Loading...
Minutes - 1985 - City Council - 01/29/1985 - RegularPage 5 CITY OF EAGLE PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 29, 1985 The Council met for a Public Hearing on the Eagle Com- prehensive Plan on Tuesday, January 29, 1985, at the Eagle Primary School Multi-purpose Room, at 7:30 P.M. Roll call showed the following members present: WALKER, STOPPELLO, MAILE, GUERBER. Mayor HALEY presiding. Mayor HALEY opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and expressed the purpose of the public hearing and the procedure to be fol- lowed. Public testimony was received by the following: L. C. (Whitey) ~ace, 800 Mace Road, Eagle - He was opposed to the plan as he felt that it stopped progress. He submitted written testimony and it is included as part of these minutes on page 8. Orval Krasen, 641 Steepleview, Eagle - Mr. Krasen indicated that the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan needed either goals or objectives to be added, the addition of a "Natural Resources" section, an analysis to each section, the Urban Service Planning Area should be inlarged, a map indicating suitable projected land uses for each jurisdiction should be included, agricultural land within the City limits should be allowed to be developed, he urged that the proposed plan be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further revision. He submitted written testimony and is included as part of these minutes on Pages 9, 10, 11, and 12. Floyd Calhoun, 1501 Floating Feather Rd., Eagle - Mr. Calhoun said he felt that the Comprehensive Plan as proposed was a no growth plan for Eagle. Mike Horkley, 124 E. State St., Eagle - Mr. Horkley introduced him- self as the President of the Eagle Business Association and indicated that the Business Association was against the proposed plan. He said that they view it (proposed Comprehensive Plan) as a no growth plan. Ron Marshall, 124 E. State St., Eagle - Mr. Marshall submitted written and oral testimony for the Eagle Business Association. He requested that the Council consider the testimony that the Business Association submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission at their public hearing on the proposed plan. He specifically addressed changes that the Business Association would like to see made on Pages 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 22 of the proposed plan. Written testimony submitted is included as part of these minutes as pages 13 and 14 and a map that was submitted is in the file on the comprehensive plan. Page 6 Jim Gipson, 82 E. State St., Eagle - Mr. Gipson also indicated that he was speaking for the Eagle Business Association. He said they feel that the Urban Service Planning Area on the map was much to small and if that map was approved it would restrict any growth and future development. He testified that the Business Association felt the Urban Service Planning Area should be Floating Feather Road to Horseshoe Bend Road, South to the Boise River, along the Boise River to Ballentine back to Floating Feather Road, as a minimum planning area. He said the City Center/Commercial District should be extended to Edgewood on the East, the Ballentine Canal on the South, a little past Riverview on the West and further north than the City Center as indicated on the Eagle Policy Diagram Map under consideration at this public hearing. He said a larger Industrial area should be considered and the remaining use for residential. He submitted a map with his testimony. Mick Divin, 560 E. State St., Eagle - He said he was speaking in support' of the presentation given by Jim Gipson. He said he would like to see a larger Urban Service Planning Area, more Commercial area, and industrial development closer to Highway 55 and Highway 44. Marion Moore, Shady Acres, Eagle - He said he didn't mind being in the county but didn't want to the in the impact area. Glida Bothwell, 642 Steepleview - She indicated that the plan should be adopted and she didn't understand why the business community felt that the commercial area should be expanded. Farrin Farnworth, 1600 Riverside Dr, Eagle - He felt the Plan did not address an area where people could put mobile homes and low cost housing, the plan was a no growth plan, and he felt that there should be members on the Planning and Zoning Commission from the Impact Area. Jim Harris, 1025 Eagle Hills Way,Eagle, - Mr. Harris indicated that he was representing the Eagle Hills West Home Owners Association. He testified that the areas designated as residential were not specific enough as to lot sizes and density and that the Urban Service Planning Area was to large. He requested that the Council extend the Public Hearing for another two weeks to allow him more time to study the issues. Phil Hanson, 91 Spring Hill Drive, Eagle - Mr. Hanson said he was representing the Eagle Sewer District. He stated that the Urban Service Planning Area of the proposed plan was smaller than the Eagle Sewer District planning Area B and that bonding for the new Sewer plant was based upon Growth in the planning Area B and that without growth and new hook-ups in that area revenue to repay the bond indebtness would then have to come from higher sewer rates. Kirby Vickers, Nampa, Idaho, - Mr. Vickers stated that he was testifying on behalf of the Eagle Sewer District. He said that in 1979 when the Sewer District was working on a project to enlarge their sewer facilities, there were three organizations responsible for land use planninG, the City of Eagle, Ada County Page 7 Kirby Vickers testimony continued: and A.P.A. During negotiation with these organizations, it was agreed that the Eagle Sewer Planning Area B would be identified as the Sewer Service Planning Area for the Eagle Sewer District and the Urban Service Planning Area for the City of Eagle. Mr. Vickers submitted written testimony to support his statements on pages 15 and 16. LaRue Bevington, 812 E. State Street, Eagle - Mr. Bevington stated that he felt the Urban Service Planning Area was too small and that most of it had already been developed. He also said he felt that the Commercial property outside of the City Limits had not been addressed properly. Mayor HALEY closed the public testimony portion of the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Councilmen WALKER, STOPPELLO, and MAILE made a few comments to the public and questioned Mr. Hanson about parts of his testimony. Moved by GUERBER and seconded by STOPPELLO to table until the next council meeting and at that time discuss the possible changes to the Comprehensive Plan and what should be brought up at public hearing. Roll call on the motion resulted as follows: AYE: WALKER, STOPPELLO, MAILE, GUERBER. Motion carried. Mayor HALEY adjourned the meeting at 9:05 P.M. Respectfully Submitted Bonnie Krasowski City Clerk Approved: CAROL HALEY MAYOR Page 8 January 29, 1985 To Eagle City Council: I am much concerned about the closing of growth in Eagle. I think we should have both business and housing coming into our city. I have lived here all of my life. I asked to be put in the city of Eagle zoning. I could have been left in Ada County zoning,'but I wanted to be in Eagle where I was raised. I am seventy-five years old and would like to see things open for our businessmen in Eagle and so we will be able to sell our land; because where there is no interest in growth~ there are no sales. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, L. C. (Whitey) ~ace Rt. 3, 800 Mace Road Eagle, Idaho Page 9 Testimony at Public Hearing by the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan, on January 28, 1985, by Orval T. Krasen, 641 Steepleview Drive, Eagle. ¢ There ars a number of~corrections~f--~.~-~ that nesd to he made in this proposed change, i.e., the original Comprehensive Plan was adopted on tpril 18, 1978, and not in January 1978 as stated ~the proposed change. I have reviewed this proposed change and the Planning Act and there seems to be a problem~ in defining what a clan is. Let me quote from page 57 of the original plan (read). If this is still considered valid, then the proposed chan~es need considerable revision. None of the components in the proposed change have either a goal and/ as is reouired by IoC. 67-6502. or objectiveJ Also, none of the components have an analysis, also required by I.C. 67-6508. The component "Natural Resources" has not been included in the proposed change. ~C. 67-6508 states in part, that the plan shall be based on the following components unless the plan specifies reasons why a particular component is unneeded. Let us speak to "Natural ~esources" and see if it should be included. This component in the original plan was much too long & cumbersome. For instance, this change, in dealing with types of soils in our area should make reference to the Soil Conservation Service studies. Further I think we should speak to natural resources such as favorable climate; mining deposits of sand & gravel; water resources such as the Boise River; Air Quality and the possible adverse impact of ignoring and to clean air standards in approving growth;/wildlife which is abundant in Eagle and helps make it such a nice place to live in. Is an analysis of each component necessary? I believe that a comprehensive plan cannot be written without making this analysis. Page 10 - 2- For instance, the component "Recreation" which is titled "Parks, Recreation and Open Space" in the proposed revision. I believe that we need to show and a brief description the locations/of parks and open areas. Then we need to study them and then make comment in the goals or objectives on their adequacy, the changes that should be made, and what would be desirable in the future. If you turn to page 3, policy 6 (read). As you all know, maintenance of park facilities is a financial problem that has not been solved by the City of E~gle and no solution may be currently available under exist- ing tax restraints. Therefore, if we encourage the development of more parks or tot lots, we must also speak to their maintenance. Is an analysis of the "Housing" component necessary? I believe that if such analysis were made it would show a surplus of single family homes, and a surplus of platted and zoned lots for single family homes that are too large and too costly. I also think that we would fin4 a shortage of housing for senior citizens, for singles and single parents, and for persons with limited incomes. Policy 1, on page 8 of the proposed change states ~Hx~Kzk "A wide diversity of housing types and choice between ownership and rental dwelling units shall be encouraged for all income groups in a vaFiety of locations suitable for residential development. in Let us exams this: "in a variety of locations." On page 11, of the proposed change, we state that density shall not exceed 5 units per acre with lots not less than 6,000 s~uare feet, within the Urban Service Planning Area and outside the City Center. This automatically restricts the development of rental dwelling units and housing type for all income groups ~eeamse in a variety of locations. Page 11 -3- If the intent is to restrict this type of housinz to the City Center, then Policy i under "Housing" should be chanEsd by deleting "in a variety of locations", tf this is not the intent, then the policies un{er the component "Land Use" on page 11 need to be revised. Let us examine the map attached to the proposed change. The Urban Service Planning Area as defined on the map is too restrictive. It should include, as a minimum, all of the area within the current city limits. Several of the churches to the west of the currently defined area have been discussing for a number of years, ma how they can finance central sewer service and water for fire protection. The city should encourage $~&s-%~e-®~ these discussions. It Bhould not be necessary~to first petition for a chan~e to the comprehensive plan before they can take implementing action. I.C. 67-6508c, states in part: "A map shall be prepared indicating suitable projected land uses for the jurisdiction." The proposed change does not contain such a map. It also was not dealt with in the original plan because of time constraints and lack of knowledge and expertise on the part of the planners, which included me. This lack of the map has created many decision problems for the P&Z Commission and for the City Council. I believe that this map is the most critical part of the Comprehensive Plan. This map is a ~uide for the developer for his planning. I It makes the decision process much easier for the P&Z and the Council. The map should not attempt to deal with all future possi- h£1~z~ies h~t ~should reflect the current thinking of the Pg~.and the City Page 12 -4- Couneil. This map may always be changed to accomodate future events. Under the component "Land Use". on pane 13, dealing with Agricultural deny Land/Farm, we xmm~x~m~ development of agricultural lands within the city limits. A city is an urban area; therefore, in my opinion, all lands within the city limits should be considered for urban development. If it is the intent to deny development of these farms lands within the city limits, then the owners of such lands such be advised to reqmest de-anmexation. In good faith, they requested annexation so they could be considered for urban development and have paid taxes to the City of Eagle for this privilege. I urge you to return this proposed change to the comprehensive plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further revision. I would also suggest that a Planning Committee be appointed to study this draft, to study the requirements of I~aho Code, and to propose revisions to the P&Z. Also, this committee should include members of the community having a direct interest in the Comprehensive Plan and the future of the City of E~gle. Thank you, are thrre any questions? Pa~e 13 Jan 29, 1985 Presention for Public Hearing by Ron Marshall for Eagle Business Assoc. This is a portion of the testimony to be submitted by the Eagle Business Assn. We have reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan again since the P & Z public hearing and are basically submitting the same information we submitted before. The same changes as we suggested before are here in writing and we haVe noted on the left those suggestions that were adopted by P & Z. We feel P & Z did not address most of our concerns and skipped over many of them. We strongly request that these changes be studied and addressed by the council. I am going to touch only on a few of the areas of greatest concern: On page 7-- Item #9-- we strongly recommend this be deleted in full. This state street plan is not necessary and can better be handled by proper zoning. On page 9--we still believe "small town" fits better than "rural" in trying to describe what we want Eagle to be. On page 11-- Land Uses. These items should be handled by ordinance and not be in the comprehensive plan. Idaho Code 67-6511 concerning zoning says the governing board shall establish standards, etc., but doesn't say to put it in the comp. plan. We suggest you delete what is now in the plan and consider sub- stituting the wording we have submitted. Another reason for this change is that it is in direct conflict with item #8 on page 10 where it says design standards shall be specified b~ ordinance. Page 14 2 On page 13-- This is the controversial section on the intent of the Agricultural Area in which language was added between the work session and the actual P & Z public hearing. This should not apply to any area except the impact area. On page 22--item #4--Our partial agreement with this section re- ferred to city size lots however if a development of larger lots, such as one acre or more, then sewer and water should not be an absolute requirement. We suggest you accept and consider these constructive suggestions which we have worked very hard to develop. We already have a double shift high school and the only elementary schools in the Meridian district with any real amount of vacant space. We still have students being bussed to Eagle Hills from Garden City and now some to Eagle because we have don't. Realtors from Boise are asking me why their listings in Eagle are not being shown and sold as much as their listings in other areas. We have a developer in Eagle Ranch who is not doing anything to promote Eagle and so their lots are not selling very fast and we have a continual large weedpatch mostly along Stierman Way. We submit to you that we should be doing more to encourage growth and not adopt a plan to discourage development. special education programs are being moved the vacant space for them and other schools Page 15 J-U-B INC. ENGINEERS, 212 Tenth Avenue South · Nempe, Idaho 83651 · Telephone (208) 467-5252 -- 888-2321 November 2, 1984 Board Members Eagle Sewer District Eagle, Idaho Dear Board Members: We have been requested to provide a historical perspective of how the planning area for the Facility Plan was selected and how it relates to the other political subdivisions in Ada County. Since the City of Eagle is presently updating their Comprehensive plan, the relationship between the Sewer District and the City and their respective planning efforts may be of particular importance. The Facility Planning effort began in 1979 with the selection of the Study Area. The Study Area consisted of a very large area shown in Figure 1 of the Facility Plan. With the input of the Sewer District and the City of Eagle, the Study Area was reduced to three different Planning areas identi- fied in Figure 1 as Planning Areas A, B, and C. The City of Eagle had expressed the desire to see the City grow into Planning Areas A and B. The Sewer District was obligated by contract to provide sewer service to a portion of Planning Area C, should it develop. However, Ada County Planning and Zoning, and Ada Planning Association opposed growth in Planning Areas A and C. The negotiations to resolve these differences were very long and a compromise was arrived at in 1980. During the negotiations, the stated policy of the Sewer District was that the City of Eagle and Ada County were the two political subdivisions responsible for land use planning in the Planning Area and that the Facility Plan would incorporate the selected land use planning and population project- ions into the Facility Plan. The ultimate outcome of the negotiations was that the total population projection for the planning period would be 13,286 and that population growth would occur in Planning Area B. Provisions would be made for growth in Planning Areas A and C contingent upon develop- ment actually occuring in these areas. In addition, it was agreed that Planning Area B would be identified as the Sewer Service Planning Area for the Eagle Sewer District and the Urban Service Planning Area forthe City of Eagle. The entire Facility Plan is based upon the fact that Planning Area B is the Urban Service Planning Area for the City of Eagle. The sizes and loca- tion of the sewer interceptors shown on the Master Plan Map are based on the land uses identified within the Eagle Comprehensive Plan. Page 16 J-IJ-S ENGINEERS, INC. Eagle Board Members -2- November 2, 1984 A significant change in the land uses or the Urban Service Planning Area could requ/re the Sewer District to make major modifications in the Facility Plan. Since the sizing and financial projections for the new treatment facillty were based on the Eagle Comprehensive Plan, a change in policy which resulted in a major increase or decrease in growth patterns could have a major effect on the financial stability of the Sewer District. The complex interrelationships between the land use planning political subdfvtstons and the service political subdivisions are very important. The City of Eagle should be made aware of the impact of their decisions on the Eagle Sewer District and subsequently the members of the c~ity. Sincerely, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. ; y Vtckers, P. E.