Minutes - 2013 - Planning & Zoning - 03/04/2013 - Regular THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 4, 2013
Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:04 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: TANNER, ROEHLING, AIZPITARTE, SMITH. Absent:
VILLEGAS
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 19,2013.
Roehling moves to approve the consent agenda as presented. Tanner. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
City Planner Williams is asking items B & C to be A & B and then hear the remaining items.
Roehling moves to make items 5 B & 5C to 5A & 5B. Seconded by Tanner. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES.
A 13, A-04-12/RZ-06-12/CU-05-12/PPUD-03-12/PP-04-12 -HCR/LEVEL 3 SUBDIVISION Home
Capital Resources,LLC. - Home Capital Resources, LLC, represented by Jason Densmer with The
Land Group, Inc,. is requesting annexation, rezone from RUT(Rural-Urban Transition—Ada County
designation)to R-4-DA-P(Residential up to four(4)units per acre with a development agreement PUD),
conditional use, preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat approvals for HCR/Level 3
Subdivision a 55-lot(45 buildable, 10 common) residential subdivision. The 16.26-acre planned unit
development is generally located on the south side of West State Street(SH-44) approximately 650-feet
west of the intersection of West State Street(SH-44) and North Linder Road at the southwest corner at
5001 and 5025 West State Street.
Chairman Aizpitarte introduces the item.
City Planner Williams states that an ACHD staff report has not been received to date and is asking this
item be continued to a date certain. Discussion regarding potential dates and upcoming agenda items.
Mike Dixon 3049 N. Blooming Place Boise, Idaho. Mr. Dixon is the applicant and it is his hope to
continue this item to the March 18, 2013 meeting.
Tanner moves to continue item A-04-12/RZ-06-12/CU-05-12/PPUD-03-12/PP-04-12 - HCR/LEVEL
3 SUBDIVISION Home Capital Resources, LLC to March 18, 2013. Seconded by Smith. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
B. E RZ-24-06 MOD3 & PP-03-12 -Renovare Subdivision -Renovare Development,LLC:
Renovare Development, LLC, represented by Bob Unger with ULC Management, LLC, is requesting a
Page 1 of 6
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-03-04-13min.doc
development agreement modification and preliminary plat approval for Renovare Subdivision a 96-lot
(84 buildable, 12 common) residential subdivision. The 20.3-acre site is generally located on the east
side of South Edgewood Road approximately 710-feet south of State Highway 44. This item will be
remanded back to staff in order to meet statutory notice requirements.
Chairman Aizpitarte introduces the item.
City Planner Williams states that the statutory requirements were not met for this public hearing, and
therefore staff is asking the item be remanded back to staff.
Smith moves remand RZ-24-06 MOD3 & PP-03-12 - Renovare Subdivision - Renovare
Development,LLC for re-notice. Seconded by Tanner. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
C. A RZ-11-08 MOD and PP-05-12 - Reynard Subdivision - Foxtail Partners, LLC.: Foxtail
Partners, LLC, is requesting a development agreement modification and preliminary plat approval for
Reynard Subdivision a 241-lot (206 buildable, 2 commercial, and 33 common) subdivision. The 80.02-
acre site is generally located on the north side of West Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20-26)
approximately 340-feet west of the intersection of North Fox Run Avenue and West Chinden Boulevard
(Highway 20-26) at 990 West Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20-26).
Aizpitarte introduces the item.
Smith states that on February 23rd he received a call from one of the neighbors of this development. He
conveys the conversation, regarding the procedure for the Commission meeting and he encouraged the
individual to attend the neighborhood meeting that was to be held for the application. Smith also said
that the individual could submit a letter in writing that would be included in the record. Mr. Denise
Hanson was the caller.
City Planner Williams states that for the record Mr. Hanson did submit a letter to the City dated February
Aizpitarte states that he is on the Banbury Homeowners Association President and as such was in
attendance at a meeting for the Zigler's Lateral Meeting at which this application was briefly discussed.
It was perhaps a 2 minute discussion and his main focus was his own subdivision concerns rather than the
matter discussed pertaining to Reynard Subdivision.
City Attorney Buxton states she does not feel any of the information relayed by the Board members
would indicate a conflict of interest or biased regarding this matter.
City Attorney, Buxton states that the City received a letter from Matthew Hicks, of Holland and Hart
dated today (3/4/13). Eagle City Code does not allow for written documentation to be added to the
public record if it is not received 5 days prior to the hearing. As the City's Legal Counsel, she has not
had the opportunity to review the letter in detail as it was conveyed directly to the City and not copied to
her as their Legal Counsel. However, Legal Counsel for the applicant, Joann Butler has no objection to
including it into the record and therefore it is being provided to the Commission tonight. It is understood
that the Commission do not have time to review it, nor did she, nor did she receive any phone calls from
Holland and Hart regarding the concerns that are raised in the letter presented today.
Discussion.
Joann Butler representing Foxtail Partners 2551 E. Front Street Boise, Idaho. Ms. Butler states that she
did receive the letter from Holland Hart today. She addresses the legal notice concerns that were brought
up by Mr. Hart, Eagle City Code is very particular in regard to notice requirements and she believes legal
notice was done properly.
City Attorney Buxton, states that mailings were made per code, and the Commission continued this item
to a date certain, all open meeting act laws have been met. In regard to neighborhood meeting, the City
code does not specify what has to be discussed at the meeting. One such meeting was held in August in
2012, there was a second meeting was held last week. Discussion regarding the neighborhood meeting.
Page 2 of 6
K\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-03-04-13min.doc
Mark Tate, representing M3 Companies, 533 E. Riverside Dr. Eagle, Idaho reviews the history of the
application dating back to 2008. Approximately 23.4 acres of the 80 being requested for rezone is being
designated for commercial use. Discussion regarding proposed changes, the effect on density of the
project and traffic impact and flows. They are generally in agreement with the staff report, however on
page 4 items 3.1 and 3.2 recommended conditions of approval, the applicant is requesting they be
allowed to maintain the golf course should the project not move forward as planned. Additional staff had
asked the types of uses be narrowed down, however, they would like the option of a restaurant with a
drive through be allowed on this smaller commercial footprint. Discussion on residential density,
setback requests, the modifications to the development agreement and buffering. Discussion.
Joann Butler provides a handout representing Foxtail Partners. Ms. Butler has reviewed the transcript
from when the comprehensive plan amendment and the annexation and addresses the concern that arose
at that time. She also addresses some of the traffic and density concerns that are brought up in the
Holland Hicks letter that was submitted today. In regard to one of the site specific conditions, the
applicant is asking that any future applications for this site be subject to current city code as opposed any
codes that may be in place at the time of submittal.
Question and answer between the Commission and Mr. Tate, and Ms. Butler.
City Planner, Mike Williams reviews the staff report. Planner Williams reviews site history and the
current proposal by the applicant. Discussion regarding applicable Eagle City Code, Comprehensive
Plan, the existing development agreement conditions, Ada County Highway District requirements, and
site berming. Discussion.
Dave Szplett the manager of Development Services Idaho Transportation Department. There are several
letters from ITD in the packet; ITD have no issue with the proposed access. Mr. Szplett reviews the
access permits and traffic flow. He makes himself available for questions. Discussion.
Aizpitarte opens the public hearing.
Catherine Georger, from Holland and Hart 101 S. Capital Blvd. Boise, Idaho, she is here as Mr. Hicks is
unable to attend. Ms. Georger states that both the ordinance and the statute are not very clear. She
continues to provide comment on the substantive issue with the application. There is concern with the
phasing of the density as well as the access issues. There was an restrictive agreement between the
Foxtail Subdivision, and Wilson Properties in 2002 regarding berming and access. Ms. Georger
reiterates that her clients Ryan Moore and Tyson Smith, who are homeowners, and will be negatively
impacted by this application were unable to attend the meeting this evening. They feel that their land
valuation and depreciation brought on by this higher density development going in next to them will be
significant.
City Attorney Buxton, states that there will be subsequent hearings that will be duly noticed when this
application is heard by the City Council that Ms. Georger's clients should be aware of in the future
should they be able to attend.
Ryan Schlader, 6620 N. Fox Run Avenue in the Foxtail Subdivision. He represents the HOA and the
Board. A lot of the residents are traveling and unable to attend and that is why there are so few in
attendance. He would ask that this item be continued so that those who missed the meeting tonight could
attend, as was done to them when this item was originally noticed. The two main issues with this
application is density and safety. Mr. Slather addresses the mediation that was done previously regarding
development in this area. There was a berm that was originally negotiated, and this should remain. Also
children wait for the school bus on Fox Run and the increase in traffic will increase the risk to the current
residents and their children. Discussion on the history of the phasing and installation of the signal light.
His subdivision was never consulted about the installation of the Paramount light. It should be on the
half mile mark. Six of the homeowners did meet with the applicant and let them know what it would take
for them to agree to the application. They feel being located near a high density subdivision, their
$500,000 homes will be devalued by about 20% if this development goes in with the proposed density.
Page 3 of 6
K.\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-03-04-13min.doc
Mark Tate rebuts testimony. Similar comments to those brought up by Mr. Schlader were brought up
Friday regarding density. Discusses the berm provision in the proposal, stub street location, notification
of surrounding property owners.
City Attorney, Susan Buxton, reviews the initial continuation of this application and believes that all of
the requirements of the open meeting notice. Now that she has had time to review the letter from
Holland Hart it does appear there may be an issue regarding restrictive use covenant. If the Commission
decides they would like to go ahead and make a recommendation to Council tonight, she feels they have
a legal right to do so. However, she asks the Commission to direct staff to work with the applicant to
determine and have the applicant at least work with the owners to determine the question raised by
Holland Hart's letter with regard to restrictive use covenant.
Discussion amongst the Commission.
Buxton asks for a 5 minute recess.
Buxton states that she would like the Homeowners Association and their attorney to come forward and
address information regarding restrictive use.
Brian Schlader, Foxtail Homeowners Association 6620 N. Fox Run Avenue. The two issues that are new
information are the restrictive use agreement and how it relates to the stub street. The other is the new
information that came out of Friday's neighborhood meeting that the homeowners proposed to the
applicant. There has not been enough time for the applicant to respond and work through to a solution
agreeable to the HOA. There has been poor communication up to this point between the applicant and
Homeowners, and some residents' have stated that they did not receive the notices. As a result input is
missing from people who may want to respond or comment.
Discussion between Mr. Schlader, Ms. Georger and the Commission.
Mark Tate offers to hold another meeting with the neighbors. The impact to moving the signal light has
been a discussion had between the applicant and ITD, there would be a significant financial impact in
about $3 million dollars in order to accommodate. The other issue that has been brought up by Mr.
Schlader is the density, and they could have another meeting before the City Council meeting.
Legal Counsel for the applicant, Joann Butler discusses the interaction between the client and those
attending at the neighborhood meeting. At the August meeting, 18 people signed up, but there were
several more in attendance, in all of the years of conducting these types of meetings she had never felt
threatened or nervous for either herself or her client, until this meeting. She witnessed people in her
clients face, and making threats such as "I'll be dead or broke before I'll let this project go through", etc.
blatant hostility. Having said this, they are willing to hold another neighborhood meeting; however she
would request a City Staff member be in attendance. They want to flesh out the proposals and are
willing try again. In regard to the restrictive use agreement, it clearly states Lot 1 Block 1 Foxtail
subdivision, and it pertains only to it, this lot is not part of the application tonight.
Aizpitarte closes the public hearing.
Deliberation amongst the Commission.
Smith moves to recommend for approval RZ-11-08 MOD and PP-05-12 - Reynard Subdivision -
Foxtail Partners, LLC with the addition that the golf course language as described in 3.1 and 3.2
remain as written by staff. The setbacks addressed in 3.5.4 are agreed to via the document titled
M3 Companies Proposed versus Existing Setbacks, page 8 and 11. Also, that the site specific
conditions of approval provided by M3 — Mike you mentioned 1 and 4 etc. as agreement. Does that
mean that the others that you don't agree with there? Item 6 for example. I don't have any notes on 6.
Williams — I was in agreement with all the recommended site specific conditions of approval or the
requested site specific conditions of approval, if you will, with the exception of number 14, removing the
first sentence. Roehling— And Mike I noted that the site specific condition of approval number 13 was
not needed because of the wording you have in the...Williams—correct. Smith— back to site specific
Page 4 of 6
K;\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-03-04-13min.doc
conditions of approval, that item 13 be deleted because of the reference to the caliper of the shade
tree, that would be up to the Design Review Board. Item 14,that it does not have the all living tree
sentence stricken. Williams — on the development agreement, in regard to the Condition of
Development 3.1 staff will bring back, with your permission of course, the correct language regard to
which code is in effect at the time of application. Smith: Okay, yeah. As Mike suggested there 3.1,
the last sentence be written talking about at the time of execution versus as it exists now. On the
standard conditions of approval, changes from Eagle Fire Department to the Meridian Fire
Department. Seconded by Roehling. Discussion. Roehling — Site specific condition of approval
number 13. The terminology that was used in the motion was, 13 should be deleted. I think 13 is not
needed, the modification of 13 is not needed. It's not a delete site specific condition number 13,just do
not modify it. Smith — Amend to include that remark. Second concurs. Discussion regarding the
golf course language. Smith — the original 3.1 is going to be kept. The original font, no underline, not
italics. Willaims — I would recommend take 3.1 as staff has proposed it, take the first sentence of the
original 3.1, and just add it to the very beginning of that, basically says golf course operations may
continue on the property or such portions of the property until the applicant elects to abandon such
operations. Just add it to the very beginning and that leaves the golf course. Smith—so moved. Second
concurs. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES..
6. NEW BUSINESS:
A. VAC-01-13 — Goldfork Ridge Subdivision Phase 1 Vacation of Plat Note — James P. Shirley:
James P. Shirley is requesting approval of a vacation to the final plat of Goldfork Ridge Subdivision
Phase 1 to remove plat note #3. The two (2) lot residential subdivision is located at the terminus of North
Hill Point Way at 6019 and 6020 North Hill Point Way.
Chairman Aizpitarte introduces the item.
James Shirley, 6020 N. Hillpoint Way Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Shirley reviews the application. He is
requesting the note on the plat be vacated. The Homeowners Association does not have a problem with
the request.
City Planner, Mike Williams reviews the staff report. This application falls within the City's area of
impact, due to Idaho State Code requirements vacations come before jurisdictions in close proximity.
Aizpitarte moves to approve VAC-01-13 — Goldfork Ridge Subdivision Phase 1 Vacation of Plat
Note—James P. Shirley. Seconded by Roehling. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
7. REPORTS:
A. Commission: No report.
B. City Attorney: No report.
C. Staff:
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Tanner moves adjourn. Seconded by Smith. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ,.a•""""►,.,,
,e,." (�1 T Y ,<j�., ,,si
Z.
, •.aeoeyo• f.
ao
m
SHARON K. BERGMANN • •Si, 'w
CITY CLERK/TREASURER -
a`'� 11)A W--)
,,,,,,,
APPROVED:
Page 5 of 6
K.\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-03-04-13min.doc
/DAV/E � ZPITA r'f�
CHAIRMAN
AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL UPON
REQUEST.
Page 6 of 6
K'.\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area 1PZ-03-04-13min.doc
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
March 4, 2013
SUBJECT: RZ-11-08 MOD and PP -05-12 - Revnard Subdiv inion -
Foxtail Partners, LLC.:
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
7ME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
1 65riD A)/4
/ l�/� cam' S2PLC 7i �50 Ml 051' cl-,,wvz'� 5
/: �, GARoci Ory, $3 7/ 4
// �' �� � ► \l C ,.4L- 5'} 7-A -),. - ` I � lOiC'C j,'\( f(*.,:,I- I,111 �11�i j t41,., `lid
_ J
/c,,Lz4--_) N)
----,f-i71 AN 3 Cl -i -ca' 7(59 q-(4,, 1 -1qq c 7-)2,c,,,sc fix, CJ'vrNA-, .Loh
P2 311i11 3
INTER
OFFICE
City of Eagle
Zoning Administration
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Attachment(s):
Copy To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Michael Williams, PCED, CFM Planner II
RZ-11-08/PP-05-12 — Reynard Subdivision — oxtail Partners, LLC
March 4, 2013
Correspondence received from Matthew Hicks with Holland and Hart, date
stamped by the City on March 4, 2013 (2 -pages)
Correspondence received from Matthew Hicks with Holland and Hart, date
stamped by the City on March 4, 2013 (33 -pages)
M3 Companies, Attn: Mark Tate, 533 East Riverside Drive, Suite 110,
Eagle, ID 83616
Page 1 of 1
K:\Planning DeptlEaglc Applications\SUBS120121Reynard Sub me2.doc
HOLLAND&HART..
March 4, 2013
VIA FACSIMILE
ORIGINAL VIA HAND DELIVERY
Eagle City Planning & Zoning Commission
660 E. Civic Lane
Eagle, ID 83616
Fax: (208) 938-3854
Matthew M. Hicks
mhicks@hollandhart.com
RECEIVED & FILEN
CITY OF EAGLE
MAR 0 4 2013
4 File:
I Rout= to -
1
RZ-11-08 MOD & PP -05-12: Application of Foxtail Partners, LLC for
development agreement modification and preliminary plat approval of
Reynard Subdivision
Dear Commissioners:
Holland & 1 lart LLP represents Foxtail Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Foxtail
I.1OA") with respect to the development agreement modification and preliminary plat approval
applications tiled with the City of Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission")
by Foxtail Partners, LLC ("Foxtail Partners"). As you are aware, the property owned by the
applicant surrounds Foxtail Subdivision and any decisions made by this Commission with regard
to this property will necessarily impact the residents of' the Foxtail Subdivision.
The Commission sent notice to the Foxtail MOA on or about February 2, 2013 notifying
residents that a public hearing on the Foxtail Partners' application would be heard on February
19, 2013 at 6 PM at Eagle City Hall. As required by Idaho code § 67-6509, this notice was
subsequently published in the Valley Times on February 4, 2013-15 days before the scheduled
hearing. At the last minute, the February 19 hearing was cancelled. No reason was given for the
cancellation beyond the language contained in the Commission's February 19 agenda which
states simply that "The applicant is requesting this item be continued to the (sic) March 4, 2013."
(emphasis in original).
Notably, the Commission did not send notices to the Foxtail Subdivision residents
informing them that a public hearing date of March 4 had been set for the Foxtail Partners'
application. Further, the Commission did not publish notice in the Valley "limes or other
publication of general circulation that it would take up the Foxtail Partners' application at a
public hearing on March 4.
Holland &Hart us
[2081 342 5000 [2081343-8869 wwwhollandhartcom
101 So.,thCapiiol Boo;era;a Surte ih00 400ce,ID 83702 P.O.Box 2527 B4r-se.!0 83701-2527
Aspen Rn_Acier (.,rson Giy (olr,rzrd& SPnngs D,nver )ewer Tech Geller 8iUm4s Boise Cheyemx 1.doan, Huk tis Vegas Reno Seal Lake Cav Sartz Fe Washington, D.0
HOLLAND&HART,.
Eagle City Planning and Zoning Commission
March 4, 2013
Page - 2
Idaho law is clear that a development agreement "commitment is binding on the owner of
the parcel" and "may be modified only by the permission of the governing board after complying
with the notice and hearing provisions of section 67-6509, Idaho Code." (emphasis added). See
Idaho Code § 67-6511A. Idaho Code § 67-6509(a) provides in relevant part that: "At least
fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place and a summary of the plan to
be discussed shall be published in the official newspaper or paper of general circulation within
the jurisdiction." Idaho Code § 67-6509(a) (emphasis added). See also Eagle City Code § 8-7-
8(D) (providing that "[alt least fifteen (15) days prior to each hearing, notice of the time and
place of the hearing and a summary of the request and proposed action shall be published in the
official newspaper or paper of general circulation within the city"); see also Eagle City Code § 8-
7-8(2) (directing that when considering a preliminary plat application the zoning administrator
"shall provide notice in accordance with the requirements of section 8-7-8 of this code").
Notice of the March 4 hearing was not properly provided as mandated by the statute.
Specifically, the public was not informed through an official publication or publication of
general circulation that a hearing on the Foxtail Partners' plan modification application was to
take place on March 4.
Publication—let alone publication a full 15 -days prior to the hearing identifying the "time
and place and a summary of the plan to be discussed"—was simply absent in this case. See
Idaho Code § 67-6509(a). The statutory notice provisions contained in section 67-6509 are not
merely guiding principles that the Commission at its discretion can follow or alter as it sees fit.
Rather, the statute plainly states that notice "shall" be provided as expressly outlined. Failure to
strictly comply with the notice provisions is grounds to invalidate any subsequent Commission
action on the improperly noticed items.
Because notice was not properly provided, plan modification cannot be considered. See
Idaho Code § 67-6511A (providing that Commission can act on new action or modification of
existing plan only after notice has been properly effectuated). Accordingly, the Commission
cannot go forward with a hearing on the Foxtail Partners' application as stated in the
Commission's March 4 agenda. As such, if the Commission wishes to take up the Foxtail
Partners' application, it must properly notice the application for hearing as required by statute.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the foregoing.
Very truly yours,
Matthew M. Hicks
of Holland & Hart LLP
KLG
cc: Tyson Smith (via e-mail)
Ryan Moore (via e-mail)
HOLLAND&HART..
March 4, 2013
VIA FACSIMILE
ORIGINAL VIA HAND DELIVERY
Eagle City Planning & Zoning Commission
660 E. Civic Lane
Eagle, ID 83616
Fax: (208) 938-3854
Matthew M. Hicks
mhicks@hollandhart.com
RECEIVED & RLED
CITY OF EAGLE
MAR 0 4 2013
File
Route to -
Re: RZ-11-08 MOD & PP -05-12: Application of Foxtail Partners, LLC for
development agreement modification and preliminary plat approval for
Reynard Subdivision
Dear Commissioners:
Holland & Hart LLP represents Foxtail Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Foxtail
1IOA") with respect to the development agreement modification and preliminary plat approval
applications filed with the City of Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission")
by Foxtail Partners, LLC ("Foxtail Partners"). By separate letter, the Foxtail HOA has objected
to the March 4 hearing on the Foxtail Partners' application because it was not timely noticed.
This letter is intended to set forth the Foxtail HOA's substantive challenges to the application.
The specific issue I am writing to address concerns the existing stoplight on Chinden
Boulevard providing access to Foxtail Subdivision. Over the course of the past four (4) years,
the Foxtail I-IOA has repeatedly voiced its objection with the Commission, the City of Eagle (the
"City"), the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD"), Ada County and the Idaho Transportation
Department ("ITD") to providing access for the anticipated development on the neighboring
property owned by Foxtail Partners and/or Wilson Properties, L.P. ("Wilson") through Foxtail
Subdivision from the existing light on Chinden Boulevard. Upon review of the modified
development plan proposed by Foxtail Partners, the Foxtail HOA once again finds it necessary to
state its position with regard to the requested access.
As the Foxtail I-fOA has stated time and again, the provision of access through the Foxtail
Subdivision to the development on the neighboring property owned by Wilson and/or Foxtail
Partners is not a feasible option. On August 29, 2002, Foxtail Partners/Wilson and the Foxtail
I-IOA entered into a Restrictive Use Agreement. See Exhibit A. The Restrictive Use Agreement
was recorded against Lot 1 of the Foxtail Subdivision. See Exhibit A; see also Exhibit B
(illustrative). Under Section 2(a) of the Agreement, Wilson is required to construct and maintain
a "berm" along the east boundary of Lot 1 from the entrance to Foxtail Subdivision from
Chinden Boulevard up to the existing entrance to such Lot from North Fox Run Avenue ("Berm
Holland &Hart tap
[208] 3425000 [208] 343-8869 rnawhollancnart.com
101 South Capitol Boulevard Sute 1500 8orse,ID 83702
P.O. Box 2527 Boise, ID 83701-2527
Aspen Boulder Carson Cny Coioraoo Springs Denver Denver Tent Centel Billings Boise Cheyenne ;acxson Hole Las Vegas Ren Sail Lake ccy Santa Fe Washingtrnt. 0 C.
HOLLAND &HART.
THE LAW OUT WEST
Eagle City Planning & Zoning Commission
IPS March 4, 2013
Page - 2
A"). Id. Berm A is required to "substantially conform in all reasonable respects with the existing
berm located on the south boundary of the property" running parallel to Chinden Boulevard
("Berm B"). Id. The obligation to maintain Berm A is not tied to the specific use of Lot 1 and
the adjacent property and will not terminate simply because that property is no longer used as a
golf course. As illustrated on the attached Exhibit B, the Berm A requirement mandated by the
Agreement effectively prohibits the installation of any access way from the existing stoplight to
the anticipated development from Foxtail Partners' property through Wilson's neighboring
property Lot 1.
Foxtail Partners representatives have acknowledged the Restrictive Use Agreement and
the required installation of Berm A at prior City Council hearings and again at the mediation held
in March 2010. See Exhibit C (Memorandum, at 7 (testimony of Mr. Banks)). Recent
conversations with and plans circulated by Foxtail Partners indicate that a stub access will be
constructed to end at the western edge of Lot 1. This is a clear indication that Foxtail Partners'
intends to eventually connect this stub access through Lot 1, cut through Berm A and connect
into North Fox Run Avenue. See Exhibit D.1
Given its concern regarding commercial access through Foxtail Subdivision, the Foxtail
HOA is not willing to waive or release the obligation to construct and maintain Berm A. Under
the circumstances, the Commission should not approve Foxtail Partners' proposed stub access
point, recommend access to the anticipated development on the neighboring Wilson property
through the Foxtail Subdivision from the existing light, or include such access as a condition to
development agreement modification and/or plat approval.
As it has indicated before, the Foxtail HOA would not be opposed to a relocation of the
existing stoplight along Chinden Boulevard, so long as Foxtail Partners and/or Brighton
Corporation grants Foxtail Subdivision access to and from Meridian Road through its
neighboring residential subdivision. h1 the event that the applicants could obtain approval for
such relocation from any and all other interested parties, Foxtail HOA reserves the right to
conduct a good faith review of any plan proposals for alternate access and relocation of the
existing stoplight.
In addition to the access issues identified above, the Foxtail I-IOA has significant
concerns with the residential development density contained in the Foxtail Partners' proposed
project (the "Site Plan"). Specifically, the Site Plan proposed by Foxtail Partners is inherently
inconsistent with the City of Eagle's Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan"). The
Comprehensive Plan expressly adopts and incorporates Idaho Code §67-6511, stating that
"zoning districts shall be in accordance with the adopted plan" and that zoning must be "in
keeping" with "a comprehensive plan if one exists." Comprehensive Plan, at § 1.5. Moreover,
'Exhibit D is the Development Site Plan M3 Companies/Foxtail Partners included in its February 2 notice. At an
ACHD Board of Commissioner's meeting held on February 27, 2013, M3 Companies/Foxtail Partners have since
presented a revised version of the illustration attached hereto as Exhibit D. The revised version shows a stub access
road running up to the western edge of Lot I of the Foxtail Subdivision, indicating clear intent to link the stub access
through Lot 1 and Berm A to connect to North Fox Run Avenue.
HOLLAND&HART.
THE 1..AW OUT WEST
Eagle City Planning & Zoning Commission
March 4, 2013
Page - 3
"the Eagle City Zoning Code requires consistency between the comprehensive plan and affected
zones." Id. (emphasis added).
The Comprehensive Plan, as amended in 2011, maintains that its overriding purpose is to
"protect property rights and enhance property values," as well as "[t]o avoid undue concentration
of population and overcrowding of the land" within the City of Eagle and its Area of City Impact
("AOI"). See Comprehensive Plan, § 1.1. Further, the Comprehensive Plan provides that
higher -density residential developments should be located "closest to the Central Business
District (CBD) and activity centers" and encourages development "with decreasing density
radiating out from the CBD." Comprehensive Plan, §§ 6.5 & 6.6.
The Foxtail Subdivision and the adjacent Foxtail Partners' property are located in the
outer-most radius of the City of Eagle and AOI. As such, this area must be developed with the
lowest residential density to "maintain the rural 'feel' of the community." Comprehensive Plan,
§ 6.2. Nevertheless, the Site Plan circulated by Foxtail Partners' contemplates placing up to 8
residential units per acre. The proposed Site Plan will undoubtedly depreciate property values
through the increase in residential density and traffic volume. This increase in traffic volume
also presents significant safety risks to the residents of Foxtail Subdivision and its surrounding
area. Consequently, the Site Plan is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan and cannot be
approved as currently proposed.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the foregoing.
KLG
Cc:
Ryan Moore (via Email)
Tyson Smith (via Email)
Katherine Georger
6064986_(
Very truly yours,
Matthew M. 1 -licks
of Holland & 1 -fart lip
EXHIBI'I' A
When Recorded, Return to:
Christopher J. Beeson, Esq.
Givens Pursley LLP
277 North Sixth Street
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701
RESTRICTIVE USE AGREEMENT
This RESTRICTIVE USE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is dated effective as
of the 29-m- day of uta , 2002 by and between the FOXTAIL HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION., INC., an Idaho corporation ("Foxtail"), and WILSON PROPERTIES
L.P., an Idaho limited partnership ("Wilson").
RECITALS
A. Wilson has entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated
August 3`d, 2002 with Reed J. Bowen, Jr. and Mary H. Bowen (the "Bowens") to
purchase the following described real property in Ada County, Idaho (the "Property):
Lot 1, Block 2 of the Foxtail Subdivision, according to the
official plat thereof filed in Book 73 of Plats at Pages 7563
and 7564 of the real property records of Ada County, Idaho.
B. Wilson has conditioned its purchase of the Property on the release certain
restrictions recorded against the Property that would prohibit Wilson's use of the
Property in conjunction the golf course facility adjacent to and west of the Property (the
"Foxtail Golf Course").
C. The beneficiaries of those certain restrictions recorded against the
Property have agreed to release those restrictions, in the form of a' Full Release Of
Property From Covenants, Conditions And Restrictions Of Foxtail Subdivision to be
dated effective contemporaneously with this Agreement, provided that Wilson agrees to
record those certain use restrictions contained in this Agreement against the Property.
D. To facilitate the transaction contemplated above, Wilson desires to restrict
the use of the Property as set forth below, effective upon Wilson's acquisition of the
Property.
RESTRICTIVE USE AGREEMENT -- 1
S:ICLIENTS1514211312002-05-29 Anal Restrictive Use Agreement.DOC
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Use Restrictions. Wilson shall not use the Property:
(a) to operate a clubhouse facility for the Foxtail Golf Course;
(b) for outdoor equipment storage on those portions of the Property
immediately north and east of the existing bam located on the
Property, except in enclosed structures;
for public parking of patrons of the Foxtail Golf Course;
to provide public access for the patrons of the Foxtail Golf Course
via North Fox Run Avenue (which runs along the east boundary of
the Property).
(c)
2. Landscaping. Wilson shall construct and maintain the landscaping on the
Property as follows:
(a) Wilson shall construct, maintain and landscape a berm along the east
boundary of the Property up to the current entrance to the Property off of North Fox
Run Avenue ("New Berm"). Such New Berm shall substantially conform in all
reasonable respects with the existing berm located on the south boundary of the
Property (along West Chinden Boulevard) ("Existing Berm). Wilson shall endeavor
to construct, maintain and landscape the New Berm so that it looks as identical to
the Existing Berm as is practicable;
(b) Wilson shall keep not less than 100' of the existing berm measured
from the northwest comer of the intersection of North Fox Run Avenue and West
Chinden Boulevard west; and
(c) Maintenance of the new and existing berm shall include, but not be
limited to, irrigation, lawn mowing and tree trimming.
3. Doors on Existing Bam. For the existing bam located on the Property,
Wilson shall endeavor to keep the doors facing toward the north and east boundaries of
the Property closed when not in use or scheduled for use.
4. Effective Date: Recordation. This Agreement shall not be deemed
effective until Wilson's acquisition of the Property. Contemporaneously with Wilson's
acquisition of the Property, this Agreement shall be . recorded in the real property
records of Ada County, Idaho.
5. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit and detriment of the parties and their respective successors and assigns, and run
with, be appurtenant to and pass with title to the Property. This Agreement shall be
indivisible from the lands appurtenant and shall be in no event transferred or assigned
separately from the benefited and burdened parcels, or any part thereof.
RESTRICTIVE USE AGREEMENT — 2
S:ICLIENTS'.514211312002-08-29 Final Restrictive Use Agreement.DOC
6. Beneficiaries: Enforceability. Nothing in this Agreement shall accrue to the
benefit of or create a cause of action in favor of any third party. No owner of any lot in
Foxtail Subdivision shall have the right individually, or in combination with other lot owners,
to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement except by and through Foxtail.
7. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any controversy, claim or action being
filed or instituted between the parties to this agreement to enforce the terms and
conditions of this use Agreement or arising from the breach of any provision hereof, the
prevailing party will be entitled to receive from the other party all costs, damages, and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party,
whether or not such controversy or claim is litigated or prosecuted to judgment. The
prevailing party will be that party who was awarded judgment as a result of trial or
arbitration.
8. General. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties. • No modification shall be binding on the parties unless it shall be in writing and
signed by both parties. The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference
purposes only and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation hereof.
Neither party's right to require performance of the other party's obligations under this
agreement shall be affected by any previous waiver, forbearance, or course of dealing.
Neither party shall hold the other responsible for a default, delay, or failure to perform by
acts of God, strikes, lockouts, civic unrest, accidents or other events beyond the other
party's control. This Agreement shall be govemed by the laws, including conflicts of
laws, in the State of Idaho as an agreement between residents of the State of Idaho and
to be performed within the State of Idaho.
The parties have executed this use Agreement effective as of the date first set
forth above.
"Foxtail" F OX T AIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
an Idaho corporation
By:
Its: T9ts-sco C�
"Wilson" WILSON PROPERTIES L.P.,
an Idaho limited partnership
By: FORT WILSON, INC.,
an Idaho corporation, its general partner
By: yji
Charles H. Wilson, President
RESTRICTIVE USE AGREEMENT —
S:ICLIENTS1314211312002-O8-29 Final Restrictive Use Agreernent.00C
STATE OF IDAHO
County of AA
}
) ss.
On this 2 dl day of u.s-I- , 2002, before me, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared (-; c 03 . Scko,c1.01 the Qt side i4- of Foxtail
Homeowners' Association, Inc., and acknowledged to me that In e executed the
same on behalf of Foxtail Homeowners' Association, Inc_ and that 't' had the
authority to do so.
.,41111011 1St%
44
•
STATE OF IDAHO
County of 461,0.2
ry Pub'I r Idaho
siding at rI-R.
My Commission expires ,- o (- 2moo$
On this Lu wt day of t, in the year of 2002, before me, a Notary Public in
and for said State, personalty appeared CHARLES H. WILSON, the PRESIDENT of
FORT WILSON, INC., the General Partner of WILSON PROPERTIES, L.P., and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of Fort Wilson, Inc., General
Partner of Wilson Properties, L.P. and Wilson Properties, L.P. and that he had the
authority to do so.
r �• N
r
co.tAy
iart t
Puta1to for aho,
ingyR�,�,
&-tri -Ii ,rt expires
• = ' G0 !,
i= �c
RESTRICTIVE USE AGREEMENT --- 4
S:1CL1ENTS1514211312002-00-29 Final Restrictive Use Agreement.DOC
Vas -los-
When Recorded, Return to:
Christopher J. Beeson, Esq.
Givens Pursley LLP
277 North Sixth Street
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701
FULL RELEASE OF PROPERTY FROM COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF FOXTAIL SUBDIVISION
THIS FULL RELEASE OF PROPERTY FROM COVENANTS, CONDITIONS
AND RESTRICTIONS OF FOXTAIL SUBDIVISION ("Release") is dated effective as of
the day of , 2002 by the undersigned owners of lots in Foxtail
Subdivision (the "Owners") who collectively own 75% or more of the lots in Foxtail
Subdivision.
RECITALS
A. Reed J. Bowen, Jr. and Mary H. Bowen, husband and wife (the "Bowens")
are the owners of the following described real property in Ada County, Idaho (the
"Property"):
Lot 1, Block 2 of the Foxtail Subdivision, according to the
official plat thereof filed in Book 73 of Plats at Pages 7563
and 7564 of the real property records of Ada County, Idaho.
B. The Property is subject to that certain Amended Declaration of Protective
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Foxtail Subdivision, filed in real property
records of Ada County, Idaho as Instrument No. 97075127 ("CC&Rs") and that certain
plat of Foxtail Subdivision, filed in the real property records of Ada County, Idaho, in
Book 73 of Plats on Pages 7563 and 7564 (the "Plan} which, among other things,
prohibit the use of the Property for the commercial uses associated with a golf course.
C. The Bowens and Wilson Properties, L.P., an Idaho limited partnership
("Wilson"), have entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated August
3, 2002 whereby the Bowens have agreed to sell the Property to Wilson and Wilson
agreed to purchase the Property, provided that the CC&Rs and certain restriction under
the Plat are released.
D. In consideration for the Owners granting the releases desired, Wilson has
agreed to place certain restrictions on the Property and to construct certain landscaping
improvements, as set forth in the form of a Restrictive Use Agreement to be dated
effective contemporaneously with this Release, to prevent the use of the Property from
causing unreasonable interference with the Owner's use and enjoyment of their lots. �}
FULL RELEASE OF PROPERTY FROM COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF FOXTAIL SUBDIVISION - 1
S:ICLIENTS151421131Release.DOC
E. To facilitate the transaction contemplated above, the undersigned desire
to fully release the Property from all covenants, conditions and restrictions as set forth in
the CC&Rs and from certain ione-setfoth on the Plat, as set forth in below, upon
Wilson's acquisition of the Property.
G. Paragraph IX of the CC&Rs allows the CC&Rs to be amended by the
owners of 75% or more of the owners of the lots of Foxtail Subdivision.
H. The undersigned comprise 75% or more of the owners of the lots of
Foxtail Subdivision.
RELEASE
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Owners do hereby take the following
actions:
1. Full Release from CC&Rs. The undersigned Owners do hereby fully
release the Property from all covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in the
CC&Rs.
2. Partial Release from Plat. The undersigned Owners do hereby release
the Property from the following provisions of the Plat:
(a) The portion of the Plat labeled "Restrictive Covenants;" and
(b) Notes 4 and 7.
3. Effective Date; Recordation. This Release shall not be deemed effective s��
until Wilson's acquisition of the Property. Contemporaneously with Wilson's acquisition
of the Property, this Release shalt be recorded in the real property records of Ada
County, Idaho.
4. Counterparts. This Release may be executed in any number of counterparts
and once so executed by all parties thereto, each such counterpart shall be deemed to be
an original instrument but alt such counterparts together shall constitute but one
agreement. This Release shall be recorded with all counterpart signatures attached.
<end of text>
FULL RELEASE OF PROPERTY FROM COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF FOXTAIL SUBDIVISION - 2
S:1CLI ENTS15142t131Reiease. DOC
PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
THIS PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT (this
"Agreement") is dated effective as of the 2tr- day of , 2002 by and
between the FOXTAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., an Idaho corporation
("Foxtail"), and WILSON PROPERTIES L.P., an Idaho limited partnership ("Wilson").
RECITALS
A. Wilson owns Lot 1, Block 2 of Foxtail Subdivision (the "Property"), which is
currently receiving pressurized irrigation water from the pressurized irrigation water
supply system (the "System") owned and operated by the Foxtail.
B. Foxtail receives water for the System from Settler's Irrigation District.
C. Wilson also owns that certain golf course facility located adjacent to and
west of the Property ("Foxtail Golf Course"), which also receives water for its
pressurized irrigation system from Settler's Irrigation District.
D. Wilson desires to continue receiving pressurized irrigation water from
Foxtail for the Property unless and until Wilson transfers the point of delivery for the
water used to irrigate the Property from Foxtail's point of delivery to Foxtail Golf
Course's point of delivery.
E. Foxtail desires to continue to supply pressurized irrigation water to the
Property for as long as Wilson desires, and Foxtail desires to cooperate with Wilson if
and when Wilson desires to transfer the point of delivery for the water used to irrigate
the Property from Foxtail's point of delivery to Foxtail Golf Course's point of delivery.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Provision of Pressurized Irrigation Water. Foxtail hereby agrees to
provide pressurized irrigation water to Wilson in sufficient quantities to irrigate the
Property for as long as Wilson desires.
2. Irrigation Fee. Wilson agrees to pay Foxtail, on a quarterly basis, a fee
equal to one -fifteenth (1/15) of Foxtail's Association Fee.
3. Water Season. Wilson acknowledges and agrees that pressurized
irrigation water will be provided by Foxtail only when irrigation water is available to
Foxtail from the Settler's Irrigation District. Although the irrigation season is usually
from May to September of each year, Wilson acknowledges that irrigation water may
not be available from Settler's Irrigation District at any time of the year.
PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT -- 1
S:1Clients1514211312002-08-29 Final - Irrigation Water Supply.Doc
4. Water Shortages. The parties understand and agree that irrigation water
may not always be available in sufficient quantities to fulfill the needs of both Foxtail
Subdivision and the Property. in the event of any shortage of irrigation water, the
parties agree that they will negotiate diligently and in good faith to equitably distribute
available irrigation water between the landowners in Foxtail Subdivision and the
Property.
5. Transfer of Point of Delivery. Foxtail shall cooperate with Wilson's efforts
to transfer the point of delivery of the irrigation water used by the Property from Foxtail's
point of delivery to Foxtail Golf Course's point of delivery.
6. Termination. Wilson may terminate this Agreement by providing written
notice to Foxtail as set forth in this Agreement. In the event of such termination, Wilson
shall, at its own cost and expense, disconnect the Property's from the System.
7. General. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties. No modification shall be binding on the parties unless it shall be in writing and
signed by both parties. The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference
purposes only and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation hereof.
Neither party's right to require performance of the other party's obligations under this
agreement shall be affected by any previous waiver, forbearance, or course of dealing.
Neither party shall hold the other responsible for a default, delay, or failure to perform by
acts of God, strikes, lockouts, civic unrest, accidents or other events beyond the other
party's control. This agreement shall be governed by the laws, including conflicts of
laws, in the State of Idaho as an agreement between residents of the State of Idaho and
to be performed within the State of Idaho.
8. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors,
assigns and personal representatives of the parties hereto and shall run with the
Property.
9. Notices. All notices to be given by one party to the other hereunder shall
be addressed to the following addresses:
WiLSON:
FOXTAiL:
WiLSON PROPERTIES, LP
1101 W. River Street, Suite 150
Boise, iD 83702
Attn: Charles H. Wilson
FOXTAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Melissa Ward
521 W. Sly Fox Street
Meridian, ID 83642
All notices required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed given
upon hand delivery or three days after deposit in the United States mail, postage
prepaid. The address for notice may be changed by notice hereunder
PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT —
S:IClients1514211312002-08-29 Final - Irrigation VVater Supply.Doc
The parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date first set forth
above.
"Foxtail" FOXTAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
an Idaho corporation
r`
By.
Its: tPi-4 stt*,J
"Wilson" WILSON PROPERTIES L.P., an Idaho limited
partnership
By: FORT WILSON, INC., an Idaho corporation, its
general partner
By:
Charles H. Wilson, PresideritSink
PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION! WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT — 3
S:1Clients1514211312002-08-29 Final - Irrigation Water Supply.Doc
C
S1C/bw 1.
CPI/ 1951
AO 9/X50I
1�-
FOXTAIL SUBDIVISION
LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST,
BO/SE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
179, J/•
•1
c -
Ir
IA4RA11177
(s 89.39.2! 7 130198
S 89•. rs6' £ ;J04.70'
301.20•
50. 64#G4lO "Our U/X17)
AAO 0NAt'tt1r £450951'7
4
--fir
191 JO'
1997
WOOS' / '221 r 1. +83 58•
ZI,00,70•Ameril,
I 0LSI L
4457 N0.
•'.4I ,70LZtst s
5 �I 6 ti
BLOCK z ; I I iiZ 1
I 11 f e 1
1 1 1 I _ c-6
,�
)1-c-r�-"-u,.31•- J L. - -19,.70._ - -I L -saes•-- -+g 1
_ R __ s 811'31567..14p.er t
-
; W. Sty far s7T t
...••-,.77.25_ __:719f� _. i r _1r857h6
.1 1
771 �I
n1,
J 6 �I 1 wR
8
:1
l <4
,r n' L - -S 6rVrJ;•/•-x34w•- , -I t. .-.-trf..Pr_- -. J �,, N.
1 r - - -26,.19' - - -� r-•S'EYJ.J9' ! :`6923•• -1 �,
2
L..ti
I- -1 a 09.1/'39' (-34120•--- ?I 75
1
INITIAL POINT
(POINT OP
1 BEC/NN/NC/
+1 (1hrj -1
- 30' 7194.1.8:1 AVOW ures,r.
AND 3.4050AP7 &ASrarta
�4 �j^". 23449•
C-1 .ow.cwi 7141 N B9JrJ w 1749.16'
•
• SEL' DETAIL
1.
10
20,1 -
c 11 Et
8 1'
5
<� C-l9I,
- -
CRAY fpr couRT ;
4
20' 4ru Se 101
-(7cRtss
2rrI(
110017• I Qj
561
87.1119• t 544 T t - + J 743
I~ - -_2.592•- .� r•
s 89.31 179 t' . ?i
I yl I 11 ,N4e3-414.1 for J b e
9
2a'-.4
a
2o• nefiG400.4
/ - 043i0-0ACt
`-�L-327•.38•
I 3 3.4771 JsS X6'06' w 23294'
AC77S a as59vl rr)
h ! 114S 0000•U(NT 81100417(5 SECTION 12-4503 Or 1NF 30410 COOK
.. A3a7r to 9M✓ ACT. 144404 $34/13 AO ACAIC3Rl74a43 01.11130N at AN
87.19974 rrarver 10 'aa4n NNDatt5 ~ a. NWT 178 0,01 - AOla R VI
134(43 ACl11i5 AMR be SIrC HAS KEN a 0 (84701 (OR 0.47 1Hw
014 (4) ,CAR *704 INC OPERATION 4145 NOTA *85444 1 AT 1hi 7174 TN(
cParAIVN Lout MOW= ANT At PAC1S+d15 81 3746 3713AD4 S.Au
A01 APPt1 •0111187 A AA/SAW 1(51415 T7PON Ile colniOa(R 034 Aar -
yaw 01,001110/e Ar ANY ACR13414113 O4e071413011 0t A19374137.94Cr ro l7 -
2 Ott(17 30? AC-LSS 10 tall Namur 30-16 (1114014 6 ulAND*0)
15 PROKOO O 3444155 AMMO Or 1M• 10110 114w P0taJ10V (448
an, 014 0411.1 AAO DC A04 C0 6474 3110161/4 (Ismer.
3 807'117115.413ao80 Of StavCs 4.19u1046 6,212 923 AN0 5530
• torr or 63Opr 2 Pau Mots ? MIN 1147 0rK101r(191 5117404305
5STRIT7
063110•6 301
Of DC 31 (4741 37MALOAC 145410 ' '44Ph�971
307 10 Or axe 1 Ano 107 6 0r 63001 2 6 S136C1C7 10 A IINPORARr
LUarcfre1 41/•111 ANO ACi(1 5-4074174 1(45(5 1 06376M1 *704, Mac
*136777 17 SMD 1015 WON COmettrat1 or A2 P0814 57114(7
6 A C04011707443 1' MOAT SMALL !?7 A74AD04117 40t 107 3 810x4
PRIOR 10 CONSIRUC7A7N OT 7747 11£31 &MOO
J N0 01'04415 PoLt Of C 'L'VS/RLC1t7¢07 M11,W s0 1517 r 04194 ane*
ANo No /N 1 83174.1 5017 9 Y 2016 ( 04197strp4 1/45 (VW Cr
a 1)45 51110x5074 15 5615.4517 30 1)45 aiVAR847915 or 174( (97440 u
1911114.5 CCC( R.Oq As 1(1344150 6s DC 044 0r 0411[
(VT nom' 61
4 I
a' I
2r�
I I
11
^471
ti
1
1
F.
1
1
Duac
0
1477 •+-1---- - -r
44.6'3 45 N 1
nr 0. :4144C(. t " u/4/77 Ano LANoZor Cktrurpir
(. �\I • 1 ?47.30'
3 1 MJ.Jr
woe o1• sum., S or.,7 1r C 2666.3! _
STATE NK21364 70-26 (WEST C/(M00V BOULEVARD)
41.74. NO l -JOT! /.S)
1.401.41720
BUILDING 5677041.1
MAW./ MAT.C.AC 5C73404 UN, SP.. Of ACCORI ANN Ike
ar Gar Apo 4114 Maar laarC (warmer AT PC MC
to 'stow:( or eoto c Raw 09 85 5111011 r Av000tt0.
EASEIGSYTS
Au t A 711(30? (113 fOOI 4401 01(79(197 C011303.30315
10 All 5174(275 tot 64/8345 104175 0A41917AND 08/14707
1341305(5 A11. 5784(7 950-34 7 145 A 02 1007 14101E 517107?
1.017 0-17457.1 10 4t 047? Or 04011. 411 armor 10? LACS
N1/f A 6 /3701 Mor 0450N(Nr ON 04M DOC /Ut Rate u1X117r5,
IMA►wor
840 64430474074 74107403(5 AL1 041(74 0.15340475 Art
API 474 1)404,17
R�15410'M904 0/ 7)19 7447 741431 41743.1 r 9713. 1745 4193.174197
70041c Rlry. 111045 N !Mr/ AJ lid Or 13C 1(51 3036.011
RESTRIC71VE CO3DVMNTS
3u1Oic ANO OCC1.MNC7 5444.1 031:17Q11 10 Nd SaNO4N05
(53404y40 sr 745 8151411+4( 3004474/5 10 et /1150 19 rad
047107 of De R(C0i00R• 104 co1•N41Y, X34417
coat
i 4404.11 ..., 21.
14 19
23
/134 2673913
UNE DATA
I UN BEARING OISTANC
1-1
3-2
69 r '•
N 0.1517,,74
N 9.145'75
IRR44170N MONI
AIS susaMS074 6 MALI 1.74£ 5(77((74' *411101 Mart 045
014a0PCR NLS *4307 M0I ID SLIM[? 64011X74 aura 10 PC
610*0(Mc 3070 804 401 1744 sf 5/8.477 ID 1Nr amen ASSiSS-
teN1S ow- OC1ttOMp trot 00:413" 3417 IOW OW 33-5005
RISPGN racris rat ALL 01411NQr Ano altrG 11111 lAa3/lXs OUTS10t De
*143.1 8.1047-01--wir 15 34517 IOW Ile 307 0r4MDNS OV oast 3130
SA0 014,.1CC AND 41:00:1014 AWNS Mr o0s6/AUC1 14411TS 54/0'
N(SMOYS1iQ/rr C 15541440 to AN 614301101/tI1aMwCt 010 ,,CI
• 7 ansa+,
.474 •
.a MN
DETAIL
0 50 100 200
%CAtl. 1•.100•
LEGEND
SHEET 1 OF 2
300
S1/BDMKSI0N BOUNDARY
▪ RN1714L PORIT - ?'x36' GALVANW1ED
IRON PIPE NI& 84455 CAP
• 701/10 5/8' IRON PIN - NO CAP
o SET 5/0' IRON P/N WITH PLS 5082
PLASTIC GAP
• POUND 1/2' IRON PN Ir/TM PLS 972
PLASTIC CAP
SET 1/2" RON PAN 747174 PLS 5082
• P1A5171 CAP
o
CALCULATED POINT - NOTH1NC SET
(100.00) RECORD DATA
▪ 401/10 BRASS GAP MONUMENT
-' - CASEMENT LINE
-- - -- STREET CEW7£RLINE
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED
PO. 0.8 179
1Sha1 5 Stair
(2001 088-4172
DELTA
it
qwvo-
•53s9'?Y
Ifiral1 ••
89.34'.7.4
.o33pf•
114130
V)
1YL-
1fr 9'ir-
4rIpw I'
$018.10-
CURVE DATA
RA0,1/5 ARC
3.105.14 69 91
202 00 NI 8
45.00 21.14
80 31IP
631
rue 11.17
3000 )4.J1
312194
171
7324 sp.12
ig00 WO
1, 500 I r...3
,-71,4!)
ffi t V
13400 JI.JI
J 43
3000 ,1.i.9
2.71,0,.3
moo.3r`.)?
30.00 I 3+.31
r. 11c£Nr
Aet
177»
i454
e3
Olts
l'1;
.19
19
TROP
171_
20.11
(140P0 CHORD BRNO'
69.92 N 09.42.77 r
20229 N 45•JJ•4r r
344 44 N 6131144 • 7-
;
N drlil - 1
MD_ II 43•LIT
r 7.51 N 7l -ire r
3.1.64 $ /y 73'29. 7
62 J�-L_v 13•.11. [_
837/ s 1g1s;t f
241. 0 £ 45.3.1'4 r
113494 S 1450175 w
13612 5 3i_1)J4• 1
L"r r
28.38 N 44.1014' 1r
8E2 6 :7!. ►
1�o 5 5434
9. 9 . r l
1.114 N sit ,74
16.90 N 6579•.W -
f8.2!
28.16 1 N 44:V•J4 r
EXHIBI"I' B
EXHIJ3I' 1C
MOORS SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 520
Boise, ID 83702
TELEPHONE: (208) 331-1800 FAX: (208) 331-1202
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Eagle — Mayor and City Council Members
Wilson Properties/Capital Development Applications Mediation Participants
FROM: Susan E. Buxton
DATE: March 7, 2010
RE: Wilson/Capital Development Mediation Summary
The following is a summary of the discussions between the participants of the Wilson
Properties/Capital Development Mediation held on March 2, 2010, in the Freedom Room at the
Eagle City Hall. The mediation session commenced at approximately 6:35 p.m. and concluded at
approximately 10:58 p.m. The purpose of this summary is to capture the substantive issues
explored by the participants without unnecessarily disclosing the internal dynamics of the debate.
This summary is also intended to preserve a sufficient record of the discussion to disclose ex
parte communications with the Eagle City Council members present at the mediation. The
summary notes the identity of the mediation participant and a description of what was discussed
in front of the Eagle City Council members present.
This summary is a public record. A copy of the written Informal Mediation Ground
Rules was circulated to all Participants which each Participant signed. A copy of the Informal
Mediation Ground Rules and the signature pages will also be included as a part of this Mediation
Summary as Exhibit A.
The Mediation Participants are as follows:
City of Eagle Idaho Department of Transportation
Norm Semanko, Eagle City Councilman Pam Golden
Al Shoushtarian, Eagle City Councilman
Bill Vaughan, City of Eagle Staff
Mike Williams, City of Eagle Staff
Susan Buxton, Eagle City Attorney
Bruce Smith, Eagle City Attorney'
Capital Development, Inc, Wilson Properties, LP & Wilson Holdings,
Ramon Yorgason LLC3
1 Mr. Smith did not speak during the mediation.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 2
David R. Yorgason
Craig Hilbog2
Neighbors to Development:
Clearview Estates Subdivision
Larry Sandusky
Winward River Heights Subdivision
Phil Broadbent
EIMP
Craig Eisenberg
JoAnn Butler
Charles H. Wilson
Roger Cantlon
Bob Mitchell
Bob Banks
Gene Schaeffer
Don Knickrehm
Bodily & Bunderson Springs Subdivision (aka
Sandy Springs)
Scott Trosper
Larry Swider (left mediation at 9:10 pm)
Foxtail Homeowners Association
Ryan Moore emailed Susan Buxton the afternoon
of 3/2/10 they would not attend. Ms. Buxton noted
their issues at the beginning of the mediation.
Fred Meyer
Don Forrest
The observers to the mediation, who did not participate, are as follows:
Gary Smith (left mediation at 9:30 pm), John Luque (left mediation at 9:30 pm), JoAnne Wilson,
Vicki Cantlon, Gerry Robbins (left mediation at 9 pm) , Mary May, Teri Bath, Jeanne Jackson -
Heim (left mediation at 9 pm), Kay Perkins, and Foad Roghani. These people did not speak
except to confirm they were observers and not participants in the mediation. The City of Eagle
concludes, therefore, the observers are not asserting any affected party status in this process.
I.
CITY OF EAGLE:
Al Shoushtarian: Council Member Shoushtarian welcomed everyone to the
mediation and explained his goal for the mediation was that it be informal, but
limited each participant to ten minutes for their opening remarks so that everyone
had a chance to speak to the group and to reserve enough time that evening to
conduct the mediation both with the group as a whole and separately as needed.4
He asked Wilson and the neighbors if they would address a possible compromise
2 Mr. Hilbog did not speak during the mediation.
3 Dan Thompson also addressed the mediation as part of the Wilson team. Roger Cantlon did not speak at the
mediation session.
"Neither Mr. Shoushtarian nor Mr. Semanko attended separate break-out meetings held by participants or observers.
During breaks in the meeting of the whole (all participants and observes in the same room), Mr. Shoushtarian and
Mr. Semanko talked to City Staff or had short conversations with others unrelated to the Applications or the
mediation.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 3
on the commercial density issue. Mr. Shoushtarian noted that the neighbors did
not appear to be concerned with the residential density, especially after Dave
Yorgason clarified their residential 4 units/acre intent. He did point out that the
issue between Wilson and the neighbors was they desired less commercial density
and the Foxtail HOA did not want any commercial traffic traveling through their
subdivision from Chinden. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Mr. Shoushtarian
attempted to keep the mediation moving forward by suggesting as a possible
commercial square footage change, that Wilson reduce their main commercial
square footage to 144,375 and their neighborhood commercial square footage to
36,250. When making that suggestion, Mr. Shoushtarian was very clear that his
suggestion was not based on numbers that he would require for his decision as
that was not his role in the mediation. After that suggestion, a break was taken to
give the participants a chance to see if they could agree on commercial square
footage reductions on the Wilson property.5
Norm Semanko: Council Member Semanko stated he wanted the attendees to
openly discuss their views and opinions. He identified the concern that Fred
Meyer wants the same written conditions in both the EIMP and Wilson
Development Agreements regarding sewer, ACHD and ITD access requirements
and that annexation occurs first, not after those items are worked out with the
other entities. In an attempt to break down the issues to be worked on, Mr.
Semanko suggested the participants address the following: (1) road access and
public safety for residential and commercial; (2) density of residential and
commercial; (3) terms within Development Agreement for Wilson on the
annexation that concern EIMP; (4) sewer capacity; and (5) the developers'
willingness to compromise with the neighbors in this forum. Mr. Semanko noted
that the discussions from the participants in the mediation mirrored their positions
previously stated in public hearings before the City Council. He also asked
Wilson to consider what sort of compromise they could suggest regarding the
commercial square footage.6 Mr. Semanko asked about whether the commercial
square footage was comparable to other shopping centers in the area. He
reminded the participants that this is a mediation so neither he nor Mr.
Shoushtarian could or would force an agreement in this forum.
Bill Vaughan: Mr. Vaughan described the applications' voluntary annexation
requests. Each application also has two separate development agreements. When
asked by a participant why the two applications were handled concurrently, Mr.
Vaughan explained that he believed it would be easier to see the entire plan for
the two properties that were going to be developed in concert with each other.
That is a common method for Eagle even though each application will require
separate decision by the City Council. He described the Eagle Planning and
Zoning Commissions' 4-0 recommendation that the Comprehensive Plan
5 See Mr. Knickrehm's comment summary to see the compromise offered by Wilson.
6 Same as footnote #2.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 4
amendment requested by the applications be approved. Mr. Vaughan also
discussed the Planning and Zoning Commission's deliberation on the signal/ITD
access and that the Commission reached no majority recommendation to forward
to the City Council on the zones due to commercial density/square footage
concerns.
Mike Williams: Mr. Williams provided information regarding the Staff
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission of 78,500 main
commercial and 17,750 neighborhood commercial. He elaborated on how the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, if approved, would change what commercial
square footage that would be expected if so zoned on the Wilson property. Mr.
Williams also discussed the process and recommendations before the Eagle
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Susan Buxton: Ms. Buxton answered questions about the mediation process
asked of her by Mr. Shoushtarian, Mr. Semanko or others present. Ms. Buxton
recounted the substance of the Foxtail HOA emails received that afternoon from
Ryan Moore as noted below. Ms. Buxton discussed the condition precedent terms
in the Development Agreement presented in late February by Wilson and how
they were different than similar requirements for ITD/ACHD access approval and
sewer capacity approval for EIMP. Ms. Buxton did state she would not
recommend that the City enter into an amendment of the proposed Development
Agreement with Wilson that reduced one of its time -frames to get those approvals
to 90 days, citing that is too short.
II. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
Pam Golden: Ms. Golden provided an explanation of ITD's agreement with
EIMP for full access for two (2) years after the store opens. Following those two
years, a left in a right in/right out shall equal a three-quarters (3/4) access. If the
road is improved to six (6) lanes and crash history develops or the ITD Board so
orders, then a right in/right out would be the only access to Chinden.
ITD is neutral as to whether properties are annexed to obtain access or not. lTD
does not want the Development Agreement to become a political tool and wants
to proceed with normal planning. She also noted that with other unfunded
projects, Linder would have 40,000 cars a day which is equal to Eagle Road's
flow now — this occurs even without these projects (EIMP, Wilson and Capital
Development).
No one from Fox Run subdivision has contacted ITD to Ms. Golden's knowledge.
The signal at Fox Run is underutilized to the North. There are questions
regarding relocating the existing Fox Run light. ITD has talked to developer
across Chinden regarding its interest in relocating the light. This could help
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 5
Meridian as well. Ms. Golden described the access permit process for ITD and
the timing regarding land use applications which are going through the city
process. Ms. Golden noted that the Wilson application is difficult because ITD
has not seen more than a conceptual traffic study yet because Wilson is not asking
for a change of use on Fox Tail Golf Course property at this time. She is not sure
about the status of ITD requiring the extension to five (5) lanes. Ms. Golden
believes that the Fox Run light/road issues will need ACHD's input as well.
Ms. Golden left the mediation session at 10:30 pm).
III. CAPITAL CITY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
David R. Yorgason: Mr. Yorgason clarified their intent that the residential
shown as eight units per acre will be approximately four units per acre. They have
met with many neighbors and have a spreadsheet which tracks most of their
neighborhood discussions which has been previously submitted into the public
record on these applications. He stated that they would like their Development
Agreement modified so that there is no open space requirement for the "R-1".
The Staff had recommended that change as well at the public hearing. The R-1
lots are a 43,560 square feet minimum. This will make fewer patio home lots and
less open space that would make the transition to the properties which are located
to the North smoother. The streets come out of the lots which are less than one
acre. Mr. Yorgason further discussed their transitioning from neighboring large
lots to their residential project. Does not have any compromises on density. He
felt that as far as a compromise he is able to make is to anticipate 128 + 257 = 385
(more or less) units which rejected Mr. Broadbent's suggestion of 340 residential
lots. However, Mr. Yorgason said he will review the lot layouts and not look at
the number of units. He stated that he will put fewer lots across the lot lines
adjacent to the existing lots to reduce the amount of light, cars and noise. He
stated that they are seeing an increased demand for smaller but not cheap homes.
He believes that these homes will be nicer that those in the Settler's Bridge
Subdivision.
Ramon Yorgason: Mr. Yorgason stated his belief that the residential issues have
already been compromised and would like a vote for their annexation application
next Tuesday whether Wilson goes forward or not. He also noted that in his
experience, when planning for commercial development 10,000 square feet of
commercial per acre is standard. He felt that with the 21 acres, Wilson's proposed
main commercial of 210,000 square feet was a precise number.
IV. WILSON PROPERTIES, LP & WILSON HOLDINGS, LLC
Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Wilson noted that the deceleration lanes to the Fox Tail
Golf Course are already in place including a center turn land. He believes that if
they were able to get assistance with the Fox Run light from the City, ITD and the
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 6
neighbors, they would be comfortable with a right in/right out. He stated that it is
his first choice to annex in to Eagle. Mr. Wilson is concerned that the neighbors
in opposition do not understand the economics that need to be met to develop his
property and that no matter how much more he compromises; only no
development would make them happy. He was still willing to remove the
neighborhood commercial of 55,000 square feet as described by Mr. Knickrehrn.
He was not willing to reduce the other 210,000 square feet of commercial. He
believes that this compromise keeps the project as reasonably viable.
Daniel A. Thompson: Mr. Thompson is Wilson's traffic engineer. He stated that
underpass option mentioned by Mr. Broadbent would create traffic on the south
side and restrict additional movements. He believes that traffic will come to this
quadrant with or without the Wilson project or EIMP so he believes this is a better
way to solve the existing traffic dilemma for ITD and ACHD. He stated that their
mandate does not require them (Wilson) to mitigate anything other than their own
impact. He believes that they could complete a traffic study in two weeks.
Bob Mitchell: Mr. Mitchell works with the Wilson group. He believes that retail
centers begin to draw traffic around 10-11 a.m. so it does not impact the morning
commute. They also draw traffic in the evenings so it helps reduce the evening
commuter traffic at those high count times. He noted that this is regional gateway
area so 210,000 square feet of commercial is not excessive.
Bob Banks: Mr. Banks was the spokesman for the Wilson group. He laid out the
concept plan that was worked out with the neighbors and is part of the public
hearing record. He also discussed the four residential units per acre issue.
With regard to relocating the Fox Run light, Mr. Banks stated that he has talked to
Mr. McKinney (landowner to South) but has not asked him for a commitment.
In summarizing the compromises Wilson has made in the application process, Mr.
Banks showed the October 2008 original plan. He illustrated the movement of the
signal and proposed that work off the existing signal or moving signal are the
options. He stated that their study says that their project would not properly
function off the existing signal and that they need the other access as well. ITD
conditions are controlled with EIMP. He believes they could try to work with
EIMP but they do not have them completed today.
Mr. Banks discussed the actions at the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission.
There, the Fox Run Subdivision residents said they did not want commercial on
the five (5) acre parcel, to which one Commission member agreed. He discussed
how their cul-de-sac option cuts traffic commercial traffic to zero. He believes
the parties could agree to cul-de-sac Fox Tail subdivision and route to Meridian
Road. He believes Fox Tail HOA and ACHD could agree to that.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 7
With regard to the two conditions precedent to annexation in their most recent
development agreement draft to the City, Mr. Banks believes the City is more
inclined to help the project before annexed than after. He wants to know exactly
what they can do with their project prior to committing to the City. He states that
they are okay with the movement of the light if they can get compromise. He
believes that the underpass is acceptable if the government pays for its
construction but does not believe that these projects can economically support it
nor would the traffic study require such mitigation.
In earlier compromises, they reduced the neighborhood commercial from 70.000
to 55,000 square feet. He believes that the issues with the commercial issue are
sound, visual, and traffic. By having residential, transitional uses and buffering
plus the traffic compromise, the traffic would improve and with cross access to
EIMP, the residents would not have to leave the internal roads to shop. He
believes that that would pull traffic off the road during high traffic times and
lessen cars at those critical time periods. He believes that their proposal deals
with those concerns. He showed examples of visual impacts. He said he is
unable to hear Albertsons from City Hall.
He stated that they build to suit, not build to spec. He stated that they cannot do
the project with the Staff's numbers. The proposed twenty-one acres of main
commercial is substantiated by their studies and experts. He noted their previous
removal of 5 acres of commercial at Fox Tail HOA's request and that they agreed
to the large berm.
There are three other quadrants of the intersection, not just theirs. The
commercial square footage proposed in the other three quadrants equals 1.6M
square feet in Meridian. He believes that if it does not get built here, they will go
to the other quadrants and build. He stated that working to get connection with
signal out REA with EIMP. He said he will address sewer issues with EIMP. He
believes that natural phasing could work out. He does not agree to EIMP
language versus the condition precedent language.
Gene Schaeffer: Mr. Schaeffer works with the Wilson group. He described the
concept plan is the same plan with highlighted road systems. The Master Concept
Plan was presented for City Council approval last Tuesday. He stated that they
asked for clarity on the approval so that all parties knew the: (1) access for both
residential and commercial; (2) densities; (3) sewer capacity in this quadrant is
limited so that is why they would want all parties to work together to make it
work for everyone; and (4) since there is no specific tenant this will allow
flexibility for their plan. He showed some photographs of the golf course and
how it could look with the homes. He stated that the view was looking due south
from the existing subdivisions. He stated that everyone in the north property
would see trees and they could put in more evergreens to densify the existing
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 8
trees. He showed the views from the Bunderson property looking south to the
Powell property and the possible new residences and commercial property would
be buffered with landscaping in front. He believes they would need at least a right
in/right out.
Don Knickrehm: Mr. Knickrehm is legal counsel for the Wilson group. He
discussed the effect of the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He stated that
Mr.Tanner moved with full support for 210,000 square feet commercial. Mr.
Roehling had said "no" because the commercial included a 5 -acre lot contained
within Foxtail Subdivision. Mr. Smith said "no" because of too much density.
The CCRs were amended to exclude the 5 -acre parcel from CCRs. He addressed
the commercial square footage. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan talks about a
regional commercial area (Chinden/Black Cat). This area has since been annexed
by Meridian. That regional plan said not to exceed 40 acres. The office and retail
form a buffer. This corner makes sense as a regional commercial center since it is
on the northeast corner. That is why Fred Meyer selected it. 600,000 — 1M
square feet = regional. Even if we built one-half of this, people have to go by here
to shop whether they stop at this corner or not. Look at how Eagle has built out so
there is a need for a regional center and it does not make sense to cut it in half. If
it is cut in half, from 265,000 to 130,000, it would not make sense.
As another compromise to working out the road/light relocation, around 10:30
pm, Mr. Knickrehm told the mediation group that Wilson is willing to forego the
55,000of neighborhood commercial if they keep main commercial at 210,000. As
part of that, if the developer believes the market and the area changes such that it
is consistent, they can ask the City Council to amend the development agreement
(with public hearing) to replace that square footage in the future. It was noted that
Eagle City Code and Idaho Code allow amendment to development agreements on
notice and hearing to the City Council. As to the two conditions precedent on
ITD approval and sewer capacity, Mr. Knickrehm offered to limit their ability to
do so to 90 days instead of 36 months. If they cannot get the contingencies
removed in 90 days, they will either waive them or the development agreement
and approvals are void.
V. NEIGHBORS TO DEVELOPMENT
Clearview Estates Subdivision:
Larry Sandusky: Mr. Sandusky stated that his only access out of his property is
Meridian Road to Chinden. He has a number of crash concerns because he hauls
Mr. Knickrehm was describing his understanding of the P&Z meeting, Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Williams had
described the meetings too. This summary is not meant to interpret the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendations or votes.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 9
horses. He believes that the light on Fox Run has not helped with the two lights
so close. He has seen people use the turn lane to turn into Fox Run so it is an
added hazard. He believes that the signs funded by EIMP were improvements but
does not like the added density with these applications. His main issue is safety.
He believes that another direct access would be chaos and that road needs to be
restructured. He stated that the Fred Meyer traffic studies did not add in Wilson.
He stated that he believes that the Fox Run people do not believe that Wilson is
negotiating in good faith. He believes it would have been easier if the
applications were separate. He would agree to a signal relocation.
Winward River Heights Subdivision
Phil Broadbent: Mr. Broadbent stated he personally preferred to see the
development done through Eagle instead of Ada County. He wanted to know if
the developers would further compromise on commercial and residential density.
Mr. Broadbent presented his understanding that the parcels to north were 5-6
acres; parcels to the east were 2 acres. He felt traffic will be significant and
suggested at one point whether an underpass was considered. He wants less
density so there would be less impact on traffic and less density everywhere. He
does not like patio homes and wants less density as noise/traffic light. He stated
that Dave Turnbull at Paramount will not agree to move the light currently located
at Fox Run. He believes that they would have to put in 5 lanes. He believes that
it would be inconceivable that City is not requiring 2 more lanes with this project.
He wants to reduce number of residential lots to 340. He does not think that Mr.
Knickrehm's offer to reduce the commercial by 55,000 was very significant and
that it was a hollow offer if they could come back to Council to ask for it back in
the future. Regardless, he did believe the Wilson offer was made in good faith.
Foxtail HOA:
As presented to Susan Buxton by Ryan Moore in emails on the afternoon of
March 2, 2010, the Fox Tail HOA wanted the mediation group to be aware of
their following issues:
(i) They agree with the arrangement made with Dave Yorgason
regarding the residential portion of the concept plan and they want
the 4 unit/acre incorporated as presented by Mr. Yorgason to them.
(ii) They like the City Staff report on commercial to the Planning and
Zoning Commission as they feel the commercial density is too
high.
(iii) They support moving the Fox Run Light so long as they can close
their entrance to Chinden and access Meridian road through
Capital Development's residential development. They do not want
any commercial traffic to go through their subdivision.
(iv) They do not want any part of these two applications annexed to
Meridian.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 10
VI. BODILY AND BUNDERSON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION (aka SANDY
SPRINGS)
Scott Trosper: Mr. Trosper stated his concerns come down to the density of the
commercial property and traffic impacts on the corner. He believes the level of
commercial property is too large and would contribute to problems by impacting
the quality of life of the neighbors. He does not like the unprotected turn onto the
highway. He believes that the only way Fred Meyer can go forward is with an
annexation. He believes that Fred Meyer is being held hostage by Wilson. He
believes that traffic is already a problem and it is difficult to get out of the
subdivision. He stated that they are already unable to get out on Linder. He
would accept the relocation of the Fox Run light. He believes this is a concept
plan and that they have to come back to the City with a Preliminary Plat which
shows 4.2 or 3.8 units per acre to be located where the Concept Plan shows eight
units per acre. He believes that Eagle has a very high open space requirement.
The Concept Plan is currently at 4.1 units per acre. He believes that they are
creating a traffic reservoir that would make getting in and out of the subdivision
more difficult. He stated that he would rather have it compact up against
Chinden. He stated that any reduction in commercial would help them at the end
of the day.
Larry Swider: Mr. Swider appeared as a participant but did not make many
comments except his agreement with Mr. Trosper's positions and concerns. Mr.
Swider left at approximately 9:40 pm.
VII. EIMP
Craig Eisenberg: Mr. Eisenberg is the developer of EIMP. He described
meeting with the Wilson group. He has concerns about the two new development
agreement terms added by Wilson that make annexation contingent on approvals
to their satisfaction in 90 days by Eagle Sewer District and ITD. As to the
density, he believes the market will drive that. He stated that their development
is difficult even with Fred Meyer. He does not believe the interior roads on the
EIMP site plan already approved through Eagle Design Review should be required
to be redone. He stated that they believed that they would be able to accomplish it
within Eagle and not as a condition of annexation as he is willing to work with
Wilson on the cross -access and traffic study results.
JoAnn Butler: She stated that the EIMP Development Agreement approving
their annexation is approved. She believes that they have to get separate
approvals in regard to ACHD/ITD and Sewer District and a separate path to
annexation. She stated that they are committed to the City first and wants the
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 11
same terms in the Wilson DA as is in the EIMP DA that they annex first and work
agrees to abide by the approvals of the other entities like Eagle Sewer and ITD.
VIII. FRED MEYER
Don Forrest: Mr. Forrest noted their support for the Capital City Development
annexation. Their problem with Wilson Properties is the addition of the pre-
annexation agreement terms making achieving ITD access (irrevocable) and sewer
capacity reserved by sewer district a condition precedent. He believes that those
are non-starters, different from what he and EIMP had to do in their development
agreement and those clauses are not a good way to influence the other agencies.
He believes that Wilson is looking for adjustments on the EIMP site plan that has
already been approved by Eagle's Design Review Boards.
Mr. Forrest noted that their traffic approvals make it safe for the community as
they are their customers. He stated that they had traffic models and mitigation
that provides more traffic capacity than they create so that helps the area. He
stated that they have a good safety buffer and that he already believes is good
safety movement. He stated that they do have a signed agreement with ITD. If
the Development Agreement passed as is now, he does not believe the Wilson
property will annex. He is anticipating that the development of three (3) corners
and the 8% growth rate that they build in has not been seen yet. He stated that
they have safety factors built in. Their agreement with the City is contingent on
contiguity and that is with the current properties. They had an application with
the county and they stayed it so to give Eagle a chance to get this annexation path
approved so they wanted to avoid going through another process to save that
money. They will go to the county if this does not get annexed. He stated that
three items in the Wilson Development Agreement that need to be addressed are:
(1) cross access; (2) need to be in Eagle; and (3) traffic study. He does think the
ITD and sewer capacity questions can be solved in the ninety (90) days suggested
by Mr. Knickrehm. He stated that are able to do an easements traffic study.
EXHIBI'l' 1)
Mixed Use Area: 23.6 Acres
80 Single Family Residential Units
2 Acres Mixed Use Commercial
Residential Area: 56.4 Acres
126 Single Family Residential Units
I'In.3com Yuinies
November 14.2012
PICKETT
7051 Eesl 5th Amwo
Development 480.609
.0009
vrv.grceypickMl
Scalise:We, AZ .cems52s,Suite 200
200
Site Pian i.n.n
SCALE : 1" = 200'
7
z
O
In 1
i;
1+1 I I 1 I 1 Y ii!I
•!U.
_ ii
--�i2Lt :sts��t ahai i, . i 11. 1 liki Igo , i;\ 1
.,,„ , g
w:iii1 i in; i,-n$«dib
g 1 ilP 1 ;
ip 1%, 1 i il lio e al ,,v glifghibrqii pig
ail
p ,.i!i I, i7s! 0,1 ; 6I p ggTP hg 1 1 qi:
i 11 keg n
�Rlill �dEi � �, ��¢>SQE� �j12g
33 i I' , it a 11:9,i, I .1, 11 1 1 � • bbpig y: v,illii'l a il ill
! 1 li i ll
li il tell
ii'lg:
iNil -
j$i ss:nA0 , „ i , 1 1:11, 1„, hi!! 10 I li i li 1: II
, .. \TI
POI
/111
d - - o �d 71
����� 8s iigliiii oho
legv.vil oggi.n
ti
a
iu
J51 !11,
..1. ;II .1
l _1,�---- - li V 1 i ' I
4
I! / iii
cif:. • 11
I9 i
n
lit
IF
al
��t _ ` i 1itt• td> ih— -- i� 1.,_
`�;_ -sem ww sr' --7: 1 „salrentr-N
-_l-r.-r
it Oji
'pb
it
- ;-rte
—�� x e
i.sa I z cv. 2._
iu) _s",4-.:- :4)4 9. 11 ha
molig-i-i ._41....._____...443,..
.-wg.ie a 2--- - 12 i -‘• ,
Z g iiia �� i
to f ce 6, i lill 1.•••'''''';
•
Cg.''
, •
t .t
vssis
3i
tv
ima
--40 Ai In
gattriphr,
ga":# /0- At -
414/40''
+;fly
T
//hi i
twa
•
75b1 or:
CIL
3� QL
•
t
Y
4Ctkl 51;71
_t .
NM, Ng
NOM m`4
•
:Z
1
E'1 �
�i1 1
•
'
li
1
Fite:
t {route to•
3V 16 2412
/ / n 500 1,000
•
ALMADEN ACRES
SUBDIVISION
ODILY A D
BUNDERSON
SPRINGS
SUBDIVISION
WINWARD R VER
HEIGHTS 1
SUBDIVISION
SCALE IN FEET
--- PROJECT
LOCATION
LJ
BRA 'IDT
SUBDIVISION
LAZY P
• SUBDIVISION
I F6XTAIL
SUBDIVISION_
A A hc
MIDWAY PLACE
SUBDIVISION
LIIIII11IIIJI111IIIIIII
IY I SURA
T VIIS NN
IIIIIIIII
[
$ I 1 I if 11 I -�.
1115 000UMfNT. ANC/4=M= INOORPORATEDHEREIN
V A6 AN INSTRUMENT or PROFE66zON I.6ERVICE. iS THE PROPERTY OF
F9Jt/O EN000EERi, bcA IS NOT TO DE UUD. Row= OR PART.
MANY OBER PROJECT WITHOUT THE EXP S831MW7TEN
AUTHORIZATIONOPJ.0 INOPISORE.4w
FEF:t0•T2037 VIOWTY
JUH PROD. r, t0•12.0S7
DRAWN SY: EE
DESIGN BY:
CHEERED SY: 6W
REVISION OESCRIPTION 1 BY [PRI DATE j LAST UPDATED: $ WI4ROt2
GMB
]-U-B ENGINEERS,
lllll II11IIILL)
REYNARD
SUBDIVISION
VICINITY MAP
SHEET
1
CITY OF EAGLE
P. O. BOX 1520
660 E. CIVIC LANE
EAGLE, IDAHO 83616
LEGAL NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS
DATE: February 2, 2013
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBJECT/ LOCATION: RZ-11-08 MOD & PP -05-12 — Foxtail Partners, LLC: Foxtail Partners,
LLC, is requesting a development agreement modification and preliminary plat approval for
Reynard Subdivision a 241 -lot (206 buildable, 2 commercial, and 33 common) subdivision. The
80.02 -acre site is generally located on the north side of West Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20-
26) approximately 340 -feet west of the intersection of North Fox Run Avenue and West Chinden
Boulevard (Highway 20-26) at 990 West Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20-26).
A MAP SHOWING THE AREA UNDER CONSIDERATION IS INCLUDED HEREIN.
THE EAGLE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN 300' OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY BE NOTIFIED OF THE
HEARINGS.
YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OFFER YOUR COMMENTS
FOR CONSIDERATION. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE HEARINGS, AND YOU HAVE
PERTINENT COMMENTS, YOU MAY DELIVER THEM TO THE CITY CLERK NO LATER THAN
FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, AND THEY WILL BE ENTERED IN THE
HEARING ON YOUR BEHALF.
The Ada County Highway District may also conduct public meetings regarding this application. If
you have questions about the traffic that this development may generate or the impact of that
traffic on streets in the area, please contact the Ada County Highway District at 387-6170. In order
to expedite your request, please have ready the file number indicated in this notice.
***EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING DATE:
February 19. 2013 TIME: 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Eagle City Hall
SINCERE ,Y, ,
Michael Williams, PCED, CFM
Planner II
City of Eagle
MAPS ENCLOSED
Page 1 of 1
K.\Plamting Dcptltagle Applications \SUBS120I2111eynard Sub 300 doc
Pz 3k
y
5� �
� V\ �"
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Comply with all conditions within the development agreement for rezone application RZ-011-08 and --as
may be modified by RZ-011-08 MOD.
2. Comply with all requirements of the City Engineer.
3. The applicant shall submit payment to the City for all engineering fees incurred for reviewing this
project. prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
4. Add a note to the final plat which states that, "Minimum building setback lines shall be in accordance
with the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations at the time of issuance of a building permit or as
specifically approved and/or required in connection with RZ-11-08 as may be modified by RZ-11-08
MOD."
5. All overhead utilities on the site shall be removed and/or placed underground and the associated Idaho
Power easements shall be vacated prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
6. Provide a letter from the Almaden Ditch Company and all other appropriate irrigation/ditch/drainage
companies approving any construction plans involving the relocation or construction of irrigation facilities
currently accessing the site or particular phase of development and under the purview of the Almaden
Ditch Company and all other appropriate irrigation/ditch/drainage companies. The letter shall be provided
prior to the City Engineer signing with tho submittal of the final plat-app1isatien.
7. The four (4) existing structures located on the site shall be removed prior to the City Clerk signing the
final plat. These structures include: the clubhouse. the driving range shelter: and the two clubhouse
outbuildings. They do not include the maintenance structure or the Dump house.
8. Provide a revised preliminary plat showing the landscape island located on Fox Bend Way immediately
north of Fox Lake Drive as Lot 21, Block 1, prior to submittal of a final plat application.
9. Provide a revised preliminary plat with plat note #7 revised to read, "All side yard lot lines have a 5'
property utility and drainage easement on each side of the lot line. All front lot lines and rear lot lines have
a 12' utility and drainage easement. The applicant shall provide a revised preliminary plat prior to
submittal of a final plat application. (ECC 9-3-6)
10. Provide a revised preliminary plat with the following plat note added:
"All commercial lots shown hereon shall provide reciprocal cross -access for vehicular and pedestrian
ingress and egress to the public right-of-ways and to the utility easements as delineated or noted on this
plat." The revised plat shall be provided prior to the submittal of a final plat application.
11. The applicant shall provide additional information regarding the height and the proposed area for
relocation of the existing cell tower prior to submittal of a final plat application. (ECC 8-2-3 and
ECC 8-2-4)
12. The applicant shall submit a Design Review application with a landscape plan showing the required
improvements (berming, landscaping, sidewalk, and irrigation pump house) within the common lots
pursuant to Eagle City Code 8-2A to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the
submittal of a final plat application. (ECC 8-2A-7)
13. The developer shall provideZ caliper shade -class trees (landscape plan to be reviewed and
approved by the Design Review Board) along both sides of all streets within this development. Trees shall
be placed at the front of each lot generally at each side property line, or as approved by the Design
Review Board. The trees shall be located in an 8 -foot wide landscape strip between the 5 -foot wide
concrete sidewalk and the curb. Prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat the applicant shall either
install the required trees, sod, and irrigation or provide the City with a letter of credit for 150% of the cost
C:\Users\jbutler'AppData\Local‘Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\UFFTWK04\Reynard Conditions with
applicant comments (3-4-13) (2).docx - 1
of the installation of all landscape and irrigation improvements. Trees shall be installed prior to obtaining
any occupancy permits for the homes. A temporary occupancy may be issued if weather does not permit
landscaping. (ECC 8-2A-7)
14 All living trees that do not encroach upon the buildable area on any lot shall be preserved, unlocc
otherwise determined by tho Docign Review Board. A detailed landscape plan showing how the trees will
be integrated into the open space areas or private lots (unless approved for removal by the Design
Review Board) shall be provided for Design Review Board approval prior to the submittal of a final plat.
Construction fencing shall be installed (pursuant to the Design Review Board's direction) to protect all
trees that are to be preserved, prior to the commencement of any construction on the site.
15. The Reynard Subdivision shall remain under the control of one Homeowners Association for
residential uses,
16. The applicant shall place a note on the final plat that the pressurized irrigation system and all common
lots are to be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
17. The applicant shall provide CC&Rs that the Homeowner's Association shall have the duty to maintain
the pressurized irrigation system and all common landscape areas in the subdivision are maintained in a
competent and attractive manner, including the watering, mowing, fertilizing and caring for shrubs and
trees in perpetuity.
C.\Users\jbutler\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content Outlook\UFFTWKO4\Reynard Conditions with
applicant comments (3-4-13) (2) docx - 2
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Ada County Highway District and/or the Idaho
Transportation Department, including but not limited to approval of the drainage system, curbs, gutters,
streets and sidewalks.
2. Correct street names, as approved by the Ada County Street Name Committee, shall be placed on the
plat prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
3. Complete water and sewer system construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer. Required improvements shall include, but not be limited to, extending all utilities to the platted
property. The developer may submit a letter in lieu of plans explaining why plans may not be necessary.
4. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare approval of the sewer and water facilities is required prior to the
City Engineer signing the final plat (I.C. Title 50, Chapter 13 and I.C. 39-118).
5. Written approval of all well water for any shared or commercial well shall be obtained from the Idaho
Department of Water Resources prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
6. Unless septic tanks are permitted, wet line sewers will be required and the applicant will be required to
furnish the City Engineer with a letter from the sewer entity serving the property, accepting the project for
service, prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
7. All homes being constructed with individual septic systems shall have the septic systems placed on the
street side of the home or shall have their sewer drainage system designed with a stub at the house front
to allow for future connection to a public sewer system.
8. Per Idaho Code, Section 31-3805, concerning irrigation rights, transfer and disclosure, the water rights
appurtenant to the lands in said subdivision which are within the irrigation entity will be transferred from
said lands by the owner thereof; or the subdivider shall provide for underground tile or other like
satisfactory underground conduit to permit the delivery of water to those landowners within the
subdivision who are also within the irrigation entity. See Eagle City Code Section 9-4-1-9(C), which
provides overriding and additional specific criteria for pressurized irrigation facilities. Plans showing the
delivery system must be approved by a registered professional engineer and shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
9. The applicant shall submit a letter from the appropriate drainage entity approving the drainage system
and/or accepting said drainage; or submit a letter from a registered professional engineer certifying that
all drainage shall be retained on-site prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat. A copy of the
construction drawing(s) shall be submitted with the letter.
10. Drainage system plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the
City Engineer signing the final plat. The plans shall show how swales, or drain piping, will be developed in
the drainage easements. The approved drainage system shall be constructed, or a performance bond
shall be submitted to the City Clerk, prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat. The CC&R's shall
contain clauses to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney, prior to the City
Engineer signing the final plat, requiring that lots be so graded that all runoff- runs either over the curb, or
to the drainage easement, and that no runoff shall cross any lot line onto another lot except within a
drainage easement.
11. No ditch, pipe or other structure, or canal, or drain, for irrigation water or irrigation waste water owned
by an organized irrigation district, canal company, ditch association, drainage district, drainage entity, or
other irrigation entity, shall be obstructed, routed, covered or changed in any way unless such
obstruction, rerouting, covering or changing has first been approved in writing by the entity. A Registered
Engineer shall certify that any ditch rerouting, piping, covering or otherwise changing the existing
irrigation or waste ditch (1) has been made in such a manner that the flow of water will not be impeded or
C:1Users\jbutler1AppData\LocalNicrosomWindows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\UFFTWKO41Reynard Conditions with
applicant comments (3-4-13) (2).docx - 3
increased beyond carrying capacity of the downstream ditch; (2) will not otherwise injure any person or
persons using or interested in such ditch or their property; and (3) satisfied the Idaho Standards for Public
Works Construction. A copy of such written approval and certification shall be filed with the construction
drawing and submitted to the City Engineer prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
12. Encroachments including, but not limited to, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and/or pathways shall not
be located within any easement or right-of-way for any ditch, pipe or other structure, or canal, or drain,
used for irrigation water or irrigation waste water without the express written approval of the organized
irrigation district, canal company, ditch association, drainage district, drainage entity or other irrigation
entity associated with such ditch, pipe or other structure, drainage or canal. The applicant shall submit a
copy of the written approval from the irrigation entity, drainage district, or drainage entity prior to the City
Clerk signing the final plat.
13. Street light plans shall be submitted and approved as to the location, height and wattage to the City
Engineer prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat. All construction shall comply with the City's
specifications and standards.
14. The applicant shall delineate on the face of the final plat an easement, acceptable to the City
Engineer, for the purpose of installing and maintaining street light fixtures, conduit and wiring lying outside
any dedicated public right-of-way, prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat. The applicant shall pay
applicable street light inspection fees on the proposed subdivision prior to signing of the final plat by the
Eagle City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide utility easements as required by the public utility providing service, and as
may be required by the Eagle City Code, prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
15. An approval letter from the Eagle -Meridian Fire Department shall be submitted to the City prior to the
City Engineer signing the final plat. The letter shall include the following comments and minimum
requirements, and any other items of concern as may be determined by the Eagle Meridian Fire
Department officials:
a. The applicant has made arrangements to comply with all requirements of the Fire Department.
b. The proposed fire hydrant locations shall be reviewed and be approved in writing by the Eagle Meridian
Fire Department prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
c. Minimum flow per hydrant shall be 1,000 gallons per minute for one and two family dwellings, 1,500
gallons per minute for dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3.600 square feet, and 1,500 gallons per
minute (i.e.; Commercial, Industrial, Schools, etc.). Flow rates shall be inspected in accordance with all
agencies having jurisdiction, and shall be verified in writing by the Eagle Fire Department prior to
issuance of any building permits.
d. The proposed fire protection system shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle -Meridian Fire
Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
16. Covenants, homeowner's association by-laws or other similar deed restrictions, acceptable to the
Eagle City Attorney which provide for the use, control and mutual maintenance of all common areas,
storage facilities, recreational facilities, street lights or open spaces shall be reviewed and approved by
the Eagle City Attorney prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
A restrictive covenant must be recorded and a note on the face of the final plat is required, providing for
mutual maintenance and access easements.
Appropriate papers describing decision-making procedures relating to the maintenance of structures,
grounds and parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle City Attorney prior to the City
Engineer signing the final plat.
17. Should the homeowner's association be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the storm
drainage facilities, the covenants and restrictions, homeowner's association by-laws or other similar deed
restrictions acceptable to the Eagle City Attorney shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle City
Attorney prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
C:\Users\jbutler\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\UFFTWKO4\Reynard Conditions with
applicant comments (3-4-13) (2).docx - 4
18. The applicant shall submit an application for Design Review, and shall obtain approval for all required
landscaping, common area and subdivision signage prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
19. Any recreation area, greenbelt area or pathway area along the Boise River, Dry Creek or any other
area designated by the City Council or Eagle City Pathway/Greenbelt Committee for a path or walkway
shall be approved in writing by the Eagle City Pathway/Greenbelt Committee prior to approval of the final
plat by the City Council.
20. Conservation, recreation and river access easements (if applicable) shall be approved by the Eagle
City Pathway/Greenbelt Committee and shall be shown on the final plat prior to approval of the final plat
by the City Council.
21. The applicant shall place a note on the face of the plat which states: "Minimum building setback lines
shall be in accordance with the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations at the time of issuance of
the building permit or as specifically approved and/or required".
22. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Eagle City Code, pertaining to floodplain and
river protection regulations (if applicable) prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
23. The development shall comply with the Boise River Plan (if applicable) in effect at the time of City
Council consideration of the final plat.
24. The applicant shall obtain written approval of the development relative to the effects of the Boise
River Flood Plain (if applicable) from the Corps of Engineers prior to approval of the final plat by the City
Engineer.
25. The applicant shall obtain approval of the development relative to its effects on wetlands or other
natural
waterways (if applicable) from the Corps of Engineers and the Idaho Department of Water Resources
and/or any other agency having jurisdiction prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
26. Basements in homes in the flood plain are prohibited.
27. The Americans with Disabilities Act, Uniform Building Code, Eagle City Code, Eagle Comprehensive
Plan, and all applicable County, State and Federal Codes and Regulations shall be complied with. All
design and construction shall be in accordance with all applicable City of Eagle Codes unless specifically
approved by the Commission and/or Council.
28. Any changes to the plans and specifications upon which this approval is based, other than those
required by the above conditions, will require submittal of an application for modification and approval of
that application prior to commencing any change. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the
property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules,
regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant
or its successors in interest submits application to the City of Eagle for a change to the planned use of the
subject property.
29. No public board, agency, commission, official or other authority shall proceed with the construction of
or authorize the construction of any of the public improvements required by the Eagle City Code Title 9
"Land Subdivisions" until the final plat has received the approval of the City Council (ECC 9-6-5 (A) (2)).
After Council approval of the final plat, the applicant may construct any approved improvements before
the City Engineer signs the final plat. The applicant shall provide a financial guarantee of performance in
the amount of 150% of the total estimated cost for completing any required improvements (see resolution
98-3) prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat. The financial guarantee shall be a Letter of Credit,
Certificate of Deposit, cash deposit or certified check.
C:1UsersljbutlerMAppDatalLocal\Microsoft\WindowslTemporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\UFFTWKO41Reynard Conditions with
applicant comments (3-4-13) (2).docx - 5
30. In accordance with Eagle City Code, failure to obtain a recorded final plat for the subdivision within
one year following City Council approval shall cause this approval to be null and void, unless a time
extension is granted by the City Council.
31. Prior to submitting the final plat for recording, the following must provide endorsements or
certifications: Owners or dedicators, Registered Land Surveyor, County Engineer, Central District Health
Department, Ada County Treasurer, Ada County Highway District Commissioners, City Engineer, and City
Clerk.
32. The City's actions on the application does not grant the applicant any appropriation of water or
interference with existing water rights. The applicant indemnifies and holds the City harmless for any and
all water rights, claims in any way associated with this application.
33. The applicant shall submit cut sheets showing street lighting details for review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator prior to the submittal of the final plat. The plans shall show how the streetlights will
facilitate the "Dark Sky" concept of lighting.
34. The applicant shall take care to locate and protect from damage existing utilities, pipelines and similar
structures. Documentation indicating that "Digline" has performed an inspection of the site shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site.
35. Place a note on the final plat which states in general that surrounding land with farm uses and related
activities shall be protected pursuant to the Idaho Right to Farm Act.
36. The applicant shall install at the entrance to the subdivision a 4' x 4' plywood or other hard surface
sign (mounted on two 4"x 4" posts with the bottom of the sign being a minimum of3-feet above the
ground) noticing the contractors to clean up daily, no loud music, and no dogs off leash.
C:\Users\jbutlerMAppDatalLocal\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files1Content.Outlook\UFFTWK041Reynard Conditions with
applicant comments (3-4-13) (2).docx - 6