Minutes - 2009 - Planning & Zoning - 03/02/2009 - Regular
THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 2, 2009
Minutes
ORIGINAL
1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: TANNER, ROEHLING, AIZPITARTE, SMITH
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 February 23, 2009.
B. Findines of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CU-05-08 - Conditional Use Permit for a
Montessori School Facility - Montessori Academv: Montessori Academy, represented by
Mike and Jody Malterre, is requesting conditional use approval for a Montessori school
facility (kindergarten thru 8th grade). The site is currently being used by Northstar Charter
School and is located on the east side of Park Lane approximately 350 feet north of Floating
Feather Road at 1400 Park Lane (located upon Lot I, Block I, within Cavallo Estates
Subdivision).
Aizpitarte abstains from the Consent Agenda items stating that he was absent from meeting ofthe 23rd.
Tanner moves to continue the minutes of February 23, 2009 to the next regular meeting. Seconded
by Roehling...THREE AYE. ONE ABSTAINS (AIZPITARTE) MOTION CARRIES.
Tanner removes item 3B from the consent agenda for discussion. Discussion for clarification on site
specific condition number ten (10).
Tanner moves to amend site specific condition number ten to read: "The applicant shall work
closely with the adjacent property owner to the north on a fencing option that will provide the
most cost effective barrier between the Montessori Academy Students and the horses contained on
the property under the current circumstances." Seconded by Smith. Discussion. Tanner amends
the condition to revise the language to read "a cost effective barrier, rather than the most cost
effective barrier." Second concurs with the amendment. THREE AYE ...ONE ABSTAINS
(AIZPITARTE)
City Planner, Mike William draws the Commissioners attention to a numbering error for item 4A. The
agenda should read A-I-09/RZ-I-09.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. A-I-09/RZ-I-09 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to A-R-DA - Chad Moffat/Cabin Creek
Development Company and Jeff Frazier: Chad Moffat/Cabin Creek Development Company and Jeff
Frazier are requesting approval of an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition-Ada
County Designation) to A-R-DA (Agricultural-Residential one unit per five acres with a development
agreement). The 38.9-acre site consisting of Pembrook Subdivision and the adjacent property to the south
Page I of 3
KIP&ZIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-03-02-09mindoc
is generally located on the north side ofW. Beacon Light Road approximately 1,970 feet west ofN.
Eagle Road at 702 W. Beacon Light Road.
Chairman Tanner introduces the item.
Chad Moffat 702 W. Beacon Light Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Moffat reviews his application. He is requesting
the property be annexed into City limits. The density will remain unchanged.
City Planner, Mike Williams reviews the staff application. Discussion.
Tanner opens the public hearing.
Rhonda Noneman 3939 N. Falcon Ridge Ln. Eagle, Idaho. Ms. Noneman reads a statement into the
record. Her statement is attached to the minutes. Ms. Noneman's concern is with what may happen after
annexation. She would like additional conditions in the development agreement setting limits on
business related traffic. Increased traffic has already been felt and restrictions need to be placed to
ensure pedestrian safety.
Andy Pendley 722 Valli Hi Road Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Pendley is opposed to the annexation. He does not
feel that the legal due process was not met. His wife, who is the property owner, was not notified in
writing to the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Pendley provides a list of the property owners, who were
notified of the neighborhood meeting, and he and a number of neighbors on Valli Hi are not on the list
and therefore the notification process has been illegal.
Discussion between Commissioners and Staff. After review, it does appear that improper notice was
given for the neighborhood meeting. City Attorney, Paul Fitzer, states that ifthe Commission so chooses
they could go ahead and take public testimony, with the understanding that the application will need to
be re-noticed and another public hearing will be held. Discussion.
Kathy Spencer 722 Valli Hi Road Eagle, Idaho. She loves the neighborhood and currently has an Ada
County approved home occupation. She would like a safe site plan, and a different site access that would
increase safety. She feels the traffic impact would be negative. A better solution could be reached if all
of the neighbors worked together to come up with a plan.
Bill Whelan 3949 N. Falcon Ridge Lane Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Whelan discusses the history of the current
business located on site. Mr. Whelan relays the action taken by Ada County Code Enforcement
regarding the Moffat's current home occupation. If this application is approved, some very stringent
restrictions should be placed on the business.
Commissioner Aizpitarte leaves the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Jim Chu 3335 N. Lorna Lane Eagle, Idaho. The increase in traffic is Mr. Chu's major concern, and how
it will be handled to address pedestrian safety for adults and children.
Dick Lagerstrom 1262 W. Beacon Light Road Eagle, Idaho. He feels that the commercial use of this
property is incompatible with community wishes in the area. Mr. Lagerstrom believes that when the
property was originally plotted there was no intention for access to Beacon Light. Concerned that if one
commercial use is allowed it will open the door for others requests for higher density land use and/or
other commercial land use.
Patricia Minkiewicz Deerfield Ct Eagle, Idaho. Ms. Minkiewicz is representing Buckhorn Estates
Subdivision. She is pleased that the developer kept it at 5 acres rather than going for higher density. She
assumes that wells and septic tanks will still be used. She suggests that the developers tell people to dig
wells very deep as water as underground water has become a big issue. She also asks that Mr. Moffat
remove the weeds from another property across from Shaunesy subdivision.
City Planner, Williams states that the property Ms. Minkiewicz referred to across from Shaunesy
Subdivision is not owned by Mr. Moffat.
Page 2 of3
K:IP&Z\MINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-03-02-09min.doc
Tanner moves to table the application pending notice in compliance with applicable City ordinance
regarding 300' radiuses. Seconded by Smith. ALL AYE. ..MOTION CARRIES.
City Planner Williams notes that a complete notice will be made; this includes legal notification,
mailings and the re-posting of the site.
5. REPORTS:
A. Commission: No report
B. City Attorney: No report
C. Staff: No report
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Tanner moves to adjourn. Seconded by Roehling. ALL AYE.. . MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED:
Mr.+<< Kt3I~~
'-SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
"""'11 II ""'"
"" ~ * ""
.,fIt (,v........ '"
" ~.. c .. 0 '..
~ b~. ~ p /.. -:.,r. '..
~ "'1..- 'r' <~ e. 'r ':.
: 4..: ~ ,~ p~ .t.. :
. o. ^ __ \". P _
_ ........ . '" r-......_
. ....... ex: ,r., -.:. :
: .,-- . """-I Q:. ~ ...
-:. ~ ... ~ '" q,Ol 0 :
'.. ..... o~. f. '
~"V e. n':'C .. A-'/ .....
" .......... '" ...'
'" * S'\ 1'.'
"II \,'}."
"""'11'"
APPROVED:
~
GARY TA '
CHAIRMAN
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE AT CITY HALL.
Page 3 of3
KIP&ZIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-03-02-09min.doc
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
'ibject: A-1-06/RZ-1-06 Annexation and Rezone from RUT to A -R -DA - Chad Moffat/Cabin Creek
Development Company and Jeff Frazier:
March 2, 2009
TESTIFY
NAME ADDRESS YES/NO
ae kit 11.-tri(4-A__
L
r
4114
.•e? //
•Lk [,C(C�C� j�iL✓1
J
7� I /v rG/��,-, tie/fie �S
3335 N ,i14
7/ 2 Z;f...)/ i' �J //4.A;1-
-�C/32, `V . rthCC,v
ikie6 1(!_i -3 0 (o 0=/-
PRO/ CON or
NEUTRAL
C Gtl
122 3l2/09
The City of Eagle P&Z, and members of the Eagle City Council, March 2, 2009
My Name is Rhonda Noneman, I live at 3939 N. Falcon Ridge Lane, Eagle, Idaho. I would like to
be on record stating my concerns and share with you how our neighborhood has already been
impacted.
My argument is not against annexation, but what could potentially result after annexation. And
because Eagle City code is directly related to annexation and rezoning, I feel my concerns are
very relevant regarding the ambiguity of the proposed developer's agreement.
My understanding of a developer's agreement is that it is a discretionary tool to be used by the
council as a condition of rezoning; that specific uses may be clearly outlined, and the council
may set conditions. Although no special uses or business licenses have currently been
requested, I'm under the impression one will be requested shortly after annexation due to an
un -permitted business currently being run on one of the properties. Because of this concern, I
would like to see conditions within the developer's agreement which would set limits to any
business related traffic for the safety of, and keeping in harmony with the rural nature of the
Valli Hi neighborhood.
My husband and I chose the Eagle area because we very much liked the city's vision of growth
and its rural feel. The Valli Hi neighborhood and surrounding properties are at the heart of 1
home per 5 acres, Rural Urban Transition. People.who live here chose to live here — away from
the traffic, noise, and growth — while happily continuing to supporting Eagle's core business
district. While Eagle's land uses are slightly looser, they still do not allow commercial or home
occupations allowing "significant traffic" to and from a property.
My concern is with the amount of traffic produced by any kind of business. The spirit of a home
occupation is that it is not visible to the public. Current City of Eagle code allows home
occupations with one person, other than the members of the family residing on the premises,
to be engaged in the home occupation. It also specifies no visible evidence of the conduct of
such business be apparent. However, the language of "significant traffic" is very vague. Is this
one client at a time on the property, or could this potentially result in three people working
[two home owners and one independent contractor] x three clients every 15 minutes x 8 hrs a
day x one trip in, and one trip out = 384 additional trips per day down Valli Hi? I think that's
significant! It is the amount of traffic I would like defined within the developer's agreement and
for the following reason.
Residents of Valli Hi have already noticed an unusually large amount of traffic coming and going
from the first home built in Pembrook, early morning to late evening. This same home also held
a grand opening for a business. After a complaint was filed to Ada County's P&Z, it was
determined that the "significant" increase in traffic was due to an illegal/un-permitted/un-
zoned public fitness facility being run from that home, Eagle Strength and Conditioning, which
included advertising in a local magazine and newspaper, and a parking lot at the north side of
' the property. I don't think this is in harmony with the rural nature of our neighborhood. Ada
County denied them a permit, because of the traffic impact and inconsistent use in a rural
residential neighborhood, plus accessing from a private lane. However, to date the traffic has
not appeared to stop, and I get the impression this business use is what is driving the
annexation.
The facts are that the Valli Hi neighborhood is a 25 mile per hour, rather narrow, dead-end cul-
de-sac, which has a dangerous jig in the road. It has no lighting or sidewalks, and several
privately owned side streets which are maintained at our own expense. Until the Pembrook
development went in, traffic was limited to those who lived here, and visitors to those homes.
Now we have traffic zipping up and down the street early morning to late evening to and from
the "gym" in Pembrook.
I am asking that the council maintain that property rights balance the individual's desire to do
whatever they want with their land, with respect for the property rights of neighboring owners.
And, that the council add conditions to the developer's agreement setting limits to potential
business traffic, given the rural nature of the neighborhood, the road's dangerous
configuration, and the safety of its kids who walk % a mile to the bus stop at Eagle road, often
in the winter dark.
I thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Rhonda Noneman