Minutes - 2000 - Planning & Zoning - 07/24/2000 - Regular
OR\G1NAL
EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
July 24, 2000
7:00 PM
The Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on July 24, 2000.
Chairman Franden presiding.
1.
CALL TO ORDER:
2.
ROLL CALL: The following members were present FRANDEN, BLOOM,
DECKERS, NORDSTROM, TRENT. A quorum is present.
3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. Minutes of June 19, 2000.
Trent moves to approve the minutes of as presented. Seconded by Bloom. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES
4. OLD BUSINESS: None
Deckers notes that tonight is Commissioner Trent's last meeting. He thanks her on
behalf of the Community for her hard work and dedication during her term.
5.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. A-3-00/RZ-2-00/CU-4-00/PPUD-3-00/PP-3-00- Countryside Estates Planned
Unit Development - Capital Development and Tom Ricks: Capital Development and
Tom Ricks, represented by Richard Cook with Briggs Engineering, are requesting an
annexation and rezone with development agreement from RT (Rural Transition) and A-
R (Agricultural - Residential) to R-2-DA-P (Residential two units per acre maximum
with development agreement - PUD), conditional use, planned unit development
preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat approvals for Countryside Estates
Planned Community. The development consists ofa 62.73-acre, 112-lot (96-buildable)
residential subdivision. The site is located at the northwest corner of Ballantyne Lane
and State Street.
Franden introduces the item.
McFadden requests the Commission move item 5A to be heard after 5B as some legal
issues have arisen and the applicants legal Counsel has just arrived and will need time
to review the issue.
The Commission rearranges the agenda to hear item 5B prior to 5A.
B. RZ-6-00/PPUD-5-00/PP- 7-00/CU- 7-00 - Sprin~ Creek III Planned Unit
Development - Sprin2 Creek Associates LLC: Spring Creek Associates LLC,
represented by Mark Butler with Land Consultants Inc., is requesting a rezone from R-4
(Residential- four units per acre maximum) to MU-DA-P (Mixed Use - with
Development Agreement-PUD), conditional use, planned unit development preliminary
development plan, and preliminary plat approval for Spring Creek III. The 4.6-acre,
20-lot (I8-residential, I-commercial, and I-common) subdivision is located on the
Page 1 of 7
\\EAGLENT1\COMMON\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ 07-24-00min.doc.doc
northwest comer of Eagle Road and Ranch Drive extended, at 653 North Eagle Road.
Franden introduces the item
Mark Butler, 222 E. State Street Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Butler reviews the application.
Robert Hess 1817 S. Raymond Street Boise, Idaho is the architect for this project. He
discusses the architectural aspects of the application. Butler requests alterations to site
specific conditions #4 and #5.
Discussion between Butler and Commission.
McFadden presents the staff report. He does not object to Mr. Butler's request to strike
site specific condition #5, though he does suggest the Commission strongly consider
retaining site specific condition #4. Ifthe Engineers letter (which Mr. Butler referred
to) is read carefully #4 is a reasonable condition. Discussion.
Franden opens the public hearing.
Russ Buschert, 235 Floating Feather Road Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Buschert is displeased
with the gates on this proposed development. He is also concerned with the existing
tree not getting sufficient water. Does not want cedar shakes used for roofing material.
Concerned with light pollution ITom the streetlights. Feels that the people should be
protected by the floodplain ordinance and if that means requiring 3 feet above BFE then
so be it. Concerned with the lack of parking, perhaps they could pull out a couple lots
and use it for parking. Discussion.
Janet Buschert, 235 Floating Feather Road Eagle, Idaho. Is in general pleased with the
proposed development. She expresses her concern with parking. Does not feel gates
are appropriate. Feels that perhaps the current code should be complied with.
Mike Plunkett 843 Ballantyne Eagle, Idaho. Expresses his concern with lack of
parking. Feels perhaps the development should be rethought and a sidewalk in the front
of the homes would be an appropriate addition. Perhaps the basements should be re-
thought.
Doug Whey 1091 N. Pinnacle Eagle, Idaho. Developer ofthis property. Comments on
similar projects that he has developed and the parking needs of this type of facility.
Also states that they are more than willing to abide by any lighting requirements the
City may have. Their intent with regards to the gates is to provide the residents with a
sense of safety and security. Discussion.
Rod Weller, 2760 W. Conifer Eagle, Idaho. Discusses his personal experience with this
type of facility. The problem occurs on the weekends when visitors come and
additional parking is needed. Concerned with parking for service trucks and personnel.
Butler rebuts testimony given. States that a mixed-use zone allows this type of facility.
Discusses Eagle City Code and its applicability to this project. States that is was under
the suggestion of a Council member that this application come as a PUD, but this type
of development would be allowable with only a CD application. Feels the street
lighting is adequately addressed and the pathway is an excellent pedestrian system
rather than a sidewalk as others had suggested. The gates are more to prevent cut
through traffic and should be retained for safety reasons. States that the shingles are
asphalt not cedar. Butler quotes Eagle City Code for parking spaces and also states that
Page 2 of 7
\\EAGLENT1\COMMON\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ 07-24-00min.doc.doc
the Developer who has built several of these should know what type of parking is
required. Discussion. Robert Hess comments on service truck parking. Discussion.
Franden closes the public hearing.
Discussion amongst the Commission.
Deckers moves to deny PPUD-5-00 portion of this application and all items
addressed as PPUD-5-00 incorporated into the conditional use and development
agreement portion of this application. Furthermore, I move to approve RZ-6-
OO/PP- 7-00/CU- 7-00, with site specific and standard conditions of approval with
the following additions and deletions. Strike #5. Adding a site specific conditions
to restrict the assisted living facility to no more than 33 beds. The assisted living
facility shall place a cap on the number of residents that may maintain vehicles on
site and that the cap shall be 2 vehicles. In the residential portion of this
development, the driveways shall be a minimum of 20 feet. For the entire
development, on street parking shall be prohibited as per the covenants of this
development. Seconded by Bloom. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
5A. A-3-001RZ-2-00/CU-4-00/PPUD-3-00IPP-3-00- Countryside Estates Planned
Unit Development - Capital Development and Tom Ricks: Capital Development and
Tom Ricks, represented by Richard Cook with Briggs Engineering, are requesting an
annexation and rezone with development agreement from RT (Rural Transition) and A-
R (Agricultural - Residential) to R-2-DA-P (Residential two units per acre maximum
with development agreement - PUD), conditional use, planned unit development
preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat approvals for Countryside Estates
Planned Community. The development consists of a 62.73-acre, 112-lot (96-buildable)
residential subdivision. The site is located at the northwest comer of Ballantyne Lane
and State Street.
Franden introduces the item.
McFadden notes that the City received a letter by a Mike Sieler stating that the site had
been posted incorrectly. McFadden feels that this item may not be noticed properly and
thus it may need to be continued until it is properly noticed. Discussion regarding legal
ramifications. The Commission inquires if it would be acceptable to hear the
application and leave the public hearing open in order to give the applicant an
opportunity to re-notice, yet move forward with some testimony tonight. Discussion.
Scott Nordstrom recuses himself as he has a conflict of interest.
Joann Butler 101 S. Capitol Boise, Idaho. Butler reviews posting history for this
project. Ms. Butler is comfortable going forward with hearing this application. Gives a
brief history of this application and the current application before the Commission.
Discussion between Ms. Butler and Commission.
Mr. Cook is the Engineer for this project. Mr. Cook feels this project is a win-win
situation for the City. States that it is quite compatible with Redwood Creek
Subdivision. Discussion.
McFadden briefly discusses the staff report. Discussion between McFadden and
Commission.
Page 3 of 7
\\EAGLENTl \COMMON\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ 07-24-00min.doc.doc
Franden opens the public hearing.
Ron Heller 1760 W. Conifer Eagle, Idaho. Feels the density is too high. Would hope
the proposed berm on the east would be high enough to screen the homes from the
street. Definitely feels the density is too high it should be I acre lots. Does feel the I
acre lots would sell.
Mark Szentes 2593 W. Brockton Eagle, Idaho. Feels the increase in traffic will be
substantial even with the rerouting of Highway 44.
Jack Zastrow 2922 W. Timber Ct. Eagle, Idaho. Has a problem with the density on
Ballantyne Road. The transition in density does not feel right.
Mike Plunket 843 Ballantyne Road Eagle, Idaho. Does not feel that this project will
push Meridian High School over the brink, it is a combination of other factors. Feels
the lot size is appropriate.
Steve Care 2498 W. Timber Creek Eagle, Idaho. Feels the road design is good.
Concerned with the density mismatch on the east side of the project. Does not feel
PUD requirements are being met.
Mark Butler, 1640 Washam Road Eagle, Idaho. Notes that a portion of the application
is zoned R-l in the Comprehensive Plan. Feels the applicant is trying to get more
density.
Scott Nordstrom, 2590 W. Timber Dr. Eagle, Id. Feels that traffic will be a huge
problem. States that a great deal of time and effort went into the Comprehensive Plan
and that it should be followed regarding density. Feels the proposed application is too
dense. Would like to know what the average lot size is.
Terrance Woods 135 N. Sierra View Way Eagle, Idaho. The problem is the high
density and has concerns with further development to the east and the ramifications of
approving this type of development. Traffic will be impacted negatively. Is not against
the development itself, but the density. It should be R-l.
Greg Johnson 1848 N. Clariman Way Eagle, Idaho. Is against the proposed density on
the east side of the development. Concerned with the impact the development will have
on traffic. Also concerned with open space. The Comprehensive Plan should be abided
by.
Jeff Gilbertson 3100 Floating Feather Eagle, Idaho. Concerned with where the kids
will go to school.
Craig Stoner 2480 W. Brockton Ct. Eagle, Idaho. The traffic on Ballantyne is bad as it
is without this development. Schools are also an issue.
Deckers inquires if the public hearing should be continued at this point. Discussion
between McFadden and Commission.
Joann Butler feels appropriate notice was given, would ask for the City's Legal
Counsel's opinion. Ms. Butler gives rebuttal to testimony given tonight. Berming and
landscaping issues will be addressed when the application goes to the Design Review
Board and they will abide by City Code. States that the schools have not asked for a
denial to this project and neither has ACHD. Feels the Comprehensive Plan is being
Page 4 of 7
\\EAGLENTl \COMMON\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ 07-24-00min.doc.doc
met by this application. Ifthe Commission does not feel that the Comprehensive Plan
is being met, then they (the applicant) will ask for very specific reasons that the
Commission feels the development is not in compliance. States that the development is
compatible in regards to density.
Deckers moves to continue this application to the August 14, 2000, applicant will
work with City Staff to insure the property is properly noticed. Seconded Bloom.
ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES.
Bloom moves to continue the rest of the agenda to the August 14, 2000. Seconded
by Trent. FOUR AYE...ONE NAY. MOTION CARRIES.
Franden calls a 5 minute recess.
Bloom moves to reconsider the motion to continue 5C & 5D Tahoe Development to
the August 14, 2000 and to hear item 5E and 6A. Seconded by Trent. Discussion.
FOUR AYE...ONE NAY (Deckers)....MOTION CARRIES.
C. RZ- 7-00 - Rezone from A-R to R-E - Tahoe Development LLC: Tahoe
Development LLC, represented by Mark Butler with Land Consultants Inc., is
requesting approval of a rezone from A-R (Agricultural-Residential - one unit per five
acres) to R-E (Residential Estates - one unit per two acres). The 40-acre site is located
on the west side of Ballantyne Lane approximately ~-mile north of Floating Feather
Road at 1701 Ballantyne Lane.
D. PP-8-00 - Tahoe Subdivision Tahoe Development LLC: Tahoe Development
LLC, represented by Mark Butler with Land Consultants Inc., is requesting preliminary
plat approval for Tahoe Ridge Subdivision, a 40-acre, 19-1ot residential subdivision
located on the west side of Ballantyne Lane approximately ~-mile north of Floating
Feather Road at 1701 Ballantyne Lane.
E. CU-11-00 - Two Mobile Offices (Portable Classrooms) for Ea~le Hieh School-
Meridian Joint School District No.2: Meridian Joint School District No.2,
represented by Leatham-Krohn-Van Ocker Architects, is requesting conditional use
approval to install two 1,200 square foot mobile offices (portable classroom buildings)
at Eagle High School. The site is located on the east side of Park Lane approximately
2,000-feet north of State Street at 574 North Park Lane.
Franden introduces the item.
Stillman Anderson 1735 Federal Way Boise, Idaho. Mr. Anderson reviews the
application. Mr. Anderson comments that time is of the essence, as school will be
beginning soon.
McFadden makes himself available for questions as he has nothing further to add to the
staff report.
Franden opens the public hearing
Mark Butler 1640 Washam Road Eagle, Idaho. Notes that this would make the entire
site a non-conforming use and quotes the pertinent Eagle City Code, states that the
entire site lighting should therefore be brought into conformance with Eagle Code.
Page 5 of 7
\\EAGLENTl \COMMON\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ 07-24-00min.doc.doc
Stillman Anderson rebuts testimony states that the lighting was installed when the
building was constructed at that time it was still under County jurisdiction and thus the
lighting would be grandfathered in. Staff did not feel there was a problem. Mr.
Anderson feels that the Council may choose to contact the School District regarding the
lighting issue should they consider it a problem.
Franden closes the public hearing.
Discussion amongst the Commission.
Deckers moves to approve CU-ll-OO - Two Mobile Offices (Portable Classrooms)
for Eagle High Schootwith the site specific and standard conditions of approval.
Adding a site specific condition: The temporary structure will be approved for a 3
year time frame at which time the structure will be removed or an extension of
time will be applied for. Also adding that as per Eagle City Code 8-5-3 as a
condition of approval the school property shall comply with Eagle City lighting
standards. The Commission instruct City Staff to research this in move detail and
make additional recommendations to instruct Council regarding the lighting issue
if so needed. Seconded by Bloom. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Findin~s and Conclusions for CU-ll-OO - Meridian Joint School District No.2:
Project Description: Meridian Joint School District No.2, represented by Leatham-
Krohn-Van Ocker Architects, is requesting conditional use approval to install two 1,200
square foot mobile offices (portable classroom buildings) at Eagle High School. The
site is located on the east side of Park Lane approximately 2,OOO-feet north of State
Street at 574 North Park Lane.
Franden introduces the item.
Bloom moves to accept the Finding and Conlcusions for CU-II-00 with the
conditions listed tonight in the motion for item 5E. Seconded by Trent. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
8. REPORTS:
A. Commission: Discussion regarding special meetings that may need to be held
to catch up on applications.
B. City Attorney
C. Staff
Page 6 of?
\\EAGLENT1\COMMON\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ 07-24-00min.doc.doc
9. ADJOURNMENT: Nordstrom moved to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Seconded
Trent. TWO AYE...ONE NAY (Deckers) ...MOTION CARRIES...
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: -
,j~~(~Q L~
SHARON K. MOORE
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
~"f¡I'..4~I:S,J.!",
,.OJ, ~~ 0 r- E 1~ ~,f,~~,~
~ -""",!- ' .¡ .~"'"
;;:,;, \. "",'t"t:"9~)i)"", .,p "',.
~ tI "ö<'è , ,." "\:-, 't.
{ 1r {',- 0 ::~,.: :,:; ?:~\\'~\
0' c. -~ ;; ,~
\. ~< -,J l -, '~ [:
\~~,;..: ,.. ..,...~;;,./:¡
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT
CITY HALL.
Page 7 of7
\\EAGLENTl\COMMON\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ 07-24-00min.doc.doc
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET
Subiect: A-3-00/CU-4-00/PPUD-3-00/PP-3-00 -
count~side Estates Planned Unit Development
7/0l Jov 7:00 P.M.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON?
Page 1 of L
G:ICITY\FORMSISign UP teTr ).doc
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING
PUBLI C HEARING SI GN -IN SHEET
Sub'ect: RZ-7-00 - ezo e from A-R to R-E - Tahoe Develo
7 7:00 P.M.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
ment LLC
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON?
Page 1 of 1-
G:\CITY\FORMS\Sian UP temp.doc
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET
SUb~ct: ,PP-B-OO - Tahoe Subdivision
~ &ðD 7:00 P.M.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON?
Page 1 of L
G:\CITY\FORMS\Sian up temp.doc
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET
Subject: CD-II-DO Two Mobile Offices (Portable Classrooms)
for Ea~le Hi~h School
pf/(ðð 7:00 P.M.
PLE S PRINT LEGIBLY
NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON?
Page 1 of L
G:\CITYlFORMSlSian up temp.doc
1
COUNTRYSIDE ESTATES
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Comply with all site specific recommendations provided within the City's Engineering firm's
(Holladay Engineering) letter dated April 15, 1999.
2. The developer shall provide 3 -inch minimum caliper shade -class trees (to be reviewed and
approved by the Design Review Board) along both sides of all streets within this development.
Trees shall be placed at each lot comer with the distance between trees to be no more than 80
feet or less than 35 feet. The trees shall be located in a landscape strip between the sidewalk
and the curb. Prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat for each phase, the applicant shall
either instal the required trees, landscaping, and irrigation or provide the City with a letter of
credit for 150% of the cost of installation of all landscape and irrigation improvements within the
5 -foot wide landscape strip.
3. Other than the sidewalks along the streets, meandering pathway/trails within the subdivision shall
be 6 5 -foot wide minimum asphalt or concrete.
4. The concrete sidewalks proposed along Ballantyne Lane and State Highway 44 abutting this site
shall be a minimum of 5 -feet wide.
5. Final development plans shall be reviewed as "New Business" items and not as "Public Hearing"
items unless the City determines that any difference between the preliminary development plan
and final development plan needs additional public comment because of possible impacts to
surrounding property owners, to this development, or to the community, or inconsistency with the
conditions herein. If the City determines that a public hearing shall be held on the final
development plan, notice shall be provided for (as was required for the preliminary development
plan).
6. All existing, healthy trees (as determined by a certified arborist) shall be preserved as proposed.
The trees shall be protected with construction fencing extending beyond the drip line of the tree
during construction of the subdivision.
7. Any stub street which is expected to be extended in the future shall be provided with a sign
generally stating that, "This street is to be extended in the future."
8. rhe .: w
9. The applicant shall increase the width of the 30 -foot wide buffer area along State Street
(realigned) to 35 -feet wide or provide a 5 -foot wide easement along the rear of the lots abutting
State Street to provide a total buffer width of 35 -feet.
10. The portion of the buffer area that abuts State Highway 44 (principal arterial) shall be increased
to 78 -feet wide or provide a landscape and maintenance easement across the rear of the lots
abutting State Highway 44 (in conjunction with the common lot) totaling 75 -feet.
11. The applicant shall increase the width of the 25oot wide buffer area along Ballantyne Lane to 35 -
feet wide or provide a 10 -foot wide easement along the rear of the Tots abutting Ballantyne Lane
to provide a total buffer width of 35 -feet.
12.
:
. Landscape plans
showing open space -amenities shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
•
BOI MT1:306081.1
13. Minimum building setbacks, lot sizes and lot widths shall be as stated within the"Site Data"
section "I -I" within the City Council's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the following
condition: The additional 5 foot setback required for two story structures shall be waived for the
front, back and street sides of all units within the subdivision.
14. The street and pathway configuration shall remain substantial as shown on Preliminary
Development Plan submitted to the city with this application.
15. Subdivision signage, common area, recreation center, street trees, existing trees, pathways,
buffer areas, perimeter fencing, and etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review
Board prior to approval of final development plan.
16. The entire Countryside Estates development shall remain under the control of one Homeowners
Association.
17.
18. Provide a revised preliminary plat showing an area specifically designated for the storage of
boats, campers, and trailers. In lieu of providing a storage area, the developer shall provide a
copy of the subdivision CC&R's etailinq the criteria for storage of
recreational vehicles, utility trailers, etc. within the development.
19. The applicant shall be required to provide documentation from Chevron Pipeline indicating their
position on landscape and sidewalk improvements within their easement. If these improvements
cannot be placed within the easement area, then a modification to this application will need to be
applied for and approved by the City prior to the City accepting a final plat application.
BOI MT1:306081.1
NAME
hS<#'y1
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Subject: RZ-6-00/PPUD-5-00/PP-7-00/CU-7-00 -
Spring Creek III Planned Unit Development
-7hith)0 7:00 P.M.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
ADDRESS
Page 1 of L
G \CITY\FORMS\Slon up temp doc
TELEPHONE PRO? CON?
JUL-24-00 MON 16:53
City of Eagle,
FAX NO. 2083834756
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
JUL 2 4 2000
Filo:
Route to:
July 24, 2000
Ward & Sandra Spence at 2397 N Hollybrook P1 oppose the purposed two
acre lots on South and North Ballantyne. All lots should be a minimum of 5
acres because of water concerns and living condition concerns. One of the
reasons why we moved to Eagle was the fact that all land North of Floating
Feather and West of Eagle Rd was zoned for 5 acres and over.
r .
Ward & Sandra Spence
?,-6,4,,07
14:28 JUL 24, 2000
TEL NO: (208) 387-6 / *5730 PAGE: 1/5
K40
Ada County Highway District
318 E. 37th Street RECEIVED & FILED
Boise, ID 83714 CITY OF EAGLE
(208) 387-6100 (208) 387-6391 FAX J U 2 Li 2000
Filo:
Route to:
Please Deliver to:
BILL VAUGHN
Fax #:
Company:
939-6827
CITY OF EAGLE
From: Christy Richardson
Fax #: {208) 387-6391
Phone: (208) 387-6178
Pages: 6
Message:
Please take another look at this report. The Facts &
Findings did not match the site specific requirements for
sidewalk.
Sidewalk is required on collector streets. In certain cases
pavement widening is required in lieu of sidewalk. However,
this development is within the city limits, and sidewalk on
Ballantyne is a requirement.
Please call me if you have any questions.
387-6178
14:29 JUL 24, 2000
TEL NO: (208) 387-6391 #5730 PAGE: 2/6
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
Planning and Development Division
Development Application Report
Preliminary Plat — Tahoe Ridge e/o Ballantyne Lane, n/o Floating Feather 18 Residential Lots
An application has been submitted to the City of Eagle for approval of a preliminary plat for a 18 -lot
residential subdivision on 38 -acres. Eagle City has referred the application to the District for review and
comment. The applicant is requesting approval to create 18 single family dwelling lots. The site is
located on the east side of Ballantyne Lane approximately 1,300 feet north of Floating Feather Road in
Eagle. This development is estimated to generate 170 additional vehicle trips per day (10 existing) based
on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual.
Roads impacted by this development: Ballantyne Lane
Facts and Findings:
ACHD Commission Date — June 28, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.
BACON LIGHT
RUSH
WASHAM
FLOATING, FEAT -IER
I
Tahoe Ridge
Page 1
' 14:29 JUL 24, 2000
A. General Information
Owner - Tahoe Development LLC
Applicant - Same
AR - Existing zoning
38 - Acres
18 - Proposed building lots
3,200 - Total lineal feet of proposed public streets
236 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
North Ada - Impact Fee Service Area
Eagle - Impact Fee Assessment District
TEL NO: (208) 387-6391 15730 PAGE: 3'6
Ballantyne Lane
Ballantyne Lane is a collector with bike lane designation
Traffic count not available
1,316 -feet of frontage
55 -feet of existing right-of-way
66 -feet of right-of-way required (48 -feet from centerline)
Ballantyne Lane is improved with 24 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk.
B. On June 12, 2000, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and evaluated
the transportation system in the vicinity. On June 13, 2000, the staff met as the District's
Technical Review Committee and reviewed the impacts of this proposed development on the
District's transportation system. The results of that analysis constitute the following Facts and
Findings and recommended Site Specific Requirements.
C. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing
by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details.
D. Ballantyne Lane is designated as a collector with 55 -feet of existing right-of-way (30 -feet west of
centerline). The road is improved with 24 -feet of pavement with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. The
applicant should be required to dedicate 35 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ballantyne
Lane (an additional 5 -feet).
E. Policy requires the developer to construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Ballantyne Lane
abutting the entire parcel.
F. District policy allows 30 -foot streets with a 4 -foot wide striped non -motorized travel lane on each
side for subdivisions with lot sizes of 1.5 -acres or greater. The applicant may construct valley
gutter or a concrete ribbon and drainage swale.
G. The applicant is proposing to leave a stub street to the north. The applicant should be required to
install a sign at the terminus of the roadways stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED
IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub street with District staff.
Tahoe Ridge
Page 2
' 14:30 JUL 24, 2000
TEL NO: (208) 387-6391 #5730 PAGE: 4/6
H. Based on development patterns in this area and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates
that the transportation system will be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by this
proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report.
The following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided
for prior to ACRD approval of the final plat:
Site Specific Requirements:
1. Construct the roadways within the subdivision with 30 -feet of pavement with 4 -feet striped on
each side for non -motorized travel. A permanent drainage swale shall be constructed along each
side of the new streets and permanently maintained as lawn or other surface approved by
District staff.
2. Dedicate 35 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Ballantyne Lane (5 -feet additional)
abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty
deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first.
Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested
material. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to
existing right-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner
submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in
accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #193.
3. Construct a 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on Ballantyne Lane abutting the entire parcel located
2 -feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation with District staff.
4. Extend a stub street to the north approximately 300 feet east of the western property line as
shown on the preliminary plat. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that-, "THIS
ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Coordinate the sign plan for the stub
street with District staff.
5. Connect with the existing stub street on the western property line (Dresden Street) approximately
253 -feet south of the northern property line as shown on the preliminary plat.
Standard Requirements:
1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall
be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall
specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of
why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request
shall be submitted to the District no later than 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for ACHD
Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on
the next available meeting agenda.
Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action
do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and
Tahoe Ridge
Page 3
14:31 JUL 24, 2000
TEL NO: (208) 387-6391 %5730 PAGE: 5/6
report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items
will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission.
2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action
shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the
action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall
specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of
data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request
for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the
Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of
the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard.
3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the
State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit
(or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way.
Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to
ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full
business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact
ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are
compromised during any phase of construction.
8. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
9. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or
other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in
interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject
property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to
the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought.
Tahoe Ridge
Page 4
14:j1 JUL e4, ebb
Conclusion of Law:
TEL NO: (208) 387-6391 45730 PAGE: 6'6
1. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
impacted by the proposed development.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development
Division at 387-6170.
Submitted by: Commission Action:
Planning and Development Staff
June 28, 2000
Tahoe Ridge
Page 5
JUL-25-00 05:57 AM j P.01
From to 1-208-939-2409 at 07/24/2000 3:23 I✓/# _, 001/00
r
FROM
PhoneTools
Message
7516S500W
Rushville, 1N 46173
Phone: 765-629-2354
Fax: 765-629-2536
`To !Anti
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
MMMT 2 4 2000
Filo:
Rout
Please be sure that the P&Z committee members receive this letter for tonight's meeting.
Thanks.
Lisa Szertes
From: Merrill Carrigan
Flat ock Hunting Preserve
To: Eagle Planning and Zoning
Eagle City hall
Page(s): 3
TO 07/24/2000 4:13 PM Page 1
JUL-25-00 05:57 AM
July 23. 2000
P.02
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
JUL 2 4 2000
Eagle Planning and Zoning Committee Filo:
Eagle City Hall Route to:
Eagle, ID 83616
Fax: 939-2409
Dear P80.: Committee Members,
1 am unable to attend the July 24, 2000 P&Z meeting due to an out of state funeral i am
attending. However, I respectfully request that my comments contained in this letter be
read at the meeting and put on record.
I am opposed to the rezone requests by 'Tahoe Development for a rezone change from AR
to RE which would allow lot sizes as small as 1.8 acres and to Countryside Estates for a
rezone change from RT and AR to R2. I am opposed to these rezone changes for the
same but very salient reasons that most people who arc opposed to these changes: the
impact on the county roads and increased traffic as a result of new subdivisions,
especially higher density subdivisions, the impact on overcrowding of local schools, and
the impact on the rural setting by allowing higher density developments which arc not in
keeping with the surrounding properties.
All of these areas are of concern, hut 1 would like to expound on one in particular, the
impact of higher density subdivisions on children in the local schools. 1 have a friend
who is a schoolteacher here at Eagle Elementary. This past year her class had 24
children, which was an average sized class. With that number of kids, it is challenging to
say the least to meet all the childrens' needs. The teachers do the best possible job
especially given the limited resources available to them. There are no teacher's assistants
available, teaching supplies are not adequate which forces nearly all teachers to
supplement with teaching aids provided out of their own personal funds and most
children in a class of that size cannot get individualized attention. My husband and I
certainly have the opportunity and convenience of sending our children to the local
schools but if the overcrowding continues at the rate it has been building, in two years
when our son is ready to start kindergarten, we will not send him to the local Eagle
elementary schools. Most people arc aware that small class sizes are critical especially in
the first few years of fornial education. We applaud the teachers for their efforts and
support the schools through taxes but how many more bond issues are going to pass
before citizens say no more- to increased taxes?
Most people here at the meeting are aware that the proposed Tahoe development abuts on
its west boundary the Canterbury I & It subdivision. Many people hcrc tonight who are
opposed to the zoning change of Tahoc development were also in attendance during the
1'&Z committee and commissioners meetings when the Canterbury development
rezoning requests were being discussed. There was immense opposition to the rezone of
those parcels o f land, yet it was still approved. The rezone for the Canterbury I, II and III
subdivisions should never have happened.
JUL-25-00 05:59 AM P.03
It is an educated guess that the developers for the proposed Tahoe subdivision are
banking on the R1 rating of the Canterbury development to open the door for approval of
higher density for their development. It is also an educated guess that the developers who
recently purchased the parcel of land just to the north of the proposed Tahoe development
(formerly the Marvin Holmes property) arc banking on this proposed rezone of the Tahoe
development to go through and open the door for a higher density rating as well. Please
do not let this continue!
The proposed rezone change for the Countryside Estates development from RT and AR
to R2 is also of great concern. It would allow as many as 96 houses on 62 acres. That is
just unacceptable given the above listed constraints already being placed on the current
resource.
One final thought, actually it is a question I would like to ask the committee if I might.
I tow much, if any, coordination takes place between the local recommending and
decision making entities (i.e., Eagle P&L, Eagle: City Council and Ada County
Conunissioncrs), the local school hoard administrators and Ma County Highway
District, when recommendations or decisions are made allowing building of housing,
especially changes that affect density of housing? I am guessing there is little if any.
Does it seem that thcrc is a key clement missing ifthose agencies are not all coordinated?
These are critical decisions being made which affect all of us, not just those who live in
the fcw blocks or miles of these proposed subdivisions.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and for your consideration of my
request to not approve the proposed change in zoning of these two parcels.
Sincerely,
Lisa Szcntes
2593 W. Brockton Ct.
F.agle
Acta Co un4 iliqh,tuav 2)igrici
Judy Peavey -Derr, President
Dave Bivens, Vice President
Marlyss Meyer, Secretary
Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner
Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner
TO:
July 20, 2000
Meridian Joint School District No. 2
911 Meridian Street
Meridian, ID 83642
SUBJECT: ECU -11-00
two portable classrooms
574 N. Park Lane
z 7/7/io
318 East 37th Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499
Phone (208) 387-6100
91
E-mail: to
tAGLE
JUL 2 Li 2000
Fib:
Route to: INVIA—
The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) staff has received and reviewed the application and site plan for the item
referenced above. ACHD does not have any site improvement requirements at this time. The ACHD Commission
will not hear this item unless the site plan is changed in such a manner as to require Commission review.
ACHD policy requires that before any improvements of any kind are constructed or installed within the public right-
of-way, a permit or license agreement permitting the improvements must be obtained.
All future design plans and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD
Ordinances unless specifically waived in writing by the District.
Contact Ms. Joyce Newton for payment of possible road impact fees prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #193, also known as the Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact at (208) 387-6177.
Sincerely,
L4/7-('
Penelope L. Constantikes
Development Analyst
Cc: Planning & Development/Chron/Project File
Planning & Development Services -City of Eagle
July 24, 2000
City of Eagle
Attention: Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Countryside Estates Incorrect Notice
Dear Chairman Franden,
Z ile/g5 1;)/
REOEIY/ED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
JUL 2 2000
no:
Route to:
Attached are photos of each of the three public hearing notice
signs posted at the site planned for Countryside Estates. The
photos were taken with the Saturday, July 15, 2000 Statesman to
show they were taken as of that date.
As the CPR Eagle representative it has come to my attention that
the signs are incorrect and do not comply with notice
requirements. According to my information, the developers are
asking for a different zoning than what is posted on the north
part of the property. These signs are an important communication
tool for the City and when people stop to read them they need to
know they are correct. Also, it looks like the R-2 zone proposed
on the north part of the property conflicts with the
Comprehensive Plan.
It seems that the public is being misled by the signs that have
been up, incorrectly written, for weeks. It's also not clear
what "DA" means. With such inacuracies it would be inappropriate
for the City to hold the public hearing on this property. I
therefore request you postpone the public hearing until proper
notice has been posted.
Thank
Mike Sieler
CPR Eagle
cc: John McFadden, City Attorney
Bill Vaughan, Zoning Administrator
ICON JULY 24 2000 AT 7:00 PM AT THE
PURPOSE: APPLICATIONS A-3-00/RZ
/PPUO-3-00/PP-3-0070 CONSIDER`
OOF 16.58 ACRES OF A 62.72 ACRE
1010VOI AS COUNTRYSIDE ESTATES;
A REZONE OF THE ENTIRE ACRE
_.� RT AND AR TO R -2 -DA -P(' . a
R-114RESDENTIAL-1DU/ACh A.•.
PLANNED UNIT • 3 • • a • _
PRF JIMARY PLAT
96 BOOLE FAImY LOTS
��•, ON 6272 ACRE&
PUBLIC HEARING
Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission
THE CIT! OF EAGLE WILL HOLD A PUBLIC REARM
ON JULY 24,2000 AT 7-00 PM 11T THE EAGLE CITY HALL
PURPOSE: APPLICATIONS � R-2A'0O N •
•/PPUO-3-00/PP-3-0010
KNOWNOF 16.58� RE A 62.72COUNTRYSIDE ESTAATTES E LTO BE
OF THE ENTIRE ACRE PARCEL
FFA ONE RROMEZRT AND AR TO R -2 -0A -P RESDENT ALPUO)
AND R-111RESDENiU=-1DU/ACI, A CONDITIONAL
USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
T CONSISTING
iSUBDIVISION OF 96 p1pLE FAMILY�AND 16 COMMON
LOTS 011 62.72 ACRES.
LOCA: 843 BAL • ANTI E LANE. EAOLE.
APPLICATION BY: COM- DEVELOPMENT
AND BA
Eagle Planning and Zoning Commissio
THE CITY OF EAGLE WILL HOLD A PUBUC HEARING
ON JULY 24, 2000 AT 7:00 PM AT THE EAGLE CITY HALL
PURPOSE: APPUCATIONS A-3-00/RZ-2-OO
•/PPUD-3-OO/PP-3-00 TO CONSIDER ANNEXATION
OF 16.58 ACRES OF A 62.72 ACRE PARCEL TO BE
KNOWN AS COUNTRYSIDE ESTATES;
A REZONE OF THE ENTIRE ACRE PARCEL
FROM RT AND AR TO R-2-DA-P(RESIDENTIALPUD)
AND R-1PIRESIDENTIAL-1DU/ACI; A CONDITIONAL
USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
SUBDMSION PREUMINARY PLAT CONSISTING
OF 96 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 16 COMMON
LOTS ON 6222 ACRES.
LOCATION:843 BALLANTYNE LANE, FW' -I F, IDAHO
APPLICATION BY:CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AND •
747 .•$mstiass W
. et AWN) i
June 21, 2000
Mr. Bill Vaughn, Planner
City of Eagle
310 E. State St.
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Re: Countryside Estates Subdivision
Dear Mr. Vaughn:
_ 7n)
E D & FILED
►T`` OF EAGLE
File:
Rome t :
'u uJlO
AP -e -
We have been made aware that the final plat for the referenced
subdivision suggests a landscape plan which would allow trees to
be planted in the Chevron Pipe Line Company easement strip which
crosses the proposed subdivision area.
Please reference our letter of April 12, 1999 in which we
indicated that no trees will be allowed in the easement area,
only shrubs and grasses which have a root system which reaches no
more than one foot in depth.
We would respectfully request that the final plat not be approved
until such time as the plat indicates compliance with these
restrictions.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Si,L-rely,
Larry, A. Ca well
ROW, Consultant representing Chevron Pipe Line Company
CC: G.A. Adams
E.K. Rust
J.N. Watts
Dan Johnson
Professional Land Services - Members of the International Right of Way Association
Office 208-939-2680 Fax 939-8680 Home 939-7168
We oppose the proposed development an Ballantyne Rd south of the Holmes' prop:.✓ ty in any form, but re -
7/41/a -c'
zoning fur higher density (two aae lots) would be a disaster for this area. The infrastructure is already
being pushed to the limit Existing roads, schools, water, sewer, etc.c n't handle more of this rapid growth.
Stick to the current plan and zoning! Continued growth can't, and maybe shouldn't, be completely stopped
but it must be controlled. Don't let these money -hungry developers ruin our city and surrounding areas!
Please deny the re -zoning request if not the entire project.
'!hank you for your consideration,
9rt,„
Ed Whitfield
Pat Whitt
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
JUL 2 4 2000
Filo:
Route to: