Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Minutes - 2007 - Planning & Zoning - 06/11/2007 - Regular
ORIGINAL THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 660 E. Civic Lane June 11,2007 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6: 19 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Felix, Zastrow, Pierce, Aspitarte, McCarrel. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. A-8-07 & RZ-IO-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA - Hormaechea LTD. Partnershio: Hormaechea LTD. Partnership, represented by Michael Honnaechea, is requesting approval of an annexation of 372-acres and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition-Ada County Designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) for 100-acres, R-4-DA (Residential up to 4 units per acre maximum with a development agreement) for 140-acres, and R-2-DA (Residential up to 2 units per acre maximum with a development agreement) for I 32-acres. The 372-acre site is located north of Floating Feather Road, south of Beacon Light Road, approximately 2,640 feet west of Lanewood Street east and west of Palmer Lane. This item was continued from the May 21, 2007 meeting. The applicant is requesting this item be continued to the July 2,2007 meeting. Pierce introduces the item. Pierce moves to continue this item to the July 2, 2007 meeting. Seconded by McCarreI. ALL A YES...MOTION CARRIES. Pierce moves item B to item C. Seconded by Aspitarte. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. B. (C.)CPA-6-07 - City of Eal!le: The City of Eagle is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to achieve the following: 1) Adoption of the Eagle Foothills Sub-area Plan and associated text and maps; 2) Adoption of Brookside Sub-area Plan and associated text and maps; 3) Update appropriate sections of the existing plan to ensue consistency with the proposed amendments. This item was continued from the May 17, 2007 meeting. Pierce introduces the item. Nichoel Baird Spencer, City Planner, gives an overview of the plan. Stands for questions from the Commission. General discussion of the Ada County Comprehensive Plan and Planned Communities. Susan Buxton, City Attorney, responds to questions from the Commission. Applications have to be processed by the City. The map may only be amended every 180 days. Pierce opens the public hearing. John Petrovsky, NACF A, discusses the plan and believes that it is "not there yet." Discusses densities. Would like a firm analysis on impact, vision and traffic. Presents a slideshow submitted for the record. Ken Tanner. 4585 West Bluefield Court. Discusses traffic issues in this area. Would like a better plan for the traffic. Bob West, 5035 Willow Creek Road, reads a letter submitted for the record. Main issue is traffic. Dennis Peer, 4674 Willow Creek Road, discusses extension of Eagle Road, which turns into Willow Creek Road. Gene Benson, 3505 N. Eagle Road. Discusses that change is inevitable. Asks the Commission to Page 1 of6 K\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary tl-finules Work Area\PZ-06-11-07spmin 00(' look at their motives. Discusses the plan. Pierce discusses the public process and that we are trying to move forward as the City as a whole. Sharon Prindell, 2731 N. Hollybrook Road. Discusses the growth. Martha McMurry, 902 Stillwell Road. Discusses traffic and proposed growth. Submits a letter for the record. Kathy Pennisi, 3675 N. Saddleman Place. Discusses the proposed foothills plan and Soaring 2025. Reads a letter for the record. Brett Garrigan, 1450 Artesian. Introduces himself and turns his turn over to Bob Nahass. Bob Nahass, 4951 Hawcrest Lane. Feels this proposed development is not good. Discusses economics. Reads a letter for the record. Why are we in such a hurry. Alaysa West, 5035 Willow Creek Road. City should accommodate current residents before others that may be wanting to move here. Discusses open space issues. Reads and submits a letter for the record. CJ Thompson, 4831 Willow Creek Road. Discusses preservation of the wildlife habitat in the foothills. Also discusses the tax assessment for this year. Butch Groothis, 4890 Saddleman Place. Has read the plan and doesn't feel that it will accommodate the proposed growth. Reads and submits a letter for the record. Jim Banducci, Hull Drive. Moved here from Boise for the openness of the area. Does not believe the development will pay for itself. Discusses tax increases and does not want to have to pay for this development. Steve Purvis, 3939 Brookside Lane. Submits information on City levy rates and implications of the financial implications of the plan on Eagle and the surrounding area. Rachel Winer, 910 Main Street, Boise. Here representing Idaho Smart Growth. Commends the City of Eagle for working with them. Feels that more studies need to be done. Recommends to keep zoning similar to how it is now. Sherri Randall, Beacon Light Road. Discusses groundwater issues and open space. Asks the Commission to lower the proposed density. Russell Vanliew, 97 Fisher Street. Fisher Street is south of Beacon Light. Trying to understand the impacts the plan will have in the citizens of Eagle. Displays the map from the Compass regarding the roads and the first map regarding traffic on the City's website. Does not understand the maps pertaining to Eagle Road. Displays copies of articles from the Idaho Statesman and ACHD. Discusses impact on water and schools. Theresa Vanliew, 97 Fisher Street. Reads and submits a letter for the record. Discusses the growth and feels it is too much. Discusses traffic issues. Discusses an e-mail address at voiceeagle.com. A short recess is called. Meeting reconvenes at 8:36 p.m. John Kathmann, 144 E. Fisher Drive. Feels the first priority should be transportation and the construction of Route 44 and 16 be constructed. Discusses open space. Will developer be liable for infrastructure costs. Does not want the taxpayers to be stuck with the cost. Would like more collaboration with the county to plan for the foothills. Gill Simpson, 854 Hialea. Commends the Commission and Nichoel Baird Spencer on their job. Displays a map ofBLM land and foothills. Discusses density in the Foothills. Page2of6 K.\P&Z\i\.1INUTES\Temporary t\1inutes Work Area\PZ-06-II-07spmin.DOr Brent Pipal, President Bighorn HOA. Discusses traffic impact of the City. Asks for the Commission to represent the citizens. City needs money for this. What is the upside for the city? Submits a letter for George Kennedy regarding the proposed widening of Eagle Road. Jason Steiner, 1765 N. Eagle Road. Asks the Commission not to make Eagle Road 5 lanes. Joanne Pence, Boise. Has concerns with Highway 55. Discusses Dry Creek Ranch and Shadow Valley/Kastera planned communities that are already in process with Ada County. Discusses vehicle trips. Asks the Commission to leave the zoning as it is. Gary Allen, 601 W. Bannock, Boise. Here representing the Connolly family. They have submitted several comments to the Commission. They are looking to request up to two units per acre. Connolly's would like to be part of Eagle. Asks the Commission to work with them. Asks that they defer decision on the plan so some issues can be worked out. Stands for questions from the Commission. Joan Linden, 4690 Hartley Road. Has a fear of developers going through Ada County. Submits a copy of a plat she received in the mail today. Sam McCloud, Treasure Valley Livestock. Commends the City for the Commission planning rather than the County. Mike Thomas, 597 E. Rooster Court. Thanks the Commission for putting their time and energy into the plan. Discusses some of the studies that have been done for the area and impact fees for the developers. Glyda Bockwell, 4845 N. Kirdam Place. Has lived in Eagle for 33 years. Can see the BLM land from her place. Bought their property to live in rather than for in investment. Feels that just because you buy property shouldn't mean you get to develop it. Discusses a wine district in the foothills area. Bill Choate, Idaho Transportation Department. Discusses the transportation for the areas. There is no long range plan. Bob Harmon, 1600 E. Aerie Lane. Has resided in the foothills for 14 years. Borders the Suncor and Connolly property. Feels all aspects in this plan have been covered. Would support it moving forward. John Tomkinson, Star. On the Ada County Zoning Commission. Plat approvals are based on a traffic study. Discusses the Ada County Plan. People cannot afford to work and live here. Feels that area should be left alone. Discusses the tax notices recently received and increases. Stands for questions from the Commission. Susan Buxton, City Attorney, clarifies that this application is an amendment to the current plan. A short recess is called. Meeting reconvenes at 9:40. Lynne Sedlacek, Eagle. Discusses the fact the agenda is confusing. Discusses the City's budget. Believes there has been a good change at the County. Based on the financial access believes the area should stay in Ada County. Feels the M3 development should have density boundaries. Anne Ritter, 1270 W. Beacon Light, Meridian School District. Reviews a handout, submitted for the record, regarding projected Eagle foothills schools cost. Stands for questions from the Commission. Tom Hall, 80 W. Rush Court. Believes that planning is very important and believes it will help ease growth. Feels frustrated and doesn't understand what is going on. Lisa Mayer, 2302 N. Aldercrest Place. Asks the Commission to take the time and not let the Page 3 or6 K:\P&Z\.MINUTES\Temporary t\linules Work Area\PZ-06-1 I-07spminDOC developers run over them. Feels growth should be gradual. Has concerns with the air quality. Mary Wilson, 3560 N., Discusses traffic and the intersection down near Albertson's. Also discusses water issues. Julie Masoner, Eagle. Has lived in Eagle for 19 years. Feels there is a turf war going on between Eagle and Ada County. Counts on the Commission to represent the citizens. Randy Hall, Eagle, use to run an armored car company. Discusses the roads/traffic. Wishes that he didn't have to go to both the City and the County. Would like them to wait on their decision. Guy Hendrickson, 1772 Lakemoor Way. Feels frustrated as a resident regarding the relationship between the County and the City. Requests that they work together. Agrees with planning for the foothills and reaching ajoint plan with the County. Dave Kangus, 1715 Canal Street. This is not just a City issue. It is part of the County as well. Discusses current growth and transportation. Also discusses taxes and impact fees. Take care of the current issues before expanding. Nichoel Baird Spencer, gives clarification of questions/statements brought up during the hearing. CJ Thompson, discusses the density and asks for clarifications. Pierce closes the public hearing. C. (B.)CPA-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06-M3 Eal!le - M3 Eal!le: M3 Eagle, represented by Gerry Robbins, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include +/- 6,005- acres into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan designating the following land use and zones: 40-acres Residential Rural (up to 1 unit per 5-acres), I ,627-acres Residential Estates (up to 1 unit per 2-acres), 470-acres Residential One (up to one unit per acre), 670- acres Residential Two (up to two units per acre), 1,250-acres Residential Three (up to 3 units per acre), 670-acres Residential Four (up to four units per acre), nO-acres Village Center, 88-acres Mixed Use, with an annexation with Pre-Annexation Agreement, a rezone with a Development Agreement, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Eagle City Code Section 8. 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 more specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file with the City of Eagle. Public Testimony will only be taken on the Annexation/Rezone applications and the associated development agreement. This item was continued from the May 17, 2007 meeting. Pierce moves to continue to CPA-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06-M3 Eagle to July 9, 2007 at 6:00. Seconded by Aspitarte. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. CPA-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06-M3 Eal!le - M3 Eal!le: M3 Eagle, represented by Gerry Robbins, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include +/- 6,005- acres into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan designating the following land use and zones: 40- acres Residential Rural (up to 1 unit per 5-acres), 1,627-acres Residential Estates (up to I unit per 2-acres), 470-acres Residential One (up to one unit per acre), 670-acres Residential Two (up to two units per acre), 1 ,250-acres Residential Three (up to 3 units per acre), 670-acres Residential Four (up to four units per acre), nO-acres Village Center, 88-acres Mixed Use, with an annexation with Pre-Annexation Agreement, a rezone with a Development Agreement, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Eagle City Code Section 8. 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 more specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file with the City of Eagle. This item was continuedfrom the May 17, 2007 meeting. Page <I of6 K\P&Z\r...t1NUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-06-11-07spminDOC B. CPA-2-07 _ ComDrehensive Plan MaD Amendment from Residential Three to Mixed Use _ Stahl ProDerties. LLC: Stahl Properties, LLC, represented by Hans Linton of Red Rock Development group, LLC, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to designate a land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential Three (three (3) units per acre) to Mixed Use. The 10.24-acre site is located on the northwest corner of East Hill Road and North Echohawk Way more specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file at the City of Eagle. This item was continuedfrom the May 14, 2007 meeting. C. CP A-3-07 - ComDrehensive Plan MaD Amendment from Residential Three to Mixed Use _ DEB ProDerties. LLP: DEB Properties, LLP, represented by Shawn L. Nickel of SLN Planning, Inc., is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential Three (three (3) units per acre) to Mixed Use. The one (I )-acre site is located approximately eight hundred feet (800') west of Highway 55 more specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file with City of Eagle. This item was continuedfrom the May 17, 2007 meeting. D. CPA-4-07 - ComDrehensive Plan MaD Amendment from Residential Two to Mixed Use- Elov ChaDarro. Jr: Eloy Chaparro Jr., represented by Shawn L. Nickel of SLN Planning, Inc., is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential Two (two (2) units per acre) to Mixed Use. The 1.97-acre parcel is located approximately % mile north of Chin den Blvd. Specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file with City of Eagle. This item was continuedfrom the May 17,2007 meeting. E. CP A-5-07 - ComDrehensive Plan MaD Amendment from Residential Estate to Residential One - Mark Beckman: Mark Beckman, represented by Chris Todd of Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc., is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to establish a land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential Estate (one (\) unit per two (2) acres) to Residential One (one (1) unit per acre). The 27.74- acre site is located on the northeast corner of Meridian Road and Floating Feather Road more specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file at the City of Eagle. This item was continuedfrom the May 17,2007 meeting. F. CP A-8-06 - ComDrehensive Plan MaD Amendment to desil!nate +/- 2.000-acres of BLM land as Public/Semi-Public - City of Eal!le: The City of Eagle is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to establish a land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map of Public/Semi-Public for the BLM property. The +/- 2,000-acre site is located approximately 'I.-mile east of State Highway 16 and directly north of the Fanners Union Canal. This item was continuedfrom the May 17,2007 meeting. G. CPA-IO-06 - ComDrehensive Plan MaD Amendment to establish a Desil!nation of Foothills Cluster and Foothills Conservation - Avimor. LLC: Avimor, LLC., represented by Robert Taunton, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Text Amendment to include +/- 23,320-acres into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan designating the following land uses: +/- 7, 100-acres Foothills Cluster Development (not to exceed 2 units per acre) and +/- 16,220- acres Foothill Conservation Development (1 unit per 40-acres). The +/- 23,320-acre site is generally located from Highway 55 on the east to Willow Creek Road via Big Gulch on the west, the northern boundary is approximately five (5) miles north of the Ada/Gem County line, the southern boundary abuts the Connolly and Kastera properties more specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file at the City of Eagle. This item was continued from the May 21, 2007 meeting. Pierce moves to continue item 3C and items A through G to the June 25th meeting. Seconded by McCarrel. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. Page 5 of6 K\P&Z\J\..IINUTES\Temporary Minute~ Work Area\PZ.06-11-07spminDOC 5. ADJOURNMENT: Pierce moves to adjourn. Seconded by McCarrel. ALL AYES.. .MOTION CARRIES. Hearing no further business, the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: APPROVED: (-; --------- ------- ."",u.. _., ..... .......,; 1(,/>.Gtf;' .... ,." O~ ........ ~ ,-- .. '. . ~:,. o~" r € .... '.::. ...1-.. ~ e. ':. . ...... .. i t..J. 0 .' ;:: 0 : \u , ","\>~....: . <. r' Q...... \. _. Sv t-,,~.:"!f:l ~ ..I'V('OR\)O~.. $1 "llI: ........ ~ ~ """ S]' A Tl':. 0.......,; .,".....',.'It: lJD--fr" ~ .~ vSHAR NK.BERGMANN CITY CLERK/TREASURER A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V A1LABLE AT CITY HALL. Page6of6 K:\P&Z\!l.1INUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-06+ll-07spminDOC EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING CO 1 1 SION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET e , 11 CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06-M3 E+a 1 - M3 Eagle PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? if .c2& ` E0 "mac .4-ee 9, -6w/5')( ,e,s - - Wi.---rk Y-2- C ei, ;.icon 42,1A) . 1,..-r C ��.�,+ 13S-70) J7 IC -4--j r�4'E- Ucen. L 424,0 9'7 F274(14- 135 - -917 K Lk, 1 I-- ii- h FlShl1 4Cr121 (AkOi . - Lori �� k kki, ., q?i- ?-7(f J S75-A—v-)1 1 447:1h ti / (;fA � « Ter.tcT �s 1 Iv II L .Tev•.)PazU is 1 I &<(/ a(Acc4/ //3 C'(e.,eit;'S 9 9-e 7 O X ate ; e Aart . yq‘t0 V\ CNN-Ck R \ C'Sct-4g- 4ier /, 1.471 sff'1-7/, /ezto-qi-g?f- )./ A/c ;i`, 6 6 4er 4-rti , �tL 90 lin X ve4 / ,s ', 'f- 3 -CY V Ai `1±t _q 3s '— Ai`Q,ro\k # \ 7`I l2 er„4 , 73 $Z lD X NIe-S (ID aot4 ).citiot 010 N . 1._.(riev (0 4 -072,c' )eU et/2s yI i `-'r/ £! e k4 M�7/C' \ ieS Ai -CL e fiL c TA ]d...L 113-7- E gee(toy 4 Rd 0,-6/ X EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2007 CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06-M3 Eagle - M3 Eagle PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? C l a ti, p /�I i c_kS y3 ?- 4 It_ttce b f e Li. 93 6/.6b isgi i N%, Ai, gam: 44, `f2,C D,,,,, S l-y, z4--9 /I. 3 k kie 44:a -t /mac.-ti' �kC-'i \ (.0h,vGr- 1 'T tic, - SSe - ( - � /7-1,,14.e. �,1f I r l �‘W W/00 T l ( 41`. ( 1 63���eo t l7 fed 1e.il 1,6 -sz- clfr,,c_f.ietice,0„_9-xl-10.9- --.......,A,:vti\d '` co. i'`'Nlscfc, — f-1 .. 57�-2, 4- i s'ei J ' i Aid s\ � ti k i ►Q do ki \,..,.-ce_‘\.41-,_ ei e I -.Tht, Cti - C4e- ‘./ 0 0 %'sue. 8 c3 ESE fLD#; hCd a.'S-Go35 `-' 110 7'et odau„,t_ /ik- / 7"40 t'--y &i____ ALLr-) 'oY )W -674 1 F =+V 9 9? VS)) / /iit) 1\11.tktavi 127- 14-4c qrt 2ibt I. 13 o , al2 -mpi `37o ( it / -Pi zee-. 61-0 Arc)_ ,,Sc ci4 01+iA % S :36o L,, . SQ --norz ,e6c� --'r33 Ai 0 31t'e" Rhf,u ,v ;3f7/ Gc; �.ii 'Jr -1-51C t/ iv) 3 ' 14� .) y bAf l'?z n, , PLa y 4 3Z - 36 ri .//Yo jr� SYe„c 4?i./c 7e .' SS, / /use 1/ `- 3 F7--9//z / ' rag j - J Ci 93g d4- V o a JbLvt1Q n Si-. SA=1.09 33-3-tebY(.5 y_., /Vd n.119 44 PAC 7 1. w .- a,c31 cT `g it -Ze3 2 17 Mi -/'.iC e 3173 a m q n '8-0 ✓ a l l i, Vel �l l,� �. 5 r l f- 9 36i-g33� l 7 EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2007 CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06-M3 Eagle - M3 Eagle PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? yl _� 90 A/ W�( -93(-/ 2 (Mt�a e4f ` I l l 1 i I / f V Ce - Crct b l K . /-77s e r 9 3q -, I V /t6 n cs N.1•4r0,-(v i3i- t i0 / va L c D 56e- NO Aft en -el GJ 13, -0302 v W _),2JZLJ- /1 x , zz/.5i- ley k9z ,ez517 yis /-e.o/e /1 �rA- 4>9/ . 2;zy(4 3Y' 1 ‘-c>? (/- ��, dkul Cris ho-c kka& w- l (7 e ZEE- 3h ✓ d L 4 {ff � klaimi -a'S L) . `r��c96 l',.,0 ie.& sp w f2,51, R 3i-v Ind ✓ y� 49 ja,„ -d cJ Q atne 21 �/ `N U r (V 4) - z ci t 3 1� I �, , 3403W S„,f-iv c?►3g'3144/ v --- 0 ukice,i Mil al'I, i N 53(17 r. 1 3$ -14 z3 %/ y e s T�\.)l ill att It t ,. ✓ «YrCv\ YA 43� �� dt3q- 53zy ✓Ara ey L� .7 /%?5-% �, r $��'JG6/{7 �ior 91 /q7 t,r ti fr y es 1,4 c-6,-"- r--11- zic,7",rif____ Y21/3 A) e,,.(7-. pc__ • -i.2. Ii?3) / yii‘..,,,,,, fi.i ti GI pL -1 s ,Z? Ai ( Lit . 'i 0511 ✓ -41P I -elbs e► oc951-ems ?M- It v EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2007 CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06-M3 Eagle - M3 Eagle PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY N • I ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? -1 / / 6%. J6 7 ✓ 46 11 4 NT1 1D6pn 125< , ' -Anr Q 7 C tiA.b tVARCIOp N-1 l&) Sutieir Plf c19-fl-?)02. V ‘ve- 5`7 (5) •.548n 3q ta. k :r -r a•tikLe 4. '-iPb,rx Cri- QR3g i�kaL i/ f k �. 5,A,,-k.ti) 3 la -no, t-Gq a .7-iI)-1 l/ iziep, 1 kt i$ 7 ' 7 shek fidek g»-it,9 SF.--Q) Di 46 Y/Z -3 378 f7' e,1‘.7t , €i 6t1,-,- Iet ki �/ S e r5l i..1 6 gi--OoG ktb.1 c !1i) ',.4, g3�- � 1,,C „i(.4�c, ✓ izc3t M 6.4A.,.,s iy42 N.if-cl,4 c/or, fi,939-ryGti rri/ 4ttki C' VaiW 102 A C',9,11-M. I41144c in-2174 1 DA N &LI VA-K1- 3 I 2(o N 620r7 wR-I 99 1020 Cate> i i ii-cr 3/6 Q. (dui--291/' ' '3tY-c/z(Le `1 J . - u ,44 P/ sit 2 -74 5 1-M)zL Lig 3 / - Ke`! Ho ft,-(4,„ yi;, 1'/ 3) / ,4 j fly �f zG e, ,i,,,,,,, ,, ...., - Omits /69 f , i Zo o(' z `i,3') /3E3 '/ fr iqs(ER t 1017-Ai IopAz- y3g©062-- V QL,„,c e eS , P 3 67 5 OP p 1cd& 939 --32- EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2007 CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06-M3 Eagle - M3 Eagle PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? ,,,,,1_,,,, ,ir.i.d- 3-Y6 AftS 4, R Q-, 3- l Sem 91435 lack gut Q/N' 1 3 S Ron s4 0, ali, l 3 q- g l a 6 X r .p, \\C � & - Set, gA I�\ „^R '-1- 5 s4 PI, batA M,AAVr- (c 4 iCcqcv-r( e, 5 x NO 7Jt4L) Ca-71vivo ii i br na, 2 b -71.N x h 4 YL A-v t.5 (e q P id ,Lopez MI als 939 i3P3 X ,4 o Al i',(A- P � i 38Z5 ki, J P b, `3 i-833)-- NO , , 14c0,/-1 1g 0.\ u lic(!ac.s ta,ts,.. C1 9"- 3 4"I `/ Ai h(c1n/t 1, „ c� N)ANC-3 ojE _,II NN gtNGi 9�5S-110/5�+ +`-, /Jo 1\VC. tOS +L-3l I'//S CANAL V/-_c( V //r" e ` J -t4- .-,,Si\ 50 4. e►, g361.22Iq , x y -Ai f e/214(4'W '`325 /. /20ler lefi j:39- 7/ }C ,9c, zi,frifZi'd‘74.643 sw/t/./w/iiii .13,/'-o7 x g04,6- FC70 Uirteit v Ov- 119 /gS-i) X ,kGi1PP5 / r a VI/ i c�i/v5. f (aCi (Pt).i jfbRA, /ai, Ali., i-66Sc 7 / E z7iY \/ .e..ro-ce f%a-5`.�L-z X- .1/0 iirk ` tr.Ail �S 23`716 C akes 93Vciil K 0..Yo Pqi/ PIt«f .4/%, 30S6, ,// Jr. 9177- 722 — x 0 EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2007 CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06-M3 Eagle - M3 Eagle PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? i0t/WA a C/ l h-f 105 w, 'aci q39-0933 X o k1( Czy- JO CI r o w/; &)P,tab.hy (2 73 7C1'3 X UV .O B p ympt-r�I Z! 1(0 CA)•) 13 `t -4448 Ro.S L KikpgYM4jl 2(1(. Cr*1 t R '31-41493 X EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2007 CPA-6-07 - City of Eagle PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTI Y /40/-1/J e-7-4 s-4-40-1Z, // ✓ / ,fit S _- /GEO.E.- !ems o?J � P�u r- / 1 6- -ivy _si ) p9- i R.�zTCca01l5 �J 61/11' ydV /4t4.syd_r_uoar c---\/ - leS-cu-t esa s.3 ./, r- ( 61/4irc I (-1�-j /' K -ki 1 .// �I , u 1S Ly j i Pig-f l - / 7.4 L, OF-se- t/ i ' r; t,iciat( d'2P c.T60erc 64„ q3 9-4, 24 f d ((GI LiA, ,4\ kvec IctrGti ✓/r (9 V l I O ' in ' •Ut ) / 7 -V -,- 1 V1 / J/ r ) _SI.,. , ,.. ,t.,,,,. , r Lk 4 E F1/4- St.-Qi \ Ci 0 - 2-V( I )( to" K r X. i /L3 -Q _ 51vKIS[,cti 837 i-i„ca.,.(,. Q3'1.-O327 ✓ .✓//i6., Wad vvay64 0( s�,� q g '/i?3 L,.,4.. Se_diLl EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2007 CPA-6-07 - City of Eagle PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? 41K 44o ye-Ceel-- 7a w 4i.4Ggar, 46' r /\ EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2007 CPA-6-07 - City of Eae1e PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? irt/34-- (-2/Ck-aJti 3re(-- / (ft;l 45-1 rt . ( U0IA) f'gJ'� ,y3, lq 2U-717 4 X C#914 A to er,esi\Arkkte.i\ r-r- (GM tA Cmcra I/4a 3 q -`i' c-0 3 4 ...S� ii.\ n l \I S4- , ,,. t e�.\ a S-e r,t ar c/ 7 ti ei tl _ c' JZi 3 N a 1 . 4i lA (Sl (4 6( efi, et.523isz x ltp e_O4N,,e.„ 2324 Al �t.5_.,,5.. i f Lip, 131-373c r '! J.1- c s `I6/ i'c} o, et 1 93y6`�JG X. - t ;:: c41-'3 • a'/7/€,;�- 7 ^"" //O►t5 ep: f66 - )62 y Pt 6 0/ei/VW y132 X ,d,q«9rY4/& 9? -.;722, X xd ,i','//</ o) . r3t90 I4l t —DOde 9 3 `)-6 93 3 (io /� -7 �lG�-''ir YI'1 / // g- 939 -7zs- V xjd J EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Juneil, 2007 CPA-6-07 - City of Eae1e PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? TESTIFY? / qo I t , �k'�(l� Cf i \ Z 2, "4/ 66 Lk7 1 1 3/.1-i tf, ,�u' ) ass fc,, i •. 1/2a e4,'s -&f6Z1 q'3.y -r; -x, a 1/� ay._, 3_z c L L%q Q VI C -,,ci )\ R3i -sk W4:, 39 A . F/c�? 4 6-//si3 - li, u i j- s i\i , ,i- ctr ast ?$' ✓ &cc e)f `� e,la mop( 2J 9 2 Prate L44-4 "38 '2 >( tlAliew ti Gui-i L i i C t�. I ncIe/ Pti 43I -G-7Z5 ?‘ Ae-vi Mni'/hr) , 2/t -Opu1.it 5 L-n 2 -9) 3 )- elaine I.i2-ks 113A EBeacan l.`t 10 93y-6,�/g" X k'0 Ai- It, c_k s ' ' '' / NC d ''AA .. __ h. A r(�4ttekd t"eto A), 66614: et4/1-0770 t, . /'. 7. 1.1:///jr A --/3/ #/1,— j A/0 1 litCO' GCL1- 21" Ng /fi® !f Ov- ,.2,g-47‘,3X-- % J' - :222. 3 / t l� es �Ika, (IkLaM,, liS 11-6)(c<<k `'.g-OW )' K--7 32 w . --,i) OANtikk lg 03eC1 X S,1 t.� �i `i _ c r/trAAJLA-49\claktlrct\0a -t-di, a 9- f61-r7J_ThA, P! 731,36 g i X' c\:3 • SA-‘nc.f 17bc N,Eci jr (7c1 q3/' 30 ? Yc. � ,,, �t1 ,,-cs p, J tV4 T�fh �ic -L Q t 4 � �i� � X MOS 6--/1`l tAt,_r1 ab'7 S C. G.), ,,_ C. VC 2`//6/ K X Y'75 v J • EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2007 CPA-6-07 - City of Eaele PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY / NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? 6 AL, Go i W ..L,,,,ovAts,300 atb / iz,� /�7,1/ 079 g- id -27c &_,ce_tei Pu (cv CJiiCti iii i1 rDr „78'6 otw-z3C.1S , c , k44 .�( �� � S 274}-71 %,lt/ t Cry/cPl et3t- 07VZ 1/ J. y 72.4 k' R vs-h C fi `i3 t - 3z ✓ /A/alHa-r 577-3tv thav4i4 cor-ec?4 N d ,./3&-(it-----3(t. Mr,C.o , w /�/I ,,� / , , 7 it 7 lOreii� _ m,,, .e( lc S i lc-, sLier F37-?3% 17e) la. * ItIP IV r a - 5 Ty , or c-t57q311, v No OA- ike_9,, 1 s - - e. e PA 1, cr86?( --- i,,,) Ki , it14/64,emmytid TY7P t 1 A ilii-ci v- Lafre., qs-i--966 17 .. told CI;4 e icif,s I,,, oG�DGi 5 i/I i%l. < < ' \ c_ c 'e -cSw' / o0 Al (2.z.01/4 to �139-0389 i. iae, "%i9-2 zis 1/ fie r) vy ✓ e , ,al(Ar- �_ V,P6 7c t- 46 9.p 4tn c.- 617 id.. if ? 2 - r,36 s t.7 6' / 373e-er-ii/f)6,ne3e7Ps 7 ! � - I �'I�G'c:,uidd‘ C� Tz_71,(:"},1,0A)..‘ cJW ; rL c�� 1- CZ IS) S , 8r4»icy 5��-9)St_ fl P� Wei -f e rrs C �a� F,_�-�_� �- u� 46 ;� hi /2 G, �7 S /.y i / 4& ‘-y h%' /s g 00 / I /t4 -OcQ_NVK -Tro ? e "ck 1 MI . c V' I . 4`\ I t/ il 0 • EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET June 11, 2007 CPA-6-07 - Citv of Eagle PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? / h/ `'-‘k G ik i 1/ 74 q 5 ,64.06 s r 4c -T.- SSA -‘ ?, , 0•\\._-.',---\---t\f-c-,w '5-\\-- c, x ' r_tov._ L.J. r he 1) ,-Lmvsic-)\--rozo j p - At- N, c:, k�.;,).s 1 a f3 S`- opt 2 $ p (..; (J EW 6r_4d9.4 3 2 I (iv . Se, ti 4,- D» . fil 39 - 30 s, A • 9-6 S /4 v 56.26 / o ��t i 93' 6 873 ?�' N 6� of /ij A- v'd � te_viric, (1)(4I604- te. 231 Lt..) Y)e e 4,re(0l e4 1'68 -1 % -\C' EK . Fl n c L) o I f- ,31 9 r -140 L( D r . et 39- V(73 r7 iL4 ,• G4 krZ -) Oa -A. 21-1210 N , 6-bpi 1L'/ y3'-- lS 2O No Gam; VLAciL,--.4 3 � C Cl 4. ,,- ( � iDi a - .0 49 Ole .1Migre-II L/5i. C e� 93f-Q0 V es 1 0 CD m )CD 0 vcn_ v a.n < - m m m o' v Cn Cn c CA 3 ccoo o 5 cn CD= cn = cn O c o C co m m 0 c ET o to 0- CD m II CD W NO II N -4 W -o O fOcn �) II O O Co N ", C ? 0. 0 CD c m W O cn ? � 0 O Cn Cn CD a (D C 0) CC) CD CD CL CD N CD N 73. Preliminary plats already approved in Eagle area of impact as of 9/26/06: spaaN 6ui;s!x3 2mM KmcD 00v v v cD CD CD ;a' cn <coco[=o.30vvCDCDm2c)m cn E. co g ccDD cD°_ K D o 2 m n�3Ncncn-a�Q3v a) o q v 2 T X p = C1 cD x- o m- ,., , 5- cn cD 3 w m co o oco0'm9c�i•�m3� 3 �$0 3=a o m N � 0000)1 O O O 1 O 0 O O O O W �I W OOCb�cor OOOOCoCJo N � ONCJl V �Cn CD W N CD CD N NNE. -1CJ1Cn WCb11 0303 NCOOD-P co v sn;e;S;uaunD PROJECTED EAGLE FOOTHILLS SCHOOL COST O NNN--►CD CbA0CAN� O O O O O O O O O O O a O O O O O cn N.) -A -A N (DCDN(D NO -co a) O O O O O 0 0 O O -A AA U1 W (D a) CO O A O C 0. CD Cn W W N N 4s-IOtV W W N 7" O Cn O Cn EA) EAb96AEn cnW--coa) a)P N CD -1 (b 0a)N3 ) , W N N a3 N3 cn co iD a) ) Co CO�N� D(n rn m 0 v Q 0. m EA EA to EA EA EA EA fA EA EA m m co3 Q) Q 0. m 2 (Q 0 a) (D' () (D 0 0 cn r-T CO cn a) cD O. 0 5- (D (D (0 O 7' (0 m 0 m -O CAD Cn (D 3 CD a O (D (D 0. 0 C O 8 O m C)) cn m O (A C) 0 O N cr 030 0 CD (D Cn V! a}ewl}s3 sIIly}ood Ili =gy cn'Qcom 0.3 Com0 ET o En o O O 0 0 0 co co 0 co A U1 (D O — W Q0�Co O (D O- ) 0 = •.<a)3 co O co 0c yam so - m 3a)3 cn o s) cn 3 O O � �0 o o o � m M Cn 0 • 0 C 0 CD O O. 0 OH 0 cn CO Q) N CD 0_ 0 0 cn 0 O O C 0 O r0 CD Q c)CD 0 W?WCA O 0 Cn 0. C 5 A� —N0. CC] A WOO 0 Q. c°DnoQI0co O CD c • N f) 3 CD CD (an) ,0.. CD CD CD 0 cn U) CD C) C 0 0-+W flCA :loops i q pa}eoolly Remaining legal debt capacity as of 4/1/06 60Z`58L'i'ZZ $ Total current bond indebtedness as of 4/1/06 : 000`89L` I.9Z $ O 3 (D S 0 CI 0 a cn 0 0 0 Cii (/)u)(gKC/)K (n (D 0(D (D 0) 0-' o 0 o o co co co Co O CD N CDO) O) U1 U1 O 0) 7 D a- v0) 0 (0 -t 00 CO ao v - -' o .a QQ N W-INW< C. NWO��I 0) (p 0 o • Cr:), o oCD fflfflfflIf, (VI fflffl W X W - (31?NN-I.N(D c (0 14 (71 O O .P -4 < pDNWCfl owl?O O O OOCoOOO N OOOU1OOO bbbbbbb CD CD D_ -10 O O O O O O O "0 a 0) ,. O 0) cn XI (D o (D 7 0 0 Sr? 4cLLtd /i/o7 Piz Fri, June 8, 2007 Proposed Widening of Eagle Road To Whom It May Concern: I have been advised that there is a proposal to widen Eagle Road to 5 lanes between State Street and Beacon Light in Eagle. It is more than ill advised. It is virtually impossible without huge funding, disruption and displacement of existing homes, and the quality of country life of which Eagle is justifiably proud. This proposal reeks of self-interest. Even 'three' lanes between State and Beacon Light would require bridge construction and retaining walls. I strongly vote against ANY widening which would as disruptive as such a proposal. With the widening of Linder underway for the expected increase of north/south traffic, destructive redundancy gains nothing for our community. Sincerely, 1 1. eetilAd Wi 7 Piz Morgan Masner 4325 W. Gray Teal Ct Eagle, Id 83616 Eagle City Council Eagle City Hall Eagle, Idaho 83616 Re: Draft Eagle Foothills Comprehensive Plan Amendment and application by the M3 Companies (CPA-14-06 and RZ-19-06) for rezoning with development agreement for 6005 acres in these Eagle Foothills. I have grave concerns regarding the above Plan and application some of which include: 1. Water. Applicant (M3) has submitted a request for new water rights to IDWR for 42.5 cubic feet/second peak flow (that's more than 19,000 gallons per minute). They propose to pump groundwater from existing aquifers for that entire water quantity. Although they propose irrigation with "gray water", aquifer recharge will be affected by loss of open ground to houses, paving, etc. 2. Density/Type of Development: The level of development proposed in the City's draft plan has already been mentioned. However, it is informative to study how M3 proposes to build their 5740 to 8150 housing units and about 300 acres of mixed use, including commercial, office and a 500-room hotel. (Current zoning for this land is one unit to forty acres, or 150 units.) Although M3 does include some "large lot" (5, 2, 1 acre) housing areas, the great majority of units proposed range from 4 to 20 units an acre. 3. Traffic: 160,000 to 210,000 car trips added every day, spread around and through downtown Eagle to South Eagle Road, State St., Hwy 44, Hwy 16 and Hwy 55. Major expansions to Highways 16 and 55 would be required to handle this traffic (just to get it to Highway 44/State Street and the Boise River), and major new connections of Hwys 16 and 55 southward to the freeway would also be required. The State highway department has no funding for the design or construction of any such expansions; at present, funds are available only for the environmental work associated with a Hwy 16 expansion. The following are examples of what also will be necessary to handle this traffic, based on available traffic studies (which in some cases do not agree with one another): • Widening Eagle Road (in Eagle) from Beacon Light or Floating Feather through downtown Eagle to at least 5 lanes (with a four lane Eagle/Willow Creek coming out of the foothills); • Widening Eagle Road to 7 lanes south of Highway 44; • Widening Floating Feather to 5 lanes between Eagle Road and Hwy 55; • Widening Beacon Light to 3 lanes between Hwys 16 and 55, ultimately going to 5 lanes; • Widening Linder to lanes south of Beacon Light (with a four lane Linder Road coming out of the foothills) • Widening Hwy 44 to 7 lanes between Linder and Eagle Road; • Constructing an overpass at Hwy 16 and Floating Feather; • Constructing interchanges (like Eagle Rd and I-84) at Hwy 16 and Hwy 44 and Beacon Light; • Upgrading Hwy 55 to 5 lanes north of Beacon Light to Dry Creek 4. Air quality: The effect of all this additional traffic on the Treasure Valley air shed. In the extreme case, violating federal air quality standards too many times could jeopardize access to federal highway funding/GARVEE bonds. 5. Schools: The M3 development alone is expected to generate the need for 9 additional schools, and M3 proposes to provide only the land. Eagle middle and high schools are already over capacity and the school district will be floating bonds well into the future just to catch up with existing need. New schools for this development are not currently in the school district's plans and would have to displace other requirements or go to the end of the line for funding. Where will all these additional children go to school until money can be found to build new schools for them...in our already overcrowded facilities? 6. The tax bill: Current residents will pay for those nine new schools in the M3 development and, even if developers pay for county roads (ACHD's position), we will likely bear at least some of the cost to acquire right of way and upgrade the state highways involved through a combination of GARVEE bonds, higher car registration fees and additional gas taxes. 7. The wildlife toll: What will happen to the mule deer, hawks, quail, burrowing owls, curlew, chukar, pheasant, song birds, foxes, badgers and coyotes which currently call the foothills home? What will they eat when the ground squirrels and other small mammals now living in the grass and ranch lands are developed? 8. Continued Foothills open space and recreation: It is important to us to continue using the foothills for recreation. Do you value the sense of place the foothills provide for Eagle? 9. Impact on the city: How does this "new city" to the north affect the downtown businesses and Eagle's ability to continure to attract new business to our downtown? Please include a copy of this letter with the hearing materials distributed to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Former Eagle City Councilman Yam^ 1,1111b7 fvz— Julie Masner 4325 W. Gray Teal Ct Eagle, Id 83616 Eagle City Council Eagle, Idaho 83616 Re: Draft Eagle Foothills Comprehensive Plan Amendment and application by the M3 Companies (CPA-14-06 and RZ-19-06) for rezoning with development agreement for 6005 acres in these Eagle Foothills. Dear Mr. Pierce and Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Eagle is about to lose a rare opportunity to actually prevent some of the problems that plague the treasure valley's urban areas. One need only look to Meridian to see what Eagle is about to become. I am greatly dismayed that Eagle's proposed draft foothills plan for the North Ada County Foothills includes greater density than is proposed by the county. There is no real provision for transportation. There is no thought to school overload as the school board is forced again and again to go to the voters to come up with more funding. The water issue remains a mystery to all but the developers. The taxpayers will be forced over and over again to subsidize developers. I understand that the City is limited in what they can demand of a developer, but let me remind you --it is not your mandate to ensure that developers can make a profit, large or small! I am especially concerned with the development proposed by the M3 Companies (i.e. 5740 to 8150 units of the 24,000-30,000 total). This development in the Eagle Foothills will likely have severe impacts on the City of Eagle and the entire Treasure Valley. These proposals will have a profound effect on our future quality of life. For example, I urge in the strongest possible terms that: You insist on a full, detailed understanding of all impacts of the south- and west- bound traffic this foothills development will generate (170,000 to 210,000 daily car trips). I am greatly concerned not only about the congestion which will result from this traffic locally and regionally but about the cost and timing of the road and state highway improvements which will be required to handle this traffic volume. You carefully consider the tax burden you will be imposing on residents of the Meridian school district. The M3 proposal, for example, will generate the requirement for nine additional schools, and the developer will only donate land. The cost of constructing, staging and operating those schools will fall on us. and the overcrowding of existing Eagle schools until new schools can be built causes me great concern. No entitlements be implied for or granted to M3 or any developer before the City Council has adopted the full North Foothills amendment to the City Comp Plan. 4. No entitlements be implied or granted until ACHD has a detailed plan in place for road and transportation issues, along with funding. There are many difficult issues, of which these are only a few, that need to be carefully analyzed and fully understood before you come to a recommendation on first, the Foothills Plan and, subsequently, M3 Eagle or other developer proposal. Please ensure that the concerns of the community are fully represented in your deliberations and that the development process is not rushed before the ramifications of Foothills development, at whatever level are fully understood and addressed. Please include a copy of my letter with the hearing materials distributed to the four Planning and Zoning Commissioners. Thank you for your consideration. IDAHO Smart Growth Vo7 Board of Directors Jane Lloyd I'rc�i�l�„t Rob Hopper ;< Charles Hummel Hill Clark Susan Eastlake Don Pena Pat Takasugi Staff Rachel Winer i .yccuticc 1 )irccun Elaine Clegg Deanna Smith IDAIIO Smart Growth 910 Alum Street Smite 314 Boise. I1) 83.02 PO I3o., 3-4 I3oise, I1) 83 -01 208-333-8066 i (yiidahosiiartororvth.or; aww.idahosnmrtgrowth.oq encouraging vibrant communities through sensible growth Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission PO Box 1520 Eagle, ID 83616 Fax: 938-3854 Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission PO Box 1520 Eagle, ID 83616 Fax: 938-3854 Re: Idaho Smart Growth comments on CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19- 06-M3 Eagle June 11, 2007 Dear Eagle Planning and Zoning Commissioners, The mission of Idaho Smart Growth is to build the capacity of Idahoans to shape the future of their communities as they envision it; to increase public awareness of the links between land use, transportation and quality of life; to educate Idahoans about the consequences of and alternatives to current development patterns; and to promote thoughtful long range planning and exemplary development policies at local, regional, and state levels. Approximately 75% of our members live in the Treasure Valley, and many of them reside in Eagle. We commend the City of Eagle for their participation in the process of creating the Blueprint for Good Growth (Blueprint) and for signing on to the Phase 1 Report and agreeing to pursue implementation. One of Idaho Smart Growth's main projects is to work with communities to ensure that Blueprint is implemented. Our comments on the M3 Annexation/Rezone applications and the associated development agreement are focused on compliance with Blueprint. Blueprint, in section GM-2, requires jurisdictions "ensure that development decisions are coordinated with the availability of essential public facilities so that adequate public facilities will be provided before or concurrent with the generation of demands for these facilities." (Blueprint for Good Growth Phase 1 Report, September 14, 2006, p.12). In section GM-21, the cities agreed to "base annexation decisions on the availability of essential public facilities... fiscal benefits, economic benefits, the need for additional development areas." (Blueprint for Good Growth Phase 1 Report, September 14, 2006, p.16). IDAHO Smart Growth encouraging vibrant communities through sensible growth The analysis of essential public facilities required by Blueprint has not been completed. For example, transportation is a critical issue in this area, and as both Blueprint and Communities in Motion illustrate, transportation and land use are critically linked. Blueprint calls to "[e]valuate development proposals and future land use map amendments, are consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan and the 20-year ACHD Capital Improvements Plan." The transportation study has not yet been complete. This proposal is not within either the current Eagle City Boundary or Eagle Area of Impact. The case has not been made to the public that either the Area of Impact needs to be extended or that the city boundary needs to grow. It would be premature to approve this application and development agreement at this point in time. Executive Director Idaho Smart Growth Rachelaidahosmartgrowth. org 208-333-8066 Current Eagle Road at Fisher Drive: 5:15 PM 5 Lanes on Eagle Road: 5:15 PM Y ROAD N. Vinnumnum ea)-vel 6/47 Pvz jLit_dbm h.\ ././#M4-41.41,..4(6014[-Nize a-.-r74r4frA.-411.\\4.1h. reeo, AVM 31111113 4.10\171_10 Tvitmorma .0.adtly PVIEGINIINA .0 Tort ArM1131111113X Ef JtAr gri rz-R .77.:11% M:51 tnel:4:113:11r 5;i1 till .0= ?‘.1m13 :19 :13:13,133 0JamaMm r. WO -• P43Elii 314ri RIO wwaIrig iWCpingrOJt J1.1 J & M SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN paps pg figliM Pg a PS= ang/0 AIM IT Nt DeVIR pg. sags, Stanley Consultants .4. INO I. SNP Sy SS SI WI" I) 131142 Pk DI 291-0573 Fs WI 2111-C674 -Ceur�d(fi(fO7 H7— How will any more lanes fit, without taking property from Eagle Citizens? ACHD Online - Print News/Press Release Page 1 of 2 NEWS t'44.044'1 ANALIVP ADA COUNTY IIIGIIWAY DISTRICT Saturday, December 23, 2006 3775 Adams Strcc Garden City. I1) 83714 208./ 387.6100 208 387.6391 - FA Information Contac Robbie Johnson Office: 208/387.62: Cell: 208/860.6628 Court nullifies Boise City action, says city should work collaboratively with ACHD A Fourth District Court judge ruled has ruled that Boise City overstepped its legal authority in trying to dictate how the Ada County Highway District builds roads. Judge Thomas F. Neville said Friday that the City Council violated Idaho law in July when it passed a Comprehensive Plan amendment to give the city veto power over road decisions. The judge urged the City to work cooperatively with the District on transportation planning — something ACHD said it has always been willing to do. In the ruling, Neville wrote that the City did "attempt to invade ACHD's authority and jurisdiction." "This court's decision should resolve the relationship between these parties," the judge wrote. "ACHD is the agency with controlling and exclusive jurisdiction over the public highway within its district." The ruling establishes clear lines of authority and creates the basis for future political give-and-take, said Craig Quintana, ACHD spokesman. It affirmed that the District, as an independent unit of local government charged by voters to oversee local roads, has the ultimate authority to plan roads but should continue to coordinate with the City. "The ACHD Commission has always been willing to deal in good faith with Boise City," Quintana said. "We went to court because the city chose conflict over compromise. The city has always acted as if it could dictate instead of deal." Much of the conflict over road -planning authority stems from the dispute between ACHD and Boise City over the pending expansion of Ustick Road, from Five Mile to Cole roads, to a five -lane facility. ACHD hopes to start construction on Ustick this winter. For two years, Boise officials have ignored ACHD's requests for suggested http://www.achd.ada.id.us/Departments/PR/News/PrintMe.aspx?ArticlelD=23 6/10/2007 ACHD Online - Print News/Press Release Page 2 of 2 modifications to the project to make it more to the City's liking, saying instead that the road should be only three lanes. But a three -lane road would hardly be an improvement over the mostly three -lane road that exists today and would divert traffic into other neighborhoods, according to an analysis from the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS). The City's stance represents a continuation of the Tate-1990s policies that resulted in the original three -lane Curtis Road — a result of Boise City's opposition to a five -lane facility — which had to be expanded to five lanes in 2000 to satisfy motorists' demands for better traffic flow. Neville's ruling parallels the conclusions of a June 1, 2006 opinion from the Idaho Attorney General's Office. The opinion was issued in response to a request from Boise City over whether the city or ACHD has ultimate control over the roads. Despite the negative answer, the City Council on July 11, 2006 passed the Comprehensive Plan amendment and triggered the lawsuit. ACHD had agreed to hold off on construction of the Ustick project until the court made its decision. With the ruling, work on the project's first phase, from Five Mile Road to Maple Grove Road, will move ahead as scheduled. http://www.achd.ada.id.us/Departments/PR/News/PrintMe.aspx?ArticleID=23 6/10/2007 Star area is a microcosm of the clash between rural lifestyles and housing developments I ... Page 1 of 2 IdahoStatesman.com Click Here to Print This Article October 13, 2006 Star area is a microcosm of the clash close between rural lifestyles and housing developments Heidi Skerratt doesn't live in Star, but the 43-year-old West Ada County homemaker has read through the city's guide for growth a couple hundred times in the past six months. The mother of two young children can cite entire passages of the town's nearly 60-page comprehensive plan without looking at the tattered copy she carries with her. She is passionate — but this is no labor of love. "I absolutely hate it," Skerratt said of studying the intricacies of planning, zoning and government processes. "We have better things to do." Skerratt and other Star -area residents have immersed themselves in the planning process — and taken on City Hall — because they feel their families' futures are at stake. They say they are driven by a desire to preserve the rural character of the area in the face of waves of residential subdivisions proposed and platted in the community. Star leaders say they haven't promoted the growth that is happening in West Ada, and they don't feel like it's in their job descriptions to try to stop it, or even slow it. They say the comprehensive plan is open to interpretation, and that's part of what's causing planning conflicts. Star -area residents have seen growth like never before in the past few years resulting in competing interests and visions for what Star is — and what it should be in the future. The growth has accelerated a clash between the city and the country, between the folks looking to escape the rat race and the farmers and developers cashing in on that demand, between newcomers who love the small-town feel of the Star Merc and old-timers excited to finally see new businesses sprouting up along with residential rooftops. All this has resulted in a November recall election for the mayor and three council members. development concerns Last year, the city issued 548 residential building permits. That was up from 146 in 2004, 102 in 2003 and 46 in 2002. So far this year, the city has issued more than 240. Growth is an increasing source of friction in the Star area, as developers gobble up land that some had expected — or at least hoped — would stay open countryside in the near future. "The majority of these large land pieces in the last nine to 12 months, they've been sold to developers," said Jill Hettinger, 32, referring to property on both sides of Can -Ada Road near her home on the Canyon County side. Hettinger and her husband have lived for three years on five acres along Somerset Lane. They viewed it as an ideal place to raise their children. "I want my kids to know where milk comes from. I want them to be in touch with nature," said Hettinger, a teacher who is pregnant with her second child. She would like the Star City Council to require new subdivisions to have more open space for wildlife and for recreation. She favors equestrian trails and large parks, not just the small neighborhood "pocket parks." "Have you seen some of the parks they put in?" she said. "Give me a break. Ann Morrison is a park." Hettinger, who has given testimony at Star City Council meetings, believes the concerns of rural residents have fallen on deaf ears. "They would not listen to the public at all ... not even one tiny little bit," Skerratt said. Skerratt and her sister, Amy Church, 36, a homemaker who lives on the Canyon County side of Can -Ada Road, are concerned about the higher -density subdivisions and what they believe to be haphazard planning. So they banded together with other residents in the area to form Star Citizens for Smart Growth. The sisters have dedicated the better part of the past six to seven months to learning the planning process in an effort to influence Star's development. Skerratt and Church say they were spurred to action specifically by the Orion Park subdivision in north Star. The property is zoned R3, or three homes per acre. Others agree that three homes per acre is too dense for that area of the city. "If you expand the core of higher -density (housing) into the Foothills, what rural character are you going to have left?" said Jason Rowley, a resident of Star and active member of Star Citizens for Smart Growth. Rowley, a 39-year-old nurse who is married and has one young son, changed his work schedule so that he could regularly attend council meetings. opposing the recall effort The Smart Growth group has taken on City Hall, forcing a recall election of the mayor and three council members because they say city officials are pro -developer and unprepared for the rapid rate of growth. Those who oppose the recall say it has been instigated largely by anti -growth newcomers who live outside the city. "My personal opinion of the whole thing is that these people ... have not lived here long enough to have a say," said Violet "Vi" Blake, 70, who has been a resident of Star since the early 1960s. "What they are trying to do is stop growth — period." Blake's late husband farmed more than 400 acres in Ada and Canyon counties and made custom trailers. Some land they once farmed now sits under a Star subdivision. The November recall election will be the second recall election since the city was incorporated for the second time in December 1997. The city was first incorporated in 1905. It was disincorporated in 1929 because the farmers in the area didn't want to pay higher taxes to cover the cost of paving Idaho 44 through the city. Dennis Stegenga was one of two people who carried petitions around to get the city incorporated in 1997. He served a four-year term on the council, but was not re-elected in 2003. Stegenga was a target of an unsuccessful recall election. He is critical of the council and http://www.idahostatesman.com/growth/v-print/story/34077.html 6/10/2007 (More Foothills land is open I Idaho Statesman Growth Page 1 of 2 IdahoStatesman.com Click Here to Print This Article October 13, 2006 close More Foothills land is open Five years after Boiseans passed a landmark tax levy to spend $10 million preserving open space in the Foothills, hikers, bikers and scenery lovers can utilize newly protected trails and admire newly preserved Foothills views. On May 22, 2001, 59 percent of Boise voters approved the levy to purchase land, easements or development rights to preserve recreational land, open space and wildlife habitat in the Foothills. With a little more than half of the $10 million spent, Boiseans have a new, 670-acre reserve in the central Foothills and new trails and trailheads throughout the Foothills. The levy has paid to purchase or protect from development 1,270 acres and facilitate exchanges for 1,928 more. And an ambitious federal -state land exchange that would preserve 5,000 more acres of the Foothills is pending before the U.S. Senate. "Through the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and the money provided by the voters of Boise city, we have protected or are in the process of protecting more than 8,100 acres for the future," said Charles McDevitt, the former Supreme Court justice who headed the effort to pass the levy and was appointed chairman of the committee in charge of spending the $10 million. The results have "been tremendous as well as the response of the landowners. We are not through yet. We still have $4 million left," McDevitt said. Levy backers and Foothills advocates are pleased with the effort to date, but say more needs to be done to ensure that the promise of the levy — that Boise voters and taxpayers were willing to spend money to preserve their quality of life — is realized. "Right around the time of the levy, housing developments were going in and trails being bulldozed. Our whole way of life was being threatened," said Matt Ciranni, who moved to Boise in 1994 and helped on the 2001 campaign. "It is starting over again, development in the Foothills. I was naive to think it would stop altogether." Some residents think Boise made great strides in approving the levy, but the city and the valley need to be vigilant. "There is a bright future for open -space conservation, even with the fast -paced growth we are experiencing," said Tim Breuer, who was Boise's Ridge to Rivers Trail System coordinator at the time of the levy. Breuer is now executive director of the Land Trust of the Treasure Valley, an organization that works with landowners and community leaders to conserve open space, habitat and stream corridors. Other states use similar methods While the Foothills levy was the first time Idaho voters approved putting property tax dollars toward open -space preservation, the tool has been used in other states. Last week in Washington, Bellingham voters passed a measure that will provide the city's parks and open space program with $44 million over 10 years. Bellingham voters approved similar levies in 1990 and 1997. Since 1972, Santa Clara County, Calif., has funneled a portion of its property tax revenue into a park and open space fund. And the Salt Lake City Council is considering putting a green -space bond, possibly $20 million, before voters in November. In Boise, Breuer hopes the momentum started with the 2001 Foothills levy continues, especially in finding other innovative or alternative ways to preserve open space. On May 22, 2001, Ciranni was at the Foothills levy campaign office making phone calls to Boiseans encouraging them to vote for the levy. He marveled at how the community came together, passed the levy, and then the city moved into action to permanently preserve land in the Foothills. "I think that the one reason people live in Boise and enjoy it is for outdoor recreation, and the Foothills are such a huge part of our quality of life," said Ciranni. "The Foothills are near and dear to people's hearts." But Ciranni does not think the city or its residents should rest easy just because $10 million was set aside for open space preservation. Ciranni quickly rattled off a list of new Foothills developments: Homes are sprouting up on Bogus Basin Road; developers have plans to put more than 1,000 homes atop Hammer Flat in the east Foothills and build estate homes on 270 acres north of Hill Road and 32nd Street — an area Ciranni hikes or mountain bikes at least twice a week. Ciranni thinks developers are moving more quickly than conservation efforts and that valuable parcels may be lost forever to development. The city's Foothills Advisory Committee identified priority parcels and then strategized how to stretch the $10 million as far as it can go, said Paul Woods, Foothills and Open Space Manager with Boise Parks and Recreation Department. In today's market, $10 million will not buy a lot of Foothills land. Money can be used in various ways Levy money can be used to purchase land or to cover costs of facilitating land exchanges or conservation easements that permanently protect Foothills land from development, Woods said. For example, the city is spending more than half a million dollars to facilitate the state -federal land exchange that will protect 5,000 acres in the Foothills. The city could not afford to purchase the land, appraised at $16.5 million, from the state. But by trading state lands to the BLM and the Forest Service, the development threat disappears because those agencies can manage the land as open space and are not required to maximize profit from their lands. It is this type of creative thinking and planning by the advisory committee and other Foothills advocates that has enabled the city to conserve more than 8,000 acres with about half the levy funds still remaining, Woods said. The city's Foothills 2001 conservation effort came amidst one of the Treasure Valley's largest growth spurts. Ada County's population grew by 46 percent from 1990 to 2000, and the Boise Foothills saw an even bigger jump. Census 2000 counted 17,666 Foothills residents, an 86 percent increase from the 1990 census of 9,456 Foothills residents. Newcomers also are benefitting from the spirit and determination of Boiseans five years ago to preserve their beloved Foothills. Carol Wiens, who has lived in California, Utah and Alaska, moved to Boise one year ago. She thinks the levy to preserve open space in the Foothills is an innovative and unique preservation tool she had not seen elsewhere. "1 think Boise is so smart to do that," said Wiens, who uses the Foothills regularly. http://www.idahostatesman.com/growth/v-print/story/26163.html 6/10/2007 &More Foothills land is open I Idaho Statesman Growth Page 2 of 2 Newcomers love access to paths Wiens would support another Foothills serial levy and thinks it should be a permanent levy. "I think it is the way we ought to spend our money. "What you have here is so nice," Wiens said. "People are going to wake up too late and say, 'Hey, we look like Southern California.' " Both Wiens and Ciranni would like to see the city buy more land to be conserved quickly because the stampede of growth continues. But negotiations are often complex and take years to complete, Woods said. The city has been in negotiations on one parcel for four years. The holdup is often due to how ownership of the land is structured. For example, a board of directors or multiple owners may have to agree on the sale. The city also may be competing with developers for Foothills land, and the city does not have the cash to spend on land as many developers do, Woods said. "The object is to spend the money wisely, even though some negotiations are drawn out," Woods said. The city is in the midst of several negotiations now, but Woods does not want to elaborate on the parcels' locations or owners for fear of jeopardizing the city's chances of acquiring the property. http://www.idahostatesman.com/growth/v-print/story/26163.html 6/10/2007 IdahoStatesman.com May 25, 2007 Regulators deny deal Commission strikes down $4.3 million proposal between developer and Idaho Power Calling it too risky, state regulators have denied a proposed deal for the developer of Avimor to advance Idaho Power $4.3 million to bring power to the planned community being built in the Foothills northeast of Eagle. The deal would have required Idaho Power to repay the $4.3 million if Avimor connected at least 685 homes — later raised to 1,103 homes — to power lines within 10 years. Idaho Power historically has not required an advance from residential developers to extend transmission and distribution lines, but the utility said the agreement was needed because of the speculative nature of the community. The Idaho Public Utilities Commission agreed that Avimor should advance Idaho Power the cost of building a new substation and building 3.4 miles of new transmission line. But the commission said the amount Idaho Power would have to pay back Avimor was too high. Idaho Power eventually would have to pay back Avimor about $6,277 per Avimor customer if 685 homes were built. Idaho Power is allowed to charge all ratepayers to offset the cost of bringing power to new developments, but the commission said under the current rate structure, Idaho Power can recover only $1,000 for each customer of a new development. The commission said the agreement creates an "undue risk" that existing Idaho Power customers would end up paying for the transmission line and substation. ''The risk needs to remain with the developer," the commission said. The commission said Avimor responded to initial concerns over the plan by revising its application to allow Avimor to receive refunds equaling $3,900 per customer. The revised plan would require 1,103 customers to connect to power lines within 10 years before Avimor could receive a full refund from Idaho Power. But the commission said the reimbursement limit should stay $1,000, meaning the developer should be required to connect 4,300 customers before Idaho Power has to pay back the company. "At that rate, 4,300 customer connections places a greater risk on the developer, where it properly belongs, for the success of its project," the commission said. A spokesman for Avimor said Thursday that the company had just received the decision and was weighing options. The commission said Avimor had until June 14 to petition for reconsideration. Ada County commissioners approved the first phase of Avimor, a 684-home, 830-acre planned community, in February 2006. The project is part of more than 20,000 acres owned by Arizona -based SunCor along Idaho 55 northeast of Eagle and north of Shadow Valley Golf Course. I(en Dey: 672-6757 - , 43 800 3495 27,390 7.L.11,9Rd- A 4 • • • ' • .4 p4,40 t . 4' - t . 7 - - 0 v) CD CD I-r1 Cifq 0 $1) PZi g A) ••-• • CICe • c) 0 •-• • IdahoStatesman.com ■ April 16, 2007 New subdivisions will bring urban feel to Eagle Four planned high -density developments will include residential, commercial, entertainment elements In Eagle — a city known for estate homes, large lots and rural feel — high -density development is something new. Four new subdivisions that sit side -by -side along the Boise River near Eagle's Merrill Park will bring hundreds of new condos, townhouses and patio homes to the city. Along with it will come commercial space for restaurants, cafes and a movie theater that may be part of the proposed Eagle Gateway South. The entertainment hub that developers envision for the area — once pastureland where horses and cattle grazed — has been dubbed the River District. "We want to create a kind of Hyde Park and Bown Crossing kind of feel, where people can shop and stop and eat," said Aaron Doughty, developer of Eagle Gateway South. "It will be a destination spot, a place for families to hang out on the weekend," Doughty said of the 57-acre mixed -use development, which may include as many as 42 condos and 72 single-family residences. "We want to make it a community hub." The developers of Eagle Gateway South, located east of Eagle Road and south of State Street, are working closely with the owners of the adjoining Lonesome Dove property, a 41-acre site where 80 condos, 28 townhouses and 95 patio homes are planned. Lonesome Dove, which used to be a ranch that held roping, rodeo and other events, also will have retail and office space."What we're trying to create is the flow and feel of an entertainment district," Lonesome Dove developer Chad Longson said of the concept of the River District. Eagle has experienced a lot of growth in recent years. The city has almost doubled in size since 2000 and now has more than 21,000 residents, according to the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho. The city continues to grow westward and is working with property owners in the Eagle Foothills, where as many as 30,000 new homes are proposed. The influx of new homes along the river near Eagle's central commercial area is part of an urbanizing trend in the city, which has long been known for its large acreage/equestrian properties. Now, a handful of developers are catering to newcomers who want more of an urban lifestyle — without living in a big city. These new residences require little or no yard maintenance, and they're within walking distance of the city's growing number of shops, restaurants, offices and businesses. More people If there's public resistance to high -density projects in Eagle, few people have voiced it. One resident expressed concern about access to the river and another raised the issue of potable water supply. Steve and Susan Churchman submitted a letter to the city opposing the high -density developments in Eagle. "We do not need to spoil the rural, spacious beauty of our town with this type of housing," the Churchmans wrote. "There are a lot of us who do not want to hear our neighbor's toilet flush in the night, and Eagle should remain the choice for us." The city's Comprehensive Plan designated that area of the city as a site for high -density development. In fact, it allows up to 20 units per acre — the developments approved thus far are fewer than 15 units per acre. Flooding concern Some may wonder why the city would approve developments along the river when flooding was such a concern last year. City officials say they can't stop development that meets the city's stringent ordinances for building in the flood plain. "We have FEMA's highest rating as far as preparedness," said Eagle City Councilman Steve Guerber. That's why city residents receive a 20 percent discount on flood insurance premiums. Eagle officials expect the Boise River will leave its banks, as it has historically, and they have created a task force to look at ways to mitigate impacts of flooding when that happens. Teri Bath, president of the 480-member Eagle Chamber of Commerce, said a lot of people want to live in Eagle who don't want large homes or lots. Bath said some of the "younger techies" from Micron and HP would rather ride their bicycles on the Greenbelt or hike in the Foothills than take care of a yard on the weekend. "There are also empty -nesters like myself, and there are people who want to travel," Bath said. The townhouses and condos built during the past couple of years in Eagle's new Paddy Row and Winding Creek subdivisions sold quickly. "Obviously, the marketplace thinks there's a demand for it," said Eagle Councilman Scott Nordstrom of the new condo/townhouse developments planned along the Boise River. "They're trying to create an alternative to a big lot or subdivision kind of lifestyle." Housing demand Eagle has the highest median and average price points for homes in the Boise area, said Michael Hummel, a real estate agent who has lived in Eagle since 1999. "The reason Eagle is a desirable place to live — you've got the Foothills and the river close at hand, plus the city has the best Comprehensive Plan in the state," said Hummel, who sits on the city's Park & Pathway Development Committee. Contact reporter Katy Moeller at kmoeller@idahostatesman.com or 377-6413. -310CIVS-N I Am., , • cn IDAHO �.u=�,v�d� ////V7 P+Z Smart Growth Board of Directors Jane Lloyd I',c�i�Icnt Rob Hopper \ic, I'rr.iticnr Charles Hummel , r„.t,ni, Bill Clark Susan Eastlake Don Pena Pat Takasugi Staff Rachel Winer I yCUuti,c l)It ut Elaine Clegg Deanna Smith \d iuni<irat„r [DAII() Smart Growth 910 Alain .Street Suit? 314 Boise. ID 83-02 PO Boz 3-4 Boise. 11) 83-01 208-333-8066 I.r,(tiidihos marY,rowth.org x'fl ll.idahosmart,rou'th.or, encouraging vibrant communities through sensible growth Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission PO Box 1520 Eagle, ID 83616 Fax: 938-3854 Re: Idaho Smart Growth Comments on Comp Plan Revisions 2 June 11, 2007 Dear Eagle Planning and Zoning Commissioners, The mission of Idaho Smart Growth is to build the capacity of Idahoans to shape the future of their communities as they envision it; to increase public awareness of the links between land use, transportation and quality of life; to educate Idahoans about the consequences of and alternatives to current development patterns; and to promote thoughtful long range planning and exemplary development policies at local, regional, and state levels. Approximately 75% of our members live in the Treasure Valley, and many of them reside in Eagle. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the revised Comprehensive Plan. The comments below are in addition to our comments previously submitted. We'd like to focus our comments on two key areas: adequate public facilities, and the potential number of units planned for the North Eagle Foothills area. These two issues are critically linked- looked at together, they will define the carrying capacity of this area for future growth. 1. Adequate Public Facilities Adequate public facilities, as defined in BGG, is the "requirement that essential public facilities will be provided at adopted levels of service prior to or concurrent with the creation of new demands for those facilities." (Emphasis added) (Blueprint for Good Growth Phase 1 Report, September 14, 2006, p.6). This includes water, wastewater, stormwater, transportation system, fire protection, and schools. We recommend making it clear in the comprehensive plan that future development in the North Eagle Foothills area is dependent on the provision of essential public facilities, so that current Eagle residents and taxpayers can be assured that they will not bare the main cost of this growth. For example, transportation is a critical issue in this area, and as both BGG and Communities in Motion illustrate, transportation and land use are critically linked. IDAHO Smart Growth encouraging vibrant communities through sensible growth Blueprint calls to "[e]valuate development proposals and future land use map amendments, are consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan and the 20- year ACHD Capital Improvements Plan." Since the transportation study for this area is not yet complete, we would encourage Eagle to wait before final approval of the portion of the Comprehensive Plan update addressing the North Eagle Foothills Area. If a future transportation network cannot support the number of units proposed in this Plan, it could cause unnecessary delay and confusion for landowners, developers, and the community. 2. Potential Units In order to best achieve the stated vision of the City of Eagle and the Blueprint for Good Growth, we recommend retaining current rural residential zoning, or a similar zoning pattern, of 1 to 40 acres, 1 to 20 acres, and 1 to 10 acres, with a commitment to a well developed density bonus system. In other words, base densities should start low to allow the maximum flexibility a density bonus system has to offer. Then at the ordinance level, we would recommend a system of density bonuses and incentives to encourage clustering and planned community level development where appropriate. The bonuses would need to be contingent on the completion of an adequate public facilities study, and would result from the information gathered from the study. This is consistent with Blueprint. In GM-8, Blueprint gives guidance for new development and land use map amendments that the development intensity should be established "at the time of concept plan approval considering the adequacy of essential public facilities; applicable comprehensive plan policies; the proximity of the project to existing employment centers; consistency of the project with the Long Range Transportation Plan and the ACHD 20-Year CIP; and physical limitations of the site." (p.12) Section 6.3.20 supports this vision, by repeatedly talking about "maximum" density. According to this language, 1 unit per acre is a maximum and not a base. Therefore, sections throughout the plan should reflect the same language. As currently drafted, different language is used throughout, even within the same sections. For example, in the Foothills Base Density charts, the title indicates the number is a minimum, not a maximum as suggested in Section 6.3.20. But the final calculation is described as "potential units". On Section 6.8.11-b, the word "maximum" should be inserted every time the phrase "base density" is used in order to reflect Section 6.3.20. (Comp Plan Revisions 2, p.77). Incentives could then be added based on the results of the adequate public facilities study. IDAHO Smart Growth encouraging vibrant communities through sensible growth 3. Other In section 6.8.11-a-2, the fragmentation of open space can and should be reduced with methods other than engineering. (Comp Plan Revisions 2, p.78). Instead of embracing the removal of hillsides and restructuring the landscape, we encourage the use of clustering and other incentive -based non -engineering approaches. In section 6.8.11-5, a sentence was removed that should be reinserted so that it is clear that it is not just up to developers and landowners to establish a structure for funding open space preservation. The community can and should be involved, as well as third party non-profit organizations. (Comp Plan Revisions 2, p.79) After section 6.8.11 c 1 B which states "promote the use of the following road cross sections within the centers within the foothills," the cross sections have been removed and replaced by a plan view. As in the original draft with the cross sections included, there are no bike lanes. (Comp Plan Revisions 2, p.84). We recommend including bike lines in all road cross sections in this area. Until an adequate public facilities study is completed, we urge the City of Eagle to retain maximum flexibility in the Comprehensive plan by rewriting the sections referring to potential numbers of units. We encourage the City to continue to work on finessing this version of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure that it is consistent with Blueprint before it is ready for a final vote. The plan will be the vision for the Eagle Foothills, and it is important that the staff, the Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and the City Council take time to assure that the many concerns brought before them are addressed so that the vision is clear and supported by both the community and potential developers. Sincerely, (iSCA4- UOVAA'M Rachel Winer Executive Director Idaho Smart Growth Rachel@idahosmartgrowth.org 208-333-8066 ,fitix;xj OH° pfZ___ CITY OF EAGLE PLANING & ZONING COMMISSION FOOTHILLS PLAN DISCUSSION OUTLINE FOR PRESENTATION Monday June 11, 2007 Steve Purvis 3939 Brookside Lane 1. personal background 2. Purpose of this testimony: 3. Regulatory framework: TO EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE PLAN ON EAGLE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA ONE OF THE MOST RESTRICTIVE IN THE COUNTRY AS IT RELATES TO REVENUE SOURCES AVAILABLE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT THE CURRENT LEGISLATIVE AND GOVERNOR'S OFFICE MAKE UP WILL NOT CHANGE THIS STATUS PROPERTY TAXES ARE A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR DESCRIBING THIS SITUATION. GOVERNOR BATT PUT PROPERTY TAX RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE IN 1995 THAT LIMITS THE GROWTH OF PROPERTY TAXES TO 3% PLUS NEW GROWTH AND ANNEXATION. HOW DOES THIS EFFECT EAGLE? WHEN THE STATUTE WAS PUT ON THE BOOKS EAGLE WAS MUCH SMALLER AND PROVIDING MINIMAL SERVICES. THE PROPERTY TAX MILL LEVY RATE WAS VERY LOW AND FROZEN AT THAT POINT. IT IS ONE OF THE LOWEST RATES IN THE STATE. COMPARABLE LEVY RATES FOR OTHER CITIES NAME EAGLE KUNA GARDEN CITY MERIDIAN BOISE NAMPA CALDWELL LEVY RATE 0.001064 0.002328 0.003018 0.003110 0.005787 0.008677 0.009214 PER CAPITA TAXES MERIDAN HAS UNSUCCESSFULLY GONE TO THE VOTERS TWICE TO RAISE THE LEVY RATE $100 $74 $224 $199 $403 $264 $263 4. Some guiding financial principals for local units of government: 5. Current infrastructure concerns: PER CAPITA TAXES AREA COMBINATION OF THREE FACTORS: TOTAL MARKET VALUE, LEVY RATE, AND COMPOSITION OF THE MARKET VALUE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL VALUES. PROPERTY TAX BURDEN NAME EAGLE KUNA STAR GARDEN CITY MERIDIAN BOISE RESID COMM TOTAL 86% 86% 89% 55% 68% 57% 14% 14% 11% 45% 32% 43% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% THE COST OF SERVICES TO RESIDENTIAL HOUSING EXCEEDS THE REVENUE FROM THEM USE BASE REVENUES TO PAY BASE EXPENSES (PROPERTY TAXES TO PAY POLICE COSTS) % OF PROPERTY GENERAL NAME TAXES FUND EAGLE MERIDIAN BOISE NAMPA CALDWELL POLICE COSTS % OF PROPERTY TAXES $990,729 $8,567,301 $87,508,000 $17,891,698 $7,404,237 16% $1,349,722 37% $5,690,116 63% $40,382,785 51% $11,900,396 45% $5,662,330 CONSTRAIN BASE COST INCREASES TO 3% AND USE GROWTH REVENUE TO ADDRESS EXPANDED SERVICE DEMAND USE ONE TIME REVENUE TO PAY FOR ONE TIME EXPENSES ( EXCESS BUILDING FEES FOR CAPITAL) NEITHER THE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT NOR ACHD HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO MEET THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. ITD HAS A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A $200,000,000 ANNUAL INCREASE IN AVAILABLE FUNDS. THIS IS COMPOUNDED BY THE LACK OF FUNDING FOR TRANSIT. (FAILURE OF HB246 LOCAL OPTION FOR TRANSIT) (COPY OF ARTICLE - IDAHO BUSINESS REVIEW) 136% 66% 46% 67% 76% 6. Conclusion: 7.Recommendation: HB210 WAS PASSED DURING THE 2007 LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO DEAL WITH THOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT WERE UNABLE TO ISSUE SUFFICIENT BONDS UNDER THE BONDING LIMITATIONS. THESE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE THOSE THAT ARE EXPERIENCING RAPID GROWTH, HAVE PRIMARILY PROPERTY VALUE GROWTH IN MID PRICED HOMES RATHER THAN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY EAGLE IS NOT POSITIONED FINANCIALLY IN A MANNER THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES REQUIRED/DEMANDED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT. THE PLAN UNDER CONSIDERATION WILL ONLY EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM. THOSE ENTITIES RELIED ON TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCURE DEVELOPMENT DO NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE PRIOR TO ADOPTING ANY COMP PLAN A DETERMINIATION BE MADE THAT THE PLAN IS FINANCIALLY VIABLE AS IT RELATES TO THE ABILITY OF THE VARIOUS ENTITIES TO PROVIDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES THAT WILL BE EXPECTED BY THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES OF THE AREA HOUSE BILL NO. 246 - Regional transp authority Page 1 of 13 • HOUSE BILL NO. 246 View Bill Status View Bill Text View Statement of Purpose/ Fiscal Impact Text to be added within a bill has been marked with Bold and Underline. Text to be removed has been marked with Strikethrough and Italic. How these codes are actually displayed will vary based on the browser software you are using. This sentence is marked with bold and underline to show added text. This sentence i.i marked with strikcthrough and italic, indicating text to be removed. Bill Status H0246 by REVENUE AND TAXATION REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY - Amends and adds to existing law relating to the regional transportation authority to define terms; to expand the corporate powers of an authority; to authorize transportation services between specified sites to include colleges; to revise the date by which an anneal audit is due; to delete provisions authorizing issuance of revenue bonds; to provide authority for a local sales and use tax; to provide for a local sales and use tax election; to provide for collection and administration of an authorized local sales and use tax by the State Tax Commission; to provide for distribution of revenues; to authorize bond issues; to specify terms and conditions for issuance of bonds by a regional public transportation authority; to provide the procedure for initiating and conducting a bond election; to provide additional powers to an authority for securing payment of bonds; to provide a limitation on the amount of bo-ids and revenues pledged; to provide for rights of obligees; to provide authority for swaps; to provide for termination of tax revenues; and to provide for contest of a local sales and use tax or bond election. 02/27 House intro - 1st rdg - to printing 02/28 Rpt prt - to Rev/Tax Bill Text ]]]] LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ]]]] Fifty-ninth Legislature First Regular Session - 2007 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HOUSE BILL NO. 246 BY REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE 1 AN ACT 2 RELATING TO THE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACT; AMENDING SECTIO 3 4J-2103, IDAHO CODE, TO DEFINE "CONSTRUCT" OR "CONSTRUCTION," "PUBLI 4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM" AND "REVENUES" AND TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/H0246.html 6/11/2007 IMPACT =NFOFAX FOR: FOR YOUR INFORMATION • IMPACT • P.O. Box 577 • BOISE, IDAHO 83701 • 208-377-2272 • Fax: 208-377-2282 • DATE: 06/04/07 PAGES: ONE No way to dodge raising highway revenues Jun 4, 2007 - Steve Ahrens/The Longer View - THE IDAHO BUSINESS REVIEW Every now and then in the world of politics, "philosophy" runs head-on into "reality." Conflicts between what we think ought to happen, and what the facts dictate must happen, cause brain cramps for politicians. Whether elected officials swear by the "Republicanphilosophy" or the "Democratic philosophy, they all like to believe their actions are guided by unshakable principles of the right thing to do. But life has an unsettling way of challenging us with scenarios that simply are not readily amenable to one -size -fits - all philosophically driven solutions. What exposes the Achilles' heel of the pure philosophical approach is our two -pronged transportation problem — the statewide component, and the Treasure Valley -specific considerations. Meeting these dual challenges will require additional revenues that will gag legislators who've based their political careers on reflexive opposition to tax increases. Worse yet, the Treasure Valley issue is sufficiently different from the statewide transportation picture that it may force legislators to do the heretofore unthinkable — grant local -option tax authority to at least the part of the state where four out of every 10 people in Idaho live. The numbers are mind -boggling. The Forum on Transportation Investment has determined that Idaho is falling at least $200 million a year short of being able to fund necessary maintenance and new construction. That's $200 million a year, every year, until something is done to turn the situation around. But our current state transportation revenue system (based on state/federal fuel taxes and registration fees) is simply unable to pay for the changes we must make to meet the needs of the nation's third -fastest growing state. That's the fact that will, sooner or later, force anti -tax legislators to take actions they're going to hate. When that time comes, how will we come up with anything approaching that amount of money? Here's a sample of potential actions, recommended by the Idaho Transportation Board, some or all of which you'll hear discussed in next session's transportation funding debate: Impose a 7 percent highway preservation fuel tax on distributors; raise vehicle registration fees by 75 percent (Idaho has some ofthe lowest registration fees in the nation); implement a state -level impact -fee program; increase various permit fees; impose a rental -car fee; eliminate the state's tax break for alternative (re: ethanol) fuels; and raise fees for transportation department services. An increase in Idaho's 25-cents-a-gallon fuel tax (last raised 11 years ago, in 1996 — which was an election year) is likely to be a major focus of discussion. This statewide debate by itself will generate more than enough passion to heat up the election -year '08 session. Beyond that, though, there are Treasure Valley -specific factors that add special controversy to how we might address the already bad, and constantly worsening, traffic problems in a highway corridor that pours about 107,000 vehicles a day from Payette, Gem and Canyon counties into Ada County. "Mass transit" is not a concern in places like Rigby, Rupert or Rathdrum — but in southwest Idaho, some form(s) of mass transit must play a future role in taking some of those single -driver cars off the roads to slow the demand for more and more miles of increasingly expensive pavement. And "air quality" is a more serious concern here than in less -populated areas of the state. If we don't take aggressive steps to ease the air -quality impact of our traffic problems, the Treasure Valley could tip over into non - attainment status vis-a-vis EPA rules. if and when that happens, the EPA will slap restrictions on us that will hamstring economic development and creation of new jobs. That's where the issue of local -option taxes comes in. Treasure Valley voters will have to find (and fund) their own answers to problems that exist here, but not elsewhere, in Idaho. The Idaho Legislature constitutionally controls the authority to levy taxes, and the concept of local -option tax authority has been philosophical anathema to generations of legislators and business people. But we may yet see the day when the Legislature will grudgingly give its statutory approval for creation of some form of local -option taxation, for either one or both of two very understandable reasons: (A) A problem exists that simply cannot be funded by existing tax sources (i. e., the state and regional traffic problem), or (B) Giving one area some local -option authority to solve its own problems becomes a matter of self-defense — preventing those same costly solutions from being imposed in other areas of the state. Philosophies should be guides to solutions — not barriers standing in the way of progress on new challenges we all face from time to time, as individuals or as a society. Especially in the Treasure Valley, we're going to have to come to grips with transportation issues that are unique in the history of Idaho. These new problems will require some new thinking, which may severely challenge those who cling stubbornly to political philosophies that worked — once — but in certain cases, no longer. Steve Ahrens is the retired president of the Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry. HOUSE BILL 1N10. 210 - School bonds, market value defined Page 14 of 15 16 ignated as Section 63-802B, Idaho Code, and to read as follows: 17 63-802B. BOND ELECTIONS -- PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ELECTIONS ELECTION 18 TO CREATE A NEW TAXING DISTRICT. In the case of an election: (1) to incu 19 bonded indebtedness, (2) to increase the property tax portion of its budge 20 pursuant to subsection (1)(f) or (1)(g) of section 63-802, Idaho Code, or (3 21 to create a new taxing district, either the taxing district, or if th 22 election is to create a new taxing district the county clerk, shall mail 23 notice of the election, not less than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to th 24 election, to all residences within either the taxing district or propose 25 taxing district or to residents of the taxing district or proposed taxing dis 26 trict who are eligible to vote in this election. The notice shall state wit 27 specificity: the purpose of the election, the date of the election, pollin 28 place.s, the time the polls will be open, the aggregate amount of taxes tha 29 will be raised in the taxing district if the election is successful and th 30 increase that will occur per one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) of tax 31 able value of property above any exemptions, of residential property, commer 32 cial property, industrial property, land actively devoted to agriculture an 33 operating property. Compliance with this section shall satisfy any notice o 34 publication requirement as may be provided by law. 35 SECTION 6. An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereb 36 declared to exist, Sections 1 and 3 of this act shall be in full force an 37 effect on and after passage and approval; and Section 2 of this act shall b 38 in full force and effect on and after January 1, 2008. Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact Reprint Reprint Reprint Reprint Reprint Reprint STATEMENT OF PURPOSE RS 16586 The purpose of this legislation is to amend Section 33-1103, Idaho Code, to allow school districts to use market value currently exempt under the homeowners exemption. The districts most restrained by the existing debt limit are those districts experiencing rapid growth in suburban areas that have primarily property value growth in mid -priced homes, rather than commercial and industrial property. This change also will avoid a reduction in debt capacity in the event that the homeowners exemption is increased by other legislation. The legislation does not affect election requirements for bonds, nor does it change the requirement that the district must provide for repayment of the bonds from a dedicated property tax levy. This legislation will not affect whether the bonds can or cannot be issued without a levy rate increase which in practice is the most significant limitation on the incurrence of bonded indebtedness. FISCAL NOTE There is no fiscal impact on the general fund. Contact http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/H0210.html 6/6/2007 40, /i/ /07 Chairman Pierce and Commissioners: I'm CJ Thompson; I live at 4831 Willow Creek Road, in the foothills. I want to say just a couple of things about wildlife. When I started working on this issue several years ago, I met with hunters and a Fish and Game rep to talk about how habitat here could best be preserved. Those guys quickly...teasingly...christened me the "bunny hugger" in the group. I'll admit that; in fact, I'm proud of it. And I'm sure there are some more bunny huggers in this group tonight and even more, of all ages, in the broader community. Normally I'm a pretty hyper type —constantly on the move --but the sight of an adult Swainson's hawk soaring and swooping, teaching a juvenile to hunt ground squirrels in our pasture, has stopped me dead in my tracks, awestruck by these magnificent raptors. �lah 3 a opa I second Alasya's open space point: To ensure the survival of raptors and all the creatures that live in the foothills, the Foothills Comp Plan needs to get us to at least 40% natural open space. That doesn't mean golf courses or tot lots. I'd like to see the City reward, with incentives, those developers who choose to reflect the values of the community by devoting an even higher percentage of their acreage to natural open space. But I also want to speak to another issue tonight...and I want to begin by asking you, Commissioners, a question: How many of you were delighted by the tax assessment estimates you got a couple of weeks ago? Go ahead...raise your hand if you were. That's pretty much what I figured. Well I'm about as far away from delighted with our estimated taxes as I can be. John and I moved to Eagle in 2001 from a condo in Boise. We still own and now rent out that condo. Look at these tax numbers since we moved in 2001. The rate of tax increase on our Boise condo is bad enough but on our home here, in Ada County jurisdiction, the rate of increase is horrific. And it gets harder to pay every year. Look at the biggest pieces of the current year tax bill and the rates of increase and tell me whether you can draw any conclusion other than the one I draw: growth is not paying for itself; taxpayers are subsidizing it. And I want to make a special comment about the schools piece, because schools this fear are a smaller piece of our property tax bill than they've been in the past. Until the recent change in schools funding, that slice was 53% of our total bill. But now I'm paying for schools operations and maintenance through increased sales taxes. I don't care which pocket you take it from. Both pockets are mine. And transportation costs are another verse of the schools song. I'll pay a higher gas tax or a higher registration fee or get taxed in some other way to pay for some of that widening on the state highways too...widening that's necessary only because of this level of development. I don't want growth...but I accept that it will happen. But the infrastructure costs for this much growth are hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't want to pay for it...and I'm guessing that I have lots of company in this room. Until you figure out how to make growth pay for itself...until Eagle adopts a full adequate public facilities ordinance that includes schools...20,000 units means two things: residents pay higher taxes and developers make more money. Before you set a target for total new housing units in the foothills, I want to know how much your decision is going to cost me...and I would think that you'd want to know that too. Thank you. Assessed Value Taxes 2001-2007 (est) Taxes % Increase Ada/ Boise Eagle +86 +88 +47 +86 2007 (est) Ada/Eagle % of total % increase '01-'07 Library 6 +134 ACHD 10 +123 Eagle Fire 12 +135 Ada County* 26 +120 Schools** 40 ???? * Sheriff, courts, health and welfare **Operations and maintenance now paid through sales tax i Chairman Pierce and Commissioners I'm Alasya West and I have resided at 5035 Willow Creek Road, Eagle, for 23 years "The City of Eagle should accommodate those who live here before trying to accommodate those who will be moving here" I'm here to address the issue of Open Space There are good things in Eagle's Comp Plan. It talks about n , .:ral features that brought people to the area"and "Establishing a significant open space network to formalize the existing recreational uses, environmentally sensitve areas and connections between them...- To me, having lived and ridden my horses here for 23 years, that's critical. The Plan implements the open space vision :,e requiring 40% of the gross area to be retained as open space and also reApires tnaL acreage to be in large. contiguous blocks with connectivity. The plan recognizes the potential to reconfigure public lands ownership in the foothills to achieve a superior system for recreation and habitat_ Provided we achieve these goals, this is a priceless gift to future generations. I urge as one voice of many, to hold firm to this open space vision. I understand that at least some developers may fight the open space requirements, including one current application which calls for only 15% open space outside of the development, with the remaining 25% within the project boundaries. 15% is hardly a true contribution to regional recreation and resource values. «'fiat's nee point? All development in the foothills must be consistent with a full, adopted Foothills Comp Plan._All foothills developers should be treated the same way. Whatever development occurs in the foothills must: 1 Protect and enhance the value of the public lands for all of us in creating the major central lands/habitat/open space/recreation network. 2 Make a real, meaningful contribution Jo achieving the vision of regional, natural trails and preservation of wildlife. The opportunity will never be there again. At every juncture the community has placed its highest value on the preservation of open space for habitat and recreation. I'll return to the quote 1 opened with: "The City of Eagle should accommodate those who live here before trying to accommodate those who will be moving here" Your role in this is critical. Stand fast on open space, not just for me but for my grandchildren. Thank you. Chairman Pierce and Commissioners I'm Alasya West and I have resided at 5035 Willow Creek Road, Eagle, for 23 years "The City of Eagle should accommodate those who live here before trying to accommodate those who will be moving here" I'm here to address the issue of Open Space There are good things in Eagle's Comp Plan. It talks about ";reservi;; features that brought people to the area"and "Establishing a significant open space network to formalize the existing recreational uses, environmentally sensitve areas and connections between them..." To me, having lived and ridden my horses here for 23 years, that's critical. The Plan implements the open space vision by requiring 40% of the gross area to be retained as open space anti also requires alai acreage to be in large, contiguous blocks with connectivity. The plan recognizes the _potential to reconfigure public lands ownership__ in the foothills to achieve a superior system for recreation and habitat. Provided we achieve these goals, • this is a priceless gift to future generations. I urge as one voice of many, to hold firm to this open space vision. I understand that at least some developers may fight the open space requirements, including one current application which calls for only 15% open space outside of the development, with the remaining 25% within the project boundaries. 15% is hardly a true contribution to regional recreation and resource values. \4'hat's my point? All development in the foothills must be consistent with a full, adopted Foothills_Comp Plan. All foothills developers should be treated the same way. Whatever development occurs in the foothills must: 1 Protect and enhance the value of the public lands for all of us in creating the major central lands/habitat/open space/recreation network. 2 Make a real, meaningful contribution to achieving the vision of regional, natural trails and preservation of wildlife. The opportunity will never be there again. At every juncture the community has placed its highest value on the preservation of open space for habitat and recreation. I'll return to the quote 1 opened with: The City of Eagle should accommodate those who live here before truing to accommodate those who will be moving here" Your role in this is critical. Stand fast on open space, not just for me but for my grandchildren. Thank you. r,01,oid ‘0/11,7z_ June 11, 2007 Dear Chairman Pierce and Commissioners, When concerned citizens of Eagle initially approached the City, requesting the City consider planning for the North foothills, a number of factors were in play. Most significant, was Ada County's sudden shift in focus from its original mandate of rural preservation, to urban type development outside of city limits. Our concern was the effect these large urban developments would have on existing residents given our inadequate public infrastructure. Eagle city officials were concerned as well, and began the planning process and we thank them for their efforts. However, I am no longer of the opinion that it is in the best interest of current Eagle residents to incorporate over 30,000 acres into our community. Let me explain. When the western area plan was considered a few years back, there were concerns for the economic sustainability of the City given that 87% of the area was for residential uses. According to the Soaring 2025 plan, the addition of 7,000 acre addition to our AOI gave the City room to grow, adopted BPGG principles and gave a better balance of land uses with residential uses decreasing to 75%. Geographically, the AOI made sense with borders at Chinden, SH16, SH55 and the foothills to the north. Adding these components made sense and rounded out the existing 2000 plan. To me, now the question is, why would we want to add another 30,000 acres? How does this benefit existing residents? After the western area expansion, we acquired over 7,000 acres of land — enough to sustain development for 25+ years. What about economic sustainability? Given that a handful of owners control most of the north foothills, most likely these large tracts of land will all be planned communities. Most planned communities don't achieve a sustainable land use mix meaning that incorporating this area will increase the residential use ratio and throw us out of balance. The result is higher taxes to support services. What about geographic boundaries? In the Soaring 2025 plan, Eagle argued that state highways provided a significant landmark for identifying boundaries and people on the other side of those boundaries will not identify with the City center. Well I can argue the same thing about the foothills. Given that and the fact that each PC will have it's own separate identity and town center, how will these communities integrate with our existing City? Getting back to the original concern with unmanaged growth in the foothills impacting our City. My thought here is that we will always be surrounded by land in some other jurisdiction. Adding 30,000 acres isn't going to make the problem go away. This is why it is so important to the people of Ada County that all jurisdiction work together towards regional solutions such as those offer by BFGG and COMPASS. My hope is that Eagle will collaborate with Ada County on the plan for the foothills. Keep the concerns of Eagle citizens front and center, and ensure the final plan protects our way of life. But now that the political winds have shifted at the County, let them retain jurisdiction of this land and let's keep Eagle within the boundaries set by Soaring 2025. Respectfully, Kathy Pennisi Mike and Martha McMurray 902 Stillwell Drive Eagle, Idaho 83616 208-939-7807 mikekmcmurrayaaol.com June 11, 2007 Testimony on Eagle Foothills Plan f*,WL1 (,/ff/07 Piz We moved to Eagle 10 years ago from Boise. We moved to Eagle because we wanted its rural atmosphere and relaxed feeling. We trusted that the area would appreciate its uniqueness in Ada County and protect it. We were wrong. We now have traffic problems as bad as any in the county and are headed for worse. The city is pushing for huge growth-20,000 homes in the foothills —with no infrastructure to support it. The foothills are a treasure. Boise recognized that and created a way to protect and preserve them and in doing so has made them a well known recreational destination for biking enthusiasts, hikers and equestrians. Google the Boise foothills and vill111,,you find that they are described as one of the recreational treasures of Idaho. The Eagle foothills can be the same. The foothills have neither the roads nor the water to support the growth the city is proposing for them. Neither Ada County Highway District nor the Idaho Department of Transportation has the money to build the roads to carry the additional traffic these homes will generate down Eagle Road or Highway 55. No one knows how much water is available to support such development and Idaho Department of Water Resources doesn't have funding currently available to conduct such a study and they are the entity that has the only real ability to do an unbiased study of the area. The Meridian School District just passed a $30 million bond for new schools that does not include the six grade schools and one middle school if just the first draft of this plan is approved. How will Eagle pay for police and fire protection for this area. Before any new development of this scale is approved, both Ada County and Eagle need to reach an agreement on density acceptable for the foothills and how all this infrastructure will be paid for. Just because a developer buys cheap property does not mean they have the right to develop it. Land investment, like any investment carries risk. It is not the responsibility of the citizens of Eagle to subsidize the investments of anyone. This development is too large, too fast with way too many unknowns! Mike and Martha McMurray &tate WO Ps- z CITY OF EAGLE /9//7/14/ f'/�EC- y/,/� I'm saddened by what's happening to our rural Eagle community. As an Idaho native I sense that the people who have resided here all or most of their lives are seeing their desires, needs and wants set aside for incredible, unreasonable growth. These people have lived here, supported the community and paid taxes for the privilege of living here and now don't seem to matter anymore for the sake of MONEY and EXPANSION! We realize that growth is inevitable but why can't it be done reasonably with compromise for all, keeping Eagle's uniqueness in this valley. And speaking of taxes, we have all recently received our new assessments to which many have almost doubled. It seems ludicrous that the State you were raised in, worked hard in all your life, wanted to retired in, and now that you are on a fixed income is taxing you right out of your homes. Is that how you plan to get rid of us and make way for new folks that aren't even from Idaho? Shame on you!! I hope those of you who are in this room and have parents our age don't end up seeing them go through the same thing. Sharon Prindel Eagle, Id. byri c.UPni 6 /1l a 7 June 11, 2007 Chairman Pierce, Commissioners: I'm Bob West, 1 have lived in the Eagle Foothills for the past 23 years. My address is 5035 Willow Creek Road, Eagle 83616. You have some decisions before you that will greatly impact the City Of Eagle now and in the future. You must make these decisions wisely. Remember your priorities. My main concern is traffic; Beginning with any development that is approved, much of the area will become a construction zone and will remain one for at least 20 years, perhaps longer. Initially, the traffic from commuting construction workers and heavy construction vehicles will add to the existing congestion on key routes such as SHs 16, 44 and 55 as well as Eagle Road . As new houses and commercial/office space are completed and occupied, another increment of traffic, on top of ongoing construction traffic will be added. The one Foothills development application now before the City assumes a capture rate of 30% i.e. seven trips per day, is not realistic. The current capture rate in Eagle is 13%. No one has mentioned the added traffic of the commercial/office space that will be trips per day of employees and vehicle trips to service those facilities, not to mention schools, fire and police. As our roads deteriorate from heavy use and congestion builds, new roads will have to be added and existing roads upgraded (presuming now nonexistent funds are available). What is the added impact? Existing traffic will be snarled beyond any thing we have seen in this valley, also further by detours and lane closures (think SH 44 at rush hour) while even more construction vehicles and those associated with the road building, pour on to the over taxed roads in the area. I would suggest you take a drive down Ustick Road during rush hours. The noise, dust, congestion and delays for the foreseeable future (i.e. 20 years through build -out) are of nightmare proportions, not to mention air pollution which is already a problem. The Eagle North Foothills Comprehensive Plan Amendment must include previsions that no development requiring access to the center part of the foothills (using Willow Creek Road south from Wood's Gulch to Beacon Light Road) will be approved until an alternative to the inadequate and unsafe section of Willow Creek Road are built and available. This means either the Willow Creek bypass or the Willow Creek to Brookside/55 connection (or both) must be built ahead of time. ACHD is on record asking the City to not approve developments until a Master Foothills Transportation System is designed and a method for funding road construction is in place. Good advice — they are in the Road Business and will be here long after the developers have gone. Why hasn't Eagle asked ACHD to model various densities and evaluate the traffic impacts of each before setting overall or specific densities? Maybe Eagle should follow the Lead of Meridian (did I say Meridian?), which recently continued indefinitely the application for several hundred (not thousands) houses, in part because those units use South Eagle Road for access. Even Meridian has had enough on traffic. Eagle should step back, take a deep breath and refrain from any expressed or implied density commitments until you're sure that the transportation aspect of the plan is fully settled and understood in the short term, mid term as well as build -out, and that funding is assured for new/upgraded roads, including state highways, as those roads are required. I have been in meetings where both developer and city traffic consultants have stated that the level of service for intersections south of the foothills will be in the "F" category. We have to do better than that. We the people who live here came to Eagle for what it is right now! We did not come here for traffic congestion nightmares and high density. North Ada County Foothills Association (NACFA) Testimony Before: Eagle Planning & Zoning Commission Subject: M3 Eagle June 11, 2007 L Our Message • Protect Quality of Life & Economic/Fiscal Well -Being of the Community • Make Real the Unique Opportunities in the North Foothills - Regional Open Space - Viable wildlife habitat, Resource Conservation - Regional Recreation • Our Definition of "Community" - Existing Eagle - North Ada County - Ada County - Treasure Valley air 1 Key Concerns • Intensity of Development (i.e. How Many Rooftops?) • Roadways, Traffic, Transportation • Open Space, Habitat, Recreation • Water Supply, particularly groundwater • Fiscal/Tax Consequences; Development Paying Its Way • Consistency of Proposed Development Plans/Agreements with the CPA Our Conclusions • Extreme importance & extreme complexity demand taking the time to get it right - The most important Plan/Process the City has ever faced - The most complex, advanced, detailed land use planning process ever done in Idaho • Insufficient information, too many competing plans, in too big a rush - How can we make reasoned, dispassionate judgments? • The Foothills Plan is simply not "there" yet: - Too many unanswered questions about impact - Very likely unacceptable impacts if it moves forward in its present form - Too timid in making opportunities real 2 Issue: How Many Rooftops? - Where with the development be located? - Where will its traffic go? - How will it get its water? - What does the existing community get for what it is giving? - Will the development pay for itself —REALLY & WHEN? • The answers to these questions right now are either No or We don't know ilr Issue: How Many Rooftops? • Where we are now in the CPA: - 20,500 units base density + 2,600 more as incentives for centers = 23,100 units - Other incentives/bonuses that are not estimated - All numbers "theoretical", subject to change based on site - specific conditions (dangerous "code") • Dueling Plans —Requiring Dueling Analysis - Avimor (at 14,600) + M3 (at 8,100) = 22,700 units - A push for 32.000+ units rooted in claims that this Commission approved M3 at 2 units/acre in April... • What we Need: - A firm estimate of build -out - Analysis, iteration, adjustment - One ruling Plan, firm in its allowances, limits, and vision 3 r LOO ITT 914Yir co II 4. sL. O -c s) co N sa)ob 000'-kT = baab 14015 4- co c-- CSC co W 1.0 O O c) coo 0 j ,% % iI S Y e: 5 a� • 1. 1 1 �� y Ye' ! , 1 r !t I� t . r r iii, ,i 11.(1...-, • . ..- - . ..... ,Iti 4 , °J., ..s., . , ,,,,, , 4,55,4..4, ..;...w '''''' — iii 5,..... _ ,,;.i __„,- .7 -'''' J EAGLE FOOTHILLS PLAN Scale: Graphic ,N �� wies Figure 13--Opportunities and ConErairis 9.4 } \§ •P111 .722 NOTES \\ ®V`g|\ 0 \ - a88V4a , // 7.A§ ( 7 ( i ( 2|1 ± § [ c / 0 -g ... cithjt -'- ca cv-1% gyz c..... 0 o -3) ; �-cis z 2 g szi szscr. .---.1-• c--% C*-) c:› Sx. CK g CS -` z rt r�t- -d cS cS 4 o d v'cb �2: • o III %� S.)• AI C4 CSC ram.. z o ZD o 0 0 ob 0 -0 S r- --h co V zc c `h co (_ Z co co Uic hVI (1 • r-t- c) co co r- co ct. g": crn' tn co rtCS cn rt c-• co CS O c-- C.4 O VI g 5rt rt- o< co N t rt. c•—• :,ilisua( ssoi9 Community & Neighborhood Centers Adjustment factor: Total BLM Habitat Floodway c ro vi N CA _\ + Residential Rural Unconstrained Density(units/ Acres acre) Units Foothills Base Density CT O 49,000 c.n W CC N..) .^ 4 N _ O W N O 12,089 0.37 O O N O O N O N O~C CT W O O 2593 O w (Nj NJ 4- 12,089 S F c--• CS rt.rt- g c7; --c, 'z4 CS • • a ca (4. v, FP cc'o co O oSri' rr ("bfAv IA rt- CD S�'° V # co �` ri- Co 0 re' c(lbp CS rr rt. co o 3 CD CD -% CI_ 0 I 1. 5" (z o 0 -uT 0 CD a) =1. 0 i5. CT 0 0 0 CO 0 CI) 0 0 co o_ CD * 0_ CD o_ o )CD 0 CD 0 0 0 0 cD cD 0 0 o0 CD • CD — CD * CD 0 0 0 -0 = 3 CD C1) 2 -- 0 --' 0 SI) 0 0- 9, Cn ° SI) Ct. •.%) a) CI) o =-.•• o - o st 3 a) 3 o o (I) -0 0 0 •-•- if") 0-= cr cn cn , 03 CD SD 0 CD 0 M r7 co 7 CD cn (i) 3:1 sa) o_ co w 0 . a) 53 43 CI.. SD SI) sT) (") 0 °a) CD 0. 0 cn (1) SI) 01 ( 0_ CO cy) cD fa) 0 0 1—. CLX CD< CD cn CD 0 0 0 0 0 CT CD CD CD cn 0 -n 0 0 c77 ci) 0 CL CD U) Palmer Rd connection to north foothills not included Linder Rd connection to north foothills not included z 0 0 (T)* 0 c.7" 0 0 cn 0 0 o_ o_ Cr (/) ° cn 0-, , CO _ CD CD Ct) 0 CD 0 U) r_. Ca 0. sr) = CD CO SD 0 0 (7)- =-• CD 0, C_ 0 SI) 0 0 0 = SI) cD o 0. cr) CJI • C.J1 CD -P CD CD 0) = CD (/) (/) N, n = 0_ 00 a) CD = (D 0 0 0 0 r- 0 0 m•- a) 0) 0).. Conceptual Arterial Roadway Alignments • • t , ' .- • - .00, 0. •\, ' firo' • peA„,$t,14...,.. t".• `„*.,•'.,' • .1- • •• C*3 1 1 1 ! 1 p P. t'o c coo S 0 14' c cS rt- V) t b co p-t- -N -� SD g rt*c-- r'• v- ` 6" r- rt � o cam- cam-- . co Ca CO Cb O M v rfi S) �• co o co co F\ cu s)._ ‘.- -N g 0 rn cs rt rt Ft-c•--• rt s s rt- rt co rt- rt` cb Cto Ott CS co„c v �` --tom SZ �, �, m rot rt � Z -N CSC rt "'1d 51M4004 210°' 0 v� a n m a uop!sueJl uegin 9.10e I. Jed spun q selels3 Ien8 sane Z Jed pun 1, 57 m W sane oq Jed pun 1. a F 0 7 uogegsnlll North Eagle Foothills Transects • 54025//1 Va_L INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning Administration To: From: Subject: Date: Attachment(s): Copy To: Jason Peirce, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Nichoel Baird Spencer, AICP, Planner III CPA-6-07 (City Initiated Plan) June 11, 2007 Update Transportation Model and Project differences City Attorney, Zoning Administrator Attached you will find a copy of the updated transportation model from COMPASS. Staff reviewed the land Assumptions along State Highway 55 and made a few changes in order to better reflect the land use assumptions in the draft plan. (This model run does include preliminary numbers for the Dry Creek Planned Community) The map shows the total number of lanes needed to accommodate the following: 1) Existing traffic 2) 2030 projected trips from Communities in Motion 3) Projected trips from the Eagle Foothills Plan The averages daily trips (ADT) are shown as numbers and the number of lanes needed to accommodate the ADT is color coded. Attached you will find a list of additional projects that the build out of the foothills plan would require but are not currently identified in the 2030 Communities in Motion Plan. Please note that with the exception of necessary Highway improvements, additional lanes to Highway 16 & 55, all these projects are within the Foothills Planning Area. Further, attached is a copy of the conceptual roadway alignments for the Foothills. Per the new transportation model the round-abouts circled could now physically and operationally function as a round -about. Page 1 of 1 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2007\junel 1 mel .doc Roadway Project Differences Between Communities in Motion and North Foothills Special Model Runs North Foothills Special Model Runs Communities in Motion SH 55 - 6 lanes (3 travel lanes each direction) between SH 44 and Beacon Light Rd SH 55 - 4/5 lanes (2 travel lanes each direction - as is today) between SH 44 and Beacon Light Rd SH 55 - 4 lane Expressway (grade -separated intersections) between Beacon Light Rd and Boise/Ada County line SH 55 - 2 lanes (1 travel lane each direction - as is today) between Beacon Light Rd and Boise/Ada County line All arterial / collector roadways in the north foothills between SH 16 and SH 55 to accommodate potential development North foothills arterials / collectors not included Linder Rd — 4/5 lane connection between Homer Rd to a new north foothills arterial Linder Rd connection to north foothills not included Palmer Rd — 2/3 lane connection between Beacon Light Rd to a new north foothills arterial Palmer Rd connection to north foothills not included Licensed to Community Planning Association a N 7 O. O a Cv c 3 R7 O CU CD L- CD 0 n d CC I. CD 3 7 III O O O CU Cu Cu • C1 a 0) 0) 0) d CO Cv GN <CNC G G < 7' 7. S N . O) [• T 7 CD CU N DC CD N < < • Cv N CD CD — d d 7 7 N NN CD n n Q 7 Q a CD CD =1 _a n_ O o c d • m n • n CD NCD usn Y) w C) O 7 O o O_ C C c 7 d n • d 7 CD N CD < N G O CD CD D CD CD LD CU O -O OO � O 71. Di.) CD N o m5 ry CO C 0 0NCn Ct � en CW Tr C 2 -A U1 O cn" � X = N (x' ^ N ) 0. • N O O W O d z O r_T '� GS ✓ O 0 x' . C2 N O) 0 d O CD • n • O 3 E C Cn 2. 2� O � co CD CD C) O CD 7 3 r 0 cn m 7• C 0 C m a) CD C.) 0 3 m 7 Z O -n 0 0 S m N_ 3 co CD N C37 7 Q CD CD CD CD 0 co co 7 CD Cv N 0 V) 2 CT 01 2 0 n� N_ CD CU CO 7 G 1/42 co CD 7C' My name is Butch Groothuis. I live at 3490 N. Saddleman Place in Eagle. Council members. I have submitted two letters commenting on the Draft Eagle Foothills Plan and presented testimony on said plan. I have read the entire plan and all the documentation I could locate that supported the development of the plan. I still have not seen, nor have I been provided with any substantive evidence or facts that would support your proposed level of development in the foothills. In fact: ACHD has reached no conclusion regarding the feasibility (financially, logistically, or otherwise) of adding new roads, widening existing roads, or improving existing roads to accommodate the level of development you are proposing. No substantive research has been conducted, nor conclusions reached by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, as to the quantity or volume of ground water available in this aquifer, nor what level of additional development it will support, if any. No substantive research has been conducted, nor opinion polls taken to ascertain the public's willingness to pass additional bond levees to fund additional schools. Recent actions by the citizens of the area indicate they are not willing to pay additional taxes at this time to fund additional schools, yet conservative estimates are that the M3 project alone would require funding to pay for an additional 9 new schools. If you have the evidence or facts to support this level of development, I would appreciate you sharing those with the public. I would suggest to you that in most cases independently gathered evidence to support this level of development does not exist. Therefore, I request your consideration to the following amendments to the plan, should you decide to recommend approval: "No development shall be approved until the following letters of affirmation are provided: ACHD and ITD have determined that they are able to, and will provide adequate roadways to service the additional traffic created by the development no later than the completion of the first phase of development, and that said roadways will be adequate to insure that traffic load does not exceed a "C" level on any of the roads or arterials servicing the development, nor on major roadways such as Highways 55 and 16. - Idaho Department of Water Resources provides a certificate of assurance that the quantity and volume of ground water available in the aquifer from which water for the development will be provided, is adequate to provide for the development without detrimentally affecting existing groundwater users. The school district that will be expected to provide school facilities for the development's inhabitants provides certification that they see nothing at the present time that would prohibit them from providing adequate school facilities without creating overcrowding in present school facilities. In lieu of such certification, the school district shall provide a letter indicating the financial resources required to provide said schooling will be made available, and a letter of agreement from the developer agreeing to provide such resources. An irrevocable bond in said amount shall be provided by said developer." Thank you for your time and I wish you well in your deliberations on this matter. = C) cn m • cD 0 v a 0 < CDD m CD O v cn cn CO0 0 rn to 7" 0 CD c O c CD mom. o • m cno �o CD �.. cnwlvo II cn W0 O O4 N � f" CCD O) CO CO C Q, 0 m C C. 0 O U, C31 CD O. cn CQ C fl) CL CO CD CD CD CD CD Preliminary plats already approved in Eagle area of impact as of 9/26/06: spaaN 6ui;slxj z ommcncnmm i K ma) G)G)c cn_cn_�' <cncn `4-Q3 0o nfl.o m m m3 m m n cD m e9 ccn a)--cp K3 12=m o co) v -�-, T 3 = per' T x• co 3 O 0`z a.wv,0 0 va)mE= eL o o m = o = v sv N -� O O CD• 0 0 0 0 C) Iv Iv C) OOCb.PODN 00000000 m C) 8 c N OIVCJ,VACJ,3 CD --4 c.n 0 - 0 CD 0) W IV -1. CO N 30 < O_ C 3 z CD 0. �CN11cnwCD�l-� CAW NCDODA sn;e;S ;uaaan3 PROJECTED EAGLE FOOTHILLS SCHOOL COST IICD0) 0 -I C Qo CD O OD CD • 7" O C.71 COD CD O. cn CO O C 0) CO 7 CD 0. CD CD CCDD 2 O co CD W N o N N CO CO Preliminary plats already approved in Eagle area of impact as of 9/26/06: spaaN 6ul;slx3 N O O CA O CD m rn v v am) ' m am) CD ��tl?C0 v GC000 0 a) a) m m m m S m m g m o 2 K CD 0 2 m �, �co' o:3 ea =m 0) = 0 cD A— N 3 c cp-wm mm a w (n 0 n Qo s,z 0m' O m a v v� CW71 O O O v m O - o O W 4 W O OCb.CbN O 000000O m C) N -► O -' ONcncn (D - I Cn W CD CD a) CD OD N-O)N M 0 3 -1 CD O. -.101C71 WOOV..CD CAWNCDCO- �. sn;e;S ;uaaanz PROJECTED EAGLE FOOTHILLS SCHOOL COST CO 00)N O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O Na -a -► — N CDCDNCD It. N 0 00 CD O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O cn CO CD a) iD . 'CO O C cn CD O Q Cl) Cn C C1 CD - ir CJ1AW pa NJ NV I V O NV W W N N OCn0(n 6Ab9EflfAfA cn W -L CO CA co�NCD V A W N N QD NJ co co CDao-co it. CCDD -A N) 4h. co m cD CD Nv Q C1 CD Cr) C) ar O Z) CD la CAD C1 EA EA4fl403b9 �CDACDA O IV W -4).iA V O W V ()01Cb0N • Cb N CA ID CO W N CD N CA NJ NJ m CD 3 CD a) 42 Efl69b9b96H ▪ W W N —&'.1-FL 0 iLD*IPODN- I V O V O CA CO CD N W N NN3 CO GO CO 4h, CD N3 co co - - C1 CD CD a CD C1 C7 O U) CO —I 0 N co a) cn cD o. 0 S CD CAD CO 0. CO 3 CA ET Cr m rn 13 rn cn CD cn CD O CD n CCDD C1 O Cn 2 a a C) O U) 0 rn a) CO m O cn cn C) O• O N CS a) Cn CD C1 O Q. (D D. CD CA CD cn a;ewi;s3 silly}oodi III =gym cn' Q CD m-a3 co O CN) a) 00 0 O � O O EA EA 69 X Cn CD 0 CA O CC) .0 0. U) Efl EA 69 69 COD OW) O 000-CID A00 CD Cn W 0 0 ►. A�Vcn 2 Cna)II) 0 co NJ C3 - CD V co O O =gym ea a: cD 0.3 CD CD CD CI 0 O O C-�O 0 n 0 0 Ca) �WC) as —�N A W O O CO CO W C)10010 N -A O O COn O O O :looyos Aq pa;eoolld rCD CD O. v,m 7 cr) o c. CA O °1i 0 7- Cn CD CD . oo 0 8 D C) -a U) CD C1 O cn cn O cn C C) 0 0 0 C) C C. 5 CO a) C2 O CD .0 C 3 CD 3 C) 0 cn N CD 3 Cv 3 5. ca CD CC] Cv O. CD Cr CvC, v CO C) 0 0 C) 60Z'98L`17ZZ $ Total current bond indebtedness as of 4/1/06 : 000`89L' I.9Z $ 3 CD 0 0_ 0 C a. Cl) C) 0 0 8 0)0)u)0)K0)K -' CD CD CD m CO m C O co co co cD o O O CDNOCACAUIC)1 O v 7 D 0- v co < CD ✓ OOCOC)OV==- O .a N W V N W CD CD (C K)WO..?�l CI"_ :CT N VCAO V 0 0 0 0. co N_ CD co No COD � C- �J1 CD O V CD co IV "co CO"co �I C O O OOCID OOO CD CD O O O co O O O ,. CD O OOOOOOOQ' "O O O O O O O O 13 a 40)6940)40)4040)409 0 ID CU Cl) co x7 CD C) CD a O C2 CD CDC Cn CJ) IDAHO geewd 607 f-/-Z Smart Growth Board of Directors Jane Lloyd President Rob Hopper Vice President Charles Hummel Secretary - Treasurer Bill Clark Susan Eastlake Don Pena Pat Takasugi Staff Rachel Winer I ixccutive Director Elaine C/egg Special Projects Deanna Smith \dministrator IDAHO Smart Growth 910 Main Street Suite 314 Boise, ID 83702 PO Box 374 Boise, ID 83701 208-333-8066 iss@idabosnvartsrowth.org www.idahosmmtgrowth.org encouraging vibrant communities through sensible growth Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission PO Box 1520 Eagle, ID 83616 Fax: 938-3854 Re: Idaho Smart Growth Comments on Comp Plan Revisions 2 June 11, 2007 Dear Eagle Planning and Zoning Commissioners, The mission of Idaho Smart Growth is to build the capacity of Idahoans to shape the future of their communities as they envision it; to increase public awareness of the links between land use, transportation and quality of life; to educate Idahoans about the consequences of and alternatives to current development patterns; and to promote thoughtful long range planning and exemplary development policies at local, regional, and state levels. Approximately 75°Ao of our members live in the Treasure Valley, and many of them reside in Eagle. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the revised Comprehensive Plan. The comments below are in addition to our comments previously submitted. We'd like to focus our comments on two key areas: adequate public facilities, and the potential number of units planned for the North Eagle Foothills area. These two issues are critically linked- looked at together, they will define the carrying capacity of this area for future growth. 1. Adequate Public Facilities Adequate public facilities, as defined in BGG, is the "requirement that essential public facilities will be provided at adopted levels of service prior to or concurrent with the creation of new demands for those facilities." (Emphasis added) (Blueprint for Good Growth Phase 1 Report, September 14, 2006, p.6). This includes water, wastewater, stormwater, transportation system, fire protection, and schools. We recommend making it clear in the comprehensive plan that future development in the North Eagle Foothills area is dependent on the provision of essential public facilities, so that current Eagle residents and taxpayers can be assured that they will not bare the main cost of this growth. For example, transportation is a critical issue in this area, and as both BGG and Communities in Motion illustrate, transportation and land use are critically linked. IDAHO Smart Growth encouraging vibrant communities through sensible growth Blueprint calls to "[ejvaluate development proposals and future land use map amendments, are consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan and the 20- year ACHD Capital Improvements Plan." Since the transportation study for this area is not yet complete, we would encourage Eagle to wait before final approval of the portion of the Comprehensive Plan update addressing the North Eagle Foothills Area. If a future transportation network cannot support the number of units proposed in this Plan, it could cause unnecessary delay and confusion for landowners, developers, and the community. 2. Potential Units In order to best achieve the stated vision of the City of Eagle and the Blueprint for Good Growth, we recommend retaining current rural residential zoning, or a similar zoning pattern, of 1 to 40 acres, 1 to 20 acres, and 1 to 10 acres, with a commitment to a well developed density bonus system. In other words, base densities should start low to allow the maximum flexibility a density bonus system has to offer. Then at the ordinance level, we would recommend a system of density bonuses and incentives to encourage clustering and planned community level development where appropriate. The bonuses would need to be contingent on the completion of an adequate public facilities study, and would result from the information gathered from the study. This is consistent with Blueprint In GM-8, Blueprint gives guidance for new development and land use map amendments that the development intensity should be established "at the time of concept plan approval considering the adequacy of essential public facilities; applicable comprehensive plan policies; the proximity of the project to existing employment centers; consistency of the project with the Long Range Transportation Plan and the ACHD 20-Year CIP; and physical limitations of the site." (p.12) Section 6.3.20 supports this vision, by repeatedly talking about "maximum" density. According to this language, 1 unit per acre is a maximum and not a base. Therefore, sections throughout the plan should reflect the same language. As currently drafted, different language is used throughout, even within the same sections. For example, in the Foothills Base Density charts, the title indicates the number is a minimum, not a maximum as suggested in Section 6.3.20. But the final calculation is described as "potential units". On Section 6.8.11-b, the word "maximum" should be inserted every time the phrase "base density" is used in order to reflect Section 6.3.20. (Comp Plan Revisions 2, p.77). Incentives could then be added based on the results of the adequate public facilities study. IDAHO Smart Growth encouraging vibrant communities through sensible growth 3. Other In section 6.8.11-a-2, the fragmentation of open space can and should be reduced with methods other than engineering. (Comp Plan Revisions 2, p.78). Instead of embracing the removal of hillsides and restructuring the landscape, we encourage the use of clustering and other incentive -based non -engineering approaches. In section 6.8.11-5, a sentence was removed that should be reinserted so that it is clear that it is not just up to developers and landowners to establish a structure for funding open space preservation. The community can and should be involved, as well as third party non-profit organizations. (Comp Plan Revisions 2, p.79) After section 6.8.11 c 1 B which states "promote the use of the following road cross sections within the centers within the foothills," the cross sections have been removed and replaced by a plan view. As in the original draft with the cross sections included, there are no bike lanes. (Comp Plan Revisions 2, p.84). We recommend including bike lines in all road cross sections in this area. Until an adequate public facilities study is completed, we urge the City of Eagle to retain maximum flexibility in the Comprehensive plan by rewriting the sections referring to potential numbers of units. We encourage the City to continue to work on finessing this version of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure that it is consistent with Blueprint before it is ready for a final vote. The plan will be the vision for the Eagle Foothills, and it is important that the staff, the Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and the City Council take time to assure that the many concerns brought before them are addressed so that the vision is clear and supported by both the community and potential developers. Sincerely, @sQ,\NI Rachel Winer Executive Director Idaho Smart Growth Rachel(a,idahosmartgrowth.org 208-333-8066