Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Minutes - 2005 - Planning & Zoning - 02/28/2005 - Regular
THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 28, 200S Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:40 p.m. Bandy explains the guidelines for public testimony that will be followed tonight. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: LIEN, BANDY, MARKS, PIERCE, ASPITARTE. A quorum present. Bandy moves the consent agenda to be heard after public hearings. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: . Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Chairman, a Commissioner, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the Rules of Order. . Any item on the Consent Agenda that contains written recommendations from the City of Eagle shall be adopted as part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Consent Agenda approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise. A. Minutes of February 15, 2005. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. RZ-8-97/CU-6-97/PPUD-I-97 MOD - Brookwood Planned Unit Development Modification- Aries Development: Aries Development LLC, represented by Michael Hormaechea, is requesting a rezone from R-4 (Residential- up to four units per acre) to R-4-DA-P (Residential - up to four units per acre maximum with development agreement - PUD) and a modification to the conditional use and preliminary development plan for Brookwood Subdivision. The modification consists of adding a 1.19- acre parcel to the previously approved 219-acre PUD to construct an office building. The site is generally located on the north side of Floating Feather Road approximately 1400-feet east of Eagle Road at 470 East Floating Feather Road. This item was continued from the February 15. 2005 meeting. Bandy and Pierce excuse themselves from deliberating and acting on this item as they are homeowners associations near this proposed application. Mike Hormachea, representing Aries Development, presents the application. City Planner, Jeff Lowe, reviews the staff report. Marks opens the public hearing. Rosemary Regner 346 E. Stone water Court Eagle, Idaho. Ms. Regner reads a statement into the record. She has numerous concerns with this proposal touching on four areas; the legal right of Aries Development to submit this application, direct impacts on Brookwood Homeowners Association, PUD issues and then the City of Eagle codes and comprehensive plan. See comment attached to into minutes. Sharon DeLatlunt 459 E. Mapleside Court Eagle, Idaho. Would like this application to be denied. Feels the use should be residential and not commercial. Brad Fink 551 E. Whitney Ct. Eagle, Idaho. Agrees with the previous testimony. Is not totally opposed to the proposal but would like the parking lot to be more than 15' from his backyard. John Mullin 1549 E. Creekville Eagle, Idaho. Is opposed to the application. Page 1 of 5 K:IP&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-O2-28-05min.doc Tim Thomas 433 E. Stone water Ct. Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Thomas's property would be directly affected as it is below the property in question. He notes that no promises were made to him about what would or would not be build on this property when he purchased his home. He supports the application, but would like to see the hours and type of business somewhat restricted. Michael Swan 477 E. Stonewater Ct. Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Swan's property is directly affected by this application, his lot shares an adjacent property line with the application. He is in favor of the rezone request. He feel the proposed commercial use would have a minimal negative impact on his property and it will look down directly into his property. Would like some restrictions placed on the limited to professional business hours, lighting restrictions and also restrictions on trash enclosures. Mike Howe 835 Knoll Ct. Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Howe poses numerous questions. Questions whether or not ACHD actually did a traffic study, how will the application be a positive impact on neighboring residents, how will Eagle residents benefit from this application. Kevin Platts 834 E. Knoll Ct. Eagle, Idaho. Notes the location of a school bus stop, feels the placement of a business in a residential subdivision is not appropriate. Expresses his concern with traffic. Stan Nelson 1146 N. Red Leaf Way Eagle, Idaho. Feels like this application will negatively impact traffic. Nathan Hyde 1527 Creekfield Eagle, Idaho. Feels that it may be illegal to modify the POD. Also has issues with the staff recommended conditions of approval. Agrees with much of what has been said, requests the Commission deny the application. Heather Albert 695 E. Knoll Drive Eagle, Idaho. Ms. Albert is a member of the Eagle Knoll Homeowners Association, she represents a number of the people in this subdivision. They do not want a commercial use in a residential zone. Does not feel that limiting commercial use would be acceptable. Expresses the safety of school children because of the increase in traffic due to a commercial use. It may negatively impact re-sale value on impacted homes. Would like to see it be a park or open space. Debbie Robertson 1545 N. Dragon Fly Place Eagle, Idaho. Does not want to have to move a bus stop to improve safety simply because this commercial use is approved. Concerned with the impact on traffic. What would happen if the property is sold once this application is approved? Richard Smith 1484 N. Foxpoint Place Eagle, Idaho. States that if this is approved this would be a sub- association of Brookwood's Homeowner Association. The residents of Brookwood have not be asked to vote on this sub association. Feels the application should be denied. Mike Hormachea rebuts testimony given. Regarding the legal status of Aries to submit this application, Mr. Hormachea states that Aries was the original applicant for Brookwood Subdivision, the are thus able to make this request. Comments that he does not feel that this property should be annexed under the CC&R's of Brookwood Subdivision. PUD's make it possible to have mixed uses. Comments that ACHD did not do a traffic study, but notes that they submitted a staff analysis. Discussion between Commission and Mr. Hormachea. Marks closes the public hearing. City Attorney, John McFadden, comments on the legality of Aries Development to come forward with this application. Aspitarte moves to determine tonight based on the merits of what was presented tonight. Seconded by Marks. TWO AYE...ONE NAY (LIEN)...MOTION CARRIES. Aspitarte moves to not approve the application. Seconded by Marks. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES. Marks states that the reason for denial includes the following. This requested change is not appropriate for a residential zone. Based on the Comprehensive Plan a commercial develop in this area is not an appropriate use regardless of proposed screening and landscaping. Does not feel that a commercial use Page 2 of 5 K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-O2-28-05mln.doc will serve the surrounding residents. The design submitted was well thought out, but still feels it is an inappropriate use for a residential area. Aspitarte and Lien agree with Marks comments. A five minute recess is called. B. CPA-2-0S & A-I-OS & RZ-2-0S - Comprehensive Plan Amendment From Residential Rural to Residential Estates, Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-E - Chad Moffat: Chad Moffat, represented by Roylance & Associates, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential Rural (up to one unit per five acres) to Residential Estates (up to one unit per two-acres), and an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition - Ada County designation) to R-E (Residential-Estates - up to one unit per two-acres). The 39. I 5-acre site is located on the north side of Beacon Light Road approximately 2000- feet west of Eagle Road. Bandy introduces the item. Mark Butler, Land Consultants Inc., representing Chad Moffat. Mr. Butler reviews the application. *note: side 2 tape 1 is partially blank. The Clerk switched the tape early. Jason Densmyer with Roylance and Associates comments on the requirements of Central District Health regarding septic systems for this subdivision. City Planner, Jeff Lowe reviews the staff report. Bandy opens the public hearing. Brian McCall 2369 West Valley Hi Eagle, Idaho. Mr. McCall is an attorney and has been asked by a group of people to represent their interests. States that a number of people who live north of Beacon Light Road feel it would be inappropriate allow the increased density. Feels that staff has correctly analyzed this application and agrees with their recommended denial. Reviews legal issues of concern. Lisa Hecht, 3335 N. Lorna Ln. Eagle, Idaho. Lives adjacent to the property in question. Feels like wildlife would be negatively impacted by this application and also notes the differences in land uses in the current zone vs. the proposed. Would like this application denied. Catherine Wilson, 3443 N. Triple Ridge Place Eagle, Idaho. Shares the concerns already expressed. Her big concern is water issues, where will the water come from as the aquifer is being depleted. Levon Nichols 4328 N. Triple Ridge Place Eagle, Idaho. President of the Triple Ridge subdivision. Feels like the proposed zoning is inappropriate, while the City may receive revenue it will also incur more expenses as well. Dan Lavar 3426 N. Croft Way Eagle, Idaho. This application is a "toe in the water" to see what they can get away with. Wants a message sent to developers that they do not want increased density north of Beacon Light. Agrees with the statements previously given. David Head 855 Stilwell Eagle, Idaho. Has concerns with ground water issues. Notes the location of his property and states that he had to increase the depth of his well. Urges the committee to reject the application. Norm Edwards, 8804 Beacon Light Rd. Eagle, Idaho. Is an adjacent property owner. Agrees with the previous statements. Express environmental concerns with the increased density. James Krohn 900 W. Meander Ct. Eagle, Idaho. Would loose privacy because of the proposed equestrian pathway. Concerned with the impact of noise, and increased density. May negatively impact property values. Curtis Hopewell, 3525 N. Croft Eagle, Idaho. Lives in Buckhorn Estates Subdivision. Would like the rural atmosphere to be preserved. Would like the Commission to deny the application. Bill Waelan, 3949 N. Falcon Ridge Lane Eagle, Idaho. Agrees with a number of the earlier comments. Page 3 of 5 K:IP&ZIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-O2-28-05min.doc Does not feel that the proposed 1.8 acre lots will be as rural as the current 5 acre lots. Requests the Commission deny the application. Greg Graybadger 2861 Haven Dr. Eagle, Idaho. Feels the cost to provide infrastructure for this proposal would be very costly to the city. Also feels that property value would be negatively affected by the application. Katherine Spencer, 722 Valli Hight Rd Eagle, Idaho. Ms. Spencer's property is adjacent to the proposal. Agrees with previous statements. Concerns with noise and light pollution, depletion of aquifer, contamination of aquifer, will negatively impact her view, and also wildlife. The application threatens her way of life. Gene Benson, 3505 N. Eagle Rd. Eagle, Idaho. Cannot utilize 2 acres the same way you can 5 acres. Also to get a farm tax deduction he believes it must be at least 5 acres- Requests the Commission reject the application. Roarke Yeakley 3286 Shadow Hills Drive Eagle, Idaho. Comments on the aquifer challenges he has had recently. Concerns with the lack of fire prevention services in this area, and notes that they are in a wildfire designated area. Brian Henretly, 3039 Sunny Meadow Lane Eagle, Idaho. Agrees with the opposition previously expressed. Does not feel the Comprehensive Plan is a philosophy as suggested by Mr. Butler, but a plan and guideline. Requests denial of the application. William Strange, 1425 N. Osprey Ridge Dr. Eagle, Idaho. Feels that it is a financial motive that is has driven this application. City Attorney notes that the applicants representative has indicated that his client would like to withdraw his application and make a statement to those in attendance. Chad Moffat 1842 S. Lakemore Way Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Moffat relays how he came to bring this concept forward. The application has been withdrawn no motion will need to be made. C. CPA-I-OS & RZ-I-OS & CU-I-OS Comprehensive Plan Amendment From Residential Four to Central Business District, Rezone With Development A2reement From R-4 to CBD-DA and Conditional Use Permit - Ea2le Hei2hts Baptist Church: Eagle Heights Baptist Church, represented by CSHQA, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential Four (up to four units per acre) to Central Business District, a rezone from R-4 (Residential up-to four dwelling units per acre) to CBD-DA (Central Business District with Development Agreement), and a conditional use permit to construct a residential/commercial development. The 1.83-acre site is generally located on the south east comer of East Mission Drive and Eagle Road at 291 North First Street. Bandy introduces the item. Lien recuses herself as she owns property within 300' of the application. Jim Murray with CSHQA representing Eagle Heights Baptist Church reviews the application. City Planner, Jeff Lowe, reviews the staff report. City Planner, Nichoel Baird-Spencer comments on the historical status and notes that if there Bandy opens the public hearing. Nancy Amell, 284 1st Street Eagle, Idaho. Ms. Amell's property is adjacent to the property. States that a meeting was held and she represents people of First Street with the exception of a couple households. Notes that the Church people have been very good to work with and Mr. Murray was very amiable. Concerned with the increase in traffic on First Street, would prefer single level structure used for Page 4 of 5 K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Te~orary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-O2-28-05min.doc residential. Would like it to be limited to 10 units with ingress and egress off of Mission Street. Provides disconnection of business and strip malls in Eagle. Feels there is no need for business or office space in Eagle. Business signage may be an issue. Comments on trees on site. Geoffrey Bennett 299 N. Second Street Eagle, Idaho. Has concerns with traffic. Feels the properties may be used by renters, and because of the type of use they probably won't be families and thus they may not be as responsive to his expressed concerns or needs. Rental units may not be properly maintained and it could negatively affect the value of his property. Other property that is currently zoned commercial should be pursued rather than seeking to rezone other properties. Requests the Commission deny the application. Bandy moves to continue the item to next Mondays meeting. Seconded by Aspitarte. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. 6. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Minutes of February 15,2005. Bandy moves to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Aspitarte ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. REPORTS: a. Commission: b. City Attorney: c. Staff: 8. ADJOURNMENT: Hearing no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED: ~ED: ~?!l CHAIRMAN I A TRANSCRIBABLE R~CORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE AT CITY HALL. """"""'" .." GLE "" " Þ. #, .~ ~ .."e... ....', ~ <.-.. ...or, .. O. ...~TE; .. ~ :: .. <::. ð. ~ ::,. 0 /.I""'~ : ;-":,~ , \ ~ '.-;, : . r' 0 -, .... ¡ '- :-<.:.-' ?_"::,"':: :u~) . . . : . . .. . .. - . ~ - . ~ --.. * ' , . ,,' "..' .' '.. ", .' """" ,) ..., ............", ~ c;-H ~~ ~ SHARON K. BERGMANN CITY CLERK/TREASURER Page 5 of 5 K:IP&z\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-O2-28-05min.doc I Rosemary Regner, resident of Brookwood subdivision and member of the Brookwood Homeowners Association, am here to speak about the proposed application RZ-8-97/PPUD-1-97 MOD — Brookwood Planned Development Modification — Aries Development I have several concerns and questions for the Planning and Zoning Board. My questions are grouped into four subject areas, the legal rights of Aries Development to submit this application, direct impacts on the Brookwood Homeowners, PUD issues and then the City of Eagle codes and comprehensive plan; Legal Rights and Responsibilities 1) What legal right does Aries Development have to submit this application to annex the property into Brookwood subdivision? The Homeowners Association is the subdivision manager and it's members own the land. 2) Who requires Aries Development to fix and continue to be responsible for the problems that exist in pond 5? If Aries Development has legal rights to this application, then Brookwood Homeowners are directly impacted by this application; 1) The current CC&Rs require Aries Development to give 30 days notice of his intent to annex property, to the Homeowners Association, Article IX, section 9.3. I understand that notice was only given to property owners within the 300 foot zone. 2) Does the Brookwood Homeowners Association become responsible for upkeep of this new development? 3) Our Homeowners Association was not set up to handle a commercial development, what are our responsibilities and liabilities if the application is approved? CC&R Article III, Section 3.1 states "Lots shall be restricted exclusively to residential use". Would approval of this application weaken our CC&R? Do we apply a daily penalty on the property for violating the CC&R? 4) The CC&Rs would need to be rewritten to incorporate the inclusion of the commercial office space. Do the CC&Rs need to be rewritten prior to application approval? It would be unfair to require the homeowners to pay the legal fees for this! I believe Aries Development has a significant conflict of interest in the rewriting of the CC&Rs and I suggest the following; a. The homeowners association would be able to select the attorney of their choice to rewrite the CC&Rs. b. Aries Development would pay all costs associated with rewriting the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs require 75% of the homeowners to approve any changes to the CC&R. 5) Mr. Hormaechea was instrumental in writing the original CC&Rs, as he was the subdivision developer. There is a special provision that allows him to remain on our Board of Directors until he wishes to leave or no longer owns property. He currently owns no property in Brookwood, if this application is allowed he would again qualify for a seat on the board. This property has such a large impact on our subdivision and under the current conditions, (ie the subdivision is complete) I believe his position on the board is a direct conflict of interest. I would like a special provision to be included in the application that would require him to relinquish all current and future rights to be on our board. Alternatively maybe a special position for Mr. Hormaechea could be created where he is not a full member of the board. ' PUD Issues 1) The PUD includes the following; a. 8-6-1: PURPOSE: Provision that the development - E. "pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation and community facilities objectives of the comprehensive plan." b. 8-2A-3: EFFECT OF OTHER PROVISIONS: "If any provision of this article is found to be in conflict with any other provision of any zoning, building, fire safety or health ordinance or other provision of this code, the provision which establishes the higher and/or more restrictive design standard shall prevail." c. 8-6-4: USES PERMITTED: Also, up to ten percent (10%) of the gross land area may be directed to other commercial, industrial, public and quasi -public uses that are not allowed within the land use district; provided, that there is a favorable finding by the council: i). That the uses are appropriate with the residential uses; ii). That the uses are intended to serve principally the residents of the PUD; iii). That the uses are planned as an integral part of the PUD; d. 8-6-6-3: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: "4. Any proposed commercial development can be justified at the locations proposed;" Would approval of this application make it easier for someone to have other bare land, already in our subdivision be rezoned for commercial building? General Eagle City Issues 1) This application violates the City of Eagle's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the downtown corridor as the commercial development area. 2) This application is not compatible with the surrounding area, which is entirely residential. 3) There is no demonstrated need for additional office space in the City of Eagle. According to Collier International, report dated February 2005 (attached), Eagle currently has 271,050 SF of office space with 90,970 SF of unoccupied space or a vacancy rate of 33.56%. This is the largest vacancy rate with respect to our surrounding communities. These numbers do not include office space currently under construction. The existing bare land is unattractive. I am not opposed to the building structure being proposed, it appears the architect made an effort to design a building that has a residential appearance. Why not put a residence on this property? Can we be assured that only this building would be approved? In fairness, we do have to consider that this building may be the best option available for development of this particular piece of property. e).-coo,E w000i c(kLPav4i4t) Further, this Declaration shall not be construed to prevent or limit right of the Declarant, its agents or successors to continue agricultural activities on the remainder of the Property, or the development thereon of subsequent residential projects or Subdivisions, or Common Area improvements, nor shall the covenants, conditions or restrictions herein contained be construed to prevent or limit the Declarant's right to maintain construction, sales or leasing offices, or similar facilities on Lots within Brookwood or elsewhere on the Property, or on any Subdivision thereof owned by the Declarant, nor to prevent or limit the Declarant's right to post signs incidental to construction, sales or leasing on property or Lots owned by Declarant. Section 2.2 Common Area. Any Common Area shown on the plat for any Subdivision which is subject to this Declaration shall be deeded by the Declarant to the Association, to be held, improved, maintained, managed and used by the Association exclusively for the common benefit, use and enjoyment of the Owners and their respective family members, guests and invitees. Prior to being deeded to the Association, the Declarant shall improve or make appropriate provisions for the improvement of the Common Area in a manner consistent with the official plat for the Subdivision in which it is located, and all development plans and specifications approved by the City of Eagle, Idaho. Section 2.3 Subsequent Development Phases. It is the intent, but not the obligation, of the Declarant, or its successor, to hereafter develop additional phases of the Brookwood PUD, or other residential Subdivisions within the Property, and to Annex any or all of said Subdivisions in the manner specified in Article IX hereof, thereby placing them under and within the purview of this Declaration, and nothing contained herein shall be construed or applied in any manner contrary to said intent. ARTICLE III GENERAL RESTRICTIONS Section 3.1 Residential Purposes. Lots shall be restricted exclusively to residential use. No modular home, manufactured home, trailer, mobile home, camper motorhome, recreational vehicle, tent, shack, carport, garage or other similar vehicle, structure or improvement shall be used as a residence, either temporarily or permanently, on any Lot. On Lots containing 20,000 square feet of area or less, the enclosed living space of the ground floor of the primary residential structure (excluding decks, patios, covered walkways, garages) shall not be less than 1,400 square feet, and said living space on primary residential structures on Lots containing more than 20,000 square feet of area shall not be less than 1,800 square feet. Residences shall include garaged parking for not less than two automobiles together with uncovered off-street parking for not less than two automobiles. Section 3.2 ADC Approval. All Buildings, structures, landscaping, fences, signs, mailboxes and other exterior improvements proposed for any Lot, and all subsequent extensions and expansions thereof, and all exterior alterations, attachments, accessories and appurtenances thereto, shall be consistent with the provisions of this Declaration and the Architectural Design Guidelines for Brookwood Subdivision, and shall not be undertaken, commenced, constructed or installed DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - 4 A. To require submission to the ADC of complete sets of plans and specifications for any proposed building or structure, or any exterior improvement, alteration or change for any Lot. The ADC may also require submission of samples of materials proposed for any such project and may require such additional information as is reasonably necessary to evaluate the proposed work. B. To approve or disapprove plans for any proposed building, structure, or any exterior improvement, alteration or change for any Lot. All decisions of the ADC shall be submitted in writing to the applicant, and signed by all members of the ADC participating in such decision. In the event that the ADC fails to approve or disapprove any plans or specifications requested within thirty (30) days after receiving an application therefor, together with all additional information, plans or specifications requested by the ADC, approval of the ADC shall conclusively be deemed to have been given. C. To require a fee to be set and, as necessary from time -to -time amended, by the ADC, in an amount reasonably calculated to defray the costs incurred in reviewing proposed development plans, including the costs incurred for the services of any architects, engineers or other professional consultants retained by the ADC to assist it in the review process. D. To obtain, and pay for, the services of architects, engineers or other professional consultants which the ADC deems necessary or appropriate to assist in the review process. ARTICLE IX ANNEXATION OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY Section 9.1 Annexation. At any time hereafter, upon the execution and recordation of an effective Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Declarant may place any future Subdivisions of the Property under and within the purview of this Declaration, thereby subjecting said Subdivision to all covenants, conditions and restrictions herein contained. Upon the recordation of such a Declaration, all Common Area and Lots in said Subdivision shall be deemed to be Common Area and Lots hereunder, and the Owners of such Lots shall thereafter be Owners and Members of the Association for all purposes hereunder, in the same manner, and subject to the same benefits and obligations, as though said Lots were included in Brookwood Subdivision No. 1. Section 9.2 Common Area. Upon annexation of any additional Subdivision pursuant to this Article VIII, Declarant shall deed and convey all Common Area within said Subdivision to the Association in the manner provided for in Article IV hereinabove. Section 9.3 Notice. In the event the Declarant shall intend to annex property as provided in Section 9.1 above, written notice of such intent shall be given to the Association at least thirty DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - 19 (30) days prior to the recordation of the Declaration purporting to effectuate the annexation. ARTICLE X REVOCATION OR AMENDMENT Section 10.1 Method of Revocation or Amendment. This Declaration may be amended or revoked, in part in whole, by an instrument duly adopted and executed by the record Owners entitled to vote not less than 75% of the total votes entitled to be case by all Members of the Association on the effective date of the amendment or revocation, and recorded in the official records of Ada County, Idaho. Any such revocation or amendment duly adopted and executed shall be binding upon every Owner and Lot, whether the burdens thereon are increased or decreased by any such amendment or revocation, and whether or not the Owner consents thereto. ARTICLE XI MISCELLANEOUS Section 11.1 Compliance. Each Owner shall comply with the provisions of this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Association, and all rules and regulations duly enacted by the Association. Failure to comply shall be grounds for an action to recover sums due for damages or injunctive relief, or both, maintainable by the Association or any Owner. Section 11.2 Mailing Address. Each Owner shall provide the Association with such Owner's mailing address, which address shall be used for the mailing or other service of any and all notices, assessments or communications from the Association. Any notice referred to in this section shall be deemed given by the Association when it has been deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the Owner at the given address. Section 11.3 Transfer of Rights. Any right or interest reserved hereby to the Declarant may be transferred or assigned by the Declarant to any person or entity. Section 11.4 Number and Gender. Whenever used herein, unless the context shall otherwise provide, the singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall include all genders. Section 11.5 Severability. If any of the provisions of this Declaration, or any clause, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word or the application thereof in any circumstance shall be invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Declaration, and the application of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in any other circumstance shall not be affected thereby. Section 11.6 Construction by Declarant. Nothing in this Declaration or any action taken by the Association shall limit the right of the Declarant, or its successor, to complete construction of residences on any Lot in Brookwood or on the remainder of the Property, or to install or construct DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - 20 COLLIERS PARAGON, LLC Overview In 2005, the nation's economy is generally expected to scale back from last year's rebound. The fundamental optimism of local businesses and consumers remains intact; this, despite uncertainties about the national economic picture —effected by the impacts of the federal deficit, the United States'trade imbalance, a soft dollar, rising interest rates and the in Central government's response to these elements. The Treasure Valley showed significant strength in the commercial office market near the end of 2004. Tenants moved to take up Class A space in downtown and its periphery. They also took advantage of new construction in Meridian and Eagle, but left the Central Bench and Southwest submarkets. Tenants know that vacancy rates are high and rental rates are low, and have moved to take advantage of the situation. As a result, winners and losers are created in the micro - economic picture, while the macro -market has been good. This is a result of market shifting. Consequently, net absorption valley -wide has been moderate,while tenant activity remains relatively strong. As predicted in our mid -year report, over 300,000 square feet of new Class A space was added in the last half of 2004. We anticipate 120,000 square feet will be added in the first half of 2005. There is currently approximately 3.3 million square feet of newly planned development in the pipeline; however, parts of this anticipated development could be as long as seven or eight years out. The most significant, single completed project in the last half of 2004 was the 230,000 square foot Water Center in downtown Boise.Other developments were in the Silverstone Corporate Center and the El Dorado Business Campus, both in South Meridian. Additionally, construction began on the BoDo project in downtown, and strong development continued in Eagle and Meridian. Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates have remained flat at near record highs of 16.8 percent. New space added to the market in the last six months was just a little above the net absorption numbers for the same period. There have been above- average levels of construction, especially in the newer markets of Eagle and Meridian, thus producing a shifting of tenants from Class B and C space to available Class A space, and from one submarket to another. Net 475 South Capitol Boulevard, Suite 300 Boise, Idaho 83702 208-345-9000 www.colliersidaho.com Office Inventory by Submarket ■ Northwest 2.34% Bench 13.52% ■ Southeast • Southwest 6.70% 4.40% ■ Downtown Periphery 17.32% ■ West Bench 15.81% ■ Downtown 29.04% O Eagle 2.54% • Meridian 8.31% Office Vacancy / Occupancy by Submarket 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 P, G°• c Odei 525.00 520.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 Odle Total Vacancy Rate a 16.84% 40% — 35% — 30% — 25% Nu — 20% — 15% - 10% — 5% Average Office Asking Rates by Class 0% OFFICE MARKET ri,(I _ n,):, absorption in Class A space was ten times greater than in Class B and C space; yet the comparative size of these markets in gross square footage is about the same. The first half of 2005 will see significantly lower vacancy rates in downtown and its periphery, in Eagle and Meridian. We believe that vacancy in these submarkets will be lowered from today's 11.67 percent in downtown, 23 percent in Meridian, and 33 percent in Eagle to vacancy rates that are 40 percent lower than these levels. Lease Rates The expanding competition for Class A space, while it remains on the market, has increased asking rental rates in the last six months by approximately 5 percent, up $.69 from $13.64 to $14.34, while Class A space saw the largest increase of 6.3 percent. Both Class B and C space realized solid rental rate increases as well. These numbers reflect asking rates. It should be noted that 90 percent of the net absorption in the market was in Class A space. For the first time in the Treasure Valley, tenants are listening when quoted $20 (full service) for the valley's top quality office buildings and locations. Any new projects in the submarkets with the strongest demand will pierce even further the $20 mark. Predictably, Eagle's average asking rate of $19.52 per square foot and downtown's St 8.84 per square foot lead the way with the Treasure Valley's highest rental rates for Class A space. Submarkets With the new developments of Silverstone and El Dorado in South Meridian starting to gather steam and the Eagle Market coming into its own, there is unquestionable strength and development opportunities in these submarkets. Where two years ago, low end "flex" office space and garden offices controlled these markets, now both areas are desirable for high - end employers who like the availability of large contiguous spaces,along with the convenience, amenities and accessibility to the growing residential base. Demand in downtown and its periphery remains strong and large contiguous top -end space is increasingly harder to find. Tenants who desire more than 10,000 square feet will increasingly look to suburban locations until the completion of new construction offers new opportunities. The Southwest submarket saw a loss of over 5 percent of its overall total office occupancy.Similarly,the Central Bench saw a decline in total occupancy. Nampa is starting to emerge as a solid office market, especially in the areas near the freeway and Idaho Center. Outlook for 2005 Colliers International expects increasing tightening in downtown and the peripheral areas due to several large leases that will occur in early 2005, filling the new 240,000 square foot Water Center and increasing competition for the BoDo office space. Accordingly, much of the currently available Class A will probably be absorbed in downtown and its periphery. New buildings that appeal to small and medium-sized tenants (1,000 to 8,000 square feet) should be successful, if priced appropriately. Continued development activity, along with strong tenant interest,will continue to keep rental rates and vacancy rates at a standoff in the Eagle and Meridian markets. However, new buildings will see the bulk of the activity and absorption will remain strong, keeping these markets vibrant and successful for developers who can be competitive from a price standpoint. Vacancy by Submarket Submarket Downtown Inventory SF 3,097,077 Direct Vacant 351,775 Sublease Vacant 9,5'3 Total Vacant 361,368 Building Count 65 Vacancy Rate 11.67% •owntown 'eriphery 1,847,322 274,977 12,801 287,778 76 15.58% Central Bench 1,441,957 250,499 0 250,499 74 17.37% orthwest 249,621 54,959 0 54,959 23 22.0 EZZEZ 714,605 8 ,313 8,1 10 90,313 38 outhwest 469,267 85,389 0 85,389 24 18.20% 1,686,268 296,327 74,998 371,325 102 22.0 VIrviiniiiii 271,050 90,970 0 90,970 19 33.56% reridian Totals: 886,207 10,663,374 203,031 1,690,240 0 105,392 203,031 1,795,632 40 461 22.91% 16.84% ' Vacancy Rate includes sublease space COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Offke Services George Iliff 208.472.2858 Direct Vacancy Rate (excluding sublease space = 15.85%) Jennifer Fratusco Wayne Slaughter 208.472.2841 208.472.2853 Craig Tribken 208.472.2842 COLLIERS PARAGON, LLC w cc w V u_ 0 Overview In 2005, the nation's economy is generally expected to scale back from last year's rebound. The fundamental optimism of local businesses and consumers remains intact; this, despite uncertainties about the national economic picture —effected by the impacts of the federal deficit, the United States'trade imbalance, a soft dollar, rising interest rates and the government's response to these elements. The TreasureValley showed significant strength in the commercial office market near the end of 2004. Tenants moved to take up Class A space in downtown and its periphery. They also took advantage of new construction in Meridian and Eagle, but left the Central Bench and Southwest submarkets. Tenants know that vacancy rates are high and rental rates are low, and have moved to take advantage of the situation. As a result, winners and losers are created in the micro - economic picture, while the macro -market has been good. This is a result of market shifting. Consequently, net absorption valley -wide has been moderate, while tenant activity remains relatively strong. As predicted in our mid -year report, over 300,000 square feet of new Class A space was added in the last half of 2004. We anticipate 120,000 square feet will be added in the first half of 2005. There is currently approximately 3.3 million square feet of newly planned development in the pipeline; however, parts of this anticipated development could be as long as seven or eight years out. The most significant, single completed project in the last half of 2004 was the 230,000 square foot Water Center in downtown Boise.Other developments were in the Silverstone Corporate Center and the El Dorado Business Campus, both in South Meridian. Additionally, construction began on the BoDo project in downtown, and strong development continued in Eagle and Meridian. Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates have remained flat at near record highs of 16.8 percent. New space added to the market in the last six months was just a little above the net absorption numbers for the same period. There have been above- average levels of construction, especially in the newer markets of Eagle and Meridian, thus producing a shifting of tenants from Class B and C space to available Class A space, and from one submarket to another. Net Office Inventory by Submarket • Southeast ■ Southwest 6.70% ■ Northwest 2.34% II! Central Bench 13.52% ■ Downtown Periphery 17.32% 4.40% • West Bench 15.81% ■ Downtown 29.04% ❑ Eagle 2.54% • Meridian 8.31% Office Vacancy / Occupancy by Submarket 3,500,000 Total Vacancy Rate = 15.84% 3,000,000 - 2,500,000 - ■ Occupied 2,000,000 1,000,000 - P " 1,000,000 - 500,000 - 525.00 $20.00 515.00 $10.00 55.00 $0.00 0 Vacant vacancy Rate 40% — 35% — 30% — 25% — 20% - 15% k 10% e 00 1 el 41 d'R i' 0 5d' sd' 44# e1F Average Office Asking Rates by Class 475 South Capitol Boulevard, Suite 300 Boise, Idaho 83702 208-345-9000 www.colliersidaho.com d t ,f ; gee Ce 5,4- 243/05 Q• BROOKWOOD OFFICE BUILDING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING — JANUARY 25, 2005 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS How long has Aries Development (Aries) owned this property? A. Aries purchased this property in August of 2000, approximately 17 months after the final approval of the Brookwood planned community. Q. Has the office building been approved by the City of Eagle? A. No. An application for Modification to the Brookwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a Conditional Use Permit and Rezone from R-4 to R-4- DA-P has been submitted to the City of Eagle and is tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission on February 15th. The application must also go before a public hearing before the Eagle City Council before any final approval is granted. Q• What kind of commercial uses would be allowed if this project is approved? A. The building is designed for professional, executive and similar office users. A typical tenant could be real estate professionals, title companies, attorney or dental offices. The office building will not accommodate uses that would create obnoxious noise, odor or waste such as service stations or drive thru facilities. The applications before the City apply specifically to this office building as currently proposed. The applications are subject to review by City Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council with conditions of approval, or denial, to meet their satisfaction. If approved, any changes to the exterior of the building or site plan would be subject to review and approval by the City prior to construction. Q. What happens if the City of Eagle does not approve the application? A. The office building as proposed would not be allowed to be constructed. We would review the City's reasons for denial and evaluate the feasibility of addressing their concerns through reasonable changes to the project. Otherwise, we would have to re-evaluate our available options by which we could develop the property. Q• Was the property ever considered for a residential use like townhouses? A. Yes. Our initial concepts were for a higher density residential use like a townhouse or patio home. As we studied the market for this product, we became concerned about the potential adverse affects a townhouse project may have on the existing neighbors in Brookwood. As the site is "perched" nearly twenty feet above several Brookwood residents, it presents great difficulty in designing a residential product that would not infringe on the privacy of the surrounding neighbors. This was particularly alarming when considering the probable likelihood of a two story dwelling on the property. These concerns led us to review other options for the property. Q• Will the office building be part of the Brookwood Homeowners' Association? A. It is intended for the office building to be a sub -association within the jurisdiction of the Brookwood Homeowners' Association Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's). This issue is still under review by Aries and its legal counsel as to the specifics of how, and to what extent, it would be incorporated into the Association. Q. How can we express our questions, concerns and thoughts about the office project? A. This meeting is the first opportunity for us to share with you the details of our proposed office project. After a short presentation, you will be able to ask questions about the project, and there is a comment sheet available for you to take home with you and fill out at a convenient time. Please take the opportunity to share your thoughts with us so we may do our best to design a project that will meet the needs of the community. Also, as mentioned above, the Eagle Planning & Zoning Commission and Eagle City Council will hold public hearings for this application which will give you another opportunity to comment on this project. The tentative schedule for review by the Planning & Zoning Commission is February 15`h, which would put review by the City Council sometime in March. Finally, don't hesitate to contact Aries directly with your comments either by mail, FAX or email at the address below. Attn: Michael Hormaechea Aries Development LLC P.O. Box 6887 Boise, Idaho 83707 (208) 336-2476 FAX Email — michael@rmhcompanv.com BROOKWOOD OFFICE BUILDING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING — JANUARY 25, 2005 COMMENT SHEET Please take a moment to provide written comments regarding the proposed Brookwood office building. Your feedback is important and will give us valuable information we can use to improve our plan to best meet the needs of the community. Please return comment sheets by mail to Aries Development LLC, P.O. Box 6887, Boise Idaho 83707, or FAX — (208) 336-2476. Thank you. EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Subject: CPA-2-05 & A-1-05 & RZ-2-05 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment From Residential Rural to Residential Estates, Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-E - Chad Moffat: February 28, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON? 1 kit) ikce__ �.< 2.14t4 Vict(L 41% `tig ^'41 l At) u— 'a 1- A es-5- ,`i lIui (t 3is- oSZZg ✓ I' :---,z .-r y// S- ,v . C )e %l4 .. 7 3 P- S 641 V C +(t e 5 Pt a tGhe l) 47Z 4 it).ac> A—i' 9` 7— 4 zS°S E. a-IarrtK 474i N- 811Rr a1 E- 9sQ'' 23,t-3 V rwan i,e,e r/ 35 3 -7q (.____- GtJ --47`-rE-e 1,) Ectia)milaMIL _.J,Y 0,:,tiV Lt. Rd. 613?-?q 1,2 k Y U O r Yr id LLN A -/d1 r_ 25k .41c.._s ezeie"104.p 5-1 al__A 4 3- 5/9 1---- �, , ;(14 go3', ik,, svee lc5, Ly, `r9 -3 — '.• rine_ LLB l-Y 9 1 `6a P 9.39-j GAcc-3 ‘--- -Ltd tQI-E= .- l 70 tviceR Ur g39-(eq S3 3C VI% L� 1C 1'A L a to w. i,u- �e� - 0 - ,r /1 .f'S 6%; 4l W 2 s Preo Pr t -1,1 13It - Z.c r,( 1.// C� r�,,)i/15V; 2 Li Hr%el If`'.,, E) .?t _: tofl I. c thi il ,237✓ G✓- !/Air: - , 5 Gv04 V m q'7�uJ Mai, C4- Cr' 3/-66 / cr ,Li„ a1 r.W blei.,,.. .. 0, US-,Gl7 v- //(5- Cc) 6Ck(Mq (Agt., c3gyl33 � 4.xl..Si�l 3�1`(3 N. � �Cc I?�.�.�Q �2. L/�— r `v ,,' C�er 7� 411 f a 9375/77 ✓ L3 gL 5.4,IJ 3 C 7. 1 - Elk Lei (ID Fgy-"i 7 3 , iiu v-kQ Yp&k(ey 3 z-gc AI. S(,t.few 1.0% ,J,4 9, 3, -/ S 33 titvIre-fiti le414 t() 9 N CLiv,hy tithe,clut,, LA f,t q3(1,102 V 3 y AA n ,L i , IA. 93 Sid? 2 i/l, ireA/1-eT v0� 41' puvpGeL Pane. `'�� QUA -7 C il vwCCV i l 1 / Z.111 tjovvrc-C /r d 4v1.i r 9.O ._ efe'rf3 W3A( .812etiew h77' 'Jr- 939-Z9/S �yZ$ 732 4425- 0�,.7, 37-/) /'7 7 (2 S c)- (9s ?rc4 e 39/ 4zo /`/ 1 za. 4-todehat 6/, CC -/ 77 ' ee N Ki5tp_Ar2.4�k -C. Lc ig6 r,3 r 1, .s cAl1, ,k: 13� - �.o 17,,)Vv to ,v,„Av tc4Q ckuxo� �e��,e- 9N-9°11 i G C \\I\ 6\ &,. d '..-,, I C 3 1) RJ . 1/01j,\ 4 1126.,(60 919 a ic--() nii e Cam. %3b'-?'IOU \\J c\)(\ (71";_a ga3r' ;14 4-` `.1;°/ 93y- 7Y7 7/k,/./A-112^- ettortlew C665t &Ai) 32.ex, 6 lei+ 5 L 4 10 Et 9 3Ci - 6-66 2, 2 9 i i-� R5 f 30 - (�1arC•l ��I�nn�� 3� 9 Val 9 I�t99- A'ktcz iti 1 -- 2`oA''. t. • ' 7) c.;l I /21 AEG j-ecc E-Lf-!-.0 J E K', ` ! ),-+v IS 0.1 35-0 VA 11; E.1: . � ' 9 3r-/ao - Eft l �� 22 CSt-1f y k,(' lZiarj)e L 1 r- Cc° Con CO 1\1 eLo C©Ai C:c!V'' 11 EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Subject: CPA-2-05 & A-1-05 & RZ-2-05 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment From Residential Rural to Residential Estates, Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-E — Chad Moffat: February 28, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON? 09d-tr 8 °VW u) . -re/i016 Ea4%- l'ZL ritik.o0 I--z o 2 c:.3 r ,ysV`Pi Q,d , 9;P--" l [ -4-- 1/ . �G .ca"t4ci u 5-ec'c a. c/G G /{u v c^,--, ?._/2z3 f • tt »-, 6Z% %--- 5°13 aj tvc-i,,a.�,. q 3 4 - v 1 SZ r/ �i 9D/ M!, m Df>2 rr 939-7011 kvlizE- Ven "a r. 3 c( iv tark Alf- LAJ Ti 2 vC: t;.< NJO N -,2, \ .40 `cc(�., awy z i_3,..) 43-oci ✓ /-1-LIO 6a)10 34-c) 1)- filiVtig-ii /8---iq 7 '0,c.,,,' 1 G/ QQ c.) Ci,"., ,--,-y / ea 3 -4-67 y (.4ca #1-)L2e-e. r ,, O U '--- 7 j--- s ,--c Ckcyci f /c "q/c, ai', 1Lc.•ce,,apr- 3 a - .(?c 30 T o 6 /92.-F,��E 4/ C /cJ o �i'3 - o`�/y to ,l. AI t330 (, wi 7.f -04-( 3 1/ c)c kt .i)3// v.cidil -3(i-dit79 (wie,o .../.2iS- 02 ,,A./-- u) 3iic i.�@a-J i / :yer- - - z 7 s% ✓/ L2 Vo 0. 5. N-slobs p!. �3c- 4-7-22 v `317-(A,c--e- iLardt., 3i?/ IN &n,/Z 1'37-/5/5 I— 1.--/".3t-71 t4i, =iP,F-1C---=-2 crS2-( V(.5- _ra-5/0 w a r” b,.1^-at 9 �,- 99 c�\ Z l ,A C,�1, `�3 -2g ? '/ s ..Ai i 3 0-71 i. S Se n n iiii., rw i? R- l 7 (tt A 0 111 ias c My y �/ 7 ✓ ,��.�,_vZ /2sz� - 39 g / .17 '✓ Oar, # f L-ecA„ Ar.t i LCLi C/ 3F Y/ j v > .,h64- u � sgf- e6s`, -2-67 (-4 ( ER ,eb- ?3,-/,6 3 15 C. orn EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Subject:. RZ-8-97/CU-6-97/PPUD-1-97 MOD - Brookwood Planned Unit Development Modification — Aries Development: February 28, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON? gq)irl'e E enec-fet.- g3id-G5 a- k&c.Q,-Lkikr. 9-S 1 E Niesick CI 93 T- 000 X -I‘S& to-L 339c V. LowikL. L 939 -lag )(k I& ,d' AJK 1AX1.LL/� 5-34 /` . Wrr,Y I cT r=5 73,' x C o,41_ -1`(\, 5S ( E Ugh, C.i- Yo7 - / 019 'A 14 0 e i b b5k L • LD ")r tQQ 0. 2-54-- q39 X i A 11 \,.) is" ' N. crekif, t id ei 134-) -t sSa/ 7 ��Ja 1azr 4/,r 9�,S,2n elfilm 1 haro<1 ta3 g, _S31,14A: zsu, T3CP-Mira ci v 5L4%1J tf 14 t sreveworm cr l3e -.5 X 1(Ck ECM- - '335 V-14,atl ek Q3--io r N P ATI- . `{ c 14v,,, 13s Si 7 AA) C-C. / M 3Lt?( /U Crziii t!j ' 31-/2o /511/4Q) iI`1 . N 2e,A Lel-f wit 136- cY7 %° Pc — 9 UPI G 41 ' t 2`7 £2 -oJ pL 13 r-244Z .)\7 i\r\orAfficAl /(N4 1-1-061 10)4 6r2Ae-- 4i,'-'N 1- 16 frizZins etboef44(4 ‘. .-.P #-.,,,,,,,4 y.,4-oe.3Y/ avAilf-fgd-1 /‘P N. 2' / -apt 9?33- 7s / 4,---4/zwiranteLL ozcoki,,g,,e, pp.3c14 e4 , lt is61.s «zc 9• `-K` 1 vNI RIAlstAh to'k`t, _-..-,0 q - 1-icsa T)y\ (2� ISS1/41 Sunv0 crib-Sc11lb �Q9e �ofa EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Subject:. RZ-8-97/CU-6-97/PPUD-1-97 MOD - Brookwood Planned Unit Development Modification — Aries Development: February 28, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME TreI'1 tfildrc.5 '7?,ezti 0-ocz.trkm1 ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON? x EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Subject: CPA-1-05 & RZ-1-05 & CU-1-05 Comprehensive Plan Amendment From Residential Four to Central Business District, Rezone With Development Agreement From R-4 to CBD-DA and Conditional Use Permit - Eagle Heights Baptist Church: February 28, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON? Cie � �t(:-r>, tf,i,,,nd1 .-el 5 tIlli . Z r.1 -CI- � --Z`► ?ia ✓ I. /C, J./f S o +fl %. ,,i f /3,e e a 4 r 1 J,7 I A ,,, 2 rfi- 6 .s--1/ 17 c7 dzi 4ivieff .2 s:7 /-51- 3-r- 739' 0 I 1 .5 t / etcn -Su 'cl MOI-LA 4/lb/(63a! lot -Iwo, 9'39 -' Y07 4-3-af-)4,40:---(7Z__ r-17-31-1t-iinq41 all J. Ise- 14.2t , et 39-S911 ✓ l ikeYnaJtti4 ta ofiLe cituibm w 10 U. t-ha2-fzi.DP 1.34.-gq ►ci J%' - azdto, 3d 3c N. /' al I.2 )Q4, %19- b 3 0 v ,4,/ i L ,&7ec rt , ! , ( '' / r /IP 2. IdWi' _ 2Ag4 I kati&e-41/6/ 2 4J1 l - l /,,, w rthi crI-y %3 r-7z 0 ✓ 1-37-) N. 1/. .10:Lik m53W-i dol A14 iv/ cii3{sAc4 3 Abeam 3V/9 ALF404 61. figliaa Vi (7 317 I/ £t` 7 Y /Y3 ‘‘-‘Z ac\e, q8.k)(N.Q1--tt,,CA-. crzi)i- r 08(02, i- 14'0F14x, Clu uk4,. 1 Sy Al / skirs, 13s, - yg,21 Pay, Ida EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Subject: CPA-1-05 & RZ-1-05 & CU-1-05 Comprehensive Plan Amendment From Residential Four to Central Business District, Rezone With Development Agreement From R-4 to CBD-DA and Conditional Use Permit — Eagle Heights Baptist Church: February 28, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON? Paje 14 February 28, 2005 City of Eagle Dear Eagle Planning and Zoning Commissioners, Please deny CPA-1-05, RZ-1-05 and CU-1-05 We live at 299 North Second Street with our two very young children. Starter family homes in Eagle are so hard to find. Please don't compromise the safety and value of the ones that exist just for the sake of growth. Our back yard faces this development and this application should be denied for the following reasons: • Mission Street is a major corridor for children in the neighborhood, who walk to school, plus dozens of parents drop off their kids on Mission and those kids walk to school also. Introducing commercial traffic onto Mission will seriously compromise the safety of the children; • Per our neighbors this land has been proposed twice before for CBD comprehensive plan and it was denied both times by the Council. The most recent time was this last September of 2004. Both times our Council said that this area needs to stay residential; • We bought our Eagle home after having the zoning and comprehensive plan researched and the CBD denials were relied upon in our decision to move our family to this location. We both are now working in Eagle; • The land along Eagle Road and Idaho Street makes sense for commercial where it has been planned for some time. It should develop before expansion is considered otherwise it sits unchanged because people go to where the land is zoned for a residential use and get the land cheaper; and • No Public Hearing sign was place4on 1" Street. There is one on Mission and one on Eagle Road. Approval of an R-6 zone for something like Alderwood or Patty Row for a little higher residential density would be in the best interest of the health safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Thank you, Geoffrvand Tiffin Benn z : 2 i • rilTr —74 ; • , ! 7r/ E 741:91IT.IVKIN CR . ; kor • „ , , , • r \ setigic 1.? ; ERIDCE CR • • . • ! ; aatesit-,mt.: • ..- 1,/\ .----.:. ..---"----f . i , ,. -: .:• _ I.ILLS , ...-: .• .• ...._ • f • • N RANCH CR...—. • . • • ; • 4.! • ---r , • 1 . : •-__ , PERDU SEACk VVW r.------_-.-_---..,iU, •-_)_--__-_Lf I .10.Iti0lt.kh-*-.,2L-"-.-C...i\_ 1i1i ',i7—.-'"-.7----.--.-,--.-Li,:•,..:'.,_L*-.,.'.'! :, -i'i: ; 11'1 ; I1 1 i.P.....rLpc1--—4,I 4- •• -,,i I 1 --_—_--_—1,1,.t-.1:..----.---------4---7-..-Zsi—_'_._-_-_--- R: 1rH——I--."-1%1i;' ; f— . D 1 iI DOf1! ?\S-' ,-../ .-.\ '\..•-. s.,'...-. .-....-'-. ,...." - .1• ,-.,-R56, _ i — —__-r 1.•-_A•_-r__iEi.!..A1:1-4—T---12_nr_. ---_-L-:--"i1•----_ w"-f71' f Z --nr4 IF--- ,.._--\i----.4 • •z. • ...- \„..>.„.::::..,.. s.-.'-' '--- ' =',•,... • , 1 l', l-----, ', • e ' i E : ! I . ; E : E • : *----: • . i . • ' -- i E ; -r-r-r-E; . .4.._......—.______ SA. - ----2 : --- i I i ! ! I, • • I -! Mil ''i, • — -----.../ • • 1 z -7.-----:------____ ..,..---_ , ! --,,--1--- f. stAre ht • i ; --)--- , i f i : i --- ! I i ! ! • r---..L., I , I i ; i CBD CHD-DA A 44 MU s @9A r F < i z 0 0 1 0 a A 0 64'-0' 0 o9 0 r Z A 0 v 0 00 6 zbD S rSi 1g0 _mm v rA 1- 0 E On r 3 0+ A 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTP,OR: BROOKWOOD OFFICE FLOATING PEAT(-IER ROAD EAGLE, I0A14O IIIM fl r , P •., 11"-w ijplljl I .9 mom -01,61111. 00 j110• , 1010 S.ALLANTE PL 4111101. rii BOISE, IIDAHO 83709 j 4.rSUITE '' FAX ARCHITECTS NO. 0 xev16arn DATE 1 N 0 m E O 0 9 1 d Rf 1 z z 0 0 A m m z z Po 0 0 z 0 0 m 99 11 Zo ys iH o9 9 8 Z 0 m tst THE LAND GROUP, INC. - Landscape Architecture - Civil Engineering - Site Planning • Golf Course Irrigation it Engineering - Graphic Communication J62 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle. Idaho 83616 Phone (2081 939-1011 Fax (208) 939-4145 , www lhelandgroupinc. com s r m m z 0 9 F NV1d 3dVOSGNV1 BROOKWOOD Professional Office EAGLE, IDAHO PA __ FlaevvMnNamay Since .PM M1avtloWge menxweii # Darples 6..T @BB@___ SHRUBSIPERENNIALSIORNANAMENTAL GRASSES _ NS _ I MLMFArow_-...__ 5�'�9 SnowCrabapple �CaL,9iB_ law. Me h PV Frurw Fai_9vYDYWne'Gneaef.d - _ _. Sr_ C. Red OMeNp7 7dL. Bea MJpn= 6'-0' CONIFEROUS TREES KEY I BOTANICAL NAME I COMMON NAME I SIZE I NOTES DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES II!FIIIUIEII; ilifiVill ill Red Raceway Amur Mepe .. .. CeMMMIai Maple Deborah Navy Maple --- PbrweplavSarawMole lwpepe River Birch ---- 0 9 70 D z GO m 0 r m G. \200e\0403\Cod\TLG\02-DesurD\Nehru- D II' 0 N R iopmeni-Pion deg polled oy toleno on Tue. January 25 2005 0l 10 5e A 1 mil 0 i D THE LAND GROUP, INC. . Landscape .4rchitecture • Civil Engineering - Site Planning Coif Course Irrigation d- Engineering Craphic Communication 462 East Shore Drive. Suite 100 Eagle. Idaho 83616 Phone (208) 939-4041 Fax 13081 939-4445 Jr www. fhelandgroupinc tom .. N S. CD DI BROOKWOOD Professional Office EAGLE, IDAHO 1• 1 1