Minutes - 2008 - Planning & Zoning - 01/28/2008 - Regular
THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
660 E. Civic Lane
January 28, 2008
OR I (=';{f\f /\ I
I .F I I \! Ii L
I. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting calle to order at 6:03 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: FELIX, ZASTROW, PIERCE, AIZPITARTE, McCARREL
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
. Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There
will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Chairman, a Commissioner, member
of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in
a sequence determined by the Rules of Order.
. Any item on the Consent Agenda that contains written recommendations from the City of
Eagle shall be adopted as part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Consent Agenda
approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise.
A. Minutes of January 7, 2008.
Aizpitarte moves to approve the Minutes of January 7, 2008. Seconded by McCarrel. ALL
A YES...MOTION CARRIES.
4. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
McCarrel moves that Aizpitarte become the chairman. Seconded by Zastrow. ALL
AYES.. .MOTION CARRIES.
Aizpitarte moves that Bill McCarrel become vice-chairman. Seconded by Felix. ALL
A YES...MOTION CARRIES.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CU-ll-07 - Conditional Use Permit for a Youth Recreation Facilitv - The Landin!!: The
Landing, represented by Joe Bruce with Insight Architects, is requesting conditional use
approval to convert an existing I ,695-square foot residential dwelling into a non-profit, faith
based youth recreation facility. The 0.37-acre site is located on the east side of North Eagle
Road approximately 900-feet north of State Street at 368 North Eagle Road. This item was
continued from the December 17, 2007, meeting.
Pierce introduces the item, Staff is requesting this item be continued to the February 25,2008,
meeting.
Pierce moves to continue to the February 25, 2008. Seconded by McCarrel. ALL
AYES...MOTION CARRIES.
B. A-19-07/RZ-26-07 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-E-DA - Harold "Hal" and
Marv Kav Bunderson: Harold "Hal" and Mary Kay Bunderson are requesting approval of
an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition-Ada County Designation) to R-
E-DA (Residential-Estates-one unit per two acres with a development agreement). The 5.33-
acre site is generally located on the north side of W. River Heights Drive approximately one
hundred fifteen feet (l15') west ofS. Winward Drive at 582 W. River Heights Drive.
Pierce introduces the item.
Hal Bunderson, 582 W. River Heights Drive, Meridian. Reviews the application. Discusses
possible future plans of the area.
Dave Alvord, City Staff, reviews the staff report. Stands for questions from the Commission.
Page lof3
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-OI-28-08min,doc
Pierce opens the public hearing.
Wayne Coleman, 232 River Heights Drive. 3 lots to the east of Bundreson. Lot is similar to what
Mr. Bunderson has. Would like to down size as well. Had he been contiguous he would have an
application as well. In favor of the application.
Molly O'Leary, 515 N. 2ih Street. Represents Brad and Carolyn Bower who are opposed to this
application. Ms O'Leary reads a letter submitted to the Commission for the record.
Mimi Plum, 854 River Heights Drive. Discusses the CC&R's of the subdivision. Discusses the
neighborhood meeting held in October. Is opposed to this application. Feels their subdivision is
unique. Wants the 5 acre zoning to stay. Has concerns about this property being annexed.
McCarrel asks how may lots are in the subdivision. There are 24 owners and covenants for the
subdivision are still active.
Pierce asks what are the City's practices on annexation. Stephanie Bonney, Citya Attorney,
discusses that the City does not have jurisdiction on subdivision CC & R's.
Judith Erdman, 7283 Winward Drive. Surprised that the Bunderson's had said they didn't have
plans to develop. Discusses that the subdivision was planned for 5 acres. A majority of the
owners could not make it tonight. Ms. Erdman submits and reads a letter for the record.
Linda Oliver, 7225 N. Meridian Road. One of the first houses going into Winward Heights. Does
not believe they would have bought in the area. Does not know why Eagle would want to break
apart this area.
Alan Hall, 10 II River Heights Drive. Newer resident to the neighborhood. Attracted to the 5
acre lots. Has some concerns. Spent a lot of money on their land. Property is unique. Had some
property in Seattle where there had been a rezone/change in the neighborhood.
Hal Bunderson rebuts testimony. Believes the neighbors fear change. Discusses Castlebury West
and Sugarberry which are nearby subdivisions. Stands for questions from the Commission.
Zastrow asks about a plat or if they are just looking for entitlements.
Pierce closes the public hearing.
Felix asks about spot zoning. Bonney gives an overview of spot zoning. This is in conformance
of the comprehensive plan. Aspitarte asks about the covenants ofthe subdivision. City has no
jurisdiction over the CC&R's. Discusses the comments mad by O'leary.
Felix feels this area is consistent with the Comprehensive plan. Not opposed to a split within a
subdivision. Is against this application because a majority of the others are opposed to a split.
Planner Alvord discusses that there is not an application for a subdivision/split at this time.
General discussion.
Zastrow would like to see more of a consensus amongst the neighbors. Can understand the
Bunderson's side of things as well.
McCarrel agrees with member Zastrow.
Aspitarte agrees with everything that has been said. Would possibly like to see it annexed and
rezoned to A-R.
Aizpitarte moves to recommend denial of A-19-07/RZ-26-07 - Annexation and Rezone from
RUT to R-E-DA - Harold "Hal" and Mary Kay Bunderson. Seconded by McCarrel. ALL
AYES.. .MOTION CARRIES.
6. REPORTS:
A. Commission: None.
B. City Attorney: None.
C. Staff: None.
Page 2 of3
K:\P&Z\MlNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-OI-28-08min.doc
7. ADJOURNMENT: Zastrow moves to adjourn. Seconded by McCarrel. ALL
AYES.. .MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
3l~ ~~
~...... ."SHARON K. DEROMANN ~\ ~~~
\~*::fITY CLERK/TREASURER
riD: ~
DAVID AIZPITARTE
CHAIRMAN
Page 3 of3
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-Ol-28-08min.doc
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
January 28, 2008 6:00 p.m.
A-19-07/RZ-26-07-Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-E-DA:
Harold"Hal"and Mary Kay Bunderson
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
r NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
�r. E,' i L =?r`/4 115
AS /9/e d
/ Rica //
i 5/ 5Ala7/1J/rad- - e-
AAA(' 0 c / /D 7d 0\ �IOC yei
6.14/L
,
f /&$ F(c
I
t>, rL iG/n 7,)e.5 ';i)��;r�� ; e T' s Can
A / A) of) l l��2- 7a-a- S /t2 /O / - s c o rJ
G`� Z///� i�.�o�,� ,��/r'/,bi�� i e,D ..r/o cGzt?
jjyylidei f(a-g/0 .49•I Z
Comments by Molly O'Leary
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
On behalf of Carolyn & Brad Bower
600 W. River Heights Drive
Meridian, Idaho 83646
CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING & ZONINING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING FOR
A-19-07 & RZ-26-07
01.28.08
My name is Molly O'Leary, of the law firm of Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC. My
mailing address is 515 N. 27th Street, Boise, Idaho 83702.
Brad & Carolyn Bower, whose home adjoins the property in question to the west,
are opposed to the application for a rezone. The Bowers' address is 600 West
River Heights Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83646.
The Bowers were not able to be present in person this evening, and have
requested that I register their objections on their behalf.
OBJECTIONS
1. The requested rezone of the subject property is a classic example of
illegal "spot zoning", whereby a particular property is singled out for
special zoning treatment for the benefit of the landowner, that is
inconsistent with the use of the surrounding land and the Comp Plan.
2. Although a Neighborhood Meeting was held on October 24, 2007, the
stated purpose of the Neighborhood Meeting was to determine if the
Bundersons' neighbors were interested in joining with them to have the
Winward River Heights Subdivision annexed into the City of Eagle. The
overwhelming response was: NO.
3. The only justification provided by the applicants for the rezone application
was the fact that they do not wish to continue maintaining their large lot
due to advancing age. This justification does not constitute a legally
cognizable hardship to support a request for "spot zoning".
4. Potentially inadequate lot size:
• The application states that the subject lot consists of 5.33 acres.
However, according to a letter from the Idaho Department of Lands,
the State of Idaho claims title to the bed and banks of the south
Comments by Molly O'Leary
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
On behalf of Carolyn & Brad Bower
600 W. River Heights Drive
Meridian, Idaho 83646
channel of the Boise River which borders the Bundersons' property
on the north. Until a Disclaimer of Interest agreement is entered
into between the Bundersons and the IDL, or a Quiet Title action
has been concluded, it is uncertain how much property the
applicant actually owns. According to Jay Sila, Resource
Supervisor in Land, Range & Minerals at the IDL, a survey of the
applicants' property could result in diminishing their total fee simple
holding by an acre or more. There is no way to know until IDL has
been consulted.
• In addition to the potential IDL claim to a portion of the subject lot,
the Staff Report notes that 1.9 acres of the lot are in a floodplain
and the floodway cannot be included in calculating appropriate
residential density or included in the required "open space" unless
developed as a substantially improved wildlife area open to the
public or other useable open space.
• Therefore, the grant of a rezone to R-E based on a representation
that the subject property consists of 5.33 acres is premature.
5. The Development Agreement contained in the file:
• Does not contain the referenced Concept Plan (Exhibit B), and
therefore the application is incomplete, the notice to the public is
inadequate, and the commission's review of the application is
premature.
• Does not contain an affidavit of the applicant agreeing to submit the
lot to a Development Agreement, as required by Section 8-10-1,
Eagle City Code.
6. The record shows that there are no non-conforming uses with the current
applicable Ada County zoning classification of RUT; however, spot zoning
of this lot will, in essence, facilitate the creation of a "non-conforming use"
within the legally platted Ada County subdivision and, thereby, negatively
impact the value of surrounding properties whose owners have justifiably
relied on the existing subdivision plat to ensure the monetary as well as
aesthetic value of their property.
7. The application is incomplete - There is no statement of justification of a
Development Agreement.
Comments by Molly O'Leary
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
On behalf of Carolyn & Brad Bower
600 W. River Heights Drive
Meridian, Idaho 83646
CONCLUSION
Idaho Code protects subdivision property owners' vested interest in their
property by mandating a procedure for vacating a subdivision lot once the
subdivision has been platted. This procedure has been codified to protect the
reasonable expectation of property owners against latter-day speculators that
seek to disrupt the nature of a platted subdivision for their own personal gain.
Appropriately, this procedure requires the agreement of 2/3 of the
subdivision property owners to the vacating of a lot in the subdivision,
because vacating even a single lot represents a significant departure from the
property owners' collective expectations regarding the nature of their
neighborhood, an expectation upon which they have invested their hard-
earned money and the sweat of their brow.
The City of Eagle's Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses the issue of
Property Rights, and specifically notes that "Property rights must balance
the individual's desire to 'do whatever I want with my land' with a respect for
the property rights of others. Comp. Plan, Ch. 2, Sec. 2.1. In addition,
Section 2.3 of the City's Comp Plan mandates that "all land use decisions
made by the City of Eagle pursuant to this Comprehensive Plan shall protect
fundamental private property rights." Comp. Plan, Ch. 2, Sec. 2.3.
The Comp Plan specifically addresses the issue of lot-splitting in Section
6.5(c), stating that one of the 5 primary land use objectives of the Comp
Plan is "[tjo discourage lot splits in approved platted subdivisions."
Although the record indicates that the vast majority of the applicants'
neighbors oppose down-zoning their lot or any other lot in the Winward River
Heights Subdivision to allow for greater density than the current Ada County
RUT zoning classification, the Staff Report fails to address this critical issue.
Even more troubling, the Staff Report fails to even acknowledge that this
application is contrary to a primary goal of the City's Comp Plan is to
discourage lot splits in platted subdivisions, and does not identify a
countervailing land use goal to justify ignoring this goal.
For these reasons and all of the foregoing reasons, the application for spot
zoning of the subject lot should be denied.
I Pgi D Pr4
TO: Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission
ATTN: Michael Williams, PCED
FROM: Winward River Heights Subdivision Property Owners
SUBJECT: Bunderson Request for Annexation and Rezone
A-19-07 &RZ-26-07
The purpose of this letter is to offer comments for your consideration on the above request for a
lot located in our subdivision.
A neighborhood meeting was held on 10-24-07 by the applicant and others to assess interest in
annexation into the city of Eagle by all or part of the Winward River Heights Subdivision.
Results of the meeting showed that only 7 or 28% of the 25 property owners would like to pursue
this option,while the remaining 72% opposed annexation for various reasons. Consequently,
a single application(Bunderson)rather than a group application has been submitted as his
contiguous neighbors are not interested in annexation or rezoning at this time.
We respect the right for an individual property owner to voluntarily request annexation for his
own lot and rezone. However, because the city has authority to annex lots less than 5 acres, and
possibly the entire subdivision,we are opposed to an isolated annexation(Bunderson)that allows
the city to expand further in the subdivision against the wishes of the property owners.
THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSAL BE TABLED UNTIL THERE IS
STRONGER SUPPORT IN THE SUBDIVISION FOR ANNEXATION AND REZONE.
Thank you for your consideration.
PROPERTY OWNER(S) ADDRESS DATE
1� 1 n1� ��Jr e� �l br
aleaAt 10 ( ( RiVer ffer I3 Dr 1-/ z�
5 _ %/v metier /3 d r:
4
, / -/ ors
l'4 - a
I
PROPERTY OWNER(S) ADDRESS DATE
6N— Q �
oZ - S1)'A
C7r -r---) (,eia
' NeA/c/11- e ''cV1---- - , t , . 1,1
eitt,.. !fro A ot r iti-e4‘5 i Vs y�
)�►r F--- \\\� ;'. '--s \�)5\�� /14
C r L lab Ili,,,,,,,- ,tt, . i 'l t L//0 e
_51„---p„.."_`7 / .7a 701,rO LeJ.!/17.�tr-P1/1.e�Q oe'�./u�U-2 /V—del
�J 71 / ie (2rd i)ft - 1/!4/c8
, rea., y/ ' / 744/8 (6)m. i Cv 1//-./4 ,
-y.. Af , .fir " ,C ,, /�#44- /-/ 6P--
- 1: ` •1, 1 <-3/gP► v e.p �.e „ c • I—Ii -off
„►9 ..V0--- 0, 1- \\1er \e‘c,\ ir• 1 -14-0?
f __
/0
4 505 ,u, fir. Ni_ Os�
L/ i (4 ) Se,4,-/ - /0--< - / /1--LV
/ 600 g';y e/- e: 5-ktsP c------
/�i
S27//,`->Yai,pt-ci,L._
��uu� i=.5' vtt. f����'hJi,f3 7i�//��US'
t",/ Oat/J(3 I i ,ter/W 71'? . >�S- ,i v'/ ;�` -C. ids -Pr 01bz/e>y
y&,, /Y., yvz.,z �S y r - /34 J14 AP /•%9
to V,-..- L-, ' ,5.1i ue.-- W"rciz ddc /•/y PR
/ia At. S4 Dr, /64 I
/ 3 0 /21V v i is . /6, o?
•
PROPERTY OWNER(S) ADDRESS DATE
7"5 /1/ ///9/0
* / ,. a,,e1!1 7.ZZ f�/ / / // A/j'08
v im- - 7? -s . /21)l /-/�-