Loading...
Minutes - 2015 - City Council - 06/03/2015 - SpecialEAGLE CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Minutes June 3, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Reynolds calls the meeting to order at 6:13 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: MCFARLAND, BUTLER, KUNZ, RIDGEWAY. All present. A quorum is present. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Reynolds leads the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA: NONE 5. PUBLIC HEARING: In accordance with Idaho Code 467 -6535, the Eagle City Council will reconsider the following: A. RZ -06 -14 & PP -08 -14 - Predico EP Subdivision - Eagle M.F. Partners, LLC: Eagle M.F. Partners, LLC, represented by Doug Russell with The Land Group, Inc., is asking for the City Council to reconsider its decision on their application for a rezone with development agreement from A (Agricultural — up to one (1) unit per 20- acres), A -R (Agricultural - Residential — up to one (1) unit per five (5) acres) and R- 2 -DA -P (Residential — up to two (2) units per acre with a Development Agreement — PUD) to MU -DA (Mixed Use with a Development Agreement in lieu of a PUD, including a height exception) and preliminary plat approval for Predico EP Subdivision a 4 -lot (3 commercial, 1 residential [88 units]) subdivision. The 10.68 -acre site is generally located on the northeast corner of North Ballantyne Lane and West State Street. (WEV) NOTE: Public testimony will be limited to the reconsideration. Mayor introduces the issue. City Attorney McLain provides an overview of the procedures for a Motion for Reconsideration which is statutorily required. The testimony is only for the specific areas for the reconsideration. Everyone will be limited to 3 minute testimony, the applicant will have 5 minutes and the applicant will be allowed rebuttal. Page 1 KACOUNCII.UMTEMTempormy Minutes Work AreACC- 06- 03 -15min doc Mayor opens the Public Hearing Mayor: Does anyone on Council have any exparte contact to declare? Kunz: I like everyone else on Council I have received emails but a couple of days ago I ran into Mrs. Terry Sayer at a local supermarket and this reconsideration issue did come up. Mrs. Sayer did express some personal opinions to which I did not respond. I just wanted to be on record as sharing that exparte communication. Mayor: Does anyone on Council have any potential or actual conflict of interest? None JoAnn Butler, representing the applicant, provides the Council an overview of the applicant's request for reconsideration. Discusses the City's Comprehensive Plan and City Code. We are asking you tonight to approve this project in accordance with your Comprehensive Plan and Eagle City Code Michael Wright, I want the neighbors to understand that this is what we had to do and it is procedural. Discusses the reasons for requesting this hearing on reconsideration and discusses some revisions that he is proposing. Displays overheads and discusses the revisions. General discussion. General Council discussion. Patrick Courtright, 1648 W. Herford Drive, we have heard nothing new, it is heavy density and we have heard nothing about the commercial aspect. I'm having trouble figuring out how the density is figured. Does this development stay within the vision of the Comprehensive Plan? Nancy Merrill, 690N. Opuntia Way, discusses the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Comprehensive Plan and Eagle City Code in regards to density, design treatments and height limitations. I would encourage the Council; you made the right decision the first time. I respectfully ask that you don't grant this reconsideration. Terry Sayer, 2151 W. Forest Hill Court, Discusses the elimination of the club house and pool. Discusses the commercial development and the density of the project. General discussion. Terry Sayer submits into the record a letter given to her from a disabled person. Kelli Cameron, 234 N. Lost Canyon Way, it looks like the applicant is looking for the Council to come up with a way to approve this application. Page 2 KACOUNCIUMINUTESWemporary Minutes Work Area\CC- 06- 03 -15min doc Discusses the density. I have all of the City material and presented with all of the facts, the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan it is clear to me that the Council made the appropriate decision and nothing submitted tonight calls for reconsideration. Naythan Anderson, 2565 W. Conifer Drive, the developer has mentioned prejudice and I see no prejudice. Summarizes a COMPASS letter that was prepared on this project. This is a showcase for the City and I ask that you not reconsider this project. Jim Daugherty, 2564 W. Conifer Drive, I think you made the appropriate decision last time. Discusses the density and the commercial area. You need to make sure that the commercial is going to put in the development and not more apartment buildings. David Druzisky, 2201 W. Forest Grove Court, discusses the density and the height restriction. Paul Dix, 2239 W. Forest Grove Court, my testimony is very personal. I came from California 8 years ago and settled on Country Side Estates. I feel threatened by mixed use. Discusses the initial proposal and mixed use. Do you get compelling requests from people for apartments in Eagle? What is the compelling need for this? I would ask you to be very careful in your reflection because if you approve this it is going to be there. Mayor closes the Public Hearing JoAnn Butler, my advice to the developer was that the public hearing was closed and we should just work with the City. A request for reconsideration is a statutory requirement. Discusses the reasons the applicant requested reconsideration. Michael Wright, discusses the commercial lots and the density. General Council discussion on density; Finding of Fact #V, a typo on Commission deliberations the l Oth bullet was omitted and it is in the record; the 3 main factors, conditional use, preliminary plat and rezone; the Conclusion of Law #3; Conclusion of Law #4; Conclusion of Law #4B, C and D; and Conclusion of Law #5. Butler moves that the Findings be modified to address those issues that we discussed with the City Attorney and add the specific language that we discussed. That the application RZ -06 -14 & PP -08 -14 - Predico EP Subdivision be approved with all of the recommendations that were provided in the Staff Report and for the Development Agreement, staff Page 3 KICOUNCILMNUTESUemporary Minutes Work Area\CC- 06- 03- 15min.doc recommendations (to be modified as follows); Item 3.2 which refers to the concept plan that was originally provided, that this concept plan be replaced with the concept plan that was put up on the screen today, with Item 3.3 which outlined the total number of units as 88 in the staff report be modified to be 78 which will bring it down to 10 units per acre, that Item 3.4 where staff had recommended approval of 39' that the height of all buildings be 29' or less as depicted in the elevation plan submitted on the 29th, that in addition on Item 3.4 that the building elevations be constructed with at least what appears to be a 5 and 12 pitch roof and that the building elevations go through Design Review, and on Item 3.4 even though it says 29' for the maximum height I do want it to say no more than two story, that Item 3.11 that talks about a club house being required as shown in the original application that that remain, that language be added that the pool is going to be required also, that all the conditions that staff recommended for the Preliminary Plat be included as conditions, that Design Review Board look at the tot lot and that the developer provide some sort of safety fencing around the tot lot to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, that the driveway on old State Street near the intersection of old State Street and Hwy 44 that a letter be provided to the City upon submittal of final development plan from ACHD stating that the driveway meets ACHD policies and providing any conditions to assure safety with that driveway and the inside curve, that when the final development plan is submitted it shall show more details with regard to the commercial portion of the property and that the commercial portion of the property shall remain. City Attorney McLain: you talked about adding in more of the PUD requirements set forth in the Code to help support your density issues did you want me to add some discussion on that? Butler: Yes, include it in the motion as the discussion on the Code Sections that we talked about. City Attorney McLain: did you want to strike any of the traffic related besides the curve one? Butler: Yes. Discussion. Seconded by McFarland. Discussion. THREE AYES: KUNZ: NAY: MOTION CARRIES .................. General discussion. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 67 -2345. Executive sessions -- When authorized. (1) An executive session at which members of the public are excluded may be held, but only for the purposes and only in the manner set forth in this section. The motion to go into executive session shall identify Page 4 KACOUNCIL\MfNUTES \Temporary Minutes Work AreACC- 06- 03- 15min.doc the specific subsections of this section that authorize the executive session. There shall be a roll call vote on the motion and the vote shall be recorded in the minutes. An executive session shall be authorized by a two - thirds (2/3) vote of the governing body. An executive session may be held: A. Pending & /or Threatened Litigation: 67- 2345(f) To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated. The mere presence of legal counsel at an executive session does not satisfy this requirement. Mayor Reynolds introduces the issue. McFarland moves to go into Executive Session in accordance with I.C. 67- 2345(f) Pending and Threatened Litigation. (Laguna Pointe and Supreme Court Findings on City of Hayden). Seconded by Ridgeway. Mayor calls a recess Mayor reconvenes the meeting Mayor: We had a motion to go into Executive Session could I have a Roll call. McFarland: AYE; Butler: AYE; Kunz: AYE; Ridgeway: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES .............. Council goes into Executive Session at 8:45 p.m. Council discusses Laguna Pointe and Supreme Court Findings on City of Hayden. Council leaves Executive Session at 9:20 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT: McFarland moves to adjourn. Seconded by Butler. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES ................ Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at p.m. Respectfully submitted: o'.• OF E AG -' SHARON K. BERGMANN v�o�Q o R A �F� dw CITY CLERK/TREASURER� A • ••..47t OF .•• Page 5 K .COUNCIUMINUTES`Temporary Minutes Work AreACC -06- 03 -15min doc OVED: 4ES D. YOR AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL UPON REQUEST. Page 6 KACOUNCIUMINUTES \Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC- 06- 03- 15min.doc EAGLE CITY COUNCIL wOi PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP June 3, 2015 i51 -r' RZ-06-14 & PP -08-14 - Predico EP Subdivision - Ea2le .F. Partners, LLC k iffifiA-e‘ 61 Az 41° i/2.9t/d2'2 &f. No SA4A 4bl V 510NA-(Aj NO c;QI9w„LisrasK V005fL5-1- itiqZ .?kaper- no k) . (-e-)ri Jam, k ,?,4? -77,7,,ber- atffil 4tiziis07 4L %µo.-, ()au v s 6(Lt N, s. i_aAv iztvwv J' -/O ‘tiNi. 60,T5okv, 13o(a W CGl,.:1�e CF lv� I�c) \ a, - o it k cS6(p L CoA v ;,` e C1- /YlDP4v LAW 215 2Z9 t w . F L Sf G/140 (-t. Act,r1 Acki 1g14/1 to_T:4A3c. Cin Com CoJ EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP June 3, 2015 RZ-06-14 & PP -08-14 - Predico EP Subdivision - Emile M.F. Partners, LLC NAME TESTIFY EXPERT ADDRESS YES/NO YES/NO �l))/� �gq/y'f..)1i%7/J'c-,a,%,9 A/0 l ,/e /A6ArNSc ---1/1(,u i ?I/ 2 LPA 0 r (J Ad) W /V6 glazic_ALL 7 '72, � v(`A e5 */2 De 6 0U T v w ,t(thv.,B,_F4.,4� 1' :L /?.§c 1495<e( LArc,--•—j -lck; s _ t er Cot d .4)-) /.0,(Fizi U �ct / 71 (kIAi Avic/V —1-1)%4 .I r at,.? 110 72' -/w Nc� Sl',71 Yps / 13S t . `/e flo c,Js cn- N I (� /3S -7 5 5 N 7:451‘w<e�� y I f ) /t%1 t'lk s y w p ISA; ( I &kilt /5-77 c/ S-49c•Cin;core Or- s =c, ( n .c` -t:% 6r '.Ac [',Du Lt, z PI 41/6 /i./v !Vd L{ a,u af6 1-1,5 co -A t— EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP June 3,2015 R%-06-14 & PP -08-14 - Predico EP Subdivision - Eagle M.F. Partners, LLC, Jr3 NAME l TESTIFY EXPERT ADDRESS YES/N-0 YES/NO Sex, it1 '7i U.4.0 /\1v Vkick-Cis, ' 1 ti- Li� 71 .(L) uaiZv. i ) / Z_, //� pL . 4f d /a/c- *Le �7-7Z kr"?f;Ii(- /4/(.61 itu ,Uf fZwer 4,7,\G-3 La) /41/1y )'Vh-AJ 3)6F N ,2�iff<� ����-i G� y /A) ) v.51 J v t/JACtikk y 01/V+- 1 LI La 1,0)4 ,,,f 6 n S tX10rocC\ ob/7 an,(17,id 7/65 4)0 ---C-4/(i/z__ Z , l tJ • 6)./2S -T Vt (Al C vi4"- 4 ' 3 ki 1\1 4l-,1/4).; IVB,,,, /4 6 /4 Si i“ -TY 1,7) () a /4,5--r ),z,i-o0/(' u 1 �n EAGLE CITY COUNCIL 71.11 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP LL June 3, 2015 RZ-06-14 & PP -08-14 -08-14 - I redico EP Subdivision - EaEle M.F. rtners LLC r r Cita rePt.c.€r 6Ie /diet,/ gai/ei- !&r--(if/i(Scolf FITAARti titin I\10 N o /402 i<eytcci g7L �o 17/qz ./el_oakr _44),r_co)-1 A2Acfrt,S �cS��tGy✓ 7O� La filaiYgi lY1 P/- NI() v 1AftCP/, lib ,U‘S4t) .C6.11; Fe --Pr �Lby ILA L--4 eS ten,-cCour l 4/o yef Nb C/a E ik) 1-7 a N- S'ie RA4 t/r-w W AX • `Y© No Ca& Co CO/) EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP June 3, 2015 RZ-06-14 & PP -08-14 - Predico EP Subdivision - EaEle M.F. Partners, LLC 1r5 NAME (2.17_ 6— C-141-4—._ 1, � 1- (9E(4 . ` i/VC4 f I i �) v I\v \] Yr\ <-1(/ nka - 6, TESTIFY EXPERT ADDRESS YES/NO YES/NO (JO /`% • Cr,— /.4c, tU o - 6_o_r4 C N 1311 C tfNth i AW6E /VD Pel viGlC LN'. �kiv 2.85 itis, Gr{/ Cfrif‘fyo/,1 ii✓h y FV E A.ucAc v CA - (0,, A- ND (0 G N C Leo Kb 4) A/ V L ND C.�N RZ-06-14 & PP-08- 1:2A v37-) .4 rAnt CSC' ,B(Leo)/ 7tc -! AA�'.� L1 M,6 107„ 06 EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP June 3, 2015 Kirtne 14- Predico EP Subdivision - Eaale M.F . s, LLC 13"E vv. k rrr/1-2 . F 4 6- 4 lSOO) 47. /6-'7a/W 074 C -�6 -tof i r'± NO (ocr errY; 410 Zc� 15C 61(73 AIP ND C9 4/9 I(0 15V g .1 cY co 't"c-( 57 :qv V‘. (1 tie /SIS Pot/42.- /oo %*U 6 7-1 /v. cut -ft -t6 Slit C."7-3 /v. bt)i-f— -E No Aid \))-e/1/1;„..._ 15 6-LP7 -0/X Ce V)C 2z vJ 23yuwr�en�s��2�v� - /4 ;11 D uyc�rst` CNv Com )-ec(_s Cis ; r.S�- �,�s ouNc ouLft- no,{D - ►�-�- C6_5 444 1,z3u r e-laN xis i5�'�' °-'r''J " cAs? -tom'\ po-c-K-t - U -c .sem e__- S2 -\e ms Cf. N G rv3 ��1Q Soee'-3( Cl`r- a , t3 cove._ Nr) Wo 1\110/1,,')I 4-' ( A6 /BGG (0411 (7e COf' -- — — _ — — -a L - -- " - - 1111 111, "- 1111 Illi VII ad! Is a e. zee, ..__--az - E c. -- Ac- - _ - t 4r = f 749° "Men _— elf _'71417- .� .. _ 1 1�Y -- mac- =E === — x_- 1� T.� 5! -mow 11111i-5- IIIIRIr - — — I\ 3 - __ !rzrc— i_! z ▪ -eel.Man` ('c_6_�,i5 Proposed Apartment Complex Hwy 44/Ballantyne May 30, 2015 u; 11 a11, The Predico Development of Eagle Point Center is back. Plan to attend the June 3, 2015. Special City Council Meeting, Eagle City Hall, at 6:OOPM for a new Public Hearing. The only agenda item is "Reconsideration" of Predico's Eagle Point Center Development, which was previously denied on March 10, 2015. Only homes within 300 feet of the development have been notified. Their attorney, Joann Butler, (also the attorney for M3/Spring Valley) will pl CsCI �1. L1 IC11 case. Public testimony will be taken on the points of Reconsideration: Density and Height. At the May 12, 2015 City Council Meeting, Mark Butler moved to deny Predico's Request for Reconsideration but there was no second and the next motion was to allow the appeal and grant a new Public Hearing. Stan Ridgeway, Mary McFarland and Jeff Kunz approved that 11141u11 1. I met with Bill Vaughn Wednesday. Although the Predico Development has not submitted any changes or offered any modifications to the City, they have had discussions with City Staff about what changes would allow their project to go through. It appears that Staff has discussed the commercial vs residential issue with Predico and it is possible to separate and recalculate the units per acre on residential only, which would reduce density and reduce IICI5IIL LV LVVL.1 >11111C.) 1 V1 11/V1J uu11u11I6J 1111 L111.1. 11v11.11 3111C LJI L11C'..1111t.JCI ty. Gather your friends and neighbors and present another show of strength. Please sign in & indicate pro or con & then indicate if you wish to speak. Let the Council and Mayor know that we vote and that we care what type of development they allow in our neighborhood. Terry Sayer 208-850-9340 tsayer@cal�i ,-n. "— ,� uaycl Lw1.a111cV11c.. —4 - \ Jam_ a F�-P rte, J—(,„ e.c� �R _ en , s- Ac-PIAe_A-fc?-\r- `'`" ."C A—k c_, .- - e J f---- (7 S ) \ e GGG c%\ S C��� June 01, 2015 To: Mayor Jim Reynolds and Council President Stan Ridgeway and Council Members Mark Butler, Jeff Kunz and Mary McFarland From: Terry Sayer 2151 W Forest Hill CT, Eagle 83616 tsayer@cableone.net 208-850-9340 Please take your time and carefully consider the Eagle Pointe Center/Predico Development at Ballantyne and State St/State Hwy 44 in Eagle and the impact it will have on the local neighborhoods and the complete City of Eagle. First, this is supposed to be a Public Hearing regarding Reconsideration of the Denial of their plan. Long after the notice went out (May 14), long after signs were posted notifying the public (May 22), the Agenda is published (not before May 29, per the date stamp on their document), that now includes an alternate plan. Is that a Reconsideration? Their new plan omits the clubhouse and pool, adds another building and it still exceeds the 10 units per acre and it still exceeds the height limit. They only have 7.38 acres (I am quoting directly from their map) or (7.83 acres, listed in their documents but not shown on their map) of residential acreage. The remaining 2.85 acres, designated commercial. This commercial and residential acreage should not be comingled with each other, as they have distinctly different use a pplications. The Rezone from existing to MU 10, per comp plan, is a Maximum of 10 units per acre; that would be either 73.8 or 78.3 maximum units but they are still coming back with 86 units. It seems like all they have to do is get rid of the third story, they can keep the amenities they are discarding and be within the 73-78 units per acre. Too dense by ten to fifteen units. The apartments are still too high (3') since the Maximum Height is 35 feet. So too high. I believe the commercial aspect is a good and a viable part of the design. It is a great destination for locals to walk, bike and spend money, (generating taxable income for the city). Chapter 1 of the Code, Zoning interpretation and definitions under 8-1-1, B says, "No Building or other structure shall be erected or altered": 1. To provide for greater height or bulk, 2. To accommodate or house a greater number of families, 3. To occupy a greater percentage of lot area. I do not pretend to be an expert Code Interpreter, but I only see one meaning. Furthermore, if we allow them to omit all the "upscale" amenities, they will no longer be "upscale" and this will not benefit the city or the neighborhood. The Park and Ride "is going away" as stated at the last city Council Meeting. This should be a consideration for building any high-density development. Surely, this group of creative minds (The Land Group, Predico, Eagle MF Partners, LLC, and Glancy Rockwell Associates as the Architect,) can conjure something better than what they present. Thank you for your time, Terry Sayer Ce__ &,—,---(5 Packet Item 5A - Predico Included: Written Testimony received by the City on or before June 3rd, 2015. This packet prepared: 2:00 p.m. 6-3-15 Bill Vau han Subject: RE: Predico Development next to State St. From: Stan Ridgeway [mailto:sridgeway@cityofeagle.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:08 PM To: Sharon Bergmann; Cherese D. McLain; Bill Vaughan Subject: FW: Predico Development next to State St. From: Stan Ridgeway Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 9:13 AM To: D&L Wolin Subject: Re: Predico Development next to State St. Thanks for your input. Stan Sent from my iPhone On Jun 1, 2015, at 9:40 AM, D&L Wolin <dlwolin@msn.corn> wrote: Dear Stan, We are writing to ask you to PLEASE not approve this development as it is being resubmitted on June 3rd. You have already heard the many reasons expressed at the last public hearing. We would love to see condominiums or a mixed use that expresses the uniqueness of Eagle. We love this city! Thank you for the work you are doing to try and improve the Eagle and State intersection situation by; the old Chevron! Sincerely, Dale and Lois Wolin 2203 W. Holly Mountain Dr. Eagle, Idaho Jim Reynolds From: Scott and Karen Howell <smhowe1154@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 6:54 PM To: Jim Reynolds; Stan Ridgeway; mdefayette@cityofeagle.org; Mark Butler; Jeff Kunz; eaglecity Subject: Predico EP Subdivision - RZ-06-14/PP-08-14 - Eagle MF Partners LLC (Taken from Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Case Number RZ-06-14 and PP -08-14 as presented to the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission on January 20, 201 5. pg 6) V. EAGLE CITY CODE FINDINGS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 1. That the proposed PUD is in the public interest, advances the general welfare of the community and neighborhood, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Dear Mayor and City Council Members. At the City Council meeting. where this plan was first discussed. the chambers were packed with people from every neighboring subdivision and from all across town. They were unanimously opposed to three story apartment buildings going 111 next to then' hollies. .I'here was not a single person there to speak 111 support of the plan (other than the developer). The City Council recognized that while having that many people opposed did leave an impression. they couldn't legally use that many opposition votes as a reason to deny the development. We feel like it should be a legal reason to deny it. One of the requirements this development had to address was that they wouldn't be negatively affecting the property values of those around them (See above: "will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community"). 11 not a single person is in Support of haying these built next to their Mottles. who are we going to find to buy our hollies when we try to sell them? 1 t' there had been 50% for and 50% against. you could make the argument that we just have to find "the right buyer". But when people are 100% opposed to having 3 story apartments next to their half a million dollar homes. that drops our home values drastically because leo one is going to choose to buy our hollies. Another point \ve'd like to make. is that this developer really does not seems to have the best interest of the area in mind with this development. He is not concerned with "advancing the general welfare of the community and neighborhood" (see above). He only seems concerned about what he wants and what will lllake hull the most money. We attended the original neighborhood meeting where their plan was presented. They were met with still opposition to the idea of a 3 story apartment. I asked if they would consider 2 story. and the response was. "My client is not interested in 2 story-. At the Planning and Zoning meeting. they came with the exact same plan (no changes were made based o11 the suggestions of the neighborhood). They were again told that 3 store was not appropriate for that area. Again. for the City Council meeting. they came with their plan unchanged. and Nvere told again that this was not an appropriate development for this area. Each time. they have not listened to suggestions or made any changes to reflect what the surrounding citizens are telling them. they are not looking to enhance the area. they are looking to make money and nothing more. Not once has the developer bothered to bring any one with him to speak in support of his development. he has just showed up and basically said. "This is what I want. now give it to 111e." We are the ones who live in this community. not him. His concern is money. while our concern is our city. His voice should not be louder than ours. 1 We urge you to revisit the Comprehensive Plan with regards to this parcel of land. Froin what we have heard from Planning and Zoning and from the members of the City Council. the plan as it is currently written. does not represent the vision of these committees or of the community. Sincerely. Scott and Karen 1-Iowell 72 N Lost Canyon Pl. Eagle. ID 83616 2 Jim Reynolds From: C. Scott Grow <GrowCS@Idschurch.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 6:55 PM To: Jim Reynolds; Stan Ridgeway; Mary Mcfarland; Mark Butler Subject: Public Hearing regarding the Reconsideration of the Predico/Eagle Pointe Center Development Dear Mayor Reynolds and City Council Members, As the owner of the personal residence at 556 N. Clearpoint Way, I want to voice my opposition to approving the Predico/Eagle Pointe Center Development. As a longtime Treasure Valley resident, having been raised in Boise, then raising our children in Meridian, last summer we purchased this home in Eagle as our place for retirement. Eagle has a reputation for being an upscale, beautiful community. We love the quiet, peaceful ambience in Eagle, and particularly the feeling in this neighborhood. We would hope that you would adhere to the community development standards that have allowed Eagle to become what it is. We are very concerned that allowing the type of development proposed by Predico will not only affect the reputation of the entire Eagle community, but will also adversely affect property values in the area. I respectfully request that you once again deny Predico's request to build their proposed development, even with minor improvements which they are proposing to make from their original proposal. Thank you for your consideration, Scott Grow Bill Vaughan From: Jeff Kunz Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 5:37 PM To: Bill Vaughan; Tracy Osborn Cc: Susan Buxton; cdm@msbtlaw.com Subject: FW: Against Density and Height exemptions for Predico Eagle Point Center project Forwarding... From: Joe Dumais [jjd_nmr@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 5:14 PM To: Jeff Kunz Subject: Against Density and Height exemptions for Predico Eagle Point Center project Dear Councilman Kunz, I am a resident of the Eagle Creek subdivision in Eagle. When looking for our current home my wife and I were drawn to the City of Eagle by its more rural character. I understand that Predico Properties is filing for a development that will require a variance from the current design guidelines for the City of Eagle. I have looked at the layout of the Eagle Pointe Site and it is my feeling that the plan is too dense. I also understand that they are asking to exceed the current height limitations for these apartments. I have live in six other states across this country and want to stress that good development practices are critical for creating a high quality of life. Once a vote to degrade the current standards passes, other builders will be begin to push the city on this issue. It is a slippery slope that just gets steeper. I am requesting that you require that the project comply with the existing design codes and that no exemption be granted to Predico. Eagle is on a good path for developing an eniovable city. please vote to enforce the current limitation on density and height and refect the request for a variance. Please tell Predico that it is welcome to submit a plan which is in compliance with the current design requirements. Regards, Joe Dumais 561 N Bursera Way Eagle ID, 83616 1 Bill Vaujhan From: Jeff Kunz Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 4:28 PM To: Bill Vaughan; Tracy Osborn Cc: Susan Buxton; cdm@msbtlaw.com Subject: FW: Apartments Forwarding... From: Kathleen Turley [kathturl@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 3:55 PM To: Jim Reynolds; Stan Ridgeway; Mary Mcfarland; Mark Butler; Jeff Kunz Subject: Fwd: Apartments Forwarded message From: Kathleen Turley <kathturin,gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:47 AM Subject: Apartments Eagle Mayor, Eagle City Council I am writing in protest to the proposed apartments at Ballantyne and Hwy 44 and your "reconsideration" of it. We the people who live in Countryside AND the surrounding area s showed up in "record numbers" (160+ strong) in protest to the proposed apartments by Predico. We THOUGHT our voices were heard and were relieved to hear it was tuned down. Now, we find you are considering and giving them voice once more. What part of our protest did you NOT understand? WE, the people of Eagle made it clear we do not want Apartments of any kind elevation, color, design and 1 commercial use to be built there period! No design changes.... no commercial eliminations....NO APARTMENTS PERIOD! I understand the plan now includes eliminating the pool , playground and club house .I F I were considering renting an apartment and it didn't have a pool or play ground area for the kids, I would look elsewhere. Therefore, the rent on the se apartment units would typically have to be "lowered" to fill the apartments The children would be looking for a place to play and would end up in our neighborhood common areas causing excessive use and abuse of the facilities that we the people of Countryside pay for in our HOA dues. By "sneaking" the approval of the apartments in at Linder and Hwy 44 you have opened the door for Predico and any other out of state company s to come into Eagle and "trash" this beautiful, peaceful town making it like Boise and Meridian and surrounding areas with these type of apartments THIS 15 WHY WE LIVE HERE....because it is not Tike the surrounding towns. You were elected to preserve the image of our beautiful city. 2 IF this project was adjacent to YOUR neighborhood or subdivision, would you be so anxious to approve this proposal? No....I didn't think so. By you all living in the NE part of Eagle, you will not experience the impact of this proposal. You will not be driving by it everyday, deal with the added traffic and congestion, BUT....you will experience the "impact" of it at "election time" if you proceed with approving this project. Once again, you were elected to preserve the image of this beautiful city. Do your Job! Do the RIGHT thing and deny this and any other future projects of this type in Eagle once again. Kathleen Turley 3 Bill Vaughan From: Jeff Kunz Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:20 PM To: Bill Vaughan; Tracy Osborn Cc: Susan Buxton; cdm@msbtlaw.com Subject: FW: June 3 2015 Public Hearing re Predico Reconsideration Flyer Forwarding... From: Dave Haworth [DaveHaworth@cougarmtn.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 10:01 AM To: Jim Reynolds; Stan Ridgeway; Mark Butler; Jeff Kunz Subject: June 3 2015 Public Hearing re Predico Reconsideration Flyer Mr. Reynolds, Ms. McFarland, Mr. Butler, Mr. Kunz, I will not be present at this Wednesday's session although I do want express my opinion which is in opposition the prossosed complex as presented in March. If the plan were to reduce the number of units and limited the height to two stories, I would be open to a different opinion. I do live approximately 500 hundred yards from the area in discussion which is in Countryside Estates. Regards, Daveaworth COUGAR Dave Haworth 1 Executive VP e: davehaworth@cougarmtn.com p: (800)388-3038 www.cougarmtn.com Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. Thank You For Your Referrals. http://www.cougarmtn.com/referrals From: Terry Sayer [mailto:tsayer@cableone.net] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 5:15 PM To: tsayer@cableone.net Cc: 'Mike Farlow'; 'Tim Banic' Subject: June 3 2015 Public Hearing re Predico Reconsideration Flyer Hi folks, Please open and share the attached email about the Predico/Eagle Pointe Center Development new Public Hearing. If you can't attend, please send email to City Council members & the Mayor. Let them know how you feel about the 88 apartment complex they want to build just south of us. Mayor Jim Reynolds • irevnoldsCahcitvofeaale.ora Stan Ridgeway, Council President • sridaewavCa7citvofeaale.ora Mary McFarland • mmcfarland(acitvofeaale.ora Mark L. Butler • mbutler(citvofeaale.ora 3eff Kunz Thanks, Terry i ku nz(&citvofeaa le.ora Bill Vaughan From: Jeff Kunz Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:18 PM To: Bill Vaughan; Tracy Osborn Cc: Susan Buxton; cdm@msbtlaw.com Subject: FW: Predico Development Forwarding... From: Ralph Swift [rswift@wyoming.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 8:53 PM To: Jeff Kunz Subject: Predico Development Dear Councilman, We are writing to oppose the Predico development plan. We are unable to attend the meeting but did attend both the P & Z hearing and the previous City Council meeting where this proposal was denied. We understood at the time that it could be brought back for reconsideration. We understood that it would be with changes but it appears their are no changes to the proposal. We disagree with the density calculations and feel the commercial development area should be omitted from the residential calculation. We are opposed to a rezone for commercial development without seeing a development plan. We are opposed to the height variance requested. We are sure they will argue that the council just approved a variance for a development on Linder. This is in an entirely different residential area and already near commercial development and do not feel it is comparing apples to apples. We hope that the developer is not given time to argue what has been argued. We realize that there was a lot of time spent on the 10 unit density per acre in the the development of the comprehensive plan for this property. I also know from experience that in every plan there is painstaking in the wording and decision making. I have read the plan and it also mentions on more than one occasion the desire of the planners to maintain the rural character of Eagle. We do also and are pretty sure these words were not just put in as page fillers. Three story apartments a mile from down town Eagle does not say rural to us. Approval of this development as proposed further erodes the Independence of Eagle to be self determining and move it closer to being something the city of Boise should just annex. Respectfully, Ralph and Debra Swift Bill Vaughan From: Jeff Kunz Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:18 PM To: Bill Vaughan; Tracy Osborn Cc: Susan Buxton; cdm@msbtlaw.com Subject: FW: Predico: 3 -story unnecessary, please vote against Forwarding... From: Susan Madsen [jeffsusanmadsen@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:28 PM To: Jim Reynolds; Stan Ridgeway; Mark Butler; Jeff Kunz; Mary Mcfarland Subject: Predico: 3 -story unnecessary, please vote against Dear Mr Mayor and members of the Eagle City Council, Thank you very much for your service to our wonderful city. I urge you to deny the request for an exception to the city's height limit for Predico's proposed "Eagle Point" apartment complex, for the following reasons: 1. Third story has no positive advantage to the city, 2. Third story makes the already large buildings have a more massive impact, 3. The development is at a most conspicuous place which serves as an effective entrance to the city (creating an instant impression of the character of Eagle), 4. The additional units and population would increase the likelihood of overflow parking on State Street (further de -valuing the area). Eagle City should not underestimate its attractiveness as a city with dramatic growth potential, which will result in the ability to be more picky about proposed developments. Over-under (Residential above business) and owner -occupied high density housing developments should be preferred over a development like this (the first one to the table for this lot). I believe the 3 -story exception request and the density question are keys to the City Council to hold fast to, in order to let this developer either demonstrate its long-term friendliness towards the city (or to go away). The aggressive and self-centered manner in which they have pursued this development casts a great cloud of doubt over whether they care about the long-term beauty of our city Thank you for your time, Jeff Madsen 1 Bill Vaujhan From: Jeff Kunz Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:19 PM To: Bill Vaughan; Tracy Osborn Cc: Susan Buxton; cdm@msbtlaw.com Subject: FW: June 3rd meeting-Predico Development Forwarding... From: Brian Graham [brianjgraham17@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 9:21 AM To: Jim Reynolds; Stan Ridgeway; Mary Mcfarland; Mark Butler; Jeff Kunz Subject: June 3rd meeting-Predico Development I will not be able to attend the June 3rd meeting, however I would like it to be noted that I oppose (count me as a "Con") the proposed Predico development near the 44/State Street intersection. Thank you, Brian Graham 1 Bill Vaughan From: Jeff Kunz Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 8:39 PM To: Bill Vaughan; Tracy Osborn Cc: Susan Buxton; cdm@msbtlaw.com Subject: FW: Predico Forwarding... From: Deborah Goetter [his2servants@netzero.net] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:50 PM To: Jeff Kunz Cc: Deborah Goetter Subject: Predico My husband, Al and I are opposed to the proposed apartments - their density and height. One of our deep concerns is the amount of traffic this will bring to State Road and Ballentyne. The developer plans to have the residents of these proposed apartments exit onto State Road - without the development, in the morning and afternoon towards dinner hour, this area is producing heavy traffic. If we add these additional cars plus the coming and going of children with the possibility of them crossing over State Road it will be a recipe for disaster. The small size of this parcel of land does not support the proposed apartments planned. The code does not support the height. Townhouse would solve both of these concerns and would be more in line with the half acre to 1/3 acre lots that surround this area. Unanimously, the planning committee opposed Predico's planned apartments. They assured us at that meeting you would take their opinion very, very seriously. It is a tremendous disappointment for us and the other 75 participants of that meeting to be over -rode and essentially not considered. We appreciate you entering this letter into the discussion on June 3rd as we will not be able to make the meeting. Sincerely, Albert and Deborah Goetter 205 N Lost Canyon Place Eagle Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TG L3231/556cc59a84b5c4597739ast01duc 1 Bill Vaujhan From: Jeff Kunz Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 7:32 AM To: Bill Vaughan; Tracy Osborn Cc: Susan Buxton; cdm@msbtlaw.com Subject: FW: Predico EP sub: CCOUNCIL Special Mtg 06-03-15 Forwarding... From: Pat Minkiewicz [pat.minkeagle@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 4:24 AM To: Jeff Kunz; Mark Butler; Mary Mcfarland; Stan Ridgeway Cc: Jim Reynolds Subject: Predico EP sub: CCOUNCIL Special Mtg 06-03-15 Dear Eagle City Council, I am out of town, hence this Email submission. Predico sub: The Council's recorded reasons for turning down the application for a rezone and height exemption were clear and appropriate. I see no reason why the city and the particular location in question would benefit from a reconsideration of the proposed subdivision. I have no doubt the Council realizes a vote for a "reconsideration" might indicate that all future denied development applications can be challenged regularly by determined developers. Pat Minkiewicz Eagle ID 208.939.5642 Dat. minkeagIeOamail.com Forwarded message From: t aglecitvecitvoreaele.org <eat'IecitvrZfcitvofeaele org> Date: Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:43 PM Subject: THE CITY OF EAGLE CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Agenda 06-03-15 To: ' nat.minkeaele cremail.com" <aat.minkeaQle cremail.com> THE CITY OF EAGLE CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Agenda Eagle City Hall, 660 E. Civic Lane June 3, 2015 6:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: BUTLER, MCFARLAND, KUNZ, RIDGEWAY 1 Jim Reynolds From: megan cole <mcole27@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 6:29 AM To: Jim Reynolds; sridgeway@cityofeagle.com; Mary Mcfarland; mbutler@cityofeagle.com; jkunz@cityofeagle.com Subject: FW: Eagle Pointe Apartments @ State & Ballantyne I am very concerned about the city council meeting tonight. It does not appear proper notification has been provided to the citizens of Eagle, especially those living in close proximity to the property in question. My wife & I only received notification on Monday evening. And, my neighbors just 1 street away received no notice whatsoever. Due to the poor notification there may not be a great turn out tonight but this is still a very sensitive issue and a great concern, please consider all of those concerns brought to your attention at the prior meeting. Thank you, From: mcole27@hotmail.com To: jreynolds(Wcitvofeagle.org; sridgeway@cityofea (g e_org; mmcfarland(Wcitvofeagle.org; inbutlerPcitvofeagle.org,; jkunzPcitvofeagle.org Subject: Eagle Pointe Apartments @ State & Ballantyne Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:58:04 -0700 My wife & I just recently moved to Eagle. We've had the opportunity to live in East Boise as well as on the bench in Boise but those areas started to feel a bit big. We wanted more of a country feel & smaller community to start our family. Therefore, we chose Eagle, in fact I believe the Eagle City web site even states that Eagle is a "lovely country setting." Well, six 3 -story apartment buildings is certainly not a "lovely country setting." This would dramatically change the feel of the community and the concept of lower-income type housing is counter to the reasons that myself and many others choose to live in Eagle. One of the great attractions to Eagle was the open space & great views to capture sunrises & sunsets. If the Eagle Pointe Apartments is approved this part of Eagle would lose much of its aesthetic appeal. Further, being located on a primary entry point to the Eagle area I am concerned that it might negatively represent the area. One of the reasons I chose to purchase a home in this area is because of how nice and quiet it is. No doubt, the construction of high-density 3 -story apartments would result in an appreciable increase of noise in the area. Existing homes in the nearby vicinity of the proposed development are primarily single -story, with some 2 -story homes as well. Multiple 3 -story structures would dominate the skyline in an out -of -place and intrusive way. I am extremely concerned as to how the proposed development, if moved forward, will impact my property value as a homeowner located in very close proximity to the proposed development. In many cases, such a scenario results in a windfall effect where impacted homeowners move and the surrounding area subsequently experiences a degradation of value. 1 Downtown Eagle has worked so hard to maintain an old town vibe & keep some of the original buildings in place and I find it difficult to see how cheap 3 -story apartments are consistent with what the city has worked to achieve and become. When purchasing a home there were plenty of location options, many of which were located near apartment developments. I chose to move to Eagle because my perception was that it had decidedly different community concepts and lacked the apartment developments and box stores that make many other areas a less attractive option when purchasing a home. I have great concerns about the effects this type of development would have on traffic in the area. Eagle & State street is already extremely congested at certain times of the day. The intersection at State & Ballantyne is also becoming increasingly busy. Certainly, an apartment development of this scale located in this area would exacerbate traffic related issues. It is difficult to accept the idea of 3 -story low-income apartments being built "in your backyard" for a multitude of reasons, including aesthetics, noise, economic demographics, property value, and traffic to list just a few. We are very much opposed to the apartment development and ask that you consider the significant negative impacts that such a development would have on the city of Eagle, ID. Thank you for your consideration and I hope Eagle Planning & Zoning Commission again chooses to deny this proposal. Andrew Knight 208.484.3463 2 Sharon Bergmann From: Susan E. Buxton <SEB@msbtlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 4:38 PM To: Cherese D. McLain Cc: Kathleen M. Donovan; Jim Reynolds; Jeff Kunz; Mark Butler; Mary Mcfarland; Sharon Bergmann; Stan Ridgeway; Tracy Osborn; Sharon Bergmann; Bill Vaughan Subject: Re: Laguna vs. Eagle We should try to get a response filed tomorrow Sent from my iPhone Ori Jun 2, 2015, at 4:34 PM, Cherese D. McLain <CDMPmsbtlaw.cont> wrote: We can tall< about this tomorrow in executive. We will oppose it. They cannot file ,t motion t() (Ii:,+»i without a stipulation from us. lifti)s://www.i!,c.idaho.gov/ircpillal Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1). Dismissal of Actions - Voluntary Dismissal - Effect Thereof - By Plaintiff - By Stipulation. Subject to the provisions of Rule 23(e), of Rule 73, and of any statute of the state of Idaho an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever occurs first, or (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of this state, of the United States, or of any state an action based on or including the same claim. ;I turc•sc l). \ li I „ lili 9"itt \\ I;:InI)ttc I:.`;Irc,c•t, Sufic :i._'t) t11,11,,1)c: iO;,;;I IX011 I .1-11,111,-. (ll,I ,i .111-1)[1.1,,\ I r r\.1 II►1 \ 11\1 111 `1(:\ \ 1 11(1', \\I) 1 \\ 111`(1 ()`1 I(I \()1 1( 1. I ht. ni .0 .,, I ,, t+,,1 ,,, •.,t nti,b til, it tr 1 n, t t ,t, t. ,i Ii,un t,rnlyt ;tl { I,:.,I•I; Ft, In,{ tu,ti,n,.. ,.„t n••. 1 tl, , ') Ali 1, „ ,+,,, • ! ;• t,,, , tr,•t.i I 1 , !, l..tv, . 1)o ntlf: I i I ti ln ti t ,II,tt,lvttr i, {^, „t ,It ,c I,,., !hi , n to ,11,1..14,t1 of t' . nt Int . , • ,,n• t! n.+ t, ,,t „r I 1