Minutes - 2013 - Planning & Zoning - 09/16/2013 - Regular THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
September 16,2013
Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:01 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: AIZPITARTE, SMITH, VILLEGAS, ROEHLING. 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. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for RZ-02-13—Rezone From A (Agricultural)
to R-3 DA (Residential - up to 3 units per acre with a Development Agreement) -
Schneider Custom Homes, Inc.: Schneider Custom Homes, Inc., represented by Phil Hull
with the Land Group, is requesting approval of a rezone from A (Agricultural—up to one (1)
unit per twenty (20) acres) to R-3-DA (Residential — up to three (3) units per acre with a
development agreement). The approximately 1.19-acre site is located on the north side of
East Floating Feather Road approximately 1,280-feet east of the intersection of North Eagle
Road and East Floating Feather Road at 470 East Floating Feather Road. (WEV)
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for PP-07-13 - Collina Bello Subdivision -
Providence Properties,LLC.: Providence Properties, LLC, represented by Kevin McCarthy
with KM Engineering, is requesting preliminary plat approval for Collina Bello Subdivision,
a 14-lot (11-buildable and 3-common) subdivision. The 9.6-acre site is located on the north
side of West Floating Feather Road approximately 350-feet west of North Moon Bello Way
on Lot 20, Block 2, Corrente Bello Subdivision No. 1, at 1400 West Floating Feather Road.
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for PP-08-13 - Lockey Subdivision - Somerset
Farms, Inc.: Somerset Farms, Inc., represented by Chris Todd with T-O Engineers, Inc., is
requesting preliminary plat approval for Lockey Subdivision, a 40-lot (33-buildable and 7-
common) subdivision. The 20.37-acre site is located on the south side of West Beacon Light
Road approximately 630-feet east of North Park Lane at 3633 West Beacon Light Road.
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-02-13/RZ-03-13 & PP-03-13 -
Annexation And Rezone From RUT To R-3-DA& Preliminary Plat For Creek Water
Subdivision-John Wood: John Wood represented by Greg Hall with Hall Capital, LLC, is
requesting an annexation and rezone from RUT(Rural-Urban Transition—Ada County
designation)to R-3-DA (Residential—up to three(3) units per acre with a development
agreement) and preliminary plat approval for Creek Water Subdivision a 36-lot(30-
buildable, 6-common) residential subdivision.
Patricia Minkovich has requested that item 3C be removed from the agenda.
Roehlimg moves to approve the consent agenda 3A, B, & D. Seconded by Smith. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Page 1 of 6
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-09-16-13min.doc
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for PP-08-13 - Lockey Subdivision - Somerset
Farms, Inc.: Somerset Farms, Inc., represented by Chris Todd with T-O Engineers, Inc., is
requesting preliminary plat approval for Lockey Subdivision, a 40-lot (33-buildable and 7-
common) subdivision. The 20.37-acre site is located on the south side of West Beacon Light
Road approximately 630-feet east of North Park Lane at 3633 West Beacon Light Road.
Chairman Aizpitarte and City Attorney Buxton explains process for pulling items from the
consent agenda.
Patricia Minkovich Deerfield Court Eagle, Idaho. She left the meeting when the public hearing
was held before the answers to her questions were given. She lists to question, that were posed
previously, and would like to know the answers to them now. Additionally, Ms. Minkovich
wants to know if there will be a public hearing for this at City Council. City Attorney Buxton
confirms that a public hearing will be held at the City Council level for this application.
Roehling moves to approve item 3C. Seconded Smith. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. RZ-24-06 MOD4 & PP-03-12 -Renovare Subdivision -Renovare Development,LLC.:
Renovare Development, LLC, represented by John Rennison with Rennison Engineering is
requesting a development agreement modification and preliminary plat approval for Renovare
Subdivision a 67-lot(55 buildable, 11 common, and 1-park site) residential subdivision. The
approximately 37.38-acre site is generally located on the east side of South Edgewood Road
approximately 710-feet south of State Highway 44. This item was continued from the August 19,
2013 meeting. The public hearing has been closed.
Chairman Aizpitarte introduces the item.
John Rennison, 430 State Street Eagle, Idaho. Discusses site specific conditions of approval the
applicant would like changed regarding setbacks, curb and sidewalk requirements; and their proposal
for an integrated pathway. Mr. Rennison comments on the park property and discussions with City
Staff and the Parks and Recreation Director about this site. General discussion.
City Planner, Mike Williams explains staff recommendations and site specific conditions. Staff
would request that setbacks be consistent, and measured from property pins to make them consistent
throughout the City. Staff is requesting that the condition regarding the park be removed as the
discussions with the property owner and the City are still too preliminary to place it as a condition.
General discussion.
Discussion amongst the Commission.
Roehling moves to recommend for approval RZ-24-06 MOD4 & PP-03-12 Renovare
Subdivision with the modifications to the Development agreement and Site specific conditions
as submitted by Staff. Also with the addition of site specific condition of approval #21 as
submitted by the applicant. Discussion. Seconded by Smith. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES.
Aizpitarte would like to urge the applicant to work with the City on the proposed park.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Aizpitarte moves item B to A and C to B. Seconded by Roheling. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES.
A B A-03-13/RZ-04-13/CU-05-13/PPUD-05-13/PP-09-13 -Lanewood No. 2 Planned Unit
Development-Lanewood Eagle,LLC: Lanewood Eagle LLC, Represented by Shawn Nickel with
SLN Planning, is requesting an annexation, rezone from R2 (Residential—Ada County Designation)
Page 2 of 6
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-09-16-13min.doc
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 Lanewood
Subdivision No. 2, a 158-lot(142 buildable and 16 common)residential subdivision. the 72.93-acre
planned unit development is generally located on the north side Of West Floating Feather Road
approximately 1,300-feet west of the intersection of North Linder Road and West Floating Feather
Road at 5247 West Floating Feather Road.
The applicant has requested this item be continued to the next regular meeting.
Aizpitarte moves to continue this to the October 7,2013 meeting. Seconded by Roehling. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
B.—G CU-06-13—Conditional Use Permit-Restaurant(with drive thru service)—Eagle River
Hospitality,LLC: Eagle River Hospitality, LLC, represented by Phil Hull with The Land Group,
Inc., is requesting conditional use approval for a restaurant with drive thru service. The 2.96-acre site
is generally located on the east side of South Eagle Road(SH-55)approximately 145' south of the
intersection of East Riverside Drive and South Eagle Road (SH-55), Lot 6, Block 4, Mixed Use
Subdivision No. 2, at 145 East Riverside Drive.
Chairman Aizpitarte introduces the item.
Tamara Thomspson 462 E. Shore Dr. Eagle Idaho with the Land Group representing Eagle River
Hospitality LLC. Ms. Thompson briefly reviews the application. They are in agreement with the site
specific and standard conditions of approval.
City Planner, Kristy Heller reviews the staff report and makes herself available for questions.
Chairman Aizpitarte opens the public hearing.
No one chooses to speak.
Chairman Aizpitarte closes the public hearing.
Smith moves to recommend for approval CU-06-13 Conditional Use Permit Restaurant(with
drive thru service) Eagle River Hospitality,LLC. Seconded by Villegas. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
C. �r CU-04-13/PPUD-04-13/PP-06-13/RZ-13-05 -Foxglove Estates Subdivision -Linder 17
Investment,LLC.: Linder 17 Investment, LLC, represented by John Rennison with Rennison
Engineering, is requesting a conditional use, preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat
approvals for Foxglove Estates Subdivision, a 44-lot(38-buildable and 6-common) subdivision. The
16.3-acre planned unit development is generally located at the northwest corner of North Linder
Road and West Saguaro Drive.
Chairman Aizpitarte introduces the item.
John Rennison representing Linder 17 Investments, reviews the application.
Steve Milleman, P.O. Box 1066 McCall, ID representing the applicant. Standard condition No. 15 is
of concern as the Fire Department is requesting a mitigation fee for the lots. They would not be in
favor this fee. They feel this is a taking and not an allowed fee or tax.
City Attorney Buxton asks for clarification,the fee schedule referred to by Mr. Milleman is a fee
established by the Eagle Fire Department. She recommends strike Standard Condition of Approval
15A and re-number the remaining appropriately. . Discussion.
City Planner, Kristie Heller reviews the staff report. The applicant's proposal is under the required
amount of active open space. Discussion.
Upon consultation with City Attorney Buxton, Commissioner Villegas recuses himself as the partner
in his law firm represents North Star Charter School. Villegas steps down from the diaz.
Page 3 of 6
K'.\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-09-16-13min.doc
Chairman Aizpitarte opens the public hearing.
No one chooses to speak.
Chairman Aizpitarte closes the public hearing.
Mr. Millemann rebuts testimony. He comments on Saguaro Drive and the construction of the same.
They are requesting that no improvements on the south side be required of this applicant. There are
no any direct impacts on the development of this property across the street on Saguaro, and thus it is
fundamentally unfair to require his applicant install having landscaping and sidewalks on the
opposite side of the street from their development. Discussion.
Discussion amongst the Commission.
Smith restates the motion recommends for approval with the CU-04-13/PPUD-04-13/PP-06-13-
Foxglove Estates Subdivision - Linder 17 Investment, LLC with the following changes item 15A (on
page 17 or 19)be struck. Roehling suggests wording for items 2 and 3. For site specific condition
#2, I suggest that we consider adding as a final sentence to that item "amenties on adjacent public
property may be considered as in meeting this requirement." And add the same wording to item #3.
So moved by Smith. Discussion. Seconded by Roehling. Smith withdraws his motion
Smith recommends for approval with the CU-04-13/PPUD-04-13/PP-06-13 with the following
changes item 15Aon standard conditions of approval (on page 17 of 19) be struck. Site specific
condition of approval items 2 and 3,add the following sentence to both. Roehling: Amenities
on adjacent public property may be considered in meeting this requirement." Seconded by
Roehling. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES
D. ZOA-01-13—M3/Spring Valley—M3 Eagle,LLC: M3 Eagle, LLC, is requesting a zoning
ordinance amendment to establish development standards and processes for the M3/Spring Valley
Planned Development consistent with the Pre-Annexation/Development Agreement(PADA)and the
condition of development.
Chairman Aizpitarte introduces the item.
City Planner Baird Spencer there has been a series of public hearings on this during June, July and
August. There have been significant enough changes that this hearing has been re-noticed for tonight's
meeting. All of these sections have previously been seen except for Chapter 6 and 12 (make sure this is
correct w/ NBS). Baird-Spencer reviews the points in which the applicant and City Staff/City Code
differ in recommendations.
City Engineer Kasey Ketterling with Holladay Engineering, Payette Idaho. The applicant is requesting
the wording "where required" for utility easements throughout the document. Mr. Ketterling asks for the
removal of the phrase of "where required" in order to provide clarity. Previously applicants would
approach the Council and request the requirement be removed, and thus placing the burden of proving
that the easements were required on the Council. It is easier to consistently apply the standard if the
phrase "where required"were not included. Discussion.
Planner Baird Spencer continues the review of Chapter 12. City Attorney, Cherise McClain provides
clarification regarding the PUMP and Plat level tracking.
City Attorney, Bruce Smith discusses the water system and the history thereof for the M3 project. The
water right for M3 is owned by the City. There will be one water system for the M3 project and
everyone in the development will be hooked up to it. The staff language reflects that concept. The use
of the term potable is misleading, because the system is a municipal water system. It is intended to be
used not only for potable water, but also for irrigation. Staff does not agree with the term potable
because it is limited and misleading, the system goes beyond "potable" as it will be used for irrigation
and drinking water. The other area of concern is that the City would like the opportunity to hooking up a
system to the M3 area. We are not talking about the water right, but the pipes and infrastructure. Rather
than having a stand-alone system on the M3 property, should other lands in the foothills develop,the City
Page 4 of 6
K.\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-09-16-13min.doc
would want the ability to engineer system so that they intertie. Discussion.
City Attorney Buxton reviews language regarding surety requirements.
Planner Baird Spencer reviews the ACHD comment sheet(spreadsheet attached).
Gerry Robbins representing M3 Companies, 533 E. Riverside Drive Eagle, Idaho. Mr. Robbins reviews
the applicant's requests for Chapter 12 Land Subdivisions. And also reviews M3's comments pertaining
to the ACHD spreadsheet.
Chairman Aizpitarte opens the public hearing.
No One chooses to speak.
Chairman Aizpitarte closes the public hearing pertaining to Chapter 12.
Deliberation amongst the Commission regarding Chapter 12. The Commission supports the developer on
extension of time, driveways, and private streets the Commission supports the Developer's language.
Regarding easements the Commission support the City's language. Open space language regarding
trending supports City proposed language. Public Water supply support the City's recommendation.
Change the term Potable Water System to Municipal Water system. Commission supports the City
regarding surety bond requirements.
Roehling recommends for approval for Chapter 12 with all staff recommendations excluding the
following extension of time approval period, driveways, and the private streets for which the
Commission agrees with the Developer's requested changes. Seconded by Smith. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Planner Baird Spencer gives a brief summary of Chapter 1.
Mr. Robbins has nothing to add.
Chairman Aizpitarte opens public hearing on Chapter 1.
No one chooses to speak.
Chairman Aizpitarte closes the public hearing on Chapter 1.
Aizpitarte moves to accepts Chapter 1 as agreed to in the staff response. Seconded by Roehling.
ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Chapter 2
Planner Baird Spencer reviews Chapter 2 staff recommended language. Reviews ACHD's comments on
Chapter 2A.
Gerry Robbins addresses the Developers desires for the building height. They are okay with eliminating
number 2. Discussion regarding chimneys. They are in agreement with ACHD and staff.
Chairman Aizpitarte opens public hearing on Chapter 2.
No one chooses to speak.
Chairman Aizpitarte closes the public hearing on Chapter 2.
Aizpitarte moves to recommend approval of Chapter 2, with the exception of 11-2-4.B. 2 where
they adopt the language as proposed by the applicant, all other staff's recommendations as
reflected in the staff response are accepted. Seconded by Smith. ALL AYE...MOTION
CARRIES.
Chapter 3
Planner Baird Spencer reviews Chapter 3 staff recommended language.
Gerry Robbins addresses the Developer's request for language changes regarding wireless cell towers.
Page 5 of 6
K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-09-16-13min.doc
Discussion.
Chairman Aizpitarte opens public hearing on Chapter 3.
No one chooses to speak.
Chairman Aizpitarte closes the public hearing on Chapter 3.
Aizpitarte moves to accept all staff recommendations on Chapter 3. Seconded by Villegas. ALL
AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Chapter 6
Planner Baird Spencer reviews staff comments on Chapter 6, and also ACHD's comments.
City Attorney Cherise McLain, provides comment on some proposed language that she and City Attorney
Buxton have been working on. The proposed language "on the PADA and its subsequent amendments,
this title and master plan, approved by the City, or other applicable information reasonably relied on
thereafter." Discussion.
Gerry Robbins, addresses the Developer's request for language changes regarding wireless cell towers.
Chairman Aizpitarte opens public hearing on Chapter 6.
No one chooses to speak.
Chairman Aizpitarte closes the public hearing on Chapter 6.
Aizpitarte moves to accept staff recommendations for Chapter 6 including the language proposed
by City Attorney Buxton. Seconded by Roehling. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
6. NEW BUSINESS: NONE
7. REPORTS:
A. Commission: None
B. City Attorney: None
C. Staff: None
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Hearing no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ,'.*•••'�PG.E '• �,
/ •`t Q4��0 ATE'• *%
A.Il . !/ . /Y/A_ ‘ •
SHARO /' . : RGMANN ;v Q++
CITY CLERK/TREASURER I 5� ti47
., A ..
APPROVED: ,...���la����',
K /dvi
DAVE AIZPITAI�?l�
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\PZ-09-16-13min.doc
(2 94(e78
INTER
OFFICE
City of Eagle
Zoning Administration
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Michael Williams, PCED, CFM Planner II
Subject: RZ-24-06 MOD3/PP-03-12 — Renovare Sub 'vision — Renovare Development,
LLC, represented by John Rennison, P.E., with Rennison Engineering
Date: September 16, 2013
Attachment(s): None
Copy To: Rennison Engineering, Attn: John Rennison, P.O. Box 1001, Eagle, ID 83716
On September 3, 2013, Mike Aho and I met with the applicant regarding the proposed modifications to the
development agreement conditions of development and the site specific conditions of approval associated
with the preliminary plat. The following responses are to address the applicant's proposed changes to the
conditions of development and site specific conditions of approval:
Development Agreement Modification — Conditions of Development
3.4 Staff will discuss the Renovare Setback Summary (Table A) provided by the applicant.
3.7 Staff is in agreement with the applicant's requested changes.
3.8 Staff is in agreement with the applicant's requested change.
3.17 Staff is in agreement with the applicant's requested changes.
3.19 Staff is in agreement with the applicant's requested changes.
3.27 Staff is not in agreement with street sections provided on the revised "Exhibit "C" since they show
two (2) private street sections.
3.30 The applicant has requested this condition of development be removed since we are still working with
the applicant regarding this area of the development.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
6. Staff requests the site specific condition remain as recommended.
8. Provide a revised preliminary plat with plat note #6 revised to read, "All residential lots (except lots 47,
48) shall have a 12' (7.5' for lots 47, 48) public utility, pressure irrigation and drainage easement
adjacent to all front lot lines, a3' easement adjacent to all rear lot lines and an additional 9' of
easement to be located on the adiacent lots for a total easement width of 12'. and a 5' public utility and
drainage easement adjacent to all side lot lines." The revised preliminary plat shall be provided prior to
submittal of a final plat application.
Page 1 of 1
K:IPIanning Dept\Eagle Applications1SUBS120121Renovare Sub me4.doc
13. Provide a revised preliminary plat that identifies Lot 35 as a common lot, shows an 8 -foot wide
pathway and removes the pathway easement associated with the pathway. The revised preliminary plat
shall also show an 8 -foot wide pathway located within a o be located on Lot 5
common lot a minimum of 16 -feet in width to be located between Lots 4 and 5. The revised
preliminary plat shall be provided prior to submittal of a final plat application.
14. Staff is in agreement with the applicant's requested changes.
15. Staff requests the site specific condition remain as recommended.
16. Staff requests the site specific condition remain as recommended.
17. Should the Commission recommend approval of the requested private streets staff requests the
language referencing the 8 -foot wide landscape strip be removed from the site specific condition.
Should the Commission not recommend approval of the private streets the site specific condition
should remain as recommended.
Page 2 of 1
K 'Manning Dept'Eagle Applications\SUBS120121Renovarc Sub me4.doc
p2_ 9m3
Agenda Item 5D:
M3/Spring Valley — ZOA-01-13
As discussed under "Attachment E "of your packet, the comments from ACHD were received the day of
the packet deadline *September 11, 2013. In order to address these issues the applicant provided a
written response, dated September 12, 2013, and attached hereto. Staff has prepared a side-by-side
comparison of the proposed Title 11 Code, ACHD's request, M3/Spring Valley's response and staff's
recommendation.
M3 Response to ACHD
Provided in-line text to original letter
To:
ACRD
2013
Nichoel Baird Spencer, Planner
III City of Eagle
PO Box 1520
Eagle, ID 83616
1
Sara M. Baker, President
John S. Franden, Vice President
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
Mitchell A. Jaurena, Commissioner
Jim Hansen, Commissioner
RECEIVED a FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
SEP 1 2 2013
Subject: M3/Spring Valley Development Standards File:
Route Ur
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed M3/Spring
Valley Development Standards. ACHD appreciates your continued coordination efforts, as we
work through this process. Staff has the following comments on Chapter 6 — Planning Unit
Master Plans, Chapter 12 — Land Subdivision, and Chapter 2A — Design Review.
Chapter 6 — Planning Unit Master Plans
1. Section 4-C mentions the analysis of the ACHD traffic system within the PUMP for
compliance with the Master Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and the Northwest Foothills
Transportation Plan. ACHD recognizes that this requirement is consistent with the
applicant's development agreement with the City of Eagle. However, staff would like
to that reminder you ACHD never accepted the finds or recommendations of the
Master Traffic Impact study prepared by Stanley Consultants in 2010, as it was
inadequate and did not address all of District's concerns. Additionally, the Northwest
Foothills Transportation Study (NWFTS) is in the process of being updated.
M3 Comment:
ACHD Staff is referencing, generally, 11-6-4.B, which lists the items to be included in a
PUMP application, and specifically, 11-6-4.B.4.c) (p. 3 of Ch. 6), which lists the items in the
application regarding traffic:
4. Planning Unit Master Streets & Circulation Plan
a) A plan showing the arterial and collector roadway network.
b) A street and circulation phasing plan.
c) wn analy is A traffic impact study (TIS) of the ACHD traffic system within the
PUMP and ITD traffic system adjacent to the PUMP for compliance with the
Master Traffic Study and the ACHD Northwest Foothills Transportation Study will
be provided to ACHD and/or ITD. Such analysis TIS may be submitted prior to
the rest of the PUMP application.
d) A narrative or evidence showing how this component of the PUMP complies with
the Spring Valley Master Streets & Circulation Plan with reference to traffic
volumes associated with previously approved PUMP(s). The narrative shall
include a description of the location of private roads and the number of
residential units served by such private roads.
ACHD Staff appears to be saying that ACHD has not accepted the findings of the Master
Traffic Study (defined as the Study done 6-26-06, as may be amended – and ACHD Staff is
specifically referring to a 2010 amendment). Scott Wonders is tracking down the action
letter from ACHD.
Nonetheless, 4.c) can be made more clear (as shown above) that a TIS will be provided to the
appropriate transportation agencies. The TIS needs to be submitted to ACHD and/or ITD,
not the City.
Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208-387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achdidaho.ora
required by ACHD.
M3 Comment:
See change to 11-6-4.B.4.c) above.
3. Section 11-6-5 discusses procedures for approval. However, it does not mention
outside agency review of the PUMP application. Staff suggests adding language to
this section noting that the PUMP will be transmitted to outside agencies for review and
those reviews may lead to delayed hearing with the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
M3 Comment:
Language parroting the procedure now used by the City in connection to the plat process
can be added to Section 11-6-4.A (not 11-6-5) as follows:
11-6-4: PLANNING UNIT MASTER PLAN (PUMP) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
A. A PUMP shall be prepared for each Planning Area as defined in the PADA, or a
portion of a Planning Area, detailing substantial conformance with Exhibits F, F1, F2,
F3, F4, F5 and G of the PADA which includes but is not limited to the general location
and size of development parcels; uses and density ranges for each parcel compared
to the maximum allowed density and units with the planning area; circulation system
by road classification and the use of private roads; backbone water, wastewater,
drainage and irrigation facilities; locations for public facilities; amenities, trails and
acres of open space and habitat area; and landscape character.
A PUMP application shall be submitted to the Administrator for review and approval
by the City.
The applicant shall meet with the Administrator prior to the submission of the PUMP.
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss informally the proposed PUMP and to
inform the applicant of the applicable regulations.
The Zoning Administrator shall refer the PUMP application to as many governmental
agencies as deemed necessary. The Zoning Administrator shall provide that anv
transmittal will be returned within fifteen (15) days. Such agencies may include the
following:
(1) Other governing bodies having joint jurisdiction;
(2) The appropriate utility companies. irrigation companies or districts and
drainage districts;
(3) The superintendent of the school district; and
(4) Other agencies having an interest in the proposed subdivision.
Chapter 12 — Land Subdivision
To begin, any changes to the City's Code proposed by ACHD Staff should be put in
context. Clarifications should be welcome. Procedural changes to the City's Code for
all subdivisions, including in Spring Valley, are inappropriate.
1. 11-12B-2, please add a requirement for a traffic impact study (TIS) scoping meeting
with ACHD to determine if TIS will be required.
M3 Comment:
No; do not make this change to City Code.
Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden Gty, ID • 83714 • PH 208-387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achdidaho.oro
This is the City's Code not ACHD's Policy Manual. ACHD's Policy Manual already
recommends a scoping meeting (see section 7106.1.1. from the Policy manual below). It
appears that ACHD staff is trying to induce the City to "require" a scoping meeting at ACHD,
which is presently "recommended" under the Policy Manual. If ACHD Staff desires that a
scoping meeting at ACHD be a "requirement" at ACHD, then ACHD Staff should propose that
its Commission – not Eagle - change the ACHD Policy Manual.
Policy Manual:
7106.1.1 Initial Meeting
It is recommended that the applicant of a proposed development that may require a
TIS, review the project with District staff before submitting the development
application to the lead land use agency. The initial meeting may need to include staff
from the lead land use agency, COMPASS, and the Idaho Transportation Department,
(if ITD roadways will be impacted), and other agencies as appropriate. The District
will review the requirements for the TIS with the applicant and set the general
parameters for the study. It is recommended that the applicant submit the TIS directly
to the District prior to the submittal of a development application to the lead land use
agency. (Submitting the TIS before the development application will allow time for the
TIS review which will help to expedite approval of the development application.) If the
assumptions in the TIS do not match the development application, the TIS may need
to be revised.
2. Section 11-12B-3 — C 3, please add a requirement for a traffic impact study, if
required by ACRD.
M3 Comment:
No; do not make this change to City Code.
The City Code, for all subdivisions, has its City list of application requirements. A TIS is an
ACHD application requirement. Adding a TIS as a City requirement begs the question – why
would the City require a TIS when the City does not analyze the TIS? The City leaves that
analysis to the appropriate agency -- ACHD.
The City Code requires the Administrator to transmit the City's application to agencies for
review. If those agencies require studies, such as an ACHD TIS, the agency will advise the
subdivider and the required study will be processed by that agency.
The City now provides each subdivider with a list of agencies that are likely to comment on
the proposed subdivision, including ACHD. From a practical perspective, the City routinely
tables a subdivision application if ACHD comments have not been received by the City.
From a practical perspective, since ACHD has plat signing authority, the subdivider will be
working closely with ACHD.
Further, if the City requires something, such as a TIS that is reviewed by an outside agency,
to be part of the City's application, it may call into question whether the City can make
compliance with the outside agency review a condition of approval. See, e.g., Fischer v. City
of Ketchum, 141 Idaho 349 (2005).
3. 11-12B-3 D 1 c, please add a comment that a 15 day administrative review maybe
delayed due to outside agency review of the application.
M3 Comment:
No; do not make this change to City Code.
It appears ACHD Staff is asking Eagle to change its standard subdivision procedure because
ACHD may provide delayed responses. For reference, this is the subdivision section
referenced above by ACHD Staff:
1. Administrative Review:
/Mid LAJUI my nlyiIwdy UI CALL • 3//D Midi Ib SLreeL • Lsdruell Lay, lU • I33/14 • Ill LUb-i3 /-b1UU • rA 3'f5-/n�u • www.dUIUIUdIIU.Urg
a. Certification By Administrator, Public Hearing: Upon receipt of the
preliminary plat and all other required data as provided for herein, the
administrator shall certify the application as complete and shall affix the
date of application acceptance thereon. The administrator shall schedule
a public hearing before the planning and zoning commission, which
hearing shall be held within forty-five (45) days of the date of certification
of a complete application.
b. Review By Other Agencies: The administrator shall refer the preliminary
plat and application to as many governmental agencies as deemed
necessary. Such agencies may include the following:
(1) Other governing bodies having joint jurisdiction;
(2) The appropriate utility companies, irrigation companies or districts
and drainage districts;
(3) The superintendent of the school district; and
(4) Other agencies having an interest in the proposed subdivision.
c. Recommendation By Administrator: The zoning administrator shall
provide that any transmittal as provided in subsection D.1.b of this
section will be returned within fifteen (15) days. At the end of the fifteen
(15) day period, the administrator shall prepare a recommendation to the
commission. All agency responses shall be supplied by the zoning
administrator to the planning and zoning commission.
4. 11-12C 3, please replace the right-of-way with easement as the first word of the
sentence.
M3 Comment:
ACHD is asking for this clarification in language, which is fine with M3:
11-12C-3: PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS:
Right-of-way Easement(s) for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be
required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or
shopping areas. The pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide.
5. 11-12-1-3, please replace shall with may in item 2. ACHD's standard is for vertical
curb on all roadways.
M3 Comment:
ACHD is asking for this change, which is fine with M3:
11-12D-1-3: CURBS AND GUTTERS:
A. Generally:...
2. Rolled curbs and gutters, or other treatments acceptable to ACHD, shall may be
required on minor streets.
6. 11-12D-1-6 F 1, please add that a 7 -foot wide attached sidewalk is required on
collector and arterial roadways.
Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden Oty, ID • 83714 • PH 208-387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achdidaho.orq
The Section ACHD is referring to is:
Sidewalks: An attached or detached sidewalk, a minimum five feet (5') wide, shall be
required on both sides of the street, except as provided herein. Sidewalks may be
eliminated on one or both sides of the street in hillside areas to minimize topographic
impacts and grading.
No change is necessary.
What the City cares about is setting its minimum width for sidewalks; i.e., 5 feet, which was
approved by the Design Review Board and approved by the P&Z Commission. If ACHD, in
its analysis, will only allow a 7 -foot sidewalk on a certain street, this will be in compliance
with City Code. Do not call out a specific width in City Code for specific streets. ACHD
Policy Manual could change. Just set the minimum that the City desires.
7. 11-12D-2-2 A, please add a note that ACHD must hold their own financial surety
for any improvements within the right-of-way.
M3 Comment:
No; do not make this change to City Code.
This is the City's Code not ACHD's Policy Manual. ACHD's Policy Manual has an
elaborate section on surety requirements for improvements in ACHD's right-of-way.
See, e.g., Policy Manual section 6007.8.
Chapter 2A — Design Review
1. 11-2A-7 E 2, please remove all references to shade trees within the vision triangle
and add that all trees are prohibited from being placed within the vision triangle.
M3 Comment:
We believe we have included ACHD standards regarding the vision triangle. We will check
but M3 has no issue in removing trees from the vision triangle.
2. 11-2A-7 F 4, please remove all references to Class 1 trees being planted in ACHD
right-of-way. Class 1 trees are not allowed in the right-of-way.
M3 Comment:
We believe we have included ACHD standards regarding the Class 1 trees. We will check
and, if the Policy Manual has changed, we will work with the City to make consistent.
3. 11-2A-7 L 1 e and L 5e, please add language that notes all berms and walls
(regardless of building materials) are limited to a height of 3 -feet within the 40 -foot
vision triangle.
M3 Comment:
We believe we have included ACHD standards regarding the vision triangle. We will check
and work with City to make consistent.
4. 11-2A-7 L 1, and L 2, please revise the street cross sections shown and the
language to note that a right-of-way dedication of 2 -feet behind the back, of curb,
with detached sidewalk in an easement.
M3 Comment:
The cross sections show this.
5. 11-2A-7 7, please remove all references to Class 1 trees being planted in ACHD
right-of-way. Class 1 trees are not allowed in the right-of-way.
Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden Gty, ID • 83714 • PH 208-387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achdidaho.orq
M3 Comment:
We believe we have included ACHD standards regarding the Class 1 trees. We will check
and work with City to make consistent.
6. Please note that all medians are restricted to a maximum width of 12 -feet near an
intersection for a distance of 150 -feet. Beyond the 150 -feet the island width may
be increased to 30 -feet.
M3 Comment:
No change needed.
ACHD Staff appears to be referencing Section 11 -2A -7.L.7 (p.21), which discusses the
width of medians required to support certain trees and shrubs. This is a landscape
design issue separate from the ACHD requirements for maximum widths of median near
intersections. The subdivider will be required to meet ACHD standards for street and
median widths.
7. 11-2A-7 8, please revise the informal streetscape prototype to replace the
meandering sidewalk with a detached sidewalk that is parallel to the adjacent
roadway.
M3 Comment:
Do not make this change to City Code.
ACHD Staff appears to be referencing 11 -2A -L.8 (p. 21-22). The meandering
sidewalk associated with the informal streetscapes will be outside of the ACHD
right-of-way and not maintained by ACHD.
8. 112A-8, please add language that notes; no commercial signage will be allowed in
ACHD right-of-way, and that all other signs in the right-of-way will be subject to
review and a license agreement.
M3 Comment:
This language is already found in section 11 -2A -8.C.5:
Location of Signs: All permanent signs shall be located on-site and shall be outside of any
rights-of-way and sight triangles. Identification, temporary, portable, directional and other
signs may be located within the public right–of-way, but shall require the approval and
license agreement of the public entity controlling the right -of way. Signs shall be a
minimum of two feet (2') from any sidewalk.
ACHD has been working to complete a draft staff report for the PUMP 1 preliminary plat application.
The staff report will identify site specific conditions of approval for the preliminary plat, as well as
establish processes and guidelines for the future review of PUMP and preliminary plats applications
within the M3/Spring Valley planning area. However it is our understanding that a revised
preliminary plat will be submitted to the City of Eagle this week. Because of this ACRD will not move
forward with their review until the preliminary plat design has been finalized and transmitted to
ACHD for review.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (208) 387-6178.
Sincerely,
Mindy Wallace Planner III Development Services
CC: Project file,
M3 - Mark Tate
JUB — Scott Wonders
Ada County Hcghway D tact • 3//5 Adams Street • Garden Uty, ID • 83/14 • PH 208-38/-6100 • FX 345-/b50 • www.achdidaho.ora
ACHD Comments
Citation September 16th Hearing Draft
Chapter 0 — Planning unit Master Peens
1184.13.4.c: PUMP
Application
Requirements
1185: Procedures for
approval
ACHO Request
Section 4-C mentions the analysis of the ACHD traffic system within the
PUMP tor compliance me the Master Trade Impact Study (TISI and rhe
Northwest Fondues Tanspottaton Plan ACHE) recogntes that this
requirement is Conseslenl with the applcanis development agreement
a) An anayars of the ACHD traffic System mot,: ,: the PUMP and !TD traffic mei the City of Eagle However. stet! would lake to Mat re:noder you
system adjacent to the PUMP for compliance with the Master Traffic Study and ACHD never accepted the Inds or recommendations of the Master
the ACHD Northwest Foothills transportation Study. Such analysis may be Traffic Impact study prepared by Stanley Consultants in 2010. as it was
submitted poor to the rest of the PUMP application inadequate and d4 not address an of Outrict's concerns Additionally, the
Northwest Foothills Transportation Study (NWFTS) is in the process o1
being updated
flair rKwmnienus Jowly an atwawrnai cwwnaun Wr a idanm, 0,410
study, d required by ACHD
The following procedures shalt be used for the review and approval of a PUMP
application
A Adan by Planning a Zoneg Commission
1) Within forty -live (45) days atter an appbcatan has been made and
lobowwg Mme notice regueements as set forth in Section 11-7-13 of Eagle City
Code. the Planning a Zoning Commission shad hold a public hoareig !o
cons4er the appbcabon and make a reoomnendation to the Coy Council The
Planning a Zoneg Commission shall either recommend approval. approval with
co (tions. or continue for further renew. the PUMP application. The Panning a Section 11.6.5 discusses procedures Ion approval. However, it does not
Zoneg recommendation shall be made within lofty (40) days el bra date of the mention outside agency renew of the PUMP application Stall suggests
regular meeting at which the PUMP appkcatan a fust considered by the ad3rg language to thio section noting that fro PUMP will be transmitted
Planing a Zonrg Comnossan tl the PUMP is n substantial conformance to outsde agencies lir review and those reviews may lead to delayed
with the PADA and applicable provisions of Tide 11 of Eagle City Code. the hung well the Planning and Zoog Comrwssan
Nanning a Zoning Commissar+ shat( not unweasonady withheld a
recommendation of approval a the Planing and Zoning Carnes -von (cods
Mal the PUMP submitted does not reflect propellant progress of Plannrg
Area requirements (such as density. open space. community and Neighborhood
Centers. etc.) In comparison to the percentage of Plameg Area already
developed. the Planning and Zoning Commission may still proceed mfr
processing the PUMP d the Commission Inds that adequate Conditions can be
imposed on future PUMP appkcatons to ensure reasonable progress towards
completion of the Planning Area requirements.
M3 Comment
ACHD Staff a referenong. generally 11.6.4 B. which tats the items to be included in a
PUMP appkcabon. and operatically 116-4 B 4 c) Ip 3 of Ch 6)- wench lists the stems .n me
appkcabon regarding befhc-
4. Plareung Und Master Streets 5 Circulation Ptan
a) A plan showing tie arsenal and collector roadway network
b) A street and cecuWtgn phasing plan
c) Awanalyers A tathc impact study (TIS) of Me ACHO baffle system warn the PUMP
and 110 traffic system adjacent to the PUMP bot compliance wen the Master Tabic Study
and the ACHD Northwest Foothes Transportation Study wit be provided to ACHD ander
LTD Such analyeie ( may be submitted poor to the rest d the PUMP application
d) A nematode or evdence showing how this component of the PUMP complies with the
Spring Valley Master Streets a Circulation Plan with reference to trate volumes associated
with previously approved PUMP(s) The narrative shaft nclude a desenption o1 the location
of private roads and the number of resdentat units served by such private roads
Staff Response
As pan of the Ceys current pre-appbcaloo process we recommend as applicant
contact ACHO. as wee as other agencies before submtal of an application tome City
to ensure they are aware of any requirements of other agencies and the rnpan these
will have on their appkcaton processing with the City ACHD hos
approval aumonty outside of the auntanty of the Cay and d they Zeal there is spook
analysis to be complete Oa Cay encourages them lo state that to the applicant Slah
supports the recommended language from 1,13 to 4 c below
ACHD Stat appears to be saying that ACHD has not accepted the hnduhgs of the Master c) Ami A Irattic moact study (T15) of Ire ACHD tralhc system warn the
Traffic Study (defined as the Study done 6.2606. as may be amended - and ACHD sun is Pah and (ID tafhe system edrecenl to the PUMP for compliance mei the Wm.,
kftmil Cally referring to a 2010 amendment) Scott Wonders is tracking down the action Trate Study and the ACHD Northwest foothres Transponataon Study will be atovade4
letter from ACHD to ACHD ander ITD Such waives jmay be submitted prior to the test of the
PUMP application.
Nonetheless. 4 c) can be made more clear las shown above) that a TIS will be provided to
the appropriate transportation agencies Tho TIS needs to be submitted to ACHD and or
ITD. not Ire Cly
See charge to 11.6-4 B 4 c) above
Language parrotrg the procedure novo used by the Cy n connection to the pal process
can be added to Section 116.4 A (not 11 4) as follows
114.4 PLANNING UNIT MASTER PLAN (PUMP) APPLICATION RECIUIREMENTS
A. A PUMP shad be prepared for each P1anrwrg Area as (*hoed in the PADA. or a portion
d a Pbnnag Area. deleting substantial conformance wet, Edmbas F. F1. F2. F3, F4. F5
and G of the PADA Much includes but is not landed to the general location and sue e1
development parcels: uses and densey ranges for each parcel compared to the maamrrn
allowed deny and wets write the plan rte g area- inrcutatan system by road classification
and me use of prate roads backbone water. wastewater. drainage and ovation fatdities.
locations for public facilities. amenities. trade and acres of open space and habitat area:
and Landscape Iometer. A PUMP appkcatan shad be submited to the Admewstator for
renew and approval by the Cy.
The applicant shalt meet oath the Administrator pray to the submssion d the PUMP The
purpose ol t rs meeting a to discuss nfixmaoy the proposed PUMP and to inform the
applicant of the applicable regulations_
TheZonn0 AQiniastator shall refer the PUMP eoohcation to as many aoyemmente)
ao(naes as deemed necessary The Pound Adrne eduction shag /wend. mei 40y 10101m4t31
will be returned with. fifteen 1151 days. Such edencies ray nclude the follower°
{ 1) Other oovemina bodes henna tont iuns4(clron
12i Th. amrnmoate ubktv companies oinati lin companies 0, OWL'''. err 4r31,e20
pslfclt,
(3) The supennlendent ct the school district: and
(4) D(he, aoeeCres hanna an interest eh the oroaosed subdivision
Stan supports the inclusion oI the language proposed by 13 further d ACHD
requests ad@oonal renew lime the Cy Statl die nuke as etas to ensure that they
ate Moveled sufficient time tor then renew worst ease scions.. d a response as not
roomed at the erne of bearing the Conon-mon can ether tide the nem or
recommend denial pursuant to 1144, The P1ann g a Zoning Cormxsson shad
either recommend approval. approval mirth cordeteons, or continue for further review.
the PUMP application.
The Zoning Administrator shall refer the PUMP applmtatan to as many governmental
ageneses as deemed necessary The Zowg Adminesuator shalt provide that any
bailsmaal we be retuned within fiheen (15) days Such agencies may include the
1o3omng
(I) Other governing bodes having pea s osdictron-
(2) The appropoate wiry companies. ngatan Pompanos or datOds and drainage
districts.
(3) The stpemlendent of the school district: and
(4) Other agencies having an nterest en the proposed subdivision
g;,
1
tt A
If3 A
a
IE
W
o5
$A
4
1
s
1sa& ley
1
0107 �
M
YRS
M N
2 � N
2.
Mn;
21
If
sk
!a
Si
if
a§
If3
0 M
w
- N
ave
A � M
g�N
0
2
Ne
kg
o'
a
0
7
isannaa OH3V
lUaWWO3 en
asuoasad UM
Citation September 16th Hearing Draft
Chapter 12 — Land sabd(vielons
11-120-3 0 lc:
Recommendation by
Administrator
11-12C 3: Pedestrian
Walkways
a Reconmerdabon 8y Aomenstrator 1 he :Drano administrator shad provde
than any Iransm.nal as pnnrlM m subsechnn 0 1 b of nes secant.' vin tie
returned *Kluft fifteen (15) days At the end of the ldteen 115) day Penod. the
adnwkitrator shad Prepare a recommendation to the corraesseon AI agency
responses shall be suppled by the roneng administrator to the danneg and
:Dung commssan.
Right (Away for pedestnan walkways in the meddled long blocks maybe
seaweed *here necessary to edam convenient podestran urcutalan to
sceoo)s. Parks or shopping areas The pedestrian easement seal be at toast sentence
ten feel (10') w.de.
ACHD Request
Please add a comment that a 15 day adrtwestratne renew maybe
delayed due to outside agency renew of the appIcal.on
Please replace Pte rghl0f-way wdh easement as the teal word of the
A Generally
1 Yemcee Cutbs and gutters shad be constructed on collector and envied
streets
11-12D-1.3: Curb & please replace shall with may en item 2 ACHD's standard .s fo veIecal
Gutter 2 Rolled curbs and gutters or Who' meatments acceptable to ACID. shall be curb on a1 roadways
required on minor streets
3 Al construction shall ben accordance with the standards and spec$.caeans
adopted by the Ada County Hgnwav 0*tncl
1. Sidewalks: An attached or detached s.dawak, a mnmum bye feel (51 wale.
11-120.14 1: sidewstk shall be required on both sides d the street. except M provided herein pleasa ado teal "de' ode anached sdewak .s requwea On "decideSkdewa ks may be aLm+nated on one or both sides dr dee street m h.tis+de areas
Design and allenal roadways.
10 merwaeeza topographic impacts and gradin. Sidewalks on only one sale of
the street may also be allowed m are following conciliates'
A Cash Depose Ceml,ed Check Cenaecate Of Deposit. Surety Bond Or
hrevawble Bank Lenin Of Crede A cash deposes. cembed check, cenaecate of
depose. surety bond or en revocable bank leiter of credo (nsued by a fenanceat
.nstartan with a branch en the EageerBo.se area). on the amount equal to one
hundred hhy percent (150'.) of the estmated construction costs of the legated
11-120.2.2 A: Guarantee improvements comamed wenn the brut plat or pubkc right -o) -way shall be please add a note that ACHD must hold their own toenail surety Ior any
of Improvement wended by the owner/developer and held by the c.ly untel sad construclan es improvements wnhen the rgtTol-way
complete - Construction cost esternales for the -required improvements
contained within a final plat or pubic nght of way shall be reviewed and
approved by the ury zoning administrator prat 10 city acceptance of sad surety.
The surety naeabon and extenseol lees shall be establ,shod by resotutan of the
city council
M3 Comment
no. 00 nor 10:00 0045 Cnange to Uly 1.000
It appears ACHO Stan es asking Eagle to Mange as standard subreasan procedure
t>etatrsa ACHD may Provide detayed responses To relerence the K Me subdensan
section referenced above by ACHD Stall
1. Admereslralne Review
a Cerhlecation By Admemstrator. Pubic Heanng Upon recoepl of the mammary plat and all
other raptured data es provided for neren, the adnvnstrator shall cemy the apptoatan as
complete and shall airs the dale of applecabon acceptance thereon The admaostrator shad
sMeile a pubkc nearing before the plasma; and torkng conmesseon wench heanng stud
be held wdhm tontine (45) days of the date of ceruhcaion ol a compete applicators
te Renew By Other Agaves Tree admnstrator shat refer ante mammary alai and
appicabon to as many governmental agencies as deemed necessary Such ageneses may
include the Gateman
(1) Other governing bates haven; pent lonsdechon,
(2) The appropriate utekty companies angateon convenes or 01)50)s and drawage
dstnns.
e3) The superntendent oG the school &strict. and
(al Other agenoes havwg an raciest .n tree proposed su dveseon
Recoownerdaton By Admnestralor The toning admnstrata shad provde that any
transnmal as provded n subsection 0 1 b d this sec -bon vial be returned wanes leheen (15)
days Al the end of the hheen (15) day pend the adm ustrator shall prepare a
recommendation to the commssan AS agency responses shad be suppled by tbe toning
adsvnestrator to the ptannenwpe and tonus eommessare
Aline es asking to anis Cumecatan in Language. waken es rile roan M•1
t1.12C-3 PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
Staff Response
Staff does not support he enduseon of addhonal test in tees loeatecn Tis seceon is
consistent with Cey Mae today n *lin agendes have 1 Sdays a proved* comment or
wean, the CAN a06eonal tune es necessary to canptete their sane* The
Aamwyslatne renew is for the preparalan d a start repent x100. vie nauoe me
statement that's comment has been recened' or'addetanal review terve es
necessary_ it the appecatan makes n before the P&Z Commission the Commessan
has the recta under 11-128.3.0 3 b to 'recommend approval• cone enal approval,
desapproval or tabling for a penod not to exceed thenyfne (35) days' en order to
recent comments from ACHD or any other agency
Regniol-way Emmen) for pedestrian walkways n the m.defe off long blocks may be Stan Supports AC1 s prop01ed Language
requeed where necessary to obtan Convenient pedestrian caaRaeon w 10 00)1, parks o
shopping areas The pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet 110') ode
ACHD n asking for Pus change w)kch is ane we) M3
11.120.1-3 CURBS AND GUTTERS
A Generally
2 Rolled curbs and gulletsor omer treatments acceptable to ACHD steal may be
reported on minor streets
No Mange es necessary
Stan Simians 143 s proposed Language
What theCny carps about n setting as mrwnum Width to uaewaks, e e , S IeoL Meech oat The City wants to ensure that the code reflects a -. , . standard that wdl
approved by the Design Review Board and approved by the P&Z Comnessan. ff ACHD, r prevda the Staff
is amount d vs to chon ngseg tWhy°l mrkmum standards s and ACHD
as analyse, *8 Only allow 7 -tool sidewalk Orta ce1an 114001. lies wL) ben con pIance 111043standard). $tatf c not oppose sidewalks
a on Art n than and C000ct m but do ACHD's theel minimum
with City Code Do not cad out ■ specihe width en City Cade for specific streets ACHD standard !or'alached sdewaks C Aminal Collectors but do not heel q i1
Pokey Manual could change. Just set the mnnmum that the City desires ^ecessary. We well kava k a1 the Commission's dnereleom.
No do not make len change to Croy Code
Th.s .s the City s Code not ACHD's Policy Manual ACHD's Policy Manual has an elaborate ACHD es a separate )unsdction and has authony to rectums sureties under as' own
secl.on on surety requirements for .mprovomenis n ACHD's reghl•ohway See e g . Policy authorey, Staff recommends no change
Manual section 6007
Citation Seatember 16th Hearing Draft
Cbeptet 2A— Design Review
2. Clear vision triangles shatl be observed in regard to ad vegetation Al shade
trees planted within vision triangles shad be pruned to a minimum seven feet
(7') above the adjacent sidewalk and fourteen feet (14') above the adjacent
roadway surface whenever branches overhang such enprovements. Shrubs and
1l -2A-7 E 2: Prohibited ground covers planted within the vision triangle shall not exceed three feel (31
Landscape height at maturity. The boundanes of the vision tnangte shall be shown on the
landscape plans and are delined by measuring from the intersection of the
edges of two (2) adjacent roadways forty feel (401 along each roadway and
connecting the two (2) points with a straight line_ In all cases. IT D and ACRD
standards shall appy also
114A-7 P 4: Install &
Min. Standards
11-2A-7 L le and L 50:
Streetseapes
11-2A-7 L 1, and L2:
Streetscapes
11 -2A -7.L.7 : Medians
1I.2A-L.8: Street Design
Concepts
4. Class I. II and el trees planted with the ACRD right-of-way shall meal the
following ACHD minimum standards
Lia, A minimum five fool (51 high, maximum eight foot (81 high. berm.
decorative block wad• cultured stone. decorative rode, or similarly designed
concrete wall. or fence, or combination thereof shall be provided within or at the
limits of the butler area adjacent to single family residential lots or al the
property line of such tuts. The maximum slupe Ice any berm. d provided. shall
be thfee feet (3') honsontal distance to one loot (1') vertical distance. ll a
decorative block wall. cultured stone, decorative rock. or similarly designed
concrete wall is to be provided in combination vnth the berm. a lour loot (4)
wale tt1 area shad be provided for the placement of the decorative wa11 Chain
link. cedar. and similar high maintenance andbr unsightly fencing shad not be
permitted. Walls or lencerg are not required adjacent to muttrdamey resdenhal
uses. except when necessary to provide a buffer to enclose private outdoor
living space. nonresidential uses or open space.
L -S -e A mnimum five foot (5) high. maximum eight loot (8') hgh. berm,
decorative block wan. cultured stone. decorative rock, or simdarly designed
concrete wall, or fence. or combination thereat shall be provided within or at the
limits 01 the buffer area adjacent to single lamely residental lots or at the
property tens of such lots The maximum slope for any berm. i! provided, shall
be three feel (3) honzontal distance to one loot (1') vertical distance M a
decorative block wall. cultured stone. decorative rock. or similarly designed
concrete wall* to be provided in combination with the berm. a lour fool (4')
wide Hat area shall be provided for the placement of the decorative wan Chain
link. cedar. and similar high maintenance and'or unsightly lensing shall n01 be
permitted Walls or fencing are not required adjacent to multolamdy residential
uses except where necessary to prnvde a butler to enclose private outdoor
space, ran -residential uses or open space:
FoothillsArterial Streets 8 Collector Streets
a The minimum wroth of a median. d provided. that will support trees is eight
feet (8') for Class 11 trees and len teal (101 for Class 1 and 1111rees The
minimum width of a median that wen support turf is ten feet (101. The minimum
wider of a median that well servo. shrubs amo groundcovers 5 lour 4.1(4 ). H
a median or median nose is narrower than tour feet (4), the area shall be filled
with stamped concrete. decorative pavers Of rock. Medians w,l generaly be
provided on artenal. collector and urban streets.
Straight sidewalks are usually assoclaled with formal streetscapes while
meandering sidewalks are usually associated with informal streetscapes. The
street ClassiliCatiOn and streetscape concept for each roadway shall be
consistent with the approved Environmental Landscape Plan for pia PUMP that
contains that roadway.
11.2A-8: Signage No Specific Reverence
ACHD Request
M3 Comment
Staff Response
please remove all references to shade frees within the vision triangle and we believe we have included ACRD standards regarding the vision triangle. We will check Staff suppods the removal Of Shade trees from the vision triangle d they are en
add that all Trees are prohibited from being placed within the w5100 but M3 has no issue in removing Trees from the vision triangle violation with the ACHD policy manual
Mangle
please remove all references to Class 1 trees being planted in ACHD
oghl-Ol-way. Class 1 trees are not adowed in the right-OI•way.
please add language that notes all berms and walls (regardless of
building malenals) are limited to a height of 3•feet within the 40 -loot
vision tnangle
please revise the street cross sections shown and (he Language to note
that a right-ol-way dedication of 2 -feet behind the back oI curb, with
detached sidewalk in an easement.
please remove an references to Class 1 trees being planted in ACHD
nght-of-way Class 1 trees are not allowed in the rght•ol•way
Please note that all medians are restncted to a maximum width of 12 -feet
near an Intersection for a distance of 150 -feet Beyond the 150•feet the
Island width may be increased to 30•leel.
please revise the Informal streelscap0 prototype to replace the
meandering sidewalk with a detached sidewalk that Is parade! to the
adjacent roadway.
please add language that notes. no commercial signage will be allowed
n
ACHD nght-ol•way. and that all other signs in the nghl•ol•way win be
subject to review and a license agreement.
We believe we have included ACHD standards regarding the Class 1 trees. We will check Staff supports the removal of Class 1 trees from ACHD's ROW d they areas violation
and. if the Policy Manual has changed. we wed work with the City to make consistent with the ACHD policy manual
We believe we nave included ACHD standards regarding the vision tnangle. We win check Stan supports the limiting of Berm and Wad heights to 3 feet wall the visor triangle
and work with City to make consistent el they are in violation with the ACHD policy manual
The cross sections slaw this.
We believe we have included ACHD standards regarding the Class 1 trees- We will check
and work with City to make consistent.
ACRO Stall appears to be referencing Section 11.2A•7.L.7 (p 21). which discusses the
wdth of medians required to support certain trees and shrubs This is a landscape design
issue separate from the ACHD requirements for maximum widths oI median near
ildelseclions The subdivides will be required lu rowel ACHD slaudards iia stirrer and
martian wirllhe
The meandering sidewalk associated with the informal slreelscapes win be outside of the
ACHD right•of•way and not maintained by ACHD.
This language is already round en section 11.2A-8 C 5
The cross sections show this
Stall supports the removal of Class 1 trees horn ACHO's ROW d they are n valahon
with the ACHD policy manual
The current process for landscape Design Review application rs that they occur
AFTER the preliminary plat application ACHD should be review og median Iocatwns
including widths and lengths in association vire' the preliminary plat apphcaton H
ACHD wishes to comment on the Design Review application the City does provide a
lmnstnetal Its additional ACHD Gunmen') dough bislunwlly lune io reoerved ad the
ria
The City agrees with the applicant. This is a design feature of tho Cary and i1 it occurs
outside o1 the ROW el is not an issue for ACHD.
Location of Signs All permanent sgns shall be located on•sele and shad be outside of any
nghes-ol•way and sight tnangles Identification. temporary. portable, directional and other This Language is already found in section 11.2.4.8 C.5
signs may be located with. the public oghl-ol-way. but shad require the approval and
license agreement of the public entity controlling the righted way. Signs shall be a
NAME
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET
September 16, 2013
SUBJECT: ZOA-01-13— M3/Spring Valley —M3 Eagle, LLC:
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
1
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
September 16, 2013
SUBJECT: A-03-13/RZ-04-13/CU-05-13/PPUD-05-13/PP-09-13 - Lanewood No. 2 Planned Unit
Development- Lanewood Ea21e, LLC:
NAME
/.) / � � v.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
TELEPHONE/E-MAIL 'ESJNO? 0/CON;
11, r faa -Ceti,..,
/J r.
E L . c -till
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET
September 16, 2013
SUBJECT: CU -06-13 — Conditional Use Permit - Restaurant (with drive thru service)—
Eagle River Hospitality, LLC:
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
1
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGNUP SHEET
September 16, 2013
SUBJECT: CU-04-13/PPUD-04-13/PP-06-13/RZ-13-05 - Foxglove Estates Subdivision -
Linder 17 Investment, LLC.:
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
NAME TELEPHONE/E-MAIL YES/NO? PRO/CON
1