Loading...
Minutes - 1980 - City Council - 10/29/1980 - RegularP.O. BOX 477 EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 208-939-6813 Mayor: Jerry Deckard Council: Floyd Decker Carol Haley Orval Krasen LeRoy Pearman October 29, 1980 The regular meeting of the Eagle City Council was called to order by Mayor Deckard on October 29, 1980 at 7:30 P. M. at the Eagle City Hall. ~ DECKER, HALEY, KRASEN, PEARMAN were present. The minutes of the meeting of October 14, 1980 were corrected as follows: Page 1, paragraph 6, line 7 add "Mayor Deckard requested com~nents from those present." Moved by PEARMAN and seconded by DECKER to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion resulted as follows: AYE: DECKER, HALEY, KRASEN, PEARMAN. Motion carried. Ellery Brown, architect for Esco Inc. presented the council with a colored elevation of a office complex addition to existing dental office located at 589 State Street. Moved by KRASEN and seconded by DECKER that Design Review Application #7-80 be approved. That this council used Ordinance #55 in consideration of the application. That the applicant must comply with all the particulars stated in their application #7-80. That the applicant must agree to install a sprinkler system. That the applicant must agree to construct some type of storage area for garbage to be used by all the occupants of the building, and that the applicant submit the sign and landscaping to the Design Review Board at a later date for their action. Motion resulted as follows: AYE: DECKER, HALEY, KRASEN, PEARMAN. Motion carried. Councilman KRASEN gave a report on the committee to review Ordinance #1. They felt there were minor changes throughout the ordinance except for the subdivision portion which needs to be rewritten. Mayor Deckard will appoint a committee to write a subdivision ordinance. Mayor Deckard announced that this was the time and the place for a public hearing on the following annexation requests: C. R. Marshall, Frank Marz, Nancy M. Kleng, Marc L. Marz, Marie Main, Quarter Circle DJ, Verlan A. Mace, Leonard W. Mace, Elbert & Dolores Creed, Floyd & Ina B. Chastain, Wilder's Valley Broiler and Michael J. and Marie Burkhart. October 29, 1980 Page 2 Ryan Armbruster, attorney representing Don Wilder submitted a letter of protest of Donald E. Wilder and Audrey L. Wilder to the adoption of an Eagle City Ordinance providing for the annexation of certain properties into the City of Eagle. Susan Keller, Route #3 Eagle, read testimony from Barry Watts stating the Eagle Citizens Association Inc., and Board of Directors are opposed to the annexation of certain agricultural parcels identified as Verlan A. Mace, Leonard W. Mace, Marie Main and Quarter Circle DJ and reasons for that decision. Richard Boylan, 2665 South Channel Road read a letter to the Eagle City Council stating his reasons for being opposed to annexation. LaRue Bevington, Eagle spoke in favor of the proposed annexation. Frank Stoppello, Route #3 Arlington spoke against the proposed annexation. There being no further testimony to come before the council, the hearing was declared closed. Moved by KRASEN and seconded by PEARMAN that the next regularly scheduled council meeting be held Wednesday, November 12, 1980 since November 11, 1980 is a holiday. Motion resulted as follows: AYE: DECKER, HALEY, KRASEN, PEARMAN. Motion carried. Councilman PEARMAN told the council he would be out of town at that time. There being no further business to come before the council, the meeting was adjourned. ]~UHKE, ]~V~S, B03~ ~D KOONTZ ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 1559 October 28, 1980 Eagle City Council Eagle City Hall Eagle, Idaho 83616 Protest of Donald E. Wilder and Audrey L. Wilder to the adoption of an Eagle City ordinance pro- viding for the annexation of certain properties into the City of Eagle. Dear City Council: This law firm represents Donald E. Wilder and Audrey L. Wilder, owners of the Wilder Valley Broiler Restaurant property, located on the corner of Edgewood Lane and Highway 44, east of the City of Eagle. By this letter, Donald E. Wilder protests the annexation of his property to the City of Eagle. Donald Wilder reaffirms his objections made to the Eagle City Council by letter dated March 26, 1980 which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Wilders' parcel under consideration for annexation by the City of Eagle is approximately four (4) acres at the northwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 44 and Edgewood Lane. This parcel was purchased by the Wilders in the summer of 1975. Later that year Ada County rezoned the property from R-4 to C-2. The Eagle City Council recommended approval of that rezone to the Ada County Commissioners. This parcel was part of an annexation by the City of Eagle in December, 1976. For specific reasons not known to Wilder at this time, the parcel was de-annexed by the City of Eagle in January, 1977. The annexation ordinance that was passed in December, 1976, included additional Wilder property adjacent and con- tiguous to the four acre parcel, now under consideration. This eleven (11) acre parcel was subsequently de-annexed by court judgment on February 4, 1980. The four acre parcel now under consideration, was part of an earlier annexation process undertaken by the City of Eagle in the spring of 1980. This annexation process was set aside by court proceedings and the Wilder parcel is now once again under consideration by the City of Eagle for annexation. Eagle City Council Page two October 28, 1980 This four acre parcel under consideration should not be annexed by the City of Eagle for several reasons. This four acre parcel which is the site of the Wilder's Valley Broiler, is part of a larger parcel under Wilders' ownership which includes the additional eleven acre parcel that has recently been de-annexed. The total parcel under one ownership is approximately fifteen acres. Under the ownership of Mr. Wilder, no parcel has been layed off or set off in blocks in less than five (5) acre parcels. Consequently, this parcel is not annexable pursuant to Idaho Code S 50-222. Additionally, without the annexation of the larger eleven acre parcel owned by the Wilders, the only way this four acre parcel becomes adjacent to the City of Eagle is if the City of Eagle annexes a very small parcel immediately west of the Wilders' property. This adjacent property is a very narrow parcel which borders Highway 44. To annex the Wilder parcel by the property that borders Highway 44, violates Idaho Code ~ 50-222. The City Council does not have the power to annex such properties if the property is connected to the City only by a shoestring or strip of land upon a public highway. Further, even if the property is annexable, the annexation of Wilder's property, will give the City of Eagle a very bizarre, convoluted City boundary. There is also question whether the property identified as the "Marz" parcel was requested for annexation by the legal owner at the time the annexation proceedings began. Finally, annexing the four acre parcel owned by Mr. Wilder, will divide his property in an untenable manner, leaving part of his property within the City of Eagle and part of his property outside the City of Eagle. Consequently, the annexation of the four acre parcel should not be considered. The overwhelming reason for objecting to this annexation is that the Wilder property cannot reasonably be assumed to be used for the orderly development of the City of Eagle. The annexation of this property violates several provisions of Eagle's own Comprehensive Plan. The annexation violates one of the purposes of the City of Eagle's Comprehensive Plan; to protect the property rights and value of an individual's holdings. This annexation with the recommended zoning of R-1 will devalue the owner's property. Additionally, the recommended zoning R-1 will be incompatible with the surrounding land uses. As you know, the adjacent property south of Highway 44 is designated as industrial use. An industrial use which is divided by Eagle City Council Page three October 28, 1980 residential use merely by the width of a highway, does not pro- vide for a buffer zone between two incompatible uses. The annexation of this parcel violates a goal of the City of Eagle to develop property already within the City limits through infilling, before then annexing lands outside the city limits. Finally, and most importantly, no city services are available for this site. The Eagle Comprehensive Plan makes it very clear that annexation and development of properties will only be authorized when sewer and water facilities are available to the site. A study done by the Eagle Sewer and Water District, states that this parcel will not be ready for sewer and water facilities for a minimum of two more years. The Eagle City Comprehensive Plan requires that development be temporarily disallowed when facilties are inadequate to serve the new development area. This lack of sewer and water facilities makes neither a commercial or residential development feasible at this time and consequently, the annexation should not be considered. This reasoning was accepted by your Planning and Zoning Commission when they recommended that the Wilder parcel not be annexed to the City of Eagle. Finally, the City of Eagle can provide no city services to the property owner. As mentioned, sewer and water facilities are not available, neither will the property owner benefit from any additional municipal facilities or services. Of an even more disturbing nature, should the City of Eagle consider annexation, which the property owner vehemently opposes, is the recommended zoning for the Wilder parcel. The recommended zoning which was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, (though annexation was rejected), is R-1. As indicated earlier, residential development could not be undertaken for at least another two years because of lack of water and sewer facilities. Because of the small nature of this parcel, less than four acres, there could only be a maximum of three family dwellings built on this site, if the existing restaurant were demolished. Because of the industrial zone designations to the south, it would appear unlikely that any development for such a small number of residential dwellings would be conceiveable. Under the Eagle zoning ordinance, multi- family dwellings would not be possible on this site, as well. Eagle City Council Page four October 28, 1980 The other factor to consider, is that if a residential zone is adopted, a non-conforming use will be on the property for sometime to come. Non-conforming uses, are causes of difficulty and should be avoided if possible. Because of the recent commercial development on this parcel, the restaurant will remain on this site for quite some time. The non-conforming use will continue regardless of the sale of this property by Wilder. Any consideration of zoning should be made to classify this property as commercial. A commercial use on this parcel does comply with the overall intent of the Eagle City Comprehensive Plan. The commercial nature would serve as a proper buffer zone between the incompatible zoning uses of industrial to the south and residential to the north. The commercial site sits at the intersection of two major arterials, and does serve residents of the City of Eagle and the surrounding area. As such, the use of this property at the present time corresponds and complies with the zoning of "highway business" pursuant to the City of Eagle zoning ordinances. Though the Comprehensive Plan is somewhat ambiguous as to the particular treatment of the parcel, because of the ability of this council to amend the Comprehensive Plan at this time, the Council could if it deemed, change the Comprehensive Plan and designate this area as commercial. Finally, the City should proceed with definite caution in down-zoning any property and particularly this property. A down-zone will devalue this property greatly. The City should have sufficient facts and justification before down-zoning any property. Nothing that appears on the record at this time, justifies the designation of residential use. In conclusion, the Wilder's do not wish to have their restaurant property annexed in the City of Eagle. Annexation of this property violates certain provisions of Idaho Code ~ 50-222 and provisions of Eagle's own Comprehensive Plan. For these reasons, the Wilders' reaffirm their objection to inclusion of their property into the City of Eagle and request that this Council accept the recommendations of its own Planning and Zoning Commission and not annex this subject property. Very truly yours, ELAM, BURKE, EVANS, BOYD & KOONTZ Armbruster RPA:vlt Enclosure ' ~ - noticed. Since World War II farmer~ have w^ 35 CENTS Crop Squeeze As World Needs Food, U.S. Keeps Losing Soil To Land Developers Eased Gains in Productivity, Temptations to Sell Out Make for a Bleak Outlook The 'Hole in t. he Doughnut' HOMESTEAD. Fla.- Tearing around southern Dade County in his pickup, tomato ,,rower Rooie Strano points out pared after mroel of land. sweetened by natural hms- Now it is growing shopping centers and cou- dominiurns instead. Mr. gtrano himself recently lest a sect~ea of 640 acres that he had been leasing. The uss than crops, subdivided it. "All gone." la- "Urbanization is going to tome us all out semeday-and you just can't replace tins [and.- Over the past 15 years Dads County has mem. Blocked off by salt marshes to the south and Everglades National Park to the west. growers are slowly being squeemd onto rear,nat land. or what's ldt of it: al- most all the unused agricultural acreage, once plentiful, is gone. Much the same thing is happening acrass the coant~-y, from New England~ where crumbling, empty barns are the ealy rem- nants of the farms about to be replaced by development, to the coastal valleys of Call- torrd~, now tilling up with tract heeaes. The Land Squeeze plow. Developers have heea chewing up three million acres of farmland a year, according moot food and fiber at the lowest cost. The moro than covered them with an explosion of productivity that has pushed total farm on,put steadily higher. Aisc, many farmers displaced by urbanization have been able to develop other land frcra the onilon's re- But now the squeeze is starting to hurt. The U.S. has M)ont 230 million prime acres tn cropa but the losses of past deeedas have cut to just 22 million acres the available ro- serve of the bast land still unexploited. And there is evidence that the rovolution in farm technology is rapidly slowing down. Productivity Gains Easing The nation still has sizable unused sincks of fairly productive soil. although farming costs on most of it would be high. But die long-form outlook is increasingly bleak. "If we bank on technology and it doesn't come through, if we can't control urbanization and eresiou, we will lose our options," says Rob- eft Gray, executive diroctor of NAL~. Don't count on a quick fix from new tech- nology, warns Anson Bertrand, director of the Agriculture Dq)ar~ment's ~cience and Education Administration. "We have used up most of our storohnuse of knowledge and applied it widdy," he says. "But it simply isn't being ropluced fast enough, and our crop yields are topping out," The land is getting tired. Average gains in output per aero have drifted down from a sparkling 3% a year in the '50s to barely over 1% in recant years; ylalds for some crops m some regions have actually de- clined, despite iucroa.~d dousings with fec- tilise~: and pesticides. At the same time for- elgn demand for U.S. food has been increas- Ing rapidly. U.S. agricultural exports have shot fi'om aco~md S~ billion a year t~ more than /32 billion a year over the last decade, and are running 10 years absad of earlier pro]ectmns. Wti~ world population expected to rise 50% to more than slx b/Ilion in the next 20 yeats, and with much of this increase ~- pect~d in areas already sugfering chronic food shortages, demands on the U.S. farmer can only increase. Even a tiny shift in global weather patterns could tip an already deli- cate balance, turning endemic malnonrish- merit into the death of millions by famine, us is the case now to East Africa. Climatolo- gists believe the weather through most of this century has been unusually favorable to agriculinre. Tempting to Sell "We arc going to have East Afri~ in many moro places than we have it now," says Mr. Bertrand. "Thero will be starva- uorr there will be many moro rofugeea. Countries that now have surpluses with which ~o ease the prossure may not have them. We'll need ail the land we have." Perhaps so, but to individual farmers thero am many temptations to cash in and get out. Like money. Much of the nahnn's richest land ia near its 242 largest cities, as well us around rural towns, and as urban sprawl approaches neighboring farmlands their value begioo to sour. I~ald subdivided develoument can soil for 10 times its Please Turn to Page l& Column 1 18 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Friday, October 24, 1980 Crop Squeeze: As the World Demand for U.S. Food Grows, the U.S. Keeps Losing Soil to the Developers To The Eagle City Council: Each year, in the United States, three million acres of farmland are being lost to development. The consequences of this loss are nov readily apparent. With world population rising, erosion and desertification intensifying, and world crops periodically failing, the demand for food and fiber has never been greater and will con- tinue to grow. Add to this demand the pressures on agriculture to produce alcohol to counter the effects of a rapidly decreasing fossil fuel supply and only the slowest of minds cannot see the crisis we face. In a few years American agriculture may produce only enough food and fiber to supply the needs of U.S. citizens. Our great agriculture export business will either cease or other nations will bid up prices so that the cost of food in America will be prohibitive. The details of this scenario are well known (see attached Wall Street Journal article). There is little disagreement among experts. What is needed now is the realization on the part of local governments that the acres they covet for expansion is the root of the problem. Three million acres are not appropriated in one big chunk. He destroy those acres each year in small allotments. Three hundred acres here, three acres there, three thousand acres somewhere else. Each councilman sees the world from his point of view with little or no recognition that he himself is the problem. But it all adds up to three million acres a year. The parcels of land you intend to annex are beautiful pieces of productive farmland. From them could spring the alcohol to fuel our cars, the food and fiber to feed us and our children, the exports to other countries to lower our balance of payments. With your plans of expansion you become the core of our crisis. Not only are you making the three million acres a year a reality, you set the stage for the exponential magnification of all the attendant problems that come with the destruction of farmland, i.e., water and air degradation, rapid social change, increased costs for basic living, and, perhaps most important, the perpetuation of agricultural acreage declinucycle. The United States has a critical problem. The problem is that munici- palities like Eagle are permitting our farmlands to be altere~ ir- retrievably. Problems are based on individual acts. The members of the Eagle city government who are so eager to expand are the problem. If you argue that it is not your intention to rezone these lands to other uses, then why annex? If it is not your intention to use these lands in expansionistic plans, then why annex? Your efforts should be in the direction of preserving agriculture for your very survival. If that is your goal, then why annex? Have you studied the consequences of your acts? What are the benefits? We have to become aware of the i nterconnection of things. Your decisions affe~~~~ ~ichard Fi BoyYan Rural Eagle October 28,1980. Mr.~Jerry Deckard, Mayor Eagle City Council members City of Eagle Eagle, Idaho 83616 Dear Mr. Deckard and Eagle City Council, Having polled the membership of the Eagle Citizens Association Inc., the Board of Directors wish to state for the reoord that we are opposed to the annexation of certain agricultural parcels identified as Verlan A. Mace, Leonard W. Mace, Marie Main, and Quarter Cicle DJ for the following reasons~ Annexation of these areas serves no useful purpose to the goals of the community as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, and we fail to see a need for such annexation.. Community Design Map XII indicates that development is to proceed primarily to the north and west of the Eagle core area. Annexing agricultural ground to the south of the Clty of Eagle in no way coincides with that plan of development. The City of Eagle cannot provide any benefits to the area, such as police protection, sewer and water, fire protection, etc. other than the same services that are now available to the area. Likewise, the proposed annexation of the agricul- tural ground provides no reasonable benefit to the City of Eagle. The real hidden purpose for such annexation appears to be improvement of the chances for the annexation of the devel- opment known as Middlebrook.o The City Council must legally find some Justification for an annexation other than the request of the developers or would-be developers, to carry out an annexation since its decision affects each and every citizen of the City. The Council must base its decision upon the planning goals of the Comprehensive Plan instead of the monetary dreams of persons who claim to be interested merely because they own the land. Idaho Code 50-222, ,,Annexation of Adjacent Territory" states, in part," .... the city may annex only those areas which can be reasonably assumed to be used for orderly development of the city." Since Community Design Map XII supposedly anticipated "order- ly development" to exclude the agricultural lands presently being considered for annexation, this Council, in fulfilling its charge to conscientiously guide the development of Eagle, should recognize that these lands do not conform to Idaho Code 50-222, and should deny this annexation. 0 ge There must be some comprehensive policy for determining which lands are to be annexed other than to merely add areas to the city which presently offers little or no services and annexes land as if it were the city' s Man- ifest Destiny to expand its territory. At the present rate of annexation, within a few years the City of Eagle will encompass a gigantic land area while not providing for sewer, fire protection, police protection, street lights and other obvious city benefits which traditionally and legally Justify annexation. Such planning, or lack of plauningt results in a city of massive size, with a large population, but little or no traditional services. Furthermore, because such an area and population has been withdra~n from the County, it then becomes a burden on the City to maintain and improve the services lost by that population area being withdrawn from the County. This then beoomes a Justifioation for increasing the tax base to duplicate the lost county services. The proposed annexation is contrary to the original and continuing Justification for the City of Eagle, which was to prevent the City of Boise from expanding its control over the oitizens of the Eagle area. Now it appears the City of Eagle has begun the same uncontrolled, unplanned acqusitlon of territory. The minutes of the September 2, 1980 meeting of the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission state that annexation of this land meets the Co~orehensive plan goal for "zoning A, Agriculture ". It does not, however, answer the following important questions: W~Z should this agricultural land become a part of the City of Eagle? What benefit will the City derive from adding agricultural land to its tax polls? What benefit will the landowners derive from being in the City of Eagle? If the hidden purpose behind this annex- ation is not to build a land bridge to the Middlebrook property, thereby satis- fying the requirement of ,,contiguity" placed upon the City of Eagle by Idaho Code 50-222, what is the purpose of the proposed annexa--~on--~- In Hendricks vs. City of Nampa, the court held thatt "While annexation may be auth- orized under section 55-222, it must also pass the test of reasonableness." At their September 2, 1980 meeting, the Planning and Zoning members addressed only the issue of how the parcels should be zoned. They stated it was not their responsibility to provide recommendations on whether or not the parcels should, in fact, be annexed. Therefore, we request that the Eagle City Council deny these above mentioned parcels annexation. Barry Watts President Eagle Citizens Assoc.,Inc. The following Eagle area residents have reviewed this testimony and want to indicate their support. They wish it to be considered as their testimony for this public hearing also. Bennie Watts Peggy J. Holmquist Susan Kell,er Diana Dowdy E Glenn C. Bothwell Charlotte Chaney Brian McColl Susan D. McColl Florence Morris Jim Trent Francis Transtrum Roger Myers Pat Wickman Thelma Hancock David G. Mathias Elaine Gowan E.A. Haroldson Don Roberts John E. Smith Michell Dowdy Donna Eley James L. Burton Jean Otto Jay Holm Leslie M. Stiburek ~Betsy Langley Gabe Holmquist' · Frank Stoppello Jim Dowdy Judy Prltchard Shirley Knight Barbara Boylan Dean G. Pritchar~ Rich Howard Suzette Trent Gary Caballero- Lila ~ers Alan Tisdale Barry Pharoah Marlene Mathias Jerri Clark Janrra L. Nemelka Carol Roberts Richard Cowdery Kathleen Dowdy Bill Roberts Judy S. Burton John Hendrikse Ed Van Dusen Carol Stiburek ~James Langley Warren Keller Vickie M. Stoppello Glida Bothwell Gayle McKee Sandi Fisher Richard F. Boylan Robert Morris Tom Sorge Kathie Kynaston Candy Lee Caballero Glenn Wickman Mary Tisdale Wylene Pharoah Stuart Gowan James Clark Joseph N. Nemelka Sharon Smith Lee Cowdery Bill Eley Karen Roberts Roger Otto Jay Holm Catherine Sorge Jay Transtrum George Traustrom W.B. Rainey Ora Winn John Wilson Sandi Alter Lyn Burlile Ron Hibbard Ray Stovall Susan Jack Hazel Rainey Reed Teusoher Betty Wilson Ronald W. Alter S. Case Debbi Hibhard Janice A. Crawford L.D. Jack Eber E. Winn Judy Teuscher Donita Stephensen Mark L. Stephensen Beulah Walker Carolyn Stovall Rustin Crawford 17 ,_ , /- ----