Minutes - 2013 - Planning & Zoning - 05/20/2013 - Regular THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
May 20,2013
Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: ROEHLING, AIZPITARTE, SMITH. Absent: VILLEGAS, TANNER.
A quorum is present.
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
♦ Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There
will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Chairman, a Commissioner,member
of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda
in a sequence determined by the Rules of Order.
• Any item on the Consent Agenda that contains written recommendations from the City of
Eagle shall be adopted as part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Consent Agenda
approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise.
A. Minutes
The agenda should reflect approval of the the minutes of May 6, 2013, not April 29, 2013.
Roehling abstains as he was absent from the meeting of May 6, 2013.
Smith moves to approve the minutes of May 6, 2013. Seconded by Aizpitarte. TWO
AYE...ONE ABSTAIN (Roehling). MOTION CARRIES.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. A-01-13/RZ-01-13/CU-01-13/PPUD-01-13/PP-01-13 - Syringa Planned Unit Development-SCS
Syringa Marydale,LLC.: SCS Syringa Marydale LLC, represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN
Planning, is requesting an annexation, rezone from RUT(Rural-Urban Transition—Ada County
designation)to R-3-DA-P (Residential up to three units per acre with a development agreement PUD),
conditional use, preliminary development plan, preliminary plat approvals for Syringa Subdivision a 141-
lot(128 buildable and 13 common)residential subdivision. The 63.57-acre planned unit development is
generally located at the north side of West Floating Feather Road approximately 1,320-feet west of the
intersection of North Lanewood Road and West Floating Feather Road. This item was continued from
the May 6, 2013 meeting.
Chairman Aizpitarte introduces the item.
Shawn Nickel, 1589 E. Estancia Eagle, Idaho,representing SCS Syringa Marydale LLC., reviews the
application. The applicant is requesting changes to several of the staff proposed site specific conditions
of approval. Mr.Nickel reviews requested changes to site specific condition#4, #8, #10, #13,
clarification on#7, and clarification on exhibit D. Site specific condition#4: The applicant would like
the lot be kept in the development as the impact to overall density is minimal. This allowance over the
maximum density was allowed for other subdivisions so it should be allowed for this one. Site specific
condition#8: The applicant would like to use an open fencing style(wrought iron) in some of the
common area locations; the remaining areas would be a 4' solid vinyl with a 2' lattice top. Discussion.
Site specific condition #10: The applicant would like the sidewalk requirement to be reduced from 10' to
6'; they feel the reduced size is appropriate, and that the 10' wide sidewalk is not necessary. Mr.Nickel
states that the reduction in sidewalk requirement was allowed for in other subdivisions, so it should be
allowed in this one. Site specific condition #13: The south portion of the development, they would like
20' front yard setback for the garages, and a 15' allowance if the living area is in front of the garages. A
Page 1 of 4
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-05-20-13min.doc
rear set back of 15'. The applicant is asking that block 3 and other designated lots to be allowed the 5'
side yard setback, due to the width of those lots. Lot 9 Block 2,they would also like a 5' side year set
back. Site specific#7: They would like the same condition that was required for Lanewood Subdivision
to be the same for this subdivision. It relates to the timing of the required landscaping installation.
Exhibit D: Mr.Nickel wants to make sure that the submitted exhibit is accurate and incorporates all of
the elevations that his client desires.
City Planner Williams reviews the staff report and the City Code sections that apply to this development.
He reviews the density calculations and explains staff's duty to analyze the code, and leaves the
interpretation of said code to the Commission and the Council. Discusses open fencing, landscape strip
installation, sidewalk reduction and requested reduction in setbacks.
Discussion.
Chairman Aizpitarte opens the public hearing.
Jake Centers 1025 Clearwater Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Centers owns Tahoe Builders, and is the applicant for
the next application. As a builder, when there is landscaping strips already installed on lots he builds
upon, he typically removes it all, as it will only get damaged during the construction process. He then
has to re-install the landscaping upon completion of the construction of the structure. He would
encourage the Commission to not require it prior to home construction.
David Turnbull 2601 W. Explorer Drive Boise, Idaho. He is also the applicant for the next application.
Mr. Turnbull agrees with Mr. Center's comments. There is a way to get this done without the additional
expense to the builder. Perhaps the code can be changed to remove the requirement to install the
landscaping prior to home construction. Discussion. The surety option can be problematic if lots are not
moving for the developer, and it could be costly to the builder..
Shawn Nickel provides rebuttal regarding timing of the surety requirement, the density request and his
comparison with the Legacy Development. Discussion.
Chairman Aizpitarte closes the public hearing.
Discussion amongst the Commission, regarding fencing, setbacks and landscape surety language.
Roehling moves to recommend for approval A-01-13 and RZ-01-13. Seconded by Smith.
Discussion. Roehling moves to amend his motion to include exhibit identified by date stamp April
25,2013 provided by the applicant regarding the fencing and also include the standard and site
specific conditions of approval. Second concurs. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Roehling moves to recommend for approval CU-01-13/PPUD-01-13/PP-01-13 Syringa Planned
Unit Development with the standard and site specific conditions of approval as submitted by staff,
with the following exceptions: Item 3.4 the development agreement include exhibit date stamped
April 24,2013 covering fencing style and location. Also site specific condition #7: Covering the
surety. Amend the wording of conditions 7 to read as follow beginning with the sentence beginning
with the word "prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for homes all required trees,sod
and irrigation shall be installed within landscape strips. A temporary occupancy may be issued if
weather does not permit landscaping, however,a surety in accordance with Eagle City Code 9-4-2-
2 for 150% of the cost of the installation of all landscape and irrigation improvements shall be
provided to the City. Striking the following words: City Clerk signing a final plat,the application
shall either install the—those words are struck from item 7. And also,or provide the City with a
letter of credit for 150% of the cost of the installation of all landscaping,irrigation improvements.
Also strike trees shall be installed prior to obtaining of any occupancy permits for the homes.
Seconded by Smith. Discussion. Planner Williams clarifies that 3.4 should be site specific condition#8
staff will make that change. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
B. RZ-04-09 MOD and PP-02-13-Ashbury Subdivision- SCS Brighton,LLC:. SCS Brighton,
LLC, is requesting a development agreement modification and preliminary plat approval for Ashbury
Subdivision a 246-lot(214 buildable, 13 commercial, and 19 common) subdivision. The 111.11-acre site
Page 2 of 4
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-05-20-13min.doc
is generally located on the west side of S. Meridian Road and the north side of W. Chinden Boulevard
(Highway 20/26) approximately 835 feet west of S. Meridian Road.
Chairman Aizpitarte introduces the item.
Mike Wardell, Brighton Corporation 12601 W. Explorer Dr. Boise, Idaho. This project was approved
conceptually in 2010. Mr. Wardell reviews the detailed plan that is being brought before the
Commission tonight. The density proposed tonight is actually reduced from what had originally been
brought before the Commission. All residential lots contiguous with Foxtail and Windward River
Heights are a minimum of 1 acre minimum per the original development associated with this application.
Mr. Wardell is seeking clarification pertaining to the City Engineers letter regarding the easements
relating to the patio homes. They are in compliance with the development agreement and are requesting
the Commission recommend approval of this application.
City Planner Williams reviews the staff report.
Chairman Aizpitarte opens the public hearing.
Dana Erdman 7283 Windward Drive. Ms. Erdman notes where she lives in association to the applicant's
property. She has lived there for 40 years. She would like larger lots. Two acres lots would give more
space and buffering. Questions the fencing requirements, common lots and open spaces. She is
concerned with the request to remove trees resulting in reduction is shade, and wildlife habitat. Ms.
Erdman comments on potential traffic impacts. She also submits a letter for the record. (attached to
minutes)
Matt Dawn 3125 W. Sugarberry. Mr. Dawn is concerned with the density of the proposed development.
He does not feel patio homes are appropriate in this area, they are inconsistent with other developments
in the area. Mr. Dawn would like the development agreement amended to preserve their property rights
and their quality of rights.
Hal Bunderson 582 River Heights Drive Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Bunderson supports the modification to the
development agreement. He notes that this application is actually 42 lots lower than the original proposal
by Brighton. Mr. Bunderson states that he feels the applicant has made an effort to soften the
development, and believes it will be a good development.
Leon Thompson 751 River Heights Drive. Mr. Thompson is okay with the one acre lots but is concerned
with the lack of fencing bordering the exterior boundaries of this proposal. Traffic is a given issue
already with the construction of the Fred Meyers.
Larry Eckart 795 River Heights Drive. Mr. Eckart concurs with Mr. Thompson comments, regarding the
lack of infrastructure. Traffic is already an issue.
Mike Wardell, rebuts testimony. He was born in Eagle 70 years ago, and truly feels the quality of life is
better now. He feels the diversity of the density of neighborhoods actually enhances quality of life. The
transportation system will not improve until the demand is there, it is unfortunate, but it is how the
system works, similar to the school districts. Discussion regarding the north property line where the trees
are located near the Erdman property, fencing requests along the canal and site specific condition #12.
This condition requires review and recommendation by the Design Review Board regarding the trees
prior to any steps being taken. The installation of the fencing will be dependant on what trees must
remain, but until a determination has yet to be made as to what the applicant can do. General discussion.
Dave Turnbull states he has with staff, neighbors and hope that this application is something that can be
approved. They have worked very hard to bring a good product forward. He works out in the area, and
is impacted by traffic as well. He encourages people to contact ACHD and ITD regarding light timing
and other improvements.
Aizpitarte closes the public hearing.
Discussion amongst the Commission. Roehling states that it is an emotional issue and application. He
Page 3 of 4
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-05-20-13min.doc
commends the applicant for reducing the number of proposed lots. Smith comments on the complexity
of the application, the thoroughness of the applicant, he also acknowledges the emotion attached to the
issues brought forward by the neighbors. Aizpitarte acknowledges the changes he has seen in Eagle over
the last 25 years.
Smith moves to recommend for approval for RZ-04-09 MOD. Seconded by Roehling. ALL
AYE..MOTION CARRIES.
Smith moves to recommend for PP-02-13 Ashbury Subdivision - with the following comments:
Modify site specific condition #11 on page 6 of 24, to change the wording from as is currently
written, to the following language "the developer shall provide shade class trees and a landscape
plan to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, along both sides of all streets with
in this development trees shall be placed on the front of each lot on the side lot lines, or as
approved by the Design Review Board and within 5' of the edge of the roadway. Prior to the
issuance of any occupancy permits for the homes all required trees, sod and irrigation shall be
installed within landscaped strips. A temporary occupancy may be issued if weather does not
permit landscaping, however a surety in accordance with Eagle City Code section 9-4-2-2 for 150%
of the cost of installation of all landscape and irrigation improvements shall be provided to the
City. Seconded by Roehling. Discussion. Smith moves to amend the motion to include that the
applicant shall work to preserve the trees along the north boundary of the development, to be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. Second concurs. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
7. REPORTS:
A. Commission: Smith inquires as to the date of Eagle Fun Days.
B. City Attorney: No report.
C. Staff: Staff lets the Commission know of several public hearings that will be coming forward
soon.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Aizpitarte moves to adjourn. Seconded by Smith. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business,the Commission meeting adjourned at 9:00p.m.
E ,,,�i
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: <4�,.t"'q:;� v.
° • ��OKqi.'•l
• ♦r
•Vet . /l/�/�_ � 4.
•
• SEXL-: c
SHARON f. B 'GMANN ;. ,, �,PLO,;
CITY CLERK/TREASURER /
J �'�
9 PE OF‘v0.4%*
APPROVED:
E � n �
CHAIRMAN
AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL UPON REQUEST.
Page 4 of 4
K'\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-05-20-13min.doe
pZ 5
May 20, 2013
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Eagle
RE: Ashbury Subdivision – RZ-04-09 MOD & PP -02-13 – SCS Brighton, LLC
To the Committee:
I am here tonight because your decision on this plan to develop the Ashbury Subdivision will
greatly affect us, and our home. We have enjoyed almost 40 years of farmland, knowing full
well that one day it would be developed. We hoped however, that when that day came, it
would be developed with a conscience toward the people who live here (we live here because
we love open space, dark nights, and quiet), and with a conscience toward the developments
fully established around it.
Considering that north of this property, our neighborhood, River Heights, consists of 5 acre lots
(some, larger); south of this property is Fox Run with 2 acre lots, and from BanBury, to the east,
through to Spurwing on the west, the neighborhoods north of Chinden are large lots and do not
have high density within them. Sugarberry, when it was developed was subdivided into 2 acre
lots because north of it is the Clearview neighborhood that has 5 acre lots like River Heights. I
would ask that this development stay consistent to what is well established in this area.
Our house is the closest to the boarder of this development. There is talk of removing the trees
(most are 40 plus years) which would leave it ugly and would subject us to even more light and
junk pollution—some of our biggest concerns. It is also very typical that on 1 -acre lots and
smaller, the money is put into the front of the house, and the back of these homes are often
left large and uninteresting. That is what we will have to look at out our main windows. Larger
lot homes typically.have nicer back areas, garages for their toys, and are typically better
landscaped which would help our situation.
I am also concerned about how the developers will handle the boarder between the properties.
Removing the trees would not only ruin the value of our property, it will take away important
shade, weaken the ditch bank, and destroy critical habitat for the many wild animals and birds
that use the ditch as a corridor. There would also have to be some sort of fence between our
property and the houses all along that edge so that it was consistent and looked nice, and so
that our larger properties would not be seen as a common area or park to children and pets
from the Ashbury development. A vinyl or wood fence would not work because this is a main
ditch that has to be maintained and the most efficient way to do so is by burning. The
developer has not offered any real plausible solutions that I am aware of and I believe these
things should be known before a vote takes place.
I realize you have nothing to do with the traffic, but the plan does not seem to take this into
consideration. A plan that does to seem to take all things into consideration should not be
allowed to proceed.
Please, when you vote tonight, think about how we feel as property owners. Developers come
and then go, and we are left to deal with what they build because once it is developed, it will
not change. There is plenty of money to be made, but please not at our expense.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dana Erdman
Judith Erdman
7283 Winward Dr.
eP1.c 5161 1,3
SYRINGA SUBDIVISION PROPOSED SETBACKS
South of Street 3
Front: 20' garage. 15' living (measured from edge of sidewalk - Sidewalks are in right of way)
Rear: 15'
Side: 5' (per story)
Street Side: 20'
o ;I O,I o:I O
j;8 •• 8 j'
8 ri 9 Oil O I O
C
:I
8.I 8 :I 8 a1 8.j
P' C)
s
North of Street 3
Front: 25' garage, 20' living (measured from edge of sidewalk - Sidewalks are in right of way)
Rear: 25'
*Side: 7.5' (additional 5' per story) *The side setback for all of Block 3 and Lot 9 Block 2; and
Lots 7 & 8, Block 4 and Lots 9 & 10, Block 5 shall be 5'.
Street Side: 20'
QPpG 51220I r3
7. The developer shall provide 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 on the side lot lines, or as approved by the Design Review
Board and within five -feet (5') of the edge of the roadway. Prior to the
issuance of any occupancy permits for the homes,
all required trees, sod, and irrigation shall be installed-er-previde-tie
44 % a!' 'k.: ;,.. ;on within landscape strips.
. :.... _ ... _ . _ 4 frit ifrit hc.^ssr
A temporary occupancy may be issued if weather does not permit landscapinghowever, a
surety in accord with Eagle City Code Section 9-4-2-2 for 150% of the cost of the installation of all
landscape and irrigation improvements shall be provided to the City. (ECC 8 -2A -7(E) and ECC 8-2A-18)
• 6 0, i
ii: 4 : ' * i • . .
. • •
• • •
• In
. • •••,...
. f.' • % •.
• • es•
. ' iv • C. er•-•kircer• ova s•g c1.4.
4••••••••••136•••• • • . .
. •••• e..• : • • .
6.' • • 6 • • I
•• • • • • • • • •
144•1•1 • .46 • •
01 to. d
1 I IL.