Minutes - 2009 - Planning & Zoning - 11/02/2009 - Regular
THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 2,2009
1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Roehling calls the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Roehling, Aizpitarte, Smith, Villegas
Absent: Tanner
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. RZ-05-09 - Rezone from R-4 (Residential- UP to four dwelline: units per acre) to CBD-DA
(Central Business District with a Development Ae:reement) - M and H Development: M and
H Development, represented by Greg Hall, is requesting approval of a rezone from R-4
(Residential- up to four units per acre) to CBD-DA (Central Business District with development
agreement). The 0.4 7 -acre site is located on the east side of North Eagle Road approximately
175-feet north of Idaho Street at 220 North Eagle Road. The application also includes the
properties located at 16 and 144 East Idaho Street, a .31-acre parcel and a . 14-acre property
respectively, located on the northeast corner the intersection of North Eagle Road and East Idaho
Street, as a part ofthe development agreement. This item was continued from the October 5,
2009, meeting. (JL)
Roehling introduces the issue.
City Staff, Jeff Lowe gives a brief history of the application and reviews a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment application reviewed by the City for an adjacent area. He also refers to a recent application on
1st Street for an Art Studio along with different parking, driveways, and screening obstacles. He discusses
appropriate restrictions to noise and lighting along with the restrictions he listed in his memo. He
discusses the term alley and its purpose being to provide connectivity.
General discussion regarding a comparison with the J Bar K project and the pedestrian oriented design
along with the downtown planning processes.
City Staff, Jeff Lowe reviews staff recommendations regarding the development agreement. He discusses
parking recommendations and a possible Conditional Use Permit.
City Attorney Buxton provides clarification to City Staff as to the correct terms to use in the development
agreement in regard to a Conditional Use Permit.
General discussion regarding a north access point and buffering.
Smith states he expected the developer and the applicant, in the past two or three months that have gone
by, to have spoken to the neighbor to the North in order to find some progress.
Aizpitarte asks Staff to display the first map of the drive aisles. He then discusses the example of J Bar K
and how they are two very different developments. He states that this current application is a very different
situation and asks Staff if that is agreed.
City Staff, Jeff Lowe states he would partly agree. While they are two separate locations, the goal is to
eliminate issues with access. He then discusses similarities in the goals to make the areas more pedestrian
conducive.
Page 1 of 4
K:IP&ZIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-II-02-09min.doc
General discussion regarding the design review overlays that apply to the area and the option of an alley
and its functionality.
City Attorney Buxton provides clarification to the topic ofthe alley. She states it is like any transportation
management plan for the City. This is not really ever intended to be an alley in the sense that you think it's
a thoroughfare. It's a drive aisle for future development to show cross access through so we can eliminate
a whole bunch of extra driveways onto Eagle road. So in the event that 285 never develops, then you
wouldn't have that part of that drive aisle ever be developed and so the people there would have to access
through the south part of eagle road back to that and park back there or however they do it. Or you would
have to re-design it so it would work right. Or so when 285 if it ever does then they would add their part
of that drive aisle. I do think that using the word alley is more misleading that it is meant to be.
General discussion regarding different uses such as a playground, restaurant, or park and constraint caused
by the canal.
Aizpitarte asks City Attorney Buxton if, in her professional opinion, she would put a Drive aisle between a
daycare and a park.
City Attorney Buxton states yes, it really just depends on what it is. If it is a commercial use where it is
permitted or a conditional use where it may be a Daycare where people can access rather than having it
right off Eagle Road then it probably is better. The City has had situations where that is present.
General discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan and what is stated for alleys as far as the
maintenance. Nothing is stated about maintenance of an easement, just the vacation of one. Discussion
regarding options for streetscapes, goals, visions of the Commission when trying to create a vibrant
downtown.
General discussion regarding cross access easements and whether it would be dedicated to the public or
owned by property owners. Discussion on the concerns about the maintenance of easements and the
designated water provider for this site.
General discussion regarding the location of the proposed play yard and access points of the property.
Representative, Walter Lindgren, with Johnson Architects, 440 E. Court Drive, Meridian, Idaho, discusses
the different options regarding the access points and options for the drive aisle. He discusses different uses
such as a restaurant or a private school along with the well and what the applicant is proposing in the time
of connectivity.
General discussion regarding the design of the drive aisle and the concerns for fire truck access.
Smith states that although the developer does not have endless funds the three months, since last review,
was valuable time wasted. He explains that the neighbors to the North are viable and it would be proactive
on the developer's part to find what it would take to satisfy them. He states he is perplexed that so much
time was wasted instead of these things getting hammered out.
City Attorney Buxton provides clarification regarding future development, vacation of easements, and
ordinances. She explains a cross access easement and states that that there would have to be an easement
with a temporary license granted so that this issue would run with the land.
City Attorney Buxton discusses a cross access easement.
Aizpitarte asks the applicant to explain the issue of the drive aisle that took place at the last meeting.
Greg Hall discusses the original concept plan for the project that did not include a drive aisle.
Page 2 of 4
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-Il-02-09min.doc
Villegas states that the one thing with easements is once you grant the easement, the only way to get rid of
it, is that the government vacates that easement or the party, of whom the party runs to their benefit, comes
in and says okay we are done with this easement. Once an easement gets recorded it is there. You don't
un-record an easement.
City Attorney Buxton agrees with Mr. Villegas's quandary. That is exactly it. We are talking about future
planning here and we can't dictate when certain properties are going to come in for redevelopment. Some
years they came in like clock work and other years they didn't. I have been sitting here since 1996. I think
that, one of the things you can do, and Victor is correct too, once you grant an easement then you can't un-
grant it. In some respects you can. There is kind of a way to do that. One way you could do this is to
require a cross access in a dedicated lot that would be, a lot there but it is more of an agreement. It is a
license and the license could be a revocable license. And we have done those that way too. Just some
ideas. And in the event that the license is never used over a period of time, then it would be distinguished,
you can put some sort of lifetime on it.
General discussion regarding dedication of easements and future planning.
Greg Hall discusses both opposition and support regarding easements and access points from surrounding
property owners.
Maxine Carpenter, 240 N. Eagle Road, is the property owner to the north of the proposed project. She
states her family has been there since the 1800's. She discusses her concerns about the short distance
between her property line and the existing garage on the project property and states she does not want there
to be a big fence constructed. She also discusses her concerns about the deliveries that would take place if
the developer is allowed to move forward with his ideas of uses. She states she is 82 years old and not
going to live much longer but she would like her house to stay the way it is. She states that 13 feet have
already been taken off the front of her property for the road and if the developer is allowed to take off 12
feet from the back of the property she will hardly have any property remaining.
General discussion regarding the landscaping that is on the north portion of the property along with access
and different options for the drive aisle.
Maxine Carpenter states her concerns jfthere were to be an addition to the building on project property.
General discussion regarding the required setbacks for the parcel, guidelines on landscape buffering,
access points and ACHD guidelines.
Aizpitarte moves to recommend for approval RZ-05-09 for a rezone from R-4 to CBD-DA for M
and H Development with staffs recommended conditions to be in a development agreement and to
remove all reference to acquiring the drive alley way and have there be no North access and
connection to water would be driven by the change of use. Seconded by Roehling. Discussion:
Villegas states the northern road and the water issue. Three AYE. One NAY (Villegas)...MOTION
CARRIES.
Villegas explains his dissenting vote. He felt that determining the access at this point is untimely and it
really should depend on the type of use that is yet to be determined. He states his experience is that once
you close an access or grant an easement, it is very hard to get it back.
Members of the public asked for clarification as to what the motion stated.
Roehling states the motion basically removed the drive alley way but all other portions of the staff report
are accepted. There is not northern access per the motion and the decision is just a recommendation. It
still goes to the power of the Council.
Page 3 of 4
K:IP&ZIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-II-02-09min.doc
5.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
ORIGINAL
6.
NEW BUSINESS: None
7. REPORTS:
A. Commission: None
B. City Attorney: None
C. Staff: None
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Aizpitarte moves to adjourn. Seconded by Smith. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED:
l1~o
----' \
\"-. 0.e-rrr-
SHARON K. BERGMANN
.."1111',,,
", '"
......' C\ l' y Of;' 1-,""
,.,' ........ -<: '..
,:"" ..- ... "l '-:,
~ *" .. CORPOL> ..~-:.
-. ~.~ -
:: ~A ~ rn -:
- · , m--
: U1 :i S.' : :
: ,.,...,. b-1 .:
,...-,.eo-<::./.. ..
... ..
.."V' . f'", ". . .
-~)'.O '\..
....# "'~') ...~-4TF.r> \~.. ."~
JI" ~ ( ....... 0 .."
'-, JI.- J D.\ \\ ..'
'~." -- < ,."
'.'11I",,'.
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
APPROVED:
~~~
---
GARY TANNER
CHAIRMAN
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE AT CITY HALL.
Page 4 of 4
K:IP&ZIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ-II-02-09mindoc