Minutes - 2012 - Planning & Zoning - 10/01/2012 - Regular THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 1,2012
Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:04p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: ROEHLING, AIZPITARTE, SMITH. Absent: TANNER,
VILLEGAS. A quorum is present.
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 September 4,2012.
B. Minutes of September 17,2012.
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for RZ-04-12—Rezone From A-R
(Agricultural-Residential)to MU-DA(Mixed Use with a Development Agreement)—
Eagle Island Crossing,LLC: Eagle Island Crossing, LLC,represented by Eric Anderson
with A L Collaborative, is requesting approval of a rezone from A-R(Agricultural-Residential
—up to one(1)unit per five(5)acres)to MU-DA(Mixed Use with a development agreement).
The 5.5-acre site is located on the south side of West Flint Drive approximately 870-feet east
of the intersection of North Park Lane and West Flint Drive at 3605 West Flint Drive.
Aizpitarte introduces the item.
Tanner arrives at 6:07 p.m.
Smith recuses himself from acting on item 3A as he was not in attendance.
Aizpitarte moves to approve 3A. Seconded by Roehling. THREE AYE: ONE ABSTAINS
(Smith). MOTION CARRIES.
Aizipitarte abstains from item 3B and C as he was not in attendance at that meeting.
Roehling moves to approve the minutes of September 17,2012. Seconded by Smith.
THREE AYE. ONE ABSTAINS(Aizpitarte). MOTION CARRIES.
Roehling moves to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for RZ-04-12—Rezone
From A-R(Agricultural-Residential)to MU-DA(Mixed Use with a Development
Agreement)—Eagle Island Crossing,LLC. Seconded by Tanner. THREE AYE...ONE
ABSTAIN(Aizpitarte). MOTION CARRIES.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. A-03-12/RZ-03-12/CU-03-12/PPUD-01-12/PP-03-12 -Lanewood Planned Unit Development-
Page 1 of 4
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-10-01-12min.doc
SCS Kimberland,LLC.: Lanewood Eagle LLC, represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, is
requesting a rezone from RUT(Rural-Urban Transition—Ada County designation)to R-3-DA-P
(Residential up to three units per acre with a development agreement PUD), conditional use, preliminary
development plan, and preliminary plat approvals for Lanewood Planned Unit Development, a 90-lot(80
buildable and 10 common)residential subdivision. The 40.2-acre planned unit development is generally
located on the northwest corner of North Linder Road and West Floating Feather Road.
Chairman Villegas introduces the item.
Shawn Nickel 1589 N. Estancia Place Eagle, Idaho with SLN Planning representing Lanewood Eagle
LLC., reviews the application. Mr. Nickel reviews the history of the site, Ada County Code vs. Eagle
City Code and the challenges that this application has with each jurisdiction. He draws the Commissions
attention to a letter he submitted to the City today, detailing the site specific conditions of approval that
his applicant would like relief from; he reviews the same.
City Planner, Mike Williams reviews the staff report. Williams explains the applicable city code sections
that resulted in the suggested site specific conditions of approval. Staff does not have the authority to
waive conditions that are required by city code, it is their duty to take the submitted application and
analyze the areas that it does and does not meet city code.. Discussion regarding lot coverage, sidewalk
size, adjacent street classification, landscaping and other issues.
Aizparte opens the public hearing.
Alaura Ramsey 4605 N. Floating Feather Rd. She inquires about fencing for neighboring projects, as
well as the application before them tonight. She states there is no fencing in Legacy and Copperfield,
also feels there will never be a 6 lane road there.
Mr. Nickel provides rebuttal. Discussion regarding vinyl fencing; tree caliper issue is a money saver for
the applicant who wants to plant a smaller caliper tree than is required by code; the applicant would still
like the 5' setback in order to accommodate the larger houses and 3 car garages. Discussion regarding
the definition of open space and buffering. Nickel states Ada County wouldn't require some of the
conditions of approval that the City of Eagle is requiring and therefore, his client is asking relief from the
conditions that they would rather not comply with for this proposed development.
Aizpitarte closes the public hearing.
Discussion amongst the Commission. Tanner and Roehling express concern that the high quality of
development that is expected in Eagle is not strayed from in order to accommodate this application.
Smith felt that references to what the County "would or would not do" were distracting, because the
question is now "what does Eagle want?" Aizpitarte feels more sympathetic to the applicant, does have
issue with a couple of the conditions but they should be easily addressed.
Roehling moves to recommend for approval A-03-12/RZ-03-12/CU-03-12/PPUD-01-12/PP-03-12 -
Lanewood Planned Unit Development - SCS Kimberland, LLC with modifications to the site
specific conditions of approval as follows: #5: The developer shall provide landscape plan to be
reviewed and approved the Design Review Board. Striking three inch minimum caliper shade
class trees. Strike site specific condition #7, as no revised plat is required. Site specific condition
#8: The applicant shall provide a revised plat showing a 35' wide common lot located adjacent to
the future right-of-way lot located at the eastern boundary of the subdivision. The revised
preliminary plat shall show a 50' wide buffer area located adjacent to the future right-of-way lot
located at the southern boundary of the subdivision. The revised preliminary plat shall be
provided prior to the submittal of a Design Review application. Go back to the second sentence
beginning with "The revised preliminary plat shall show a 50' wide buffer, it should read "The
revised preliminary plat shall show a 24'wide buffer. For clarification, for site specific condition
#8, I am changing 75' wide to 35' wide and 50' wide to 24' wide, all other wording remains
unchanged. Site specific condition #10: All internal pathways shall be a minimum of 8' in width,
shall now read "All internal pathways shall be a minimum of 6' in width." Condition #19: Change
Page 2 of 4
K:\PSZ\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-10-01-12min.doc
10' wide pedestrian walk path to 6' walk path. The only change is changing 10' to 6'; all other
wording is the same. Condition #12: Required setbacks should be as follows: Lots greater than
12,000 square feet front will be 25', as opposed to 30' originally written. Interior side shall be 5'
per story. And we have one more change on page 32 of 32. The standard condition of approval
#30, in accordance with Eagle City Code failure to obtain a recorded final plat for the subdivision
within 2 years following City Council approval shall cause this approval to null and void. Unless a
time extension has been granted by the City Council. I am changing only 1 year to 2 years.
Seconded by Tanner. Discussion. Planner Williams: City Staff and Attorney are requesting the
annexation and rezone be made separately from the CU/PUD and Preliminary Plat motion. The reason
being you have a contract if you will with the development agreement on the rezone, and then the plat
conditions. There will be conditions in regard to the 20% open space, there was discussion regarding
buildable, non-buildable agreement lots be recognized as open space in that development agreement
which would give them the 20% open space. So you wouldn't truly need a revised plat showing the 20%
open space, because you don't want it to show up as a plat note. This would need to be added to the
development agreement. Also there is clarification needed on the buffer area. On site specific condition
#8 regarding the buffer area, to simplify the condition, it is suggested to strike out anything referencing
footage at all and require the applicant at the time of Design Review to bring forth an alternative form of
compliance for Design Review. Roehling would like Planner Williams to provide language that can be
referenced in the motion. Discussion regarding splitting the motion.
Roehling amends his motion to break the motion into 2. Roehling recommends for approval A-03-
12/RZ-03-12 for the Lanewood Planned Unit, with afore mentioned conditions pursuant to the
development agreement. Second concurs. Discussion. Williams requests clarification regarding 3.1
through 3.6 conditions of development, one was the final fencing that there was concern with. 3.5 They
provided additional exhibits and we are fine with that. 3.6: If the Commission could provide staff
direction to bring back language in the findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the buildable,
non-buildable lots as common lots until such time as the property to the west re-develops. If they
develop the property to the west that will allow for them to come back and modify the development
agreement and we can recognize that as open space to get back to the 20% open space requirement for
this portion of the plat. Roehling asks what needs to be read into the motion. Williams states to modify
3.6 to bring back that the buildable non-buildable lots be recognized as open space lots until such time as
the property to the west is developed. Discussion. Roehling asks for Williams to restate the language
that he provided earlier for condition 3.7. Williams: "That all final plat applications submitted in
compliance with the approved preliminary plat phasing plan shall be submitted in an orderly and
reasonable manner in intervals not to exceed 2 years following the recordation of the preceding final plat.
Such final plat application shall be considered for final approval without re-submission of the
preliminary plat for approval. Any final plats shall be recorded within 2 years following Eagle City
Council action on the final plat, provided however Eagle Council may approve the extension of such 2
year period which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld for a period of time not to exceed 2 years
to facilitate the completion of the improvements required by the applicable sections of Eagle City Code.
As part of its consideration to extend the time frame in this section, Eagle Code Council may require
applicant to adhere to subdivision ordinances and resolutions in effect at the time the extension is
requested. So moved by Roehling. Seconded by Tanner. ALL AYE [on split motion for the
Annexation and rezone]. MOTION CARRIES.
Williams asks for clarification on the other portion of the motion regarding. On#8: suggests striking out
the width requirements and recognize what is on the preliminary plat today and require the applicant to
submit what is called an alternative form of compliance request for landscaping to the Design Review
Board to be reviewed and approved by the Board prior to the submittal of a final plat. So moved by
Roehling. Second concurs. Discussion for clarification for #20: Strike out lots greater that are greater
that 12,000 square feet, lots 12, 000 square feet and follow the setbacks for lots under 12,000 square feet
as they are the same. Regarding standard condition of approval #30, with the injection of that into the
development agreement,just strike it. Roehling amends the motion: Site specific condition #20: The
Page 3 of 4
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-10-01-12min.doc
required setbacks shall be as follows: strike the specifications for setbacks on lots greater than 12,
000 square feet, and simply have all setbacks be those that are specified for lots less than 12, 000
square feet. So in essence it will now read: Setbacks front: 25' measured from the property line,
rear 25', interior side 5' per story, street side 20', maximum coverage 40%. The seconded
amendment to the motion: Strike standard condition of approval #30. Second concurs. THREE
AYE: ONE NAY [Aizpitarte states he is voting nay because he wanted the 10' sidewalks to enhance
the pedestrian friendliness and safety that a 10' sidewalk would provide. He is in favor of all of the
originally proposed widths on the proposed sidewalks and pathways as proposed by staff]
MOTION CARRIES.
6. NEW BUSINESS: NONE
7. REPORTS:
A. Commission:
B. City Attorney
C. Staff
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Smith moves to adjourn. Seconded by Aizpitarte. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned/
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 1•��s..,llllll•..
O F E,
.-....•r
%..
*
SHARON K. BERGMANN * a ""'°
CITY CLERK/TREASURER E A L.,T' •s
••O
ry t / . PO R Al�•'� ��
APPROVED:
Yr
VICTOR VILL GAS
CHAIRMAN
AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALLUPON
REQUEST.
Page 4 of 4
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-10-01-12min.doc
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET
October 1, 2012
SUBJECT: A-03-12/RZ-03-12/CU-03-12/PPUD-01-12/PP-03-12 Lanewood Planned
Unit Development- SCS Kimberland, LLC.:
NAME
�� )1)51 7
1�1 6 »1s1
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL
/5'8 ' s`' . G moi+, -r c,;1
G -1) ((
C; ✓ °� 1,1, (IA � �G:�(Kr KFJ
C'c)
It 65 LJ F7 kc(
TESTIFY
YES/N()? PRO/CON
r
A L: