Loading...
Minutes - 1996 - Planning & Zoning - 09/16/1996 - Regular EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16,1996 nn n,~ommission met in regular session on September 16, 1996. Chairman BRADLEY presiding. The following members were present, BERT BRADLEY, DONALD BRINTON, COLLEEN MAILE, FARRIN FARNWORTH. MAYER IS ABSENT. CORRECTED AGENDA: Item #3 will be Item #4, Item #4 will be Item #3, Item #4 will be Item #5, Item #5 which is called C will be Band B will be C, Item #5 will be Item #6, Item #6 will be Item #7, Item #7 will be Item #8. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL: Minutes of September 9, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes to be approved at the next meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: ADA COUNTY TRANSMITTAL (96-11-Z0A) Ada County is requesting the City of Eagle to comment with regard to a proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to provide for outdoor storage of recreational vehicles as a principal permitted use in the C-2 (Highway Commercial) zone within Ada County. Mark recommends that Ada County denies the request for permitted use in their C-2 and be allowed for conditional use in their C-2 in closer conformance with Eagle City Code. Restrictions are highlighted in the report submitted by JUB to Ada County. The storage area would be screened by 6 foot nonvision fence, the area would be landscaped and the storage area will not constitute an auto wrecking or junkyard as defined in Ada County Title. Other restrictions might apply. Bradley: Does not see this as a negative Maile: Had not considered cost of property in reviewing information provided. Determine what is best overall for existing people. Look out for people that are already there. Consider compatible uses. Conditional Use Permit would not be a bad idea. H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 1 0 along with a Conditional Use Permit. bout¡¡~6 foot high fence. Boats might be alright but an RV would p íf the fence. This should be a consideration to look at. Itb~.)a very good idea. Moved by BRINTON that we accept Staff's recommendation on Ada County Transmittal (96-11-Z0A) and Seconded by MAILE. BRADLEY OPPOSED - MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. ANNEXATION WITH REZONE (A-1-96/RZ-2-96) Ed Hendershot is requesting approval of an annexation with a rezone from Ada County's RT (Rural Transitional) zone to Eagle City's AR (Agricultural-Residential) zone. The 26.82 acre site is located on the south side of the north cannel of the Boise Rive approximately 1/3 mile east of Eagle Road (State Highway 44). The site abuts the east property line of the Island Woods Subdivision. Staff Report: Mark Butler: Refer to Staff's Report. 1. Staff recommends that a letter of approval of septic system from Central District Health be provided to commission prior to City Council hearing. Has a letter from Central District Health recommending that Hendershot connect into Eagle Sewer District and Eagle Sewer District's letter says that they can't let him connect in. Hendershot has two existing septic tanks there and in one of his letters he says if he builds a house there he can tap into an existing septic tank as he is moving his mobile homes out. 2. Staff recommends approval of the annexation, it meets any needs or requirements in the impact area. No problem with approval of the annexation. 3. Staff is requesting that Rezone to AR be denied and a Rezone to A be permitted. The A would allow the residential use as proposed by applicant. A zone in city requires that the lot be 20 acres minimum. Mr. Hendershot has 28 acres. The AR is comparable to what he has now in Ada County which would allow 5 lots. If you want to go down to 5 lots you need to think about where this site is located and the engineer will touch on a little bit of where it is located and what concerns may come up. The two mobile homes will be removed. It is a nonconforming lot according to Ada County. 4. It should be made clear to the applicant that this is a nonconforming lot for Eagle City Code. Prior to a building permit being issued the lot will be required to be brought into H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 2 JJ,~gce with Eagle City Code. Also, a building permit cannot be issued until a lopment permit as required by the City Code and outlined by the City Engineer is in <' ity his' in the floodway or floodplain. It is questionable as to what s tb it even build one home. Ken Rice Holliday Engineering 179 N. 20th Payette, Idaho The property is located all except 2 acres on the SW part in the floodway. Approx 2 acres which are not where the existing trailer is are in the 100 year floodplain. Considerable difference in regulations as to what is required to build in the two places. Several restrictions. Septic tanks and drain fields are a major concern in the floodplain and floodway. Number of construction and engineering issues for any construction in the floodplain and even more so in the floodway. These are taken care of in the reports before a building permit is issued. Farnworth: Aware of a new type of septic tank put out with air events. Would this work in this location? Rice: Those are used in areas of high water table. Problem in the floodplain is the whole thing may get washed out. Is this an insurable construction. Discussion continued. Bradley: Are only 2 acres not in the floodway? Rice: Somewhere between 2 and 3 acres. Brinton: Why are you requiring a development permit. Is this something the City require's by Code? Rice: The development permit is a requirement for getting a building permit and is required in the City Code. Discussion continued. Maile: Clarification. If we follow Staff and grant a rezone that does not insure that H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 3 ot or whoever he sells to that they can build on this lot. Other specific factors that may have to perform. Will City require them to build on the 2 acres in floodplain aor[iðfilh ctû'âl 0 e flood. Who makes that decision. A eJire Planning and Zoning Administrator would make that decision. Builder would have an option of whether to build in the floodway or floodplain. Difficult to met the requirements to build in the floodway that it is almost a given that he would build in the floodplain. Maile: The existing septic tanks are all the applicant has to rely upon. Are they anywhere near the 2 acres in the floodplain. Rice: One of them is. Mark: Lot is nonconforming relating to Ada County Code. Would not allow mobile home because of location. Requires a 100 feet of street frontage which is not there. Eagle City Code does not allow the trailers there. Bradley: Are manufactured homes allowed in agricultural zone? John: I believe so. Ed Hendershot 1283 S. Gossling Eagle, Idaho I tried to get this done through Ada County. Trying to get the property into conforming situation so we can proceed with our plan. #1. Provide letter of septic approval. Ed would like to not have this requirement. Already sent in septic permit. If a new system it would be an alternative system. Preference would be to hook up to Eagle Sewer District if at all possible. Hendershot puts up an aerial view of property and explains it to the commissioners and the public. % acre of the 3 acres in the floodplain is considered wetland. #3. Instead of AR permit an A. Not acceptable to him. Wants to be able to split off a 5 acre piece. Zoning he is requested would allow this. A zoning could allow a mobile home. I want to take the mobile homes out. Sell the lots as executive lot. Request for zoning he H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 4 for. As far as a Development Plan we can do that. 0 go with A, prefer AR are you willing to enter into a . City to build only one home. Hendershot: No, I want the option left open that we could build two. I don't want to close that option off. What are you proposing? Brinton: I'm proposing that we go with an AR that says you have got to have 5 acres lots. You don't have 5 acres in the floodplain. We need to go to with an A and then may need to have a Development Agreement indicating that you are going to put one residential type home on that piece of property. Discussion continued. Mark: Clarify Code. A-2-4 schedule of lot sizes. In the AR zone the minimum lot size is 2 acres. In the A zone there is no minimum. However, written description in AR Zone it says 5 acres is the minimum for an AR zone and 20 acres is a minimum for the A zone. Something in our Code that says the more restricted ordinances in conflict the more restricted shall apply. It is 5 acre minimum for the AR and 20 acre minimum for the A. Discussion continued. Legal Counsel: Development Agreement is probably the best way to go. No further public testimony on Hendershot. Mark: Clarification: Code allows mobile home in A and AR zones with a Conditional Use Permit. Look at Code in regards to septic system. Public Hearing portion is closed. This will be taken under advisement. Discussion: Maile: Prefer to see one home built in this area rather than a whole development. Make sure everything is covered in regards to waste disposal. Development Agreement needs H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 5 s the number of houses built. Fw~rtm: r wéiî)nly need one house, we let Island Wood go in. Everyone k s with t an)~to live there. Executive area of land. Biggest issue I have j rning',i¡Uillto g U~aJ;;zøne. No problem with houses being built on property. Approve zoning with Development Agreement Maile: Is that something that can be addressed in the Development Agreement, what kind of farming is acceptable? Farnworth: You would have a hard time doing it. Discussion continued. Farnworth: Probably approve the improvement if the applicant would agree to an agreement with us. I wouldn't have any problem with that. Bradley: I do not have a problem with 2 different zones. Agricultural and AR2 zone. Development Agreement needs to address a pathway along the river and how the area is to be developed. By only 2 houses can abide by our ordinance for private road. In favor of it with two different zonings subject to a Development Agreement and satisfy Ada County requirements for septic system and any of your other building codes. Brinton: I basically agree with the other commissioners. Moved by BRINTON to continue this pending receipt of a Development Agreement with a maximum to 2 lots in the AR zone as he has requested, meeting the septic system requirement and instruct staff to check with the Pathway Committee regarding the status of pathway along the river. I would also like to see in the Development Agreement a statement something to the effect that the removal of the mobile homes will take place in within an amount of time period that would be reasonable for you and us. Clarification: You said AR zone. A and an AR zone. Brinton: No. AR. Strictly AR with a Development Agreement with no more than 2 homes. Discussion continued. H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 6 clude in the Development Agreement something that we & Game has requested that they be consulted regarding Not approval necessarily, just input. Brinton: No problem in that being part of the motion. So amended. Motion Seconded by MAILE. Motion is to continue to Oct 7, our next meeting, at such a time that applicant has a chance to meet with the City and prepare a Development Agreement to satisfy all agencies involved. All Aye: Motion Carried. C. Preliminary Plat and Rezone for Lakeland Estates Subdivision (PP-2-96/RZ-3- 96)-Ron Bath representing SDR Development, LLC., is requesting City approval of a 49 lot residential subdivision (Lakeland Estates) on 23.1 acres, with a rezone from A (Agricultural) to R-4 (Residential-four dwelling units per acre maximum). South of State Street, adjacent to the east boundary of the Monroc property, west of existing Highway 55 extended. Mark: The City passed Ordinance #270 requiring that the public hearing signs be 4x4, be placed on the site 10 days before the public hearing. The sign out there is the wrong size. The Ordinance states that this item should be canceled because of the size of the sign. Applicant picked up an application which was formed by previous staff and said sign should be 17 inches high by 2 feet wide and that is what the Applicant followed on the application he picked up at the City but it does not meet City Code. I need to have your consideration on whether this should move forward with the Public Hearing. Legal Counsel: The City made a mistake by handing out the wrong information. Still requires compliance with the Code. Commission if they so choose can open it up for public hearing and continue it until the property has been posted within the proper size and time. Because it involves a rezone it is important that strict compliance with Code should be adhered to. So that it would preclude a challenge from an affect third party sometime in the future for something as simple as a sign being the wrong size which very possibly could get the rezone denied as a jurisdictional issue. Probably the best interest for the applicant. H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 7 missioners could hold the public hearing but recommend not closing it until it has pr perly posted. e earing tonight. We did not receive all of the information ic should have the opportunity to testify. Farnworth: I agree with Maile. Moved by FARNWORTH to have the public hearing tonight with a possible continuation and Second by BRINTON. Bradley: I guess then it is unanimous that we would like to hear what people who are here have to say. Mark: I do not have a written report on this. The Engineer recommends that this item be continued. Applicant should have been told certain things and wasn't. A Conditional Use Permit needs to be applied for because part of the site will have a lake dug out. Applicant did not supply preliminary engineering drawings, Applicant wasn't told these were needed. Recommended from the Ada Planning Association that a pathway be provided from site to State Street. There are a lot of issues involved in this. I would like to sit down with the Applicant tomorrow and go over what we need to have a full application. Bradley: The Application is not complete at this point in time. Mark: Yes. Maile: Mark, are you also saying that the Application may not be accurate in that they are not asking for a CUP that they are going to require or can they come in later? Mark: I believe a Conditional Use Permit could come in latter. We can review the concept of the subdivision and have a requirement that a CUP be applied for and approved for the gravel operation. Ken Rice Holliday Engineering Payette, Idaho I have not had a chance to study this application. I wasn't aware that the gravel H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 8 . n was not at an end. This is a flag shaped piece of property. Three private roads 0 ronts on them. Objective is to develop around some ponds. From an engineering d~i~rl d . ènts questionable as the access can be blocked. Dead end rlirlel ar q Ie. If you have a repair going on it puts the whole water line seli.icet T ettions to this development. It is also in the floodplain not the floodway, in the 100 year floodplain. That puts some restrictions on construction that need to be considered. Question of policy if this density of development in the floodplain is desirable. The major question that concerns me about this is the Dead end flag development for the development of 50 homes. This is a serious issue. Ron Bath 6281 Charleston Boise, Idaho I made an application in good faith. I was provided with the wrong application and did not find this out until Friday afternoon. The property is in conformance with comprehensive plan for the area. This is a planned development, it is a secured development and is intended to be a private secured location. Access to this property is the only access. There is no other access provided to this property. This Flag was created as an access to this. I'm in the dark on the CUP. I was not aware of this fact and I will have to abide by that. Brinton: I was involved when this piece of property came before the commission before. Does this property go all the way to the River. Bath: This plan does not. Brinton: What is the distance between your south piece of property to the river. Are the lakes existing now. Bath: One is existing and one is not. Discussion continued. Bath: This is only a 45 lot subdivision. 3 portions are common area, including lakes. Looking at 2 per acre. Brinton: Show 45 lots, 1 common lot, 2 lake lots and 1 private lot. Are you aware in City H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 9 der subdivision the maximum length of a culdesac is 500 feet. The other nt that we have I notice that you might have a minor problem with is lots 12 & eMI;å~ly ve'30ifoot tage our minimum lot frontage on the street is 35 feet. Can explê¡jjn Wh e' of the lakes would be. Bath: The lakes will be utilized by the owners in the development as recreational lakes, they will be stocked with fish. There will be extensive CC&R's on the property. There will be no motorized boats there will be only paddle boats. There will be docks allowed by property owners. Access by the landowners to all of the lakes. Brinton: Is there some system of pathway that will give access to the lakes? Bath: There will be access. Discussion continued as to the location of the property, the traffic coming onto State Street from these 45 lots, pathways, location of lakes and the ditches that belong to the ditch company. Jim Howard JJ Howard Engineer The length of the culdesacs might have used that overall distance from State Street on down in determining that and we may be outside the 500 foot limit. This is kind of a hardship case. There is no other way to develop this ground we would have to deal with this as a variance. This property is within the floodplain and outside the floodway. Single access could be resolved in the future. There is a potential to create a situation where we can have other access to the property. Would like to keep single access. Other item is lot frontage. Lots could be replatted to meet lot frontage to comply with City Code. Engineering problems can be readily solved. I did contacted the Sewer District. I do propose a lift station. No testimony in behalf of proposal. Those opposed. Mark Beckman 3050 W. Floating Feather Eagle, Idaho H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 10 ile r t that piece of property and I would like at some future point . e tbãt . is!!notified. We need to maintain access to our ditch. Do not hinder any of the existing flow. We get water out of the Dry Creek Canal. If you plan on filling the lakes with ditch water that appropriate arrangements are made. I'm not for or against subdividing, we just need to be informed as far as the development is concerned. rit of New Union Ditch Company Discussion Joan Lyons 3591 Knobhill Eagle, Idaho I'm not for or against. I am the treasurer/secretary of the New Union Ditch Company and if you want to get a hold of us you can write to P.O. Box 31, Eagle, Idaho. I am more than willing to call our Board Members together to work this over. No other public testimony Brinton: I would like to ask the Applicant how long it would be before he would be able to get the rest of the information together so that we could have an effective date to continue the hearing. Bath: I don't see any reason why we can not make the next meeting. Moved by BRINTON to continue to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Oct. 7 and Seconded By MAILE. Discussion Bradley: What about pressurized irrigation. What do you intend to do with the irrigation. I think that is something that you need to answer so I want you to be aware of that coming up to the next meeting. Legal Counsel: Applicant needs to post the property according to the City Code. H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 11 liil1im~tr P or Echo Creek Subdivision #5, 6 & 7 (PP-3-96)-William rke h¡fΡsy!~, all Village, LTD., is requesting City approval of a 154 lot , entiå't, sl!Aþdi'iSíbn C,reek) on 50.40 acres in a R-5 Zone (Residential-five dwelling units per acre maximum). The site is located at the Northwest corner of Floating Feather Road and the new alignment of Highway 55. ,e,:;mMotion carried. Chairman Bradley turns this portion of the meeting over to Vice Chairman Brinton, as he has a possible conflict of interest. Time and Place for Public hearing of Echo Creek Subdivision #5, 6 & 7 (PP-3-96) Staff Report: Mark: I submitted you a memo that the item be continued. I place on your desk an Item from ACHD requesting that the item be continued. I do not have a report. The Applicant came in for a final plat for Phase 5 of this development and at that time there was some discussion that the development was going to be a little bit different. And it is different. Mr. Guhrke submitted a preliminary plat that is revised and in my opinion it is revised to the better. Lots are reduced, he has nothing that violates our ordinances. Guhrke is meeting with the Pathway Committee to see about providing a crossing. He has come back by City request to make this development better. I provided you with the previous report from 1991 and I guess you could let the item move forward stating that the previous requirements of 1991 shall apply. Recommend Mr. Guhrke work with the City to come up with a solution for a crossing. Require that he comply with current general requirements for subdivision approval. Those were approved in 1995. I think he has an objection to that because this item was approved in 1991 and he is afraid that new items are going to be placed on this site as requirements. I'm afraid of that, I would like to see him move forward with this new proposal. William Guhrke 2927 Starview Drive Boise, Idaho This request is to make 3 changes to a preliminary plat that was approved by the City of Eagle in 1991. The first major change is to increase the depth along new highway to accommodate a large H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 12 fence for better noise abatement. tìíâø n incrlase the size of the common area to make more playground a pa ¡area d accommodate the possible connection between Phases 1 t, ~ o~eJ the hases 5, 6, 7. We have land set aside in Phase 1 that we can access over to the new park area in Phase 5. We can go ahead and build this right now, it was approved in 1991. I am proposing to shift some of the square footage in the subdivision to allow for deeper lots that back up to highway. Have an overpass or underpass across the highway. . Farnworth: Talking about the overpass or underpass. I understand there is going to be a stop light at this intersection. Is this something that could take place if they have pedestrian crossing there. Guhrke: I don't know. I know the Mayor has been involved. I have not attended any of there meetings. I will be attending a meeting Wednesday night. We think this is a tremendous improvement. Brinton: Open for Public Hearing. Duane Winteroth 2507 Colin Court Eagle, Idaho I am in the Lexington Hills Area. I am neither for or against the development. This is R5. Lexington Hills is very well laid out. Would like to see this to be an R4. Would give bigger lots. Echo Creek is higher elevation behind me. It is hard to have a 2 story house looming over my property. My property is right on the fence line. Discussion Maile: It is my understanding that this is just a plat approval not a rezone request. Nothing that can be done about zoning. Richard Kinder 2873 E. Redtail Court Eagle, Idaho H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 13 ,~ofessional civil engineer. My statement is to inform the City of the problems in se 1.i\4. First issue is in regards to the drainage. Phase 1-4 incurred problems with dna€l~i ch'lpt drains onto the backside of each adjoining lot and floods t . Gtøu an.~ fences are falling over. Drainage magnified with placement rm.a§ prop g~e\(ent drainage into the storm system. Sediment settles in gutters that flatten out. Has to be cleaned several times a month to allow for proper drain flow. Drainage by curb and gutter. Water is ponding along Floating Feather creating a hazard. Told reconstruction of Floating Feather will mitigate this problem. Does not want this to happen in the future development. Provide some type of drainage system beside curb and gutter. Next issue regards the berm along the East side of Phases 5 thru 7. I contacted ITD and they confirmed that the 3t01 slopes are preferred. I believe that what is being proposed is a 2 Y:æ t01 slope. I request that the berm have a rounded top approximately 10' wide and contain top soil. I have concern of the ownership of the land from the center of the berm to State Hgwy.. 55 right-of-way. I understand that the homeowner's of lots would own this land. The homeowners would be responsible to maintain this land. I would prefer to see that land identified as common area and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. In reviewing the proposed plans there is not a berm along Floating Feather. Request City require a berm and landscaping identical to berm and landscaping in front of Lexington Hills Subdivision. This area should be considered common area. Concerned that the pressurized irrigation systems may not handle additional usage. System does work property with Phase 1-4 and questions if it will work with all 7 Phases. Request that the City of Eagle require from Treasure Valley Village written certification that the pressurized irrigation systems is capable of delivering 15 gallons a minute at 50 psi during 25% utilization of Phases 1-7. Proposed State Highway splits the subdivision. The school is located in Lexington Hills Subdivision. Recreation park is located East of Highway 55. Need to be able to cross the highway safely. Request that Treasure Valley Village work with the City to donate land as necessary to include a pedestrian bridge and access crossing that allows direct access to N. Rapid Fall Way which is a direct route to the school. Several homeowner's in Echo Creek are seeking litigation against the City of Eagle and Treasure Valley Village. The conditions of the final plat approval for Phases 1-4 require H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 14 Valley Village to construct a 6 foot berm with a fence on top along proposed e Ighway 55 and a 4 foot berm along Floating Feather and existing Highway 55. sw,j~!!~ ' " ni thi 'I.It they did acknowledge this in a letter that City has. City agl~!'~a n d se conditions. Treasure Valley Village has neglected to rmáb..cUcpm . s. I received all information from City records. Requests that City withhold approval of all future Phase of Echo Creek Subdivision and require specific performance by Treasure Valley Village on the conditions of final plat approval of Phases 1-4. Additionally request the City of Eagle to include all requests contained within my statement as conditions to the preliminary plat only after Treasure Valley Village has complied with all final plat conditions of Phases 1-4. Maile: Is your presentation committed to writing. Kinder: Currently in draft form, I will finish it and submit to the Commission. Discussion Eldon Sorensen 2824 E. Redtail Court Eagle, Idaho I am a homeowner living in the 1st phase of Trail Creek Subdivision. Support of the issues Mr. Kinder has pointed out and voice my opposition to the approval of any addition phases of the development. Frank Carroll 1700 N. Trail Creek Way Eagle, Idaho I am not directly affected by new phases. In support of Mr. Kinder. Poor drainage has been a nightmare. Noise abatement is inadequate. Traffic light at Highway 55 is inadequate. Advised by Eagle Fire Department that the fire hydrants are not functional if the power goes out. I think it would be in the public interest if the Commission would create a board to look into the concerns that face Mr. Guhrke and other developers. Rodney Schriever 1813 N. Eagle Creek Way H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 15 0 C¡~ek. Having the subdivision divided by a major thoroughfare of ~he pedestrian bridge. Supports Mr. Kinders statements. Terry Miller 1420 N . Eagle Creek Way Eagle, Idaho Homeowner in Echo Creek Phase 1. Subdivision separated by a major thoroughfare and is in support of a pedestrian bridge. Concerns raised about children going to elementary school. Berming issue. Concern for lack of commitment to berms in subdivision. Drainage problems are continual. Has to be cleared as much as twice a week. This is a health hazard. Strongly suggest that adequate drainage be in new phase. Never notified of the realignment of Highway 55. Concern as to the noise abatement berms. May require litigation to resolve berm issues. Discussion Brinton: This ends testimony of individuals that have signed up. Brinton: Take 5 minute break. Readjourn at 10:30 pm. Brinton: Readjourn at 10:30 pm. Back on record Laura Cesare 2429 Heathfield Court Eagle, Idaho I live in Lexington Hills. My concern is with the density of lots. Connecting road to Lexington Hills and I would like to see it more in keeping with the same density in Lexington Hills and possibly more common area. Paulette Eddalson 1497 N. Trail Creek Way Eagle, Idaho H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 16 port to Mr. Kinder, Mr. Miller and Mr. Carroll. I lost all water to my house when city went out. I would like to have some kind of a walkway, either over or under y. Rebuttle testimony from Applicant Mr. Guhrke: This is not an application for a new development. The question before the Commission is whether to approve or disapprove the requested changes in the 1991 plat. Maile: Now moving into Phase 5. Phases 1-4 have been completely built. Your understanding that the preliminary plat was approved in 1991. Guhrke: Each phase was brought to City Council as they were developed. Maile: You are asking us to approve the changes to the 1991 preliminary plat. Can we request that changes be made between the preliminary and the final plat. Legal Counsel: A difficult question to answer. Law is not clear on this. No ordinances in place to revise plat. He is voluntarily submitting to the Commission for something he already has. If he does not have approval of his revised plat he can proceed on the approved preliminary plat. Maile: If developer had not come before us tonight we would be looking at the 1991 plat for final approval. Legal: Public would be able to come and listen on approval of final plat but would not be open to public hearing. As for the issues raised by testimony. Those by ordinances are dealt with between preliminary and final plat. Prior to final plat developer will have to show that he has complied with all conditions. Mark: Need to have engineers go out to subdivisions and inspecting and approving them before building permits are issued. The City needs a policy to require drainage swells at property lines. H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 17 Mark as far as recommendations from staff for Mark: I have responses from all the entities. postponed. Defer to John on closing public hearing. ACHD requested that the item be Legal Counsel: If you would like to continue the public hearing for the purpose of receiving specific testimony, Marks' report and report from ACHD you can do that and conclude public testimony at this time. Moved by MAILE to continue public hearing regarding the revised preliminary plat for Echo Creek Subdivision #5, 6 and 7 (PP-3-96) so that we may obtain additional information and I move that we continue it to our next meeting on Oct. 7. Discussion No Second - Motion dies. Farnworth: My question on that Motion is leaving it open. If we are in a position that we are not able to satisfy testimony as taken tonight because of the improved plat of 1991 then I don't see to much reason to have an open hearing, all we are really looking for is Staffs report and any information to come back. We would hear type of testimony that we heard tonight and we can't do anything about it. Moved by FARNWORTH that we close the hearing and continue it so we can receive information from Staff and ACHD and Seconded by MAILE. All Aye: Motion Carried Note that Bradley has rescinded from vote. Brinton: Return control of meeting back to Chairman Bradley. New Business: H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 18 . cussion and possible appointment of a Committee to study ways to control of interior illuminated sings. . I tliou uJl!to council at the last meeting in the Zoning Administrators r: . I)Jìit!løt h håtCooncil made a decision. Rick in favor of it. Nancy wanted to see how Ordinance would work and review later. Morgan was kind of open would like to see the report from a study but he doesn't know if he would not necessarily change his position or vote. This is kind of a summary. Discussion Brinton: Are we planning a joint meeting on the 30th. This should be an agenda item for this meeting. Mark: There is a sign contractor willing to work on this committee if we do decide to form a committee. Discussion Joint meeting on the 30th to start at 6:30 and have food (pizza or Chinese.) Mark to send out notice and agenda items. Annexation issue to be put on the agenda. Updated reports from sewer and water companies on the agenda. Discussion on Sewer District Discussion on Enforcement issues Discussion on Water issues Discussion on Public Testimony on Echo Creek Subdivision Commission would like to have a separate sign up board for each Public Hearing item. Zoning Administrators Report: You are going to be getting Staff Reports with recommendations. I do not need to go into details. I will have my recommendations. Applicant needs to prove their case. Engineering reports are sent to Mark at the same time they are sent to the developer. H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MlNUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 19 proval to hire a part time planning assistance. with ACHD on Wednesday the 18th at 3:00 to meet with done with Eagle Road between the Alternate Route and . n friendly road with landscaping. Have someone from ACHD and ITD come to the meeting. Another item the Valley News being changed to West Eagle Express for official newspaper. Moved by FARNWORTH to adjourn and Seconded by BRINTON. All Aye: Motion Carried. ,"'I'I~~t(;~:~",:q-~:.,. ,,~'o(~").. "t"- -, " .... '~ ,.OJ''' . , .: (;'" 6" .. " : -' '" TTED' $ ~'! 1.~.:¡ 0 J:_~ ;-. ".'- ' '.\ '.. 0 C .. -" ,., . '" 0 V '1.'" ," .. ..J_" """e..... <! .,' ,~ :}'(: ::,:,.: : ~::1, C:;,'[7 l). l /~,~- 'J . .C'!.J"";';';~.."'" " 0:. CI"O, ~ -' ';- ,~. - .r. "'?p ~'-", <) . ~ v~ ~61l;;:>?'.f.'.""::""-" \. ..~ #, 14:;:~~.: ~...¡:::,:"~~..,, ##, ..1 i.' J¡,:.....", 'f"lIIuaco¡i" H:\P&Z\MEETINGS\PLAN_ZON\MINUTES\1996\PZO91696.MIN 20 --- '------------ THE CITY OF EAGLE ~CII }' co UNLIL ~ P? 2- MEETING - TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER~996 7~O P.M. I b þ --:..-', NAME ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE TESTIFY YESINO? lIav S" VI Þ,v/,s lð,.! \\ '" ~ I ( Page 1 of 1 H;\ WP\MINUTES\CCO91096,SIG