Minutes - 2005 - Planning & Zoning - 04/04/2005 - Regular
THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 4, 2005
ORIGINAL
1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:08 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: ASPITARTE, BANDY, MARKS, PIERCE. A quorum is present.
Absent: LIEN
3. Overview on Communities in Motion and Blue Print for Good Growth: Presented by Patricia
Nilsson with COMPASS. [6:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.] Ms. Nilsson plays a brief video and follows up
with a question and answer period.
A five minute recess is called.
4. 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 March 21, 2005.
B. Findine:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for PPIFP-I-OS - Rocky Mountain
Business Park Subdivision No.3-Dave Evans Construction: Dave Evans
Construction, represented by Tim Mokwa with Toothman-Orton Engineering, is
requesting combined preliminary plat and final plat approval for Merrill Subdivision No.
5 (formerly known as Rocky Mountain Business Park Subdivision No.3) a re-
subdivision of Lot 5, Block 3, of Merrill Subdivision No.1, Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 3, of
Merrill Subdivision No.2 (formally known as Rocky Mountain Business Park). The 4.3-
acre, lO-lot (9-buildable, I-common) commercial subdivision is located at 1189 & 1267
East Iron Eagle Drive within the Rocky Mountain Business Park development.
Marks moves to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by Aspitarte. ALL
A YE...MOTION CARRIES.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CPA-I-OS & RZ-I-OS & CU-I-OS Comprehensive Plan Amendment From Residential Four
to Central Business District. Rezone With Development Ae:reement From R-4 to CBD-DA and
Conditional Use Permit - Eae:le Heie:hts 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. This item was
continued from the February 28, 2005 meeting.
Bandy introduces the item.
City Planner, Jeff Lowe, gives a brief overview of the staff report.
Page I of 5
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ.O4.Q4.05min.doc
Bandy opens the public hearing.
Jim Murray, with CSHQA, representing Eagle Heights Baptist Church makes himself available for
questions. Dave Aspitarte asks that Mr. Murray explain the site plan further.
Mike Rutledge, 983 N. Beachwood, Eagle, Idaho. Gives support for the rezone. Does not feel there
would be a problem with the traffic. Believes the development is a good fit.
Nancy Amell, 284 I sl Street Eagle, Idaho. Mrs. Amell reemphasizes the traffic issues on I Sl Street
and the traffic on Idaho entering Eagle Road. Feels that they need to preserve the integrity of
neighborhood. Asks for denial of the rezone.
Laurel Mathias, 235 Stonewater, Eagle, Idaho. Supports the development and feels that it would fill
a need of Eagle. She feels that the development would add to the uniqueness of Eagle.
Paula Chianis, 300 W. Sutter Drive, Eagle Idaho. Supports the development and rezoning project.
Mark Gillham, 10910 Hazelwood, Star, Idaho. Minister at the Church. Does have some concerns
about the traffic. Supports the development and zoning change.
Greg Stenzel, 1605 N. Crosswater Way, Eagle, Idaho. Discusses the traffic issues. Feels the
development is a good idea and supports the development and rezone.
Mike Maudlin, 291 N. I st, Eagle, Idaho. Senior Pastor at Eagle Heights Baptist Church. Understands
the concerns of the neighbors. Supports the development. Discusses the traffic issues stating that
Mission Drive will take the majority of the traffic.
Terry Terhune, 2162 N. Zircon Place, Meridian, Idaho. Supports the development.
Chris Standridge, 10745 W. Annafaye, Star, Idaho. Supports the development.
Carolyn Stovall, 266 I st Street, Eagle, Idaho. Feels that it is wonderful that the church is doing well.
She feels that the traffic in the area would increase and that it would be hard to get onto Eagle Road.
Believes the development is a good idea, but opposes because of traffic issues.
Jim Murray, with CSHQA, reiterates the history of the application and discusses some of the
testimony that was given by the public at the February 28 2005 meeting. Goes over conditions of
Development Agreement that have changed since the February 28, 2005 meeting. Bandy has
questions regarding the cul-de-sac and emergency access. Aspitarte comments that something be
done with the church building. Marks discusses the design and has some questions and concerns.
Bandy suggests modifying the Development Agreement to add in a statement to limit adverse impact
should cross-traffic become a problem.
Bandy closes the public hearing.
Discussion amongst the Commissioners.
City Attorney, John McFadden, comments that the motion must include the whole application.
Bandy moves to approve CPA-I-OS & RZ-I-OS & CU-I-OS Comprehensive Plan Amendment
From Residential Four to Central Business District, Rezone With Development Agreement
From R-4 to CBD-DA and Conditional Use Permit as presented with the recommended
changes, site specification conditions, the amended language and also include in the
Development Agreement under article 2, number 2.2, another bullet that says to limit any
adverse impacts of development on neighboring properties, the developer of record will take
appropriate and effective efforts to install traffic calming devices to direct cross traffic
between lst Street and Mission Avenue. Aspitarte would like to strike 15 dwelling units.
Aspitarte withdraws. Seconded by Aspitarte. TWO AYE, ONE NA Y...MOTION CARRIES.
Page 2 of 5
KIP&z\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-O4.04.05min.doc
Bandy amends the motion to also include under item 2.2 that allows the uses to be limited to
only those permitted under the Central Business District land use as defined by the City of
Eagle. Seconded by Marks. TWO AYE, ONE NAY ...MOTION CARRIES.
A five minute recess is called.
B. PP-3-0S - Lakemoor Subdivision -BW Eae:le. LLC: BW Eagle, LLC, represented by Dan
Torfin, is requesting preliminary plat approval for Lakemoor Subdivision. The I78.52-acre, 240-lot
(142-residential, 53-commercial, 45-common) subdivision is located on the east side of Eagle Road
approximately 1O00-feet north of Chinden Boulevard.
Dan Torfin, representing BW Eagle, LLC, reviews the application and staff report. Torfin goes over
site specific conditions that were included in the staff report. Aspitarte has questions on berms,
historical information and flood plains. Bandy comments on the roadways and accesses to the area.
City Planner, Jeff Lowe, reviews the staff report.
Bandy opens the public hearing.
Linda Thiel, 3970 E. Chinden, Eagle, Idaho. Has concerns regarding an access road to Chinden.
Feels there will be traffic issues in front of her property. She discusses property behind her house
and has concerns about building height.
Eric Olson, 4150 E. Chinden, Eagle, Idaho. Neutral about development. Concerned about the wells
and groundwater. Does not want wells for irrigation. Concerned about the height of Townhouses.
Jim Riley, 3410 E. Chinden, Eagle, Idaho. His property is caught between two commercial
properties and feels there are non-compliance issues. Has concerns regarding the old Oregon trail.
He also has concerns about building height issues, light spillage and sewer connections.
Beth Grinstead, 6500 Granada Lane, Eagle, Idaho. Has concerns about possible retail type
businesses going into the development. She would like to see restrictions on the type of commercial
buildings in the area and would also like to see a two story limit on the buildings. She has traffic
concerns about the access from Chinden. She would like to see the proposal without the access from
Chinden. She expresses concerns regarding the Oregon Trail.
Bill Martin, 6520 North Granada Lane, Eagle, Idaho. He essentially supports the project. He has
concerns regarding height of the buildings. He would like to see some screening for road access if
the road is approved. He feels the development needs to fit with the needs of the residents in the
area.
Dwayne Didericksen, 3430 E. Chinden, Eagle, Idaho. He is in support of the project and feels that
that Mr. Torfin has been very accommodating with the concerns of the property owners in the area.
Dan Torfin, BW Eagle, LLC, rebuts testimony and comments on the application. Bandy comments
on irrigation. Aspitarte requests that Torfin investigate the Oregon Trail information and discusses
the flooding of the area in 1998. Torfin addresses the concerns regarding the height of buildings.
Marks has questions regarding the use of gates, suggesting berms instead. There are concerns
amongst the commission regarding having a gated community within Eagle.
Bandy closes the public hearing.
Discussion amongst the Commission. Marks is in support of project, but has concerns with the
connection of Chinden and how it would impact the homeowners. There is discussion of the
possibility that the City possibly support the Chinden access. Pierce has concerns regarding access to
the park. Bandy brings up concerns of private streets, if they should be allowed, or is it case by case.
Marks questions the terminology of the previous development agreement. Jeff Lowe responds that
there was no mention of private streets and states that the language mentioned public roads. Torfin
states that the concept plan was part of the development agreement and believes the application was
turned in prior to the Eagle City Code change regarding private streets. Marks has concerns about
Page 3 of 5
K:\P&Z\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-O4-Q4-05min.doc
residential guest parking. Torfin discusses additional parking area and that there will be no parking
on the streets allowed.
City Attorney, John McFadden, comments that if the commission allows private roads the area would
have to have been grandfathered because the ordinance states that private roads are not allowed.
Marks brings up security issues for the residential area and feels that the private streets and gates
would be necessary to protect residents from traffic in the area accessing the commercial services as
well as those using the park on the eastern side of the development. Bandy mentions the exclusivity
that gated communities tend to create. Bandy discusses the requests to change the site specific
conditions of approval.
Bandy moves to approve PP-3-05 - Lakemoor Subdivision with all of the recommended changes, the
site specific conditions of approval and add another specific condition of approval that public roads
are required in the residential portion of the development. Seconded by Aspitarte. TWO AYE,
TWO NAY.. . MOTION FAILS.
Marks discusses an alternative motion that would provide the stipulations that all conditions of
approval with the changes noted and outlined, should follow the conditions of approval and let it be
an issue that does go before City Council, each one of these state specifically if private streets are
approved by City Council.
Marks moves to approve PP-3-05 - Lakemoor Subdivision as written with changes requested with a
note to Council that there was a split vote regarding private versus public roads. The amended
motion is seconded by Pierce. TWO AYE, TWO NAY.. . MOTION FAILS.
City Attorney, John McFadden, comments that there has to be a majority vote for the application to
move forward to City Council.
Bandy moves to send a message along with the approval of PP-3-0S - Lakemoor Subdivision to
City Council that the original motion to single out specifically private and public streets was a
split motion. Seconded by Marks. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES.
C. A-2-0S/RZ-4-0S/CU-2-0S/PPUD-I-OS/PP-4-0S/PP-S-OS - Eae:le Creek Planned Unit
Development - Goldcreek Developers. LLC: Goldcreek Developers, LLC, represented by The
Land Group Inc., is requesting an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R-3-
DA-P (Residential up to three units per acre with development agreement and PUD), an annexation
and rezone from RR (Residential Rural) to R-2-DA-P (Residential up to two units per acre with
development agreement and PUD), conditional use permit, preliminary development plan, and two
preliminary plat approvals for Eagle Creek planned unit development. The east phase consists of a
2I.93-acre, 69-lot (56-buildable, 13-common) residential subdivision located west of Park Lane at
655 Park Lane. The west phase consists of a 33.36-acre, 89-lot (n-buildable, 17 -common)
residential subdivision located east of Linder Road at 839 Linder Road. This item was requested to
be continued to the April 18, 2005 meeting.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. FPUD-2-0S & FP-3-0S - Final Development Plan and Final Plat for Banbury Meadows
PUD Subdivision No.7 - Banbury Meadows LLC: Banbury Meadows, LLC, represented by
Johnson Engineering, is requesting final development plan and final plat approval for Banbury
Meadows Subdivision Phase 7, a 73-lot (70-buildable, 3-common) residential subdivision. This
20.87-acre (approx.) phase of Banbury Meadows PUD is located on the west side of Eagle Road
approximately Y2-mile north of Chinden Blvd. The site is within the Eagle City Limits.
Bandy introduces the item.
City Planner, Jeff Lowe, reviews the staff report.
Dick Phillips, representing Banbury Meadows, LLC, reviews the application and discusses the
reduction in lot size and density of the area.
Page 4 of 5
KIP&z\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-O4-04-05min.doc
Bandy moves to approve FPUD-2-0S & FP-3-0S - Final Development Plan and Final Plat for
Banbury Meadows PUD Subdivision No.7. Seconded by Marks. ALL A YE...MOTION
CARRIES.
8. REPORTS: None.
9. ADJOURNMENT: Hearing no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
-"""'..."
,-' "
~", ~ OF 8.-1 "'.
~'Ii ,~ ."...... 0(' . .
I v... 88 -.{\ "
~ ~. oV-t»OR"¡j>888 ",
S v ~~-:
: *. -.- :.. :
. . .
. . .
\ ~ SEAL of: :
II! ~ '.":
'\ ~ ~~,,-rt-9..~~O I
" "f ~ ..~ ~'~'Ii
... 1: OF \~ t""'-
.""""",,t"
~
' ìw~--- tJ3D~
SHA N K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
~ED:
\
\
A TRANSCRIDABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL.
Page 5 of 5
K:IP&z\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-Q4-04-05min.doc
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
PP-3-05 - Lakemoor Subdivision -BW Eagle, LLC
April 4, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
t t NAME
/
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
PRO?
CON?
1 #414,
7.6 p.CoIei cI7'vDQ .
31 -15
L.-
Z124 se-J
)0sz c•Cv(chPsJ�
q 3 0-t' PS-3
. C-- OGSv/''
7 / 5 U,5 6/79 /Mi.-/
c9 C 7565
:---tt4(-1 rt
II ak( /.±-1'-:
''?" 9--C' 2-0
Page 1 of 1
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
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
April 4, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
PRO?
CON?
A614:k..kg*fe_
Ci n KA-A.c., y, t, ;cog_
q :.-yi _c, e,z, 2_
v------
t l 6 •y A -Yr, ,),I `
? q / s7 sr
9 3 `7- o r t .
1.-'"
ttra f Mathk s
,N Si-6nec. if
gOci - ''2r
✓
jcc (h1‘o 11j<,
,-- r W i(}-JPf D(
ai,3gi -,21-,L'S
/
Gi1,��-�
�t� w.
l N�r�.�n a
c,2 -- qg�5
�
I
:?! e v\-z E
1 ey^ ,- tVc<,- . ,t,k,_1 e r w(‘
?) tt- 1 t 0
✓
11(tit o-
aqi A:. / f.
--5- -)-16
✓
1 Cfr1-1-Lu,4
-r 6-1_ o►�1, Z,r,,e,,, otee.
7 —6 6�
''
v
Page 1 of 1
Communities in Motion
Community Presentation Comment Form
March - April 2005
Blended Attributes, continued
Less intensive development along major transportation corridors than Mixed -Use Corridors.
Like: Dislike:
Why:
Provides regional housing mix of 65 percent single-family homes and 35 percent multi -family homes.
Like: Dislike:
Why:
•
Other comments:
Name:
Address:
City, State ZIP:
Please return your completed comment sheet to your presenter. If you would like to complete it at a
later date, please send it to: COMPASS, 800 S. Industry Way, Suite 100, Meridian, Idaho 83642 or
fax it to 855-2559.
All comment sheets must be returned by April 8, 2005.
Communities in Motion
Community Presentation Comment Form
March - April 2005
Thank you for attending today's presentation. Your input is important to us. The comments you are
providing will be used by the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho to help select a
preferred growth scenario for the six -county long-range transportation plan.
Blended Attributes:
Greater consumption of new land than the Mixed -Use Corridors. Additional growth in existing small
communities.
Like: Dislike:
'Why:
Regional housing mix of 65% single-family home and 35% multi -family homes. Relatively high
proportion of large lot residential development in areas of impact.
Like: Dislike:
Why:
Less potential for transit than Mixed -Use Corridors
Like: Dislike:
Why:
trf1t p1111ti��r�
1� s