Loading...
Minutes - 2006 - Planning & Zoning - 09/27/2006 - Regular THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Special Meeting Minutes 660 E. Civic Lane September 27, 2006 6:30 P.M ]. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:42 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: ZASTROW, PIERCE, ASPITARTE. Absent: JACOBS. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CPA-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eal!:le - M3 Eal!:le. LLC.: M3 Eagle LLC., represented by Gerry Robbins of The M3 Companies, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include +/- 6,005 acres into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan designating the following land uses: +/- 40 Acres Rural Residential, +/- 1,627 acres Residential Estates, +/- 470 acres Residential One, +/- 670 acres Residential Two, +/- 1,250 acres Residential Three, +/- 670 acres Residential Four, +/- 770 acres Village Center, +/- 88 acres Mixed Use; +/- 100 Acres Commercial, an Annexation and rezone with a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement for +/- 40 acres AR-DA (up to ] unit per 5 acres with a development agreement), +/- ] ,627 acres RE-DA (up to ] unit per 2 acres with a development agreement), +/- 470 acres RI-DA (up to one unit per acre with a development agreement), +/- 670 acres R2-DA (up to two units per acre with a development agreement), +/- ] ,250 acres R3-DA (up to 3 units per acre with a development agreement), +/- 670 acres R4-DA (up to four units per acre with a development agreement), +/- 770 acres Village Center-DA, +/- 88 acres MU- DA(Mixed Use with a development agreement) to allow for a maximum of +/- 12,0 I 0 residential units, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Eagle City Code Section 8-6 "Planned Unit Developments" to allow for the M3-PUD. The +/- 6,005 acre site is generally located north of the Farmers Union Canal and Homer Road, east of State Highway 16 and west of Willow Creek Road. Specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file at the City of Eagle. Pierce introduces the item. Nichoel Baird Spencer, Planner Ill, gives an overview of the application. This is an unplanned area. Commissioner Aspitarte asks about establishing new policies. General discussion. Bill Brownlee, with M3 Companies, gives a presentation for the application and discusses some history of their company. John Church, Principle ofIdaho Economics. Tasked with projecting housing build-out. Discusses the projected total, occupied and vacant housing units and households. Discusses the economic forecast for Ada, Boise, Canyon and Gem Counties. Stands for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Aspitarte asks about page #7, assumption of population, road infrastructure, and the housing market. General discussion. Kavi Koleini, Biologist. Discusses plant and wildlife habitat in the application areas, vegetation maps and habitat models. Has a map of the study area with various vegetation cover represented. Stands for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Aspitarte asks about different types of species. Commissioner Pierce asks about the habitat for areas they own and the BLM property. General Discussion. A short recess is called. The meeting is called back to order at 9:00 p.m. Page I of3 K:\P&Z\I\fIJ\'UTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-09-27-06spmin.doc THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Special Meeting Minutes 660 E. Civic Lane September 27, 2006 6:30 P.M Gary Funkhouser, Transportation Manager with Stanley Consultants. Gives a presentation for the Traffic Study. Commissioner Aspitarte has questions regarding actual observations. General Discussions. Sue Sullivan, Idaho Transportation Department, Senior Planner. Discusses the status of the expressway section. The only funds that are approved are for studies. Commissioner Aspitarte asks if there are any plans for full interchange. This is in !TD's long range plan but not currently funded. Bill Brownlee points out some benefits of this project. Pierce likes that some of the property is being dedicated to schools/fire department, etc. General discussion. Commissioner Zastrow asks about affordability projections. Commissioner Pierce asks Kavi Koleini about habitat areas. Part of mitigation is to leave native. Pierce opens the Public Hearing. Phillip Fry, 4122 Homer Road. Gives the Commission a handout for the record. Concerned about water issues. Believes the density is too high. Discusses aquifer issues and protecting Eagle's municipal water rights. Believes water usage should be reduced. Commissioner Pierce comments on the slopes and density. David Head, 855 Stillwell Drive. Co-chairman ofN. Ada County Foothills Association. Discusses impacts of development in the foothills, habitat, roads, traffic. Discusses the concept and that the studies were believable. Asks if this just a look at M3 or all future developments that will come to the foothills? Commissioner Pierce asks if any of the visioning information will be provided to them. Susan Buxton, City Attorney, infonns the Commission that some information will be provided to them in a staff report. Commissioner Aspitarte would like Gary Funkhouser to do another traffic analysis with some conservative assumptions on the possible expansion of State Highway 16 and State Highway 44. Urges the applicant to take Mr. Fry's testimony and analyze it. Commissioner Pierce would like to know the density without open space. Aspitarte moves to continue CPA-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06 - M3 Eagle presentation to October 16,2006 where we will talk about water, land use and pre- annexation agreement and continue public testimony. Seconded by Zastrow. ALL A YES...MOTION CARRIES. 4. REPORTS: A. Commission: B. City Attorney C. Staff 5. ADJOURNMENT: Aspitarte moves to adjourn. Seconded by Zastrow. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. Hearing no further business, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Page 2 of3 K:\P&Z\J\lINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-09-27-06spmin,doc THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Special Meeting Minutes 660 E. Civic Lane September 27, 2006 6:30 P.M RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: AP~ROVED: \1 (~~ _.. -- (JASON W. PIERCE CHAIRMAN ",.......... ,," ..... ......' ~ EAGl. ..... ~ . { 0 ........ 1: '. I ..... ..- A -.. ... ~ ~ 00 ..0\1. 7'!;" 0 ... ~ .. ....... 4..." e...... .. = tJ: 0'" .: : : ' . , _: : . . ""'.,e ......: \... \. S~~\.tj~/i ~ ....4-: ~.... ~ ...C'ORPO........^, ~ .... S ........ ,'Y.fi "'" l' ATE 0 ~ ,..",,~ ~~""..II "~"~I' ~Ci-i~~~ SHA ON K. BERGMANN CITY CLERK/TREASURER A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE AT CITY HALL. Page 3 on K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-09-27-06spmin.doc EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06— M3 Eagle — M3 Eagle, LLC. September 27, 2006 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? 9y3/' l 07! 503 —0 �R /�� /�- j Ka . R.l t�.,,- `l r< IA ias,.iC..., L - V I -0 it( - ‘ k0 5aq iltidw-4-4 13"ta' 7)1 cn i)E, v.k. ler .1,,,i m4-I 36 44-tviett.,:0,1),-- 12(1-0 (,, Ec.)),". -3& 52,5074i , ,..- La' 579o- i cil'i �� 3 l i'l I , , ' f�/ _ V? .t-,►' Nair A G- `i i'„ (N^ u: d iis- - SZi Ilk,p [ l 0138 SW tv :,Jack S h, '{- 9- r& tVes kale i `,n ki Z tl Feo 9 3&.- 41-9..ik ItAAI i t7&C d � c `e�.,AaNpl C(: ci- 77j Gail�AL_ Go i 0, Q&A,v,ci 6,344 1W.-1aoo w 1 EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle - M3 Eagle, LLC. September 27, 2006 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? JO VIZWS 141 fot7& Ewe! 6z 6,31,432 i7.:Ra Sri (11 LA.ra2A c f 314 N ecrimp e.Ir3Lhhmcir , 3-5-Vot/ zv� &(11 t;'h I ► D �334 - ��55 9Z / - 217 hevt I- i'�/o'x ti r, I�;A ce+ ��-te ive� Y1 i p -EY 022 lyum ig 46. ..?"' T / ZZ' rtet- f ?SC- V-6 7 pliive/(c e ,`/c) 0. 4 ' l,X S i it/ ....(1, 00.1'61 A Xs ec q 7$3 A/. 7R.0 n.p.cr L,... 2 SG - 74141 __I e 2 Le,-c.tsz, 7451 Ad. wj�4j L. 75 Slit e. ki.1s� Soo E LS h� cc(D2 , &70•-77V o /ia, S"c77-, ,lj/ , 'kW ,t eu) PO- ' x l cA7 trAgE 90 eys6 De, - r , 1 Cli 1. trc.l S� '� (h Z H 6n t E 1 �S`1 �5i %y 8 L-hl%K/YE Jl/CCLLs PD.B®x ?69 E}*LE 03116 (c ,v, E b,4-1)�s v �� �V Eµy �? e6 tr,A4 Qlike �,� hi le4471 7c> ti c, /.� 216-- e-lo V c-r.-e.L 7jleiS% w t 5 LL 11.32.-71Y51,-- cylk-►v\k l ipt `/Jin -c);_)-idiekweitQl o 191-0i1 rJ,,Yi joiciy a, l c,o_i__; a o 4 lL 1/ h r-- cf3?-�2-23 Comments to the M3-Eagle Development by Philip Fry, phone 939-9267 , EMAIL idphil@earthlink.net My comments are: - M3-Eagle Development desirability - The M3-Eagle Plan document, - The M3-Eagle planned housing density, and - N. Foothills Aquifer impacts. M3-Eagle Development Desirability I would rather see M3-Eagle develop in the N. Foothills area than the valley witlyspecial care for the aquifer limitations which are discussed below. The needed upgrades to access roads should be cheaper to accommodate in the Foothills than the valley and the development will reduce building pressure in the valley which should save some farm land, improve access to housing through decreased inflation of house prices, and reduce further overcrowding of the valleys neighborhood roads. In addition the development will be large enough to support municipal services soon, including fire, ambulance and police. The M3-Eagle Plan document The M3-Eagle Development Plan is the best I have ever seen. It says what they plan to do in concrete terms and allocates unresolved or adaptive issues to later plans or amendments. It clearly describes how they and Eagle will develop this area together. Best is that the plan does not resort to the fuzzy promises to mitigate, to coordinate with, to use best design and so many other phrases that we have seen in other plans. This plan should be made an example for other developers to follow. The M3-Eagle Planned Housing Density The M3-Eagle housing density is excessive in spite of their attempt to equate it with the Eagle village area. This may be desired by them to pay for their infrastructure and make house costs more marketable but should not be allowed. First - The plan shows that only 57% of their area has a slope less that 20%, and I think anything more is unusable for building without great effort. So their density should be for the buildable area only because that's how close the homeowners are packed. M3-Eagle then have 3,423 build ablUcres which for 12,010 homes is a density of 3.5 homes/acre. This density can then be fairly compared with the valley land using the planned Western Area density in Eagle (1.8 ) and the Eagle Comp. Plan (1.04), both of which are reduced by imposed compatibility with surrounding housing densities. Second- In my discussion below on the aquifer capability I derive an equitable rough maximum housing density of 1 home/gross acre or 1.7 homes /buildable acre based on available water using their planned water usage. This reduces the M3-Eagle development to about 6,000 homes. N. Foothills Aquifer Issues I wish to describe 3 water use issues for the N. Foothills: - equitable sharing of water resources among all residents, - protecting Eagle's municipal water rights from appropriation by developers, - implementing water conservation by using CC&R restrictions and monitoring of water usage. I feel a little like the wandering prophet Elijah coming to warn you of the coming water crisis and the need for change. But you know my message already. What you need is a sign which hasn't come yet, so I must appeal to your conscience until the water crisis causes old testament hardships and legislative change. But I believe you can change some water problems now by the way you deal with development. Valley Water Problems We will have a water crisis in the Boise Valley. But when? 20 years? IDWR reports say that the valley water budget was approximately in balance in 2000 with about as much aquifer recharge as discharge. This is only because 91% of the shallow aquifer is provided by the river, canals and irrigation. But Compass predicts adding 62,000 to 67,000 homes in 20 years which adds 26,000 to 28,000 acre feet/ year of water use at M3-Eagle Plan's usage rate. This is an increase of 34 - 36 % over all municipal water used in the Boise Valley in 2000. This is the crisis. Arizona discovered they had a water crisis and finally had to pass laws in 1980 creating a whole a new way of water management with a large new bureaucracy. The easily foreseeable effects of added population are: 1. added municipal wells pulling water from the deep aquifer, 2. causing depletion of the deep aquifer, 3. causing the shallow aquifer slowly draining into the deep aquifer, 4. causing degraded municipal water quality, and lowered shallow aquifer in some areas, 5. causing a lot of angry people from water restrictions, water quality, and loss of wells, 6. causing, after years of delay, legislative action changing water laws and restricted water usage. IDWR has carefully enforced Idaho's constitutional principal of water allocation of "first in time,first in right" which has worked well for water management of farming, mining and now industry. But we are changing to an urban society where municipalities share services among all residents and which must support population growth with adequate services. The Urban 2000 IDWR Report shows that between 1996 and 2000 the valleys municipal water use grew by 16% while water use declined for agricultural irrigation by 26% and for self supplied industrial use by 60%, . Our only economical choice is to reduce the water usage. The first in time,first in right principal must be replaced by the municipal principals of an equitable sharing of all resources by all future generations. The 1980 Arizona water laws reacted to this problem by both importing Colorado River Water and mandating water conservation. Their laws now require new homes to have a 100 year source of water and all homes to backlit water usage limits with incentives and penalties. They just have a large bureaucracy to do it. Arizona DWI budget is $50 million compared to Idaho's IDWR $10 million budget. However Idaho's need for a constitutional change and our lack of political will require a crisis for such changes here. The measures we can implement now are: - IDWR can allocate less water for each well permit, - valley cities and Ada Co. can limit water usage using development CC&R's, and - municipal water usage can be actively controlled. IDWR continues to allocate each home well a right to pump 13,000 gpd/home =14 acre feet /year/home compared to the M3-Eagle Plan's commitment to a design capacity of 800 gpd = 0.9 acre feet /year / home. Proposed Actions for the City of Eagle Much of the added population will be in the N. Foothills or South of Boise which are outside of the valley's irrigated areas that are recharged by surface water. These areas are only recharged from precipitation, underflow from springs / foothills precipitation, cross flow from irrigated areas, and their own septic systems. Our concern here is the N. Foothills. The Petrich & Urban 2004 IDWR Report and the SunCor water study both identify several areas with different water chemistry indicating fault lines which somewhat isolate the N. Foothills aquifers from the valley and prevent or at least greatly limit any cross flow for aquifer recharge from outside areas. While the N. Foothills are a special case where aquifer recharge is limited, the area will have all new developments where the best development designs can limit water usage. That is where the City of Eagle can help, but only with the cooperation of IDWR and Ada Co,- to be effective. So I propose that P&Z implement water conservation restrictions using the development CC&Rs. Such restrictions will have to be back fitted in say 20 years by legislative action for the whole valley. The political problem for Eagle, and Ada Co. is that such restrictions must be equitably applied to all other N. Foothills developments including SunCor, Dry Creek Ranch, Cartwright Ranch, Bragail, M3-Eagle, Kastera Homes and Hidden Springs. The landowner lawsuits from inconsistent restrictions would be expensive and defeat the effort. The M3-Eagle Development Plan commits to an average water use of 380 gpd / home, which is fairly typical for the valley and higher than Eagle's use. However the 2000 Arizona Plan for the Prescott area sets a goal of 57 gpd / person + 75 gpd / home for irrigation, which is 244 gpd / home at Eagle's 2.96 people /home. They say this is easily achievable with today's good design and consumer education. This 244 gpd/home usage should be the N. Foothills goal and be applied to all development CC&Rs in the N. Foothills as justified by the calculations below. To be effective this CC&R restriction must be implemented with economic and educational incentives and penalties by Eagle. An example might be much higher charges for water usage over the limits set by Eagle, and city monitoring of average community water use with penalties of community wide surcharges if average limits are not met, along with providing free education sessions and free home inspections. What can such a water conservation approach do? We need to compare the water usage for the proposed developments with the available aquifer water recharge. IDWR has computed a water budget for the valley but none for the N. Foothills. The N. Foothills faulting, separate aquifers, separate drainage and lack of area wells to support testing has made water assessment complex and too expensive. To fill this void I used Urban's 2000 Water Budget report to compute a realistic rough value for recharge by scaling the report's rates of precipitation and underflow by the areas 38,500 acres for the land types of arid/barren and residential. To better account for upwelling from foothills I used twice the foothills area for precipitation. I also used a buildout of 1/4 residential area for a much higher absorption of precipitation. I allowed no cross flow recharge from the valley. This realistic rough recharge is 5,900 to 6500 acre feet/year. But below I will compare to a very optimistic value of 9,000 acre feet/year which is half again more. This perhaps further adjusts for additional upwelling from possible springs posed by the SunCor report and some cross flow from the Farmers Union Ditch. Any usage over 9.000 acre feet/year then will surely deplete the aquifer. Water engineers could compute a better estimate but have not. Such an estimate is essential to area development and will be developed when wells are available which allow testing. But I don't think such an estimate would change the following results significantly except to reduce the recharge value from this optimistic value. How Much Water will be Used? Let's compare the proposed water usage in the N. Foothills with this optimistic recharge of 9,000 acre feet/ year. First we look at how much water is allocated by IDWR. The first developer is SunCor, who now have an approved right to pump 5 CFS from the N. Foothills aquifer in Boise County and an application for another 5 CFS in Ada County for use on about 9 sq. miles (5800 acres) near hwy. 55 at the Spring Valley Ranch. These two permits will allow SunCor to pump 7,060 acre feet /year. This is 3/4 of my optimistic recharge for all the 38,500 acres in the N. Foothills. But in addition all seven N. Foothills developers, including SunCor and M3, now propose to build 23,400 homes on 18,432 acres. Using M3-Eagle's committed design capacity of 800 gpd/home, these developments will need a design capacity of 18.7 million gpd = 29 CFS of well capacity = 20,400 acre feet /year. This is 2.3 times my optimistic recharge rate, and 27% of all domestic water used in the Boise Valley in 2000. But new developments should not use that much water. The developments will just have an assigned right to that much water, and if the aquifer fails, users with later rights like Eagle City, will have to shut off their wells. That's the law. For this reason the City of Eagle must protect their municipal water rights by requiring developers to include nearby Eagle property in the area of usage on IDWR applications for municipal wells . Let's look at what water use should actually be. M3-Eagle's Plan commits to a typical average home usage of 380 gpd / home. Then M3-Eagle's 12,010 homes will actually need 4.6 million gpd = 7 CFS average well capacity = 5,000 acre feet/year. This confirms M3-Eagle has enough water to build. but at the expense of other residents. Consider that all seven developers now plan 23,400 homes which will need 8.9 million gpd = 13.8 CFS average well capacity = 9,700 acre feet/year. That about equals my optimistic recharge rate and is 13% of all municipal water used in the valley in 2000. But what about Eagle water for the equestrian park, and what about the rest of people who want to develop the total 38,500 acres in the N. Foothills? They won't be able to justify the needed water rights. So the water usage by the M3-Eagle development is too high or the home density is too high. If all 38,500 acres are developed at the same density that M3-Eagle proposes for the N. Foothills, the buildout will be 49,000 homes. At M3-Eagle Plan's usage of 380 gpd / home the N. Foothills buildout will use 18.6 million gpd= 28.8 CFS average well capacity = 20,300 acre feet/year of water, more than twice my optimistic recharge estimate and 26% of all municipal water used in the valley in 2000. I would call this water mining. This is unacceptable but this is where development is going without Eagle and Ada Co. coordination and constraints. What is a Reasonable Buildout? First consider reducing water usage. Arizona 2000 plan proposes a usage of 244 gpd/home as described above. At my optimistic recharge of 9,000 acre feet / year then 33,800 homes can be supported by the aquifer in the 38,500 acres of the N. Foothills. This limitation means Eagle and Ada Co. can either allow the seven developers to implement their planned developments at this lower water usage rate leaving 10,400 homes for any future foothills developments, or they can distribute the home density, which if evenly distributed at 0.9 homes /acre, would limit M3-Eagle to 5,300 homes. I think the first option is the most reasonable. and it also emphasizes the effectiveness of limiting home water usage now. Now consider reducing home density. Using the M3-Eagle Plan's usage of 380 gpd/ home, only 21,700 homes can be supported by the N. Foothills aquifer. This limitation means Eagle and Ada Co. can either allow the seven developers to implement nearly their planned densities at this usage rate and allow no homes for any future foothills developments, or they can distribute the home density, which if evenly distributed at 0.6 homes /acre, would limit M3-Eagle to 3,400 homes. This 388 gpd/home water usage rate then has undesirable and unjustifiable impacts on area residents. Note that Ada Co. is proposing to limit N. Foothills development to less than 11,000 homes, as identified in their 2006 Draft N. Foothills Sub Area Comp. Plan. The 11,000 homes are just under my estimate of 14,400 homes using my smaller realistic recharge value. Another factor is the hills. The M3-Eagle Plan notes that 57% of their area has a slope of less than 20% which I consider reasonable for building. At that same percentage the seven developers will have 10,500 buildable acres. As computed above the aquifer will only support 21,700 homers at the M3-Eagle Plan's usage rate. If we allow 4,000 homes on the 20,000 acres (1/5 acres) outside the planned developments. the seven developers can develop 17,700 homes on their 10,500 buildable acres for a density of 1.7 homes / buildable acre =1 home /gross acre. This 1.7 home density is compatible with the Eagle Comp. Plan and shares the density and aquifer somewhat fairly between all residents. After wells are developed and a better water budget defined, development plans can be adjusted for more or less density. That density will allow M3-Eagle to develop only 6.000 homes. not 12,000. on their 3,423 buildable acres. Summary All these calculations show we must conserve water to preserve our aquifer in the N. Foothills and allow equitably sharing among all residents. They also show that M3-Eagle Plan's density and water usage are to high forthv- future growth of the valley. Also note the calculations included only homes, not parks or golf courses and I must assume all developers can use the waste water to maintain additional facilities. These problems then require Eagle to: - Equitably limit water usage by all developments in the N. Foothills using CC&R constraints, - Monitor and control water usage to equitable limits, - Protect Eagle's municipal water from appropriation by prior rights by coordinating with IDWR to reduce water right amounts, and by requiring developers to define the usage area of municipal water applications to include nearby Eagle property, - Coordinate with Ada Co. and IDWR to implement equitable water use restrictions for the whole N. Foothills, and - Continue to use irrigation water wherever possible to maintain the aquifer in the valley and maybe improve cross flow into the N. Foothills. Eagle can act now in the N. Foothills to mitigate the eventual impact of a valley water shortage or Eagle can do business as usual and leave any over allocation of water and lack of coordination to be corrected by your successors and the State Legislature. Eagle should lead now on water conservation just as they have led on building restrictions for the flood plain. References Used: - Petrich & Urban, 2004 IDWR Report - Characterization of Ground Water Flow in the Boise Basin, - Scott Urban, 2000 IDWR Report,Water Budget for the Treasure Valley Aquifer System for the Years 1996 and 2000, - Arizona State 1980 Groundwater Management Code, - Arizona Plan for the Third Management Period, adopted 13 Dec. 1999, - Ada Co. Draft N. Foothills Sub Area Comprehensive Plan, 2006, - M3-Eagle Development Plan of 1 Aug 2006 with updates to Sept., - SunCor Idaho water application with IDWR for Permit 63-32061 and their permit 63-31966. I