Minutes - 2005 - Planning & Zoning - 11/07/2005 - Regular
THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
November 7, 2005
Minutes
CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m.
ORIGINAL
1.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: BANDY, MARKS, PIERCE. Absent: LIEN, ASPIT ARTE.
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 October 17, 2005.
B. FindiDl~s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-9-05/RZ-13-05/CU-12-05/PPUD-
13-05 - Lee:acv Planned Unit Development: Signature Sports Development, LLC is
requesting annexation of I 92.63-acres, a rezone of 762.38-acres from A (Agricultural)
and RR (Rural Residential-Ada County Designation) to R-2-DA-P(Residential two
units per acre maximum with a development agreement - PUD), and conditional use,
planned unit development preliminary development plan approvals for the Legacy
Planned Community. The entire development consists of 762.38-acres (1,300-
residientiallots with 8A-acres of commercial and 291. I-acres of golf course and open
space).
C. Minutes of October 24, 2005 Special Meeting.
Marks moves to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Pierce. ALL
AYE.. .MOTION CARRIES.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. A-ll-04/RZ-17-04/CU-I0-04/PPUD-3-04/PP-9-04N AC-2-04 - Eal!:Iefield Estates
Subdivision Planned Unit Development - D.H. Development, LLC: Eaglefield,
LLC, represented by Landmark Engineering & Planning Inc., is requesting an
annexation and rezone from RR (Residential Rural) to R-2-P (Residential up to two
units per acre PUD), R-4-P (Residential up to four units per acre PUD) and MU-P
(Mixed Use PUD), conditional use, preliminary development plan, preliminary plat
and vacation of right-of-way approvals for Eaglefield Estates Subdivision planned
unit development. The 142A-acre, 419-lot (377-buildable-362 single family lots and
15 four-plex lots, and 44 common) residential subdivision is generally located 650-
feet west of Linder Road and north of State Highway 44. This item was continued
from the October 3, 2005 meeting. The public hearing has been closed.
Bandy introduces the item.
Clint Boyle, with Landmark Engineering & Planning Inc. reviews modifications and
changes to the application. Discusses that there has been a reduction of 32 lots and the
different lot sizes for different areas in the development. Discusses new information on
Page I of5
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area'\PZ-II-07-0Smill.DOC
the traffic study for the area. Stands for questions from the Commission.
Nichoel Baird Spencer, City Planner, reviews the staff report, staff recommendation and
site specific conditions of approval. Stands for questions from the Commission.
Discussion amongst the Commission.
Bandy moves approve A-II-04/RZ-17 -04/CU -1 0-04/PPUD-3-04/PP-9-04N AC-2-04 -
with all of the associated site specific conditions with the following changes: Site
Specific Condition of Approval #3: Strike all of the wording after the comma after
ACHD, so Site Specific Condition #3 reads: Comply with all requirements of
ACHD. #5: Provide a revised preliminary plat showing larger lots that are
compatible to the required R-2 at the northern edge of the "Cedars" area these lots
should be a 7,000 square foot minimum for Block 5, Lots 1-21. Add a Site Spec
Condition of approval after #5 that requires an easement on the same Block, Lots 1-
9 to facilitate transition. Strike #8. Modify #39, Cedars R-4 zone, but the sizes
should be 5,500, 6,000 and 7,000. Strike #18. Item # 40, change the rear from 25 to
20 feet. Item #44, modify the statement so that it states "All fencing adjacent to a
pathway/pedestrian/open space easement shall not exceed 4 feet in height". #45,
change rod to wrought. Seconded by Marks. TWO AYE, (Marks, Bandy) ONE
NAY (Pierce). MOTION CARRIES.
Commissioner Pierce explains the reasoning for his nay vote in that he felt that the
combination of Site Specific Conditions 5 and 6 were too strict and either one or the other
should be used to buffer and transition the Residential 2 area north of the "Cedars" but
not both. The Commission requests that Commissioner Pierce's dissenting opinion be
noted in the minutes and in the findings of fact and conclusions oflaw.
A short recessed is called.
The meeting reconvenes at 7:30.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. A-08-05/RZ-12-05/PP-ll-05 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural Urban
Transition) to R-2-DA and Preliminarv Plat application - Park Place Partners,
LLC: Park Place Partners, LLC, represented by Bill Clark with Clark Development,
is requesting a annexation and a rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R-2-
DA (Residential 2 units per acre with a development agreement), and preliminary plat
approval for Park Place Gardens a 231-lot (190-buildable, 41-common) planned
residential development. The 95.32-acre site is located between Meridian Road and
Park Lane approximately 1,300 feet north ofFloating Feather Road. The applicant is
requesting that this item be remanded to staff.
Bandy introduces the item.
Susan Buxton, City Attorney, states that the public hearing for this application was
previously continued. There has not been a determination whether or not a material
change to the application has occurred. This item may need to be re-noticed.
Bandy moves to table item 5A and that this item be heard, on date certain,
December 191\ with the following timelines: Submittal to staff: November 10, 2005,
Transmittal to agencies: November 14, 2005, Agency comments due: November 30,
2005, Newspaper and 300' notice: December 2, 2005, Staff report to P&Z:
Page 2 of5
K\P&Z\MINLTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-Il-07-0SminDOC
December 12, 2005, Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing: December 19, 2005
Seconded by Marks. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES.
B. RZ-17-05 - Rezone from R-3 (Residential 3 units per acre) to R-4-DA - Gemstar
Development, LLC: Gemstar Development, LLC is requesting a rezone from R-3
(Residential 3 units per acre) to R-4-DA (Residential 4 units per acre with a
Development Agreement). The 6.92-acre site is located on the south side of East Hill
Road approximately 1,100-feet west of State Highway 55 at 2511 East Hill Road.
This item was continuedfrom the October 17, 2005 meeting.
C. PP-12-05 - Preliminarv Plat for Gladstone Subdivision - Gemstar Development,
LLC: Gemstar Development, LLC, is requesting preliminary plat approval for
Gladstone Subdivision. The 6.92-acre, 23 lot (17 buildable, 6 common) subdivision
is located on the south side of East Hill Road approximately 1,100-feet west of State
Highway 55 at 2511 East Hill Road. This item was continued from the October 17,
2005 meeting.
Bandy introduces the items.
Shawn Nickel, 839 E Winding Creek Drive, Eagle, representing Gemstar Development,
LLC., reviews the application. Stands for questions from the Commission.
Nichoel Baird Spencer, City Planner, reviews the staff report. Stands for questions from
the Commission.
Bandy opens the public hearing. Commissioner Aspitarte arrives.
George Taylor, Great Sky Subdivision at 426 S. Silverbow. Speaking on behalf of the
Great Sky Subdivision HOA. Has concerns about the increased traffic that the proposed
subdivision would create. Discusses an agreement with developers that they would put
traffic calming devices along Silverbow. Concerns about density, values of the existing
homes and fencing.
Brent Porges, 2353 E. Palsey Drive, Chaumont Subdivision. Has concerns for the
children and the traffic in the area. Believes that the application is a bad plan, mainly for
traffic reasons.
Michael Bleds, Chaumont Subdivision, submits a petition for the record. Discusses the
opposition and nonconforming lots. Discusses the open space and traffic issues.
James Pauls, 740 S. Silverbow Avenue, discusses traffic issues and does not want to see
traffic increase. Believes there should be independent access on Hill Road..
Shawn Nickel rebuts testimony. ACHD did recommend approval of the project. The
developer is interested in working with the neighbors on connectivity issues. There will
be a builder team, homes will be similar to the ones in Chaumont as well as having
similar CC&R's. Stands for questions from the Commission.
Susan Buxton, City Attorney, discusses issues with ACHD and that they have the only
jurisdictions on the roads. City is the land use authority in its own jurisdiction. Discusses
transportation plan and interconnectivity.
Bandy closes the public hearing.
Discussion amongst the Commission.
General Discussion.
Page 3 of5
K:\P&z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-11-07-0Smin.DOC
Aspitarte moves to recommend for approval of RZ-17 -05 - Rezone from R-3
(Residential 3 units per acre) to R-4-DA - Gemstar Development, LLC. Seconded
by Marks. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Bandy moves to approve the request for Preliminary Plat with the Site Specifics of
approval with the following changes: Item #5, Work with the New Dry Creek Canal
Company or representing company to gain permission to construct a five foot (5')
wide pathway within their easement. If the access is granted acquire written
approvals from the New Dry Creek Canal Company or representing company shall
be submitted to the City prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat. #12, Provide
a revised preliminary plat showing a five foot (5') wide asphalt pathway along the
entire frontage of this development along Hill Road or alternative of compliance as
deemed appropriate by the Design Review Board. Add a Site Specific Condition of
Approval that the developer work with the adjoining subdivisions to explore traffic
calming efforts. Seconded by Marks. Discussion amongst the Commission. Bandy
moves to modify the motion so that the City Council review this application in the
context of concerns with traffic calming efforts and potentially look at alternates to
interconnectivity. Seconded by Marks. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
A. V AC-03-05 - Vacation of easements created in the notes of the Record of Survey
(ROS) finalizine: the Lot Line Adiustment, LLA-02-01creatine: Parcel C. Parcel
C consisted of all of Lot 9 and portions of Lot 11 and Lot 8, Block 3 of Merrill
Subdivision No.2 - Bob Erland: Bob Erland, represented by Tim Mokwa, RLA,
with Toothman-Orton Engineering Company, is requesting City approval of a
vacation of an existing utility easement that was created as part of a previous record
of survey. The utility easement was created by a note in ROS #5503 to assure the lots
would have access to public utilities. The utility, drainage and irrigation easement
required for the side lot lines will be satisfied with the creation of a new easements
along the new lot lines created by the proposed subdivision. The site is located on the
south side of East Iron Eagle Drive approximately one hundred twenty (120') feet east
of South Fitness Place.
Bandy introduces the item.
Nichoel Baird Spencer, City Planner, reviews the staff report.
Marks moves to approve V AC-03-05 - Vacation of easements created in the notes of
the Record of Survey (ROS) finalizing the Lot Line Adjustment, LLA-02-01
creating Parcel C. Parcel C consisted of all of Lot 9 and portions of Lot 11 and Lot
8, Block 3 of Merrill Subdivision No.2. Seconded by Pierce. ALL AYE.. .MOTION
CARRIES.
B. FPUD-05-05 & FP-09-05 - Final Development Plan and Final Plat for RiversEnd
No.3 Subdivision - Howell-Kiser Development Corp.: Howell-Kiser
Development Corp. is requesting final development plan and final plat approval for
RiversEnd Subdivision No.3, an II-lot (6-buildable, 5-common) residential
subdivision. This 25.108-acre phase of RiversEnd Subdivision PUD is located
between the North and South Channels of the Boise River approximately 'l2 -mile east
of Eagle Road on East Island Woods Drive.
Nichoel Baird Spencer, City Planner, reviews the application.
Page 4 of5
K:\P&Z\MlNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-II-07-0Smin_DOC
Marks moves to approve FPUD-05-05 & FP-09-05 based on recommendation of the
City the Final Development Plan and Final Plat for RiversEnd No.3 Subdivision -
Howell-Kiser Development. Seconded by Aspitarte. ALL A YE...MOTION
CARRIES.
7. REPORTS: None
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Marks moves to adjourn. Seconded by Pierce. ALL A YE...MOTlON CARRIES.
Hearing no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
""..... ........
.......... OF EAO .....
r:' ~ ~ ......... (. A'..
, ,..",.- ..~. .
I"' CJl ~"ORA7' .... \.
Wo ~.:.
'"" . * .
i ... _.- :
~ ~.SBALi 0 i
'" Yp"("I: :0: ~
\..... ..~J'
'-;! 1'8 Of \~ ;'"
."................
J~rlA-<O \L-0~~
SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
PHILLIP J. BANDY
CHAIRMAN
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL.
Page 5 of5
K:\P&ZlMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ.l 1-07-05min.DOC
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
RZ-17-05 - Rezone from R-3 (Residential 3 units per acre) to R-4-DA & PP-12-05 -
Preliminary Plat for Gladstone Subdivision - Gemstar Development, LLC.
November 7, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
PRO?
CON?
// -- Vk-is
1-(0 s.Sil FA. Avt
933-4;(.•S
X
�rA;2c-
inerrk
a-y sy N l d (4-. (
q 3 t- `PO 7
Y
Z u.s Pay
A6Tt Adblphse.
,757z- E,Tmec&D
4 cv -, 003
x,
il- e-14:4S ham,-. elle,
2353 e i t o_ L se., Ak.
cl 3 `l - 2 (3C `l
_cpti Ji 56-0
.6 &K tz)
(Set- q 16 I
�S 4,✓,./ icAe<
l C3°)w. 8fii.3,4c/4
938.3v / 1
V
r&uJ ��1
a''(i7 j. iu 414,4
,-b.iNki cis
iCnski . ),; (er-
f
— awl
— 0a- A
7(7/ IV,
✓
tc1& / L3 .r,/
Z3 i a (ijf e $T
e-----
,.T1977 L tl1
.
Page 1 of 4
We, the homeowners of Chaumont Subdivision are in opposition to the current
Gladstone Subdivision site proposal.
The requested rezone of Gladstone subdivision using the proposed street layout will
harm our existing home values as well as our established family oriented
neighborhood. A through street between the Chaumont and Great Sky Subdivisions
would harm the quality of neighborhoods by increasing traffic.
We request that planning and zoning ask the developer to submit a new plan which
does not provide a thru street between the Great Sky and Chaumont Subdivisions.
Signature Address
Paiptgt PI,
•
616., 5 . Ra.,,,,J-3, t ,
‘,/ -ro ‹-, i',-,4,,,,,_, e
qxu),m, ,,,,,,, /
X/ %s-; -s - a/Z,-,�,�r A%
,e4f,fJT ',./S% ro,.., ,--y Fs ,23:s`5 CS a e«J �.
C ,�
�7�v3 s. (okk
C rzo u-t
q\ S Cow\ o0 PL
We, the homeowners of Chaumont Subdivision are in opposition to the current
Gladstone Subdivision site proposal.
The requested rezone of Gladstone subdivision using the proposed street layout will
harm our existing home values as well as our established family oriented
neighborhood. A through street between the Chaumont and Great Sky Subdivisions
would harm the quality of neighborhoods by increasing traffic.
We request that planning and zoning ask the developer to submit a new plan which
does not provide a thru street between the Great Sky and Chaumont Subdivisions.
Signature
Crkk ft
Address
.2308'
8
2611. rit-riAtit>x, fat-
a►�i E e b.
1145 Cd n ic' 1_0 ►.�' 1�12
/ 4177 ao-t-(A-(P
qco s Ck, kb&.,. ,&„-
evt-
50 5 . 0-01)15n1)m
S �� �,
;110 E
E.
2 z ko t ,4-/sur
2.z>30 C_ \LVL.S2`1
( 2r S • pli,401-zsv,IkkAii
tic S. 1°A,/t1A,v15(a" wat
153 s --PiKki,Js.J G'7
zit
We, the homeowners of Chaumont Subdivision are in opposition to the current
Gladstone Subdivision site proposal.
The requested rezone of Gladstone subdivision using the proposed street layout will
harm our existing home values, as well as our established family oriented
neighborhood. A through street between the Chaumont and Great Sky Subdivisions
would harm the quality of neighborhoods by increasing traffic.
We request that planning and zoning ask the developer to submit a new plan which
does not provide a thru street between the Great Sky and Chaumont Subdivisions.
Signature,
Address
1A1 . tlgf��
E HhlSzy
&( 5. E10hb5 PI le
77e E.1 k1 e„b
S.-)orstt TQce-)
11tislitihc I}w,1-4-c
We, the homeowners of Chaumont Subdivision are in opposition to the current
Gladstone Subdivision site proposal.
The requested rezone of Gladstone subdivision using the proposed street layout will
harm our existing home values as well as our established family oriented
neighborhood. A through street between the Chaumont and Great Sky Subdivisions
would harm the quality of neighborhoods by increasing traffic.
We request that planning and zoning ask the developer to submit a new plan which
does not provide a thru street between the Great Sky and Chaumont Subdivisions.
�%/�/�,� t,5- ��av�wrd-
W. DEMISON DR.
W. DURNING CT.
EAGLEFIELD ESTATES
CONCEPTUAL HOUSING LAYOUT
SCALE = 1"=40'-0"
�trU" 7du85 z