seeing in your development and, you know, basically the way you've got it kind of plat-- I
mean,there's no way you're going to do that. I mean,cause your access is straight on
Chinden,straight south. So that one acre maintenance Wilson Property is not really part
of your equation anymore. Would you say that, Mark? I mean --
MT: That's correct. And--
Chair: You know.
MT: As Mr. Szplett said earlier, part of his approval for that full access to Chinden is that
future connections be made along that collector to the north. And so I know Mr. Schlader
had made a comment about,you know,all 200 units coming through that access. And
there are going to be other accesses as the property develops in the future. And unless
there are any safety issues that ITD identifies,that will remain a full access until those are
available.
Chair: Okay. And then Katherine had a comment that I wanted you to follow-up on too, because
she showed that stub street going into one of the two properties in Foxtail and curving
around,can you put a map up there and show me where that stub street is? Just for my
own edification. So that stub street going to the east is actually in that--well,you do
have a stub street that's going into(inaudible)the one acre. Well,see, I didn't know that
(inaudible). Interesting to know. No, I'm sorry, it's(inaudible). Sorry. (Inaudible). Okay.
Okay. So this is the final cause I have a plat here that does not show a street going In.
I'm looking at this Reynard Subdivision Preli--oh,this is November 2012,so that's old.
MT: As I mentioned before,we did update our preliminary plat. That was at the request of
ACHD to--
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 52 of 73
Chair: Oh, okay.
MT: Show those stub streets.
Chair: Oh, boy, mmm. Interesting. Okay.
UnkM: (Inaudible).
Chair: Okay. Are there any questions for Mr.Tate?
DS: Just a general question, Mr. Chairman,thank you. Just as a follow-up, Mr.Tate. I take it
that whenever neighbors within the 300 feet or plus, and I commend you if that's beyond
the 300 feet. Good for you. I think it's great. But is it just general mail delivery that,so,
you know, it's a matter that I say I sent out a hundred letters and we assume they arrived
at their destination,that type of thing.
MT: That's correct.
DS: Okay. Okay,thank you.
MT: And just to add on that,we did have quite a robust showing at our first neighborhood
meeting and that was noticed to the same list,so.
DS: That was in August?
MT: That's correct.
DS: Hmm.Okay. Thank you.
DR: Mr. Chairman, Mr.Tate, I just wanted to clarify one point. The three stub streets are
there at the insistence of ACHD, is that correct?
MT: That is correct,yes.
DR: All right. Thanks.
Chair: Hmm. Yikes. Okay. Okay. Okay, I'm going to--what am I going to do?
DS: Excuse Mr.Tate first.
Chair: Oh,yeah. Okay.
SB: Mr.Chairman, if I could inquire you (inaudible)?
Chair: Uh-huh.
SB: My understanding that this hearing was noticed for February 1 9th(inaudible)the date
correctly and it was continued at the request of the applicant,but there were two people
present at that hearing and so they were aware of the continuance. And seeing this letter
from Holland Hart today, knowing that they do good work and that they would probably
look at the City's requirements that we get these things at least five days ahead of the
hearing--
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 53 of 73
Chair: Hey,can you talk in the mike? I'm sorry. You're out of order. There you go. Yeah. See,
Tracy even nods.
SB: I know.
Chair: She's the boss.
SB: For the record, Susan Buxton,City Attorney. This hearing was noticed for the middle of
February and it was continued to this day, to a date certain. It's a common practice held
by most cities across the state of Idaho,at least all those that I'm aware of and that we
represent over 25 of them and I have since 1991, I believe. So with that, I believe that
we've met all the requirements for the Open Meeting Act. I see that in this letter,since
I've had a chance to read it, since I was not notified by anyone prior to tonight and
receiving this,there may be an issue with regard to this restricted use agreement. In the
event that the Board decides that it would like to go ahead and make a decision, I believe
you have a legal right to do so and that would be the recommendation would go to City
Council and it would be duly noticed pursuant to law. In the meantime, I would at least
ask that the Board direct staff to work with the applicant to determine--and have the
applicant,at least, work with the owners to determine the question raised by Holland
Hart's letter with regard to restrictive use covenant.
Chair: Thoughts?
DS: Well, I have no difficulty philosophically,with asking for an extension of this public
hearing for a time in the future to be reconvened. I think that what I've heard thus far is
compelling. Compelling enough at least to say that I would like to hear more from other
representatives in the neighborhoods affected. Yes,that's it.
UnkM: (Inaudible).
DR: I'm not sure who that is, but Mr.Chairman, if we choose to continue, I would like on the
record the reasons for that continuance. There must be some additional information on
specific topics that members of this Commission are wanting.
Chair: Okay. Okay. What do you think, Commissioners?
GT: I'm fine going forward,so--
Chair: Yeah.
GT: I'll leave that up to you guys, I think.
Chair: Well, I am too. You know, I think we're a recommendation body and I think we can move
this forward in some manner and realize that,you know,the Council will take this up.
And with the--you know, with the instructions to Susan Buxton that,you know,the
applicant and staff work together on some of the issues with Holland&Hart. And then
with the Council meeting, I guess they will have a lot of testimony.
DR: So, Mr. Chairman,there are a couple of things that I'm really concerned with.
Chair: Okay.
DR: But I'll be honest, I've never seen in six years a hearing where we've had so many
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 54 of 73
changes come before us,you know, outside of our original packet. I've never seen a
case come before us where there is so poor communication prior to coming to our
session here. So, yeah, I have some concerns about proceeding, but are those
substantial enough to prevent proceeding? You know, I look at what we have listened to
here tonight,what's been submitted to us,again,the poor communication and,flat out,
this could have been done a lot better. And I just need my couple of more minutes to
think through whether or not that would constitute a continuation, reason for continuation
on my part. I think when this does get to Council if we were to proceed it would cleaner
but it wouldn't represent the quality work that I like to see this Commission perform. And I
think there would be a substantial amount of work for the Council to do that normally we
do on their behalf.
Chair: Yeah. Yeah, I would agree with that. But I guess,what we have to look at too, is we
have to distill down the issues,you know,and what are the issues. I mean, it's messy,
you know. Obviously we gave Mark the big lecture on,you know, one of the letters and
he basically attested to the fact that he didn't call them up. And then we have the letter
from Holland&Hart. But does that rise to the level of not moving this forward? Realizing
again, I will say,that we are a recommendation body and not a decision maker. And so
the question, I think,that the Commission has to ask itself is,you know,are we just kind
of passing a problem down the road? Should we wait,continue it, have more public
involvement,see what they say,you know,and then at the end of the day, move it
forward or should we go ahead and figure out,we can take our best shot right now? I'll
throw that out.
DS: Okay. Well, I appreciate the comments in terms of, you know,what are the precise
reasons that say that I would ask for it to be continued. I took some comfort in the fact
that we are a recommendation body. And that we're not elected officials and we do not
have the power to approve or disapprove. I agree with that. I'm trying to think of it, if I
were in that neighborhood,you know, how would I feel about it in terms of—let me back
up. Let me walk that back.
SB: Mr. Smith,this is Susan Buxton for the record. If I could help you out, if you don't mind.
DS: Thank you.
SB: I think, if you're going to continue this public hearing,you need to, as Mr.Tanner said,
you need to provide the applicant as well as the homeowners,some direction as to what
additional information you want. And please bear in mind that the City has properly
noticed this. Some of this information has come to you late from both the homeowners'
representatives as well as having concerns about some communication at a
neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood meeting needs to not be confused with the
proceedings before you. The neighborhood meeting is not your proceeding.
Chair: Yeah.
UnkM: (Inaudible).
SB: It is something to provide communication. And whether or not there's complaints about
that communication that they had or not,that is something for you to consider. It's
always part of a record, but it is not the proceeding by under which you make a decision
on. You make the decision by the application that you have before you.
Chair: See, I a hundred percent agree with you. I mean--
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtall Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 55 of 73
SB: So--
Chair: We have to distill it down to what,you know,what are we looking at? What are the
issues here? And,you know,so--
SB: Yeah,correct. I mean, and I think--
Chair: Yeah.
SB: And you've been provided as to--through the concerns of the City staff with regard to
that requirement by the Code, recognizing that that is an additional opportunity for people
to get together,but the official opportunity for their comment to be part of this record for
you to consider is this proceeding,not the neighborhood meeting. So the neighborhood
meeting,again, is not part of your record. The fact that they had one is all that is really
part of the record. You can talk about what they discussed and who was there,that's
fine, but at the same time,this proceeding is the proceeding for you to address. And
again,we do know that when we first noticed it,there were two people here,they're
aware of the continuance, and to my knowledge,there was no objection at that time. But
at the same time, it's for you to decide. I don't want you to mix up the two proceedings.
This is your proceeding. That was something between the applicant and those people
who chose to go to the meetings they provided. And it was duly noticed and that it was a
Friday night is probably something that a lot of folks wouldn't be able to go to. I
recognize that. But at the same time,the City doesn't control that. It is not what we
control. But we only require them to have them. And we also do not have any standards
by which that we have in our ordinance,that tells them what has to be on their notice.
The fact of the matter is,they just have to have a meeting.
DS: Good. Well, I certainly appreciate that. And in terms of the—and I'm glad you pointed
out the obvious word, and that is direction to the or the phrase,direction to the applicant.
And, you know, I would agree and concur with what Commissioner Roehling mentioned
in terms of the quality of the work done. It's disappointing in the sense that if I were the
developer,you know,one of the things I'd definitely be doing is trying to show and
demonstrate to the neighborhood this is what we've done,this is what we conceded,we
listened to this,we listened to that,this is what we're going to do,etcetera,etcetera. It's
beyond the question now. I should have asked it earlier. But one of the things that I
would have loved to have known the answer to the question,that is,on the comments
that were made by the people at that neighborhood meeting,which I understand is a
private meeting. Apparently they made some proposals. And I ache to know what the
response was from the developer to that. However, I think that,you know,just to be
reminded again of our position, which is one of being a recommendation body, and that
lots of issues will be ironed out in the Council. And there is still that step where public
can testify as vigorously as they wish. And then perhaps then it will be heard by those
who are actually going to recommend or to approve or to disapprove the request. So I'll
step back from the request to continue public testimony and keep in mind that what's
before us at this point has certainly met the letter of the law.
Chair: Okay. I think under those circumstances,Susan, we don't need a motion to basically
make a motion, right?
SB: I would say it for the record. Just there is a apparently,the stuff that I saw,that there's a
narrative that was provided about some of the discussion at the neighborhood meetings.
It's part of record.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 56 of 73
Chair: Okay.
SB: (Inaudible).
Chair: Okay.
SB: But as far as now, you know, I don't know that--if there's new information-- I don't
believe there's(inaudible)information that we've brought up, but there was--(inaudible)
of the Council(inaudible)anybody has an issue, I would ask that the Board take a five
minute break so I can confer with both the homeowners here as well as the staff to make
sure that there's no new information that came up in rebuttal that people would like to
address cause I would like to make sure(inaudible)complete public hearing. So if you
would give me five minutes to do that, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it.
Chair: Okay. We'll take a five minute recess.
[Recess taken]
[Hearing resumes]
Chair: Okay. Okay--
SB: Mr.Chairman, Members of the Commission,Susan Buxton,for the record.
Chair: Right.
SB: I would like to ask the homeowners association and their attorney to come forward to
address some of the new information that I brought up,especially with regard to the--
you know,the latest information and as well as the restricted covenants,so this
information is kind of new(inaudible). It appears to me,just so you all know and so they
can respond to this,to be a private matter. It's something that the City does not have a
dog in that fight and we will not engage in that, but to the extent that any side things that
is something that's going to be affected by the City decision,then I'd like to hear some
information about that.
Chair: So I'm opening up the public--
SB: So basically this is--
Chair: Yeah.
SB: Only open for a very narrow--we're not going to rehash what the previous testimony. It's
just for--
Chair: Okay.
SB: Addressing any of that new questions and information that was brought up with my earlier
diatribe.
Chair: So we're looking at Katherine and--or we're looking at who or are we looking at coming
up?
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtall Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 57 of 73
SB: The homeowner and their attorney if they would like to speak and--
Chair: Okay. And then JoAnn is--
SB: (Inaudible)--
Chair: Cause she's doing this pacing deal, so,okay. Okay. So will Katherine and--Katherine
Georger and Brian--
BS: Schlader.
Chair: Schlader,would you please approach and go ahead and give me your name and address
again, is that right? Just for the record.
BS: Brian Schlader, Foxtail Homeowners Association,6620 North Fox Run Avenue.
Chair: Thank you.
KG: Katherine Georger, 101 South Capitol Boulevard.
Chair: Okay.
BS: So the two issues that we think are new information are the restrictive use agreement
and how It relates to,you know,whether that stub street can even go through and where
it should be placed. So that's one thing. The other thing that we feel is new information
is that came out of Friday's meeting where we proposed some various scenarios and
there's not been time for the applicant to respond about the willingness to meet with us
and work through some of those things so we can come up with a solution that requires.
So(inaudible) --
UnkM: (Inaudible)--
BS: And is something that we can all live with.
Chair: Okay. And just for the record, I want to apologize to you, Katherine,because I didn't
realize that there was a stub street there. I was looking at this, and so was
Commissioner Tanner were looking at this map from November of 2012. It didn't have
that little street. So you're talking about the street and I'm looking at it going, what is she
talking about. But it's right there. Okay. Exactly where you said it was, so I apologize.
KG: (Inaudible).
Chair: Okay.
KG: No problem (inaudible).
Chair: Okay.
BS: Any questions for us?
Chair: Okay. Any questions from the Commission?
DS: Brian, I just have a follow-up. So essentially,the point is that there's a period of time
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 58 of 73
between our vote here tonight and the time it goes to City Council. And I don't know what
the schedule is,nor do I know the timeline, but that would be a finite period of time that
could allow discussions to go as you're looking forward to. You understand that?
BS: I understand that. I think it's a relatively short time. As you guys have mentioned,that
the communication has been relatively poor to this point. And so our request is that the
applicant spend some time with us and I don't know why those other neighbors didn't get
the notice, but when I talked to them in Sandy Court(inaudible)they had no indication
that they got those notices, so they're an interested party and none of them were at the
meeting. So I just think that we're missing out on input and we have given them a
proposal and,you know, we haven't had time for them to respond to it. And maybe they
have something else that we'd be willing to look at, but we've had no time for that
dialogue since the neighborhood meeting. And that's my understanding of the purpose of
the neighborhood meeting, is to create discussion.
Chair: Well, no,go ahead, I'm sorry.
BS: And that first neighborhood meeting was a completely different plan and it was at one
point they said they were going to get rid of that street. The street's now back on the
plan. They may not have forced it back on the plan, but it's on the plan. Okay. And I
think that warrants further discussion.
Chair: Yeah,and I think the applicant's, you know,failure to follow-up phone call has come back
to haunt them a little bit,wouldn't you, Commissioners, say that? I mean--
UnkM: I'm not feeling a lot of sympathy.
Chair: Yeah, I mean, interestingly enough. Okay. But here's my question to you,though,too. If
we decide to move this forward,then you realize that we're a recommendation body.
And if we move it forward,that gives you the ability to,you know, muster, I guess,
everything together and work something out for the decision body. I guess what I'm
saying is,you save your powder.
BS: Right.
Chair: You know,and stuff,for-- I mean, cause we can look at it again and then we can,you
know--cause every motion we make, it's like we recommend for approval--
BS: Right.
Chair: That the Council approve this and stuff. So the question to you is,and Katherine, is to
you, is that-- I mean, if we move this forward with all the changes that we want to make
for the sake of discussion,then you can get into it and really roll with your sleeves up.
Cause everybody's busy,and what I hate to have to happen is people will work on this
part of the equation and then they think,okay,we've done something,and then it's like
the decision makers--
BS: Right.
Chair: Are the ones that make the decision for,you know-if that makes sense.
BS: And I have to admit, I'm (inaudible)us.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 59 of 73
Chair: Yeah.
BS: But I would love for them to go to the-- I mean I don't know. My personal preference I
would love to go to the City Council with an agreement that we like and they like,and
say, here's how it can all work and we're greasing the skids for them. We've come up
with some recommendations and we haven't heard anything.
Chair: Okay.
DR: Mr.Chairman, Brian --
Chair: Yes.
DR: You would be amazed at how smoothly things can go when that happens, when people
just get together and talk through the issues.
Chair: Okay.
DR: Which doesn't appear to have happened here.
Chair: Yeah. Go ahead.
DR: I have one more question.
Chair: Yes.
DR: So it's really a matter of time, I think is the fact that you're discussing here. Time to
resolve issues outside of the hearing environment,time to be better prepared,other
members of the community to be better prepared to come to either a P&Z meeting or a
Council meeting. What period of time are you talking about there? And be clear, I'm not
anticipating undue delay.
UnkM: Right.
BS: I think that we can be ready(inaudible)-- I mean if we can meet with them and we can do
that, I don't see any reason why in two weeks'time,we can't come back before this body.
And if that seems like a(inaudible)—
DR: Well--
Chair: Yeah. Oh,you know what, I got staff and, you know,Susan going,there's no way. We
don't--
SB: I guess if my understanding of what your question is, Mr. Roehling--
DR: So, my question just is, new information has been introduced,and my question is--
UnkM: What new information?
SB: What I meant by new information, is new information received at least by City staff. And
so as far as City staff is concerned,that information was not, actually by our own code,
something that we are obligated to put in the record. It was requested by the applicant to
put it in the record just to get it out to you and be fair at the same time we got it as staff.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtaa Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 60 of 73
Okay? So with that, I was going, you know, I'm saying that usually that type of
information would just go to City Council and you wouldn't have considered it as part of
this testimony tonight. Okay?
BS: Is it okay if(inaudible) understanding why the(inaudible)--
DR: Actually, I can close out my--
SB: But that doesn't really--
DR: I can close out my question here pretty quickly.
SB: Okay,thank you.
DR: The question really comes down to the amount of time to adequately prepare for the next
session. You indicated two weeks. Whether or not that would be here or whether or not
that would be at Council, right?
BS: And we'll leave it up to your wisdom, but I would say we're happy to come back here in
two weeks.
DR: All right. Mr.Chairman, given that it's a matter of duration and two weeks would be
adequate time for preparation, I would be comfortable proceeding,but that would be for a
Council, not for a P&Z meeting. And if we could include in our motion or some separate
motion a recommendation that a hearing not be scheduled before a date.
SB: Mr. Chairman,(inaudible)--
DR: And that would provide adequate preparation time.
Chair: Yes.
SB: Please bear in mind, Mr. Roehling,that, you know,with regard to this right now,they're
asked you for something. You're still in a public hearing right now. It's not really question
and answer time. And the applicant now has the ability to also--
Chair: Rebut.
SB: Also address some of your questions(inaudible) right now. Prior to you closing
(inaudible)you're(inaudible)public hearing's not closed yet.
Chair: Okay.
SB: So I prefer that, you know,get the questions now with the answer before we have a
motion to make a decision, so(inaudible).
Chair: Right.
DR: Right,very good,thank.
Chair: Yeah. Okay. Okay, is there any other questions for Katherine or--okay. Thanks,you
guys.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 61 of 73
BS: Thank you.
Chair: Appreciate it. Okay. And so can we have Mark and--
JB: Mark and JoAnn--
Chair: JoAnn rebut.
JB: Dynamic Duo,yes.
Chair: Okay. Go.
MT: First, I just wanted to offer, and I think you guys were kind of heading in this direction,but
to have another meeting with anybody that would like to come in between Planning&
Zoning and City Council if you guys do decide to make a recommendation tonight. I do
appreciate what he's saying. With the proposals that were brought to our attention on
Friday,the two that he'd mentioned tonight and that I recall from Friday, one was to move
the signal to the half mile. And he mentioned that tonight,and my response to that was,
we actually had a meeting with ITD regarding the consequence of doing that would be
and there's enormous financial implication to doing that,one of which would be realigning
the southern portion of that signal,which would have to be paid for by whoever decides
to pay for that realignment. And back of the napkin estimates put that at about$3 million
dollars, so it didn't seem like a feasible plan to be able to do that. So that was just one of
them. And then another one that you just brought up was the, look at reductions in
density and take access to that signal. And we can explore that more if we have the
chance to meet at the next meeting. But like I mentioned in m presentation,the
residential area,we're not here with a new project. Its been approved. The density is
defined in the concept plan. It's not a new application. We're here simply to implement
what was already approved. And so with regard to the density, I feel like these
discussions were had with the previous approval and we're here simply to implement
that. And I think JoAnn was going to talk about the letter that was submitted and that
restrictive use agreement.
JB: So we would have another neighborhood meeting prior to the City Council hearing, and
that's fine. Commissioners, I've been before you for many, many years. And I'm about to
say something that doesn't usually come up before you. I want to give you a sense of the
tone and the volume of the neighborhood meeting that we held in August. Eighteen
people showed up,signed up. There were many more than that. I have never in a
neighborhood meeting felt threatened or nervous for either myself or my client and I did
that night. I have never seen somebody's face so close to my client's face and to stand
up and say, I'll be dead or broke before I'll let this project go through. Things like this. It
was belligerent. And I want to have another neighborhood meeting. We have always
prided ourselves on reaching out to people. I have counseled my client in the past to
say, if that's the way people act,you should do this with other people present. And in
fact, I am going to ask,we want to have a neighborhood meeting. We want to have
these proposals fleshed out. But I'm asking that a staff member be there at this next
meeting because it was that bad.
DS: May I respond to that? I would like to attend it if it's possible. I'd like to at least--
JB: No,maybe not--
DS: Do that.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 62 of 73
JB: Because of your making decisions for--
DS: Oh,that's right.
JB: Well, unless they close it and it goes to the Council.
DS: Oh, I know what will happen if I go. Everyone has to come. But anyway,okay.
JB: But I make that request.
DS: Disregard, yeah.
JB: Because it was what it was. With regard to the restrictive use agreement,the restrictive
use agreement was attached as Exhibit A to the letter. It clearly says on page 1 that it
applies to the property and it defines the property as Lot 1, Block 2 of Foxtail Subdivision.
So this restrictive use agreement affects that one area, one lot,within Foxtail Subdivision.
That lot is not part of our application. And so this restrictive use agreement does not
affect the application or your decision before you. Happy to answer any other questions.
And we look forward to another neighborhood meeting. And I know Katherine,who I
haven't met before,was not there and I welcome her being at the meeting. And hopefully
we'll make some progress before we make City Council.
Chair: Okay. Just a second,JoAnn. Any questions for JoAnn? Okay. No? Okay. Thank you,
JoAnn. Okay. I'm closing the public hearing again. Is that right? Okay. (Inaudible).
Okay,so,what do you think? I'll entertain a motion to whatever you guys want to do.
DR: Yeah,so, I think I've been pretty clear in my thoughts on this so far. Would just like to
clarify that I think City staff has done a good job trying to pull all the information together.
Just late information coming in requiring a lot of changes for us to deal with here.
Hopefully we get it right, we minimize the impact on Council. But I think we're in a
position where we can proceed.
DS: I'm inclined to agree. I would just take a moment, Mike, if you wrote this whole article,
this 5A article, I commend you because I found it to be a bear to read through. And I
thought many times as I was reading through about the writer,with all the secret codes
there. You know, italics, underlined italics, bold,etcetera,etcetera,etcetera. I found it to
be a--it was like juggling. And I don't talk about only having one had very often, but I'll
tell ya, I felt like a one-handed juggler. And it wasn't the first time some of those papers
ended up on the floor, so. It was a tough,tough read, but.
MW: And Mr. Chairman,Commission,some staff could probably attest to it, but there's been
many hours put in by staff beyond the typical government hours, if you will. We're talking
60 to 70 hours a week and weekends trying to make these happen for you. And we're
trying to keep it as clear as possible. Sometimes it may be clear as mud,but we wanted
to give--especially with the development agreement portion of this staff report,to give
you--so we could show you what was in the original development agreement,so we
could show you what was being proposed by the applicant, as well as show you what
staff was recommending. We understood from previous application the confusion was
there, and we were trying to clear it up on this application to make it an easier read.
Chair: Commissioner Tanner,sorry.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,IIC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 63 of 73
GT: Oh, boy. I would concur with you guys. I think I'm in a position to move this thing onto
City Council with staff's recommended or approved changes that we talked about tonight
on the site-specific conditions and the standard and the recommendations for approval.
Just for the record, I want to make it clear that--and I don't know if we have anybody
from ACHD here tonight. Didn't sound like it,but just for the record, and I don't know how
we pass this on to Council, but that southernmost stub gives me a lot of problem. One, I
don't think it's necessary,and two,you've got a lot of density that could funnel down that
Foxtail Road, not to mention putting a road immediately adjacent to a lot owner that
probably bought that lot never,ever anticipating that a potential collector would--if that's
what you would call it, run adjacent to his property. So I just wanted to make known my
displeasure for that ACHD recommendation. And if there's any way that, you know,staff
or Council can have an impact there with regard to ACHD demanding that,that that
would be good to see. So, other than that, I'm good to go.
Chair: Okay. My turn. Yeah, you know, I did M3, Bill. This is not some of your better work,
okay? I mean, you guys--wow. I appreciate you two. I think,you know,saving your
powder for Council is a good idea. I would caution the applicants, because I will say that
there's a slight possibility that several of us might be on Council when this goes in front of
Council cause there's an opening,a vacancy in Council. And so do right and clean it up,
cause if we see it again and we're having the same issues, I can tell ya,ain't going to be
good. So with that, I concur with the rest of the Commission and I will entertain a motion
to move this thing forward.
MW: Mr. Chairman?
Chair: Yes.
MW: If there's going to be a motion to move it forward, I'd request that you look at the Site-
Specific Conditions of Approval that were presented for the changes,so we can address
each one of those. The applicant also requested that you address this as well,regarding
the golf course and the development agreement.
Chair: So we're working off of the user/Butler app data, is that correct? We're working off this
thing?
MW: Yes.
Chair: Yes. So this is this(inaudible).
DS: Yeah.
Chair: This one right here.
DS: Yeah.
Chair: Okay.
BB: (Inaudible).
DR: Yeah, Mr. Chairman,there is also the--
Chair: Public hearing's closed, Bill.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 64 of 73
DR: Issue with setbacks. We're talking about the development agreement. There was 3.1,
3.2,and 3.5.4,to make sure that we address. Unfortunately, my notes, I didn't capture
anything changed on 3.5.4, but I know that there were some requested changes there.
Chair: I don't have--oh, yeah, it's on 3.5.1. I don't have a problem -- I don't know. I've never
had had a problem with smaller setbacks.
DS: I noticed that,frankly, you know,with the setback thing, I thought there was a formula. I
always thought they were driven by a formula.
Chair: 3.5.4. What would you--
DR: So it's at the top of page 9 of 39.
Chair: Yeah,8 and 9. Yeah.
DS: Yeah.
Chair: Okay. So what I'd recommend to the Commission is we work off of this, I guess,this
thing first.
DR: Yeah. We can do that. I think there were only those couple of points in the development
agreement.
Chair: Right.
DR: And if we get clarification, perhaps Mike can clarify the request on 3.5.4 for us.
MW: Mr. Chairman,Commissioner Roehling,the best I can tell, it's 3.5.4 is in regard to the
setbacks.
DR: Yes.
MW: Okay. Staff was comfortable with the requests that were put forth to you by Mr.Tate,and
we could bring you back the findings to reflect what was proposed by Mr.Tate. And what
I showed--and Mark,could you pop that up really quick on your PowerPoint and then I
could get up there and address it? Commissioner Roehling,was this the chart you're
referring to?
DR: Yeah,this is what I was recalling.
Chair: Oh, yeah okay. That's good.
DR: Mike,you indicated that you didn't have an issue with these requests?
MW: Correct. From a staff perspective and reviewing future building permits,this actually
provides us further clarification. Especially when you identify specific lots, if you will,that
were based on design of the lot. So staff was comfortable in what the applicant
requested and would recommend that we move forward with their request.
Chair: It's actually more, right?
DR: There was a difference in how it was measured,was the issue. How do we get these into
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 65 of 73
a motion,though? I think it can probably be as simple as,just as proposed by--
setbacks as proposed by the applicant,right? And then--
DS: (Inaudible)--
DR: And then Mike can handle the revisions.
Chair: Is that okay?
DR: All right.
Chair: Okay.
DS: So we're looking at right here, okay. Well, let me try this one it's a bear--
Chair: Okay.
DS: But let's try it. Before I start,though, my notes are that there are three things: setbacks,
drive-thru, golf course,and then whatever is on this document here.
Chair: That's right.
DS: (Inaudible).
DR: My understanding was,there is nothing required. Do you want to prohibit the restaurant
style drive-thru?
Chair: Uh-huh.
DR: That's already--
DS: That's already--
DR: Prohibited.
DS: That's right.
Chair: Yeah.
DS: Good point. That's right.
DR: So there's no change there.
Chair: Right.
DS: Good. So that's--
DR: On the golf course,that's 3.1 and 3.2.
DS: Right.
DR: And leave those as originally proposed.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 66 of 73
DS: And then the setbacks as proposed?
DR: 3.5.4 as proposed by the applicant. And then we have Site-Specific Conditions of
Approval, as well as the Standard Conditions of Approval of approval in the handout that
we received.
Chair: Okay.
DS: Okay. Correct.
UnkM: (Inaudible)everything but 14.
DS: Yeah. I'd like to recommend for approval item RZ-11-08-MOD and PP-05-12, Reynard
Subdivision-Foxtail Partners LLC,with the addition that the golf course language as
described in 3.1 and 3.2 remain as written by staff. The setbacks addressed in 3.5.4 are
agreed to via the document titled M3 Companies Proposed versus Existing Setbacks,
page 8 and 11. Also,that the Site-Specific Conditions of Approval provided by M3--
Mike,you mentioned 1 and 4, etcetera,as agreement. Does that mean that the others
that you don't agree with there? Item 6 for example. I don't have any notes on 6.
Chair: (Inaudible).
MW: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith, I was in agreement with all the recommended Site-
Specific Conditions of Approval,or the requested Site-Specific Conditions of Approval, if
you will, with the exception of number 14, removing the first sentence.
DS: Oh,that's correct—
Chair: That's right.
DR: Mr.Chairman, Commissioner Smith—
DS: Yeah.
DR: And Mike, I noted that Site-Specific Condition of Approval No. 13 was not needed
because of the wording that you have in the--
MW: Correct.
DR: Report.
DS: Oh,yeah. That's right. Good. Okay. Then,sorry,Tracy. So then, back to the Site-
Specific Conditions of Approval,that Item 13 be deleted because of the reference to the
caliper of the shade tree,that would be up to the Design Review Board. Item 14,that it
does not have the all living tree sentence stricken. And that's it, I think. Okay. Does that
make sense to you,Tracy, as I've babbled on?
Chair: We got this in writing.
DS: So is there anything else guys?
Chair: (Inaudible)--
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 67 of 73
MW: Mr. Chairman?
Chair: Yes.
MW: And I'm surprised JoAnn isn't over here on this one or Susan's not hitting me, but on the
development agreement--yes,and I know it's not too late. On the development
agreement, in regard to Condition of Development 3.1,staff will bring back,with your
permission of course,the correct language in regard to which code is in effect at the time
DS: Oh,yeah.
MW: The code is actually based on at the time of application and staff will fix that.
Chair: Oh,that's right.
DS: Okay. Yeah. As Mike suggested there, 3.1,the last sentence be written talking about at
the time of execution versus as it exists now. Okay.
Chair: Okay.
DS: (Inaudible).
Chair: Very good,thank you. Okay. Mike, anything else? How are we doing on landing the
plane, kind of corning in?
MW: I believe we're there.
Chair: Okay. So,do I have a-- I'm sorry, did you want to say something?
DS: No.
DR: Did we get the standard conditions?
Chair: No,we got site-specific.
DR: So standard conditions are just at the back of that same handout.
Chair: Oh,the only thing about the standard conditions was--oh,that's right.
DS: Oh,that's right.
Chair: Oh,the Meridian.
DS: Oh,the changes from the Meridian Fire Department--from the Eagle Fire Department to
the Meridian Fire Department.
UnkM: (Inaudible)based on their document anyway.
Chair: Okay.
DS: On Standard Conditions of Approval.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 68 of 73
UnkM: (Inaudible)right here.
DS: Yes.
Chair: Okay. Very good. Thank you. (Inaudible). Okay, I'll entertain a second on that.
DR: I'll second the motion.
Chair: Okay. Any further discussion? Anybody want to discuss this?
DR: Yes, I would like to have a discussion on Site-Specific Condition of Approval No. 13. The
terminology used in the motion was, 13 should be deleted. I think, 13 is not needed,the
modification of 13 is not needed. It's not a delete Site-Specific Condition No. 13,just do
not modify it.
Chair: Oh, I see. Do you see what he's saying?
UnkM: Correct.
DS: Yeah, I see that.
Chair: Do you want to amend your motion?
DS: Amend it to include that remark.
Chair: Okay,so we're amending the motion to--just to--okay.
DS: We will not delete it.
Chair: Yeah,just the two caliper is basically what--okay.
GT: It will be as proposed.
Chair: Does the second concur?
DR: Second concurs.
Chair: Okay,very good. Okay. Additional discussion? Discussion, good call.
DR: I have just one more point. On 3.1 and 3.2, I understood the motion to be that the
development agreement modifications would be left as originally written,so no change
from the original text.
DS: You're talking about the golf course issues?
DR: Yes. With the exception on 3.1, it needs to be written in such a manner as to reflect the
ordinances in place at the time the agreement is reached or the application is made, I
think was the terminology, is that correct,Mike?
MW: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Smith, help me here. I believe the motion when you
made your motion, was 3.1 and 3.2 to be as staff proposed with their recommendation.
DS: That's right,because my note on that was that, in that last sentence,talking about the
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 69 of 73
time such application is made versus the time of actual execution. So you were going to
differentiate that in the language of that last sentence?
MW: Correct. And I mean,the clarification I'm requesting is,we're not going back to the
original 3.1 and leaving the language in there for golf course operations.
DS: No, I was talking 3.1,that--
MW: Staff proposed.
DS: Underlined and italic, italicized.
DR: So the request of the applicant was to give them the flexibility to resume operation of the
golf course if development were delayed, is what I understood. Which is what the original
language used in 3.1 and 3.2 would allow? And I believe changing that would prohibit
them from doing that.
DS: Well--
DR: It presumes that the golf course is closed and remains closed.
GT: They'd have to come back and execute the development agreement anyway to modify.
Chair: (Inaudible)continue on (inaudible)well 3.1, golf course operations may continue on the
property(inaudible).
DR: So read 3.1, it's underlined and italics.
DS: Okay, I'll read that and while I'm thinking about it,there was a recommendation that
Wilson ought to be removed. It says Foxtail will develop the property subject to the
conditions and limitations set forth in this development agreement. Further, Foxtail as
applicable will submit such applications regarding design review, preliminary and final
plat service reviews,and/or any conditional use permits if applicable, and any other
applicable applications as may be required by the Eagle City Code, which shall comply
with the Eagle City Code as it exists at the time such applications are made except as
otherwise provided within this development agreement. I take back what I said about the
last sentence. It's the only sentence.
UnkM: (Inaudible)--
DR: Do my fellow Commissioners understand what I'm trying to get to here? The applicant
has requested that if they choose to resurrect the golf course--
DS: Yeah.
DR: Prior to development commencing--
DS: Yeah.
DR: They just want to be able to do that.
GT: I don't have a problem with that.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 70 of 73
DR: I don't have a problem with it either. Do you agree that the original 3.1 and 3.2
accomplish that and that that is precluded by the staff recommended 3.1?
UnkM: Yeah.
DR: So we do want the original language.
Chair: Original--yeah. So I have written remove.
SB: Right.
Chair: Italicize 3.1 on my notes.
SB: That'd be correct.
Chair: Okay.
DR: Okay.
JB: Change that in (inaudible).
Chair: Okay. So moved.
DS: So moved.
Chair: So moved. So--
UnkM: What'd we just do?
Chair: Okay, so--
SB: So we got--we got to make that clear,a little more clear. You're going to keep the
original 3.1, correct?
DR: Yes.
DS: Yes. The original font, no underline, no italics.
Chair: Thoughts? What do you think,Susan? Hey, Susan.
DS: (Inaudible).
UnkM: Just a sec.
Chair: Yeah,what do you think?
GT: So what condition do we have now that requires them to bring the other applications
forward? We don't.
DS: Okay. The applicant then (inaudible)--
SB: What Mike's concern is, is that if you keep the original 3.1 but you don't have--you know,
the further applications coming forward,that that will mess us up. So his--you know, he
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 71 of 73
has the italicized 3.1 delete the word Wilson. And then he would ask then to make it
clear that,you know, keep the original 3.1,which keeps the golf course operations if they
want to continue them, but add that first sentence that says Foxtail will develop the
property subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in this development agreement.
And then the rest of 3.1, is that what you said?
MW: Actually--
SB: You do it.
MW: Mr.Chairman, Members of the Commission,what I would recommend is take 3.1 as staff
has proposed it,take the first sentence off the original 3.1, and just add it to the very
beginning of that that basically says golf course operations may continue on the property
or such portions of the property until applicant elects to abandon such operations. Just
add It to the very beginning and that leaves the golf course.
DS: Okay.
Chair: Yeah.
DS: As stated. Thank you.
Chair: Okay.
DS: So moved.
Chair: Okay. So--
DR: Second concurs.
Chair: Second concurs. Okay. Did you get that,Tracy? Okay. Good job. Okay.
DS: So sorry.
Chair: Okay,so--
DR: That leaves open one question. The motion also, I understood,to leave 3.2 unchanged?
And I think--
DS: 3.2.
DR: That will be just fine.
Chair: See, I didn't have any notes on that. I don't have any notes on that, so.
DS: Yeah, I don't have any.
DR: Yeah,so 3.2 as recommended by staff would be fine.
UnkM: Yeah.
DS: Unchanged.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 72 of 73
DR: Yes.
UnkM: (Inaudible).
Chair: Call for vote?
DS: Okay. I'm good with that.
Chair: Commissioner?
DR: I am super good.
Chair: Commissioner Tanner, you're good to go?
GT: Yeah.
Chair: Okay. So I'm going to call for vote. All in favor?
GT: Aye.
DR: Aye.
DS: Aye
Chair: Aye. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Wow, guys. Okay. On to the next one. See
ya later. Hey, you used to go till 1:00 in the morning. That was fun. Okay.
DS: M3 certainly knows that. They've--
Chair: Oh,yeah. Couple of them.
DS: Run those marathons.
Eagle City Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing dated March 4, 2013,regarding Reynard
Subdivision-Foxtail Partners, LLC ends.
TRANSCRIPT:Eagle City Planning&Zoning Commission Hearing
RE:Reynard Subdivision-Foxtail Partners,LLC.
Dated: March 4,2013
Page 73 of 73