Loading...
Minutes - 2007 - City Council - 02/13/2007 - RegularEAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET SUBJECT: CU -10-06 — Conditional Use Approval for a Bank Facility With Drive -Un Service - Eagle River: February 13, 2007 NAME ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE Page 1 of H:ICOUNCILIAGENDAICCSIGNUP. WPD TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET SUBJECT: RZ-22-06 - Rezone from A-R to R-E-DA - John Johnston: LLC: February 13, 2007 ADDRESS/ TESTIFY NAME TELEPHONE YES/NO? PRO/CON /, ©7' 13- k X `f 2-e 0 r'�C�e�� _ g*- 7/05 C U.2.01.011 >� LL) CaaQ.212L 1 C9 30 —6E0 • (-int _ I Rre f� 1I Page 1 of 111COtJNCIL AGENDA\CCSIGNUP WPD EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET SUBJECT: A-15-06 & RZ-20-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RR to MU -DA for a Multi - Family Residential Condominium Housing Development - Orchards at Eagle, LLC: February 13, 2007 NAME ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE Page l of . H:ICOUNCILIAGENDAICCSIGNUP. WPD TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET SUBJECT: CU -11-06 - Conditional Use Approval for a Childcare and Elementary School Facility - Genesis One, LLC: February 13, 2007 NAME ADDRESS/ TESTIFY TELEPHONE YES/NO? PRO/CON Page 1 of . H:I000NCILIAGENDAICCS IGNUP. WPD EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET SUBJECT RZ-23-06 & A-17-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-E-DA - Dave Callister February 13, 2007 ADDRESS/ TESTIFY NAME TELEPHONE YES/NO? PRO/CON 72; C6-1 JZo� Ce f� 4 1/c - Page 1 of 111COUNCILIAGENDAICCSIGNUP WPD EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET .Resolution No. 07-03: An Emergency Moratorium of the City Of Eagle, County of Ada, State of Idaho, declaring an Emergency Moratorium for the period of one hundred eighty two (182) days; Stating the findings and reasons for a Moratorium; Prohibiting the filing of any application subject to the authority of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality requiring connection to Eagle Water Company during the time of the Moratorium period; Providing the scope of the Emergency Moratorium; Providing for the duration; Providing the severability clause; Declaration declaring the emergency. February 13, 2007 NAME ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE N__"%3__kNI-.c Rs A/ 7b.1- --zte &)1 v Weci TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON CSG Page 1 of 11.\COUNCIL\AGENDA\CCSIGNUP. WPD EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET .Resolution No. 07-03: An Emergency Moratorium of the City Of Eagle, County of Ada, State of Idaho, declaring an Emergency Moratorium for the period of one hundred eighty two (182) days; Stating the findings and reasons for a Moratorium; Prohibiting the filing of any application subject to the authority of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality requiring connection to Eagle Water Company during the time of the Moratorium period; Providing the scope of the Emergency Moratorium; Providing for the duration; Providing the severability clause; Declaration declaring the emergency. February 13, 2007 NAME ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE Page 1 of . H:\COUNCILWGENDA\CCS IGNUP. WPD TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET .Resolution No. 07-03: An Emergency Moratorium of the City Of Eagle, County of Ada, State of Idaho, declaring an Emergency Moratorium for the period of one hundred eighty two (182) days; Stating the findings and reasons for a Moratorium; Prohibiting the filing of any application subject to the authority of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality requiring connection to Eagle Water Company during the time of the Moratorium period; Providing the scope of the Emergency Moratorium; Providing for the duration; Providing the severability clause; Declaration declaring the emergency. February 13, 2007 NAME ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE Page l of . H:1000NCIL\AGENDA\CCSIGNUP. WPD TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON cc, a 1)?dO1 CITY OF EAGLE CITY OF EAGLE WELL #1 (LEXINGTON) -PROJECT STATUS REPORT FOR THE WEEK OF -02/12/07 Project number: EG120806 Location: West of N. Park Forrest Way and North of Floating Feather Rd. Project scope of work: A new standby generator at existing well #1 Funding Source: City of Eagle (DEQ Loan) accepted in Sept. 2006 Design and approval Engineer: Kasey Ketterling 50% Design schedule: Plans- April 1, 2007 Specifications- April 1, 2007 90% Design schedule: Final plans- May 2, 2007 Final specifications- May 2, 2007 Total estimated cost including engineering: $180,000 Submittal to DEQ: May 3, 2007 Final expected approval from DEQ: June 15, 2007(pending) Advertisement for bids date: June 29, 2007* Bid opening date: July 19, 2007* Approval by City Council date: July 24, 2007* Pre -construction conference: August 13, 2007* Start of construction date: August 20, 2007* End of construction date: October 19, 2007* *Subject to date of DEQ final approval Project function: Provides backup power in case of a power outage. CITY OF EAGLE CITY OF EAGLE WELL #5 (EAGLEFIELD) -PROJECT STATUS REPORT FOR THE WEEK OF -2/12/07 Project number: EG013305 Location: North of HWY 44, and west of Linder Rd. Funding Source: Developer 100% Water Rights status: A hearing was conducted on December 18, 2007. IDWR has requested the entire analysis be resubmitted in a written report format. Chris Duncan is preparing this report that is expected to be delivered to IDWR in Feb. of 2007. Landmark Consultants is the Engineer for the Developer (water distribution). Design and approval Engineer: Holladay Engineering Co. will provide the water supply design, which includes: site plan, well house, and pump. John B. is the designer and gives P.E. approval. Water modeling work: This work was started on Sept. 25, 2006. All preliminary work has been completed by Andy G. 10% Design schedule: Preliminary design- completed Sept. 2006 by John B. Map- completed in Oct. 2006 by John B. General plan- completed in Oct. 2006 by John B. Site acquired- Oct. 2006 Specifications list- prepared in Oct. 2006 by John B. 50% Design schedule: Design report- completed Nov. 1, 2006- John B. Soils report- received Nov. 1, 2006 Preliminary plans- completed Nov. 1, 2006- John B. Earthwork & road design: none required Preliminary specifications- completed Nov. 1, 2006- John B. 90% Design schedule: Final plans- Completed Dec. 18, 2006- John B. Final specifications -Completed Dec. 22, 2006- John B. Submittal to DEQ: Dec. 19, 2006 DEQ comments received: (pending) Final approval expected from DEQ: Feb. 23, 2007(pending) Advertisement for bids date: Feb. 23, 2007* Bid opening date: March 13, 2007* Approval by City Council date: March 20, 2007* Pre -construction conference: April 3, 2007* Start of construction date: April 16, 2007* End of construction date: June 25, 2007* *Subject to date of DEQ final approval Construction activity: None Project scope of work: well house pumps system connection Project function: Provides water for future residential areas on the west side of the city. Comments: • The future Legacy (well #4) and Eaglefield (well #5) wells will be hydraulically tied together to improve water capacity for this western region of the city. • A large diameter test well was constructed in the Eaglefield plat in the summer of 2006. This test well will be used as the permanent well #5. • On Oct. 12, 2006, Kasey K. sent a review letter to Landmark with comments. The revised plans were received back to Holladay Engineering Co. on Nov. 27, 2006. • A meeting was held with the Developer on Dec. 22 to go over DEQ submittal plans. • John B. has submitted design to HECO drafting department for their completion. • DEQ is currently reviewing their policy on QLPE Certification. They will be putting their interpretation for this in writing. Lc a/i31o> CITY OF EAGLE EAST SIDE (SPORTS PARK) RESERVOIR -PROJECT STATUS REPORT FOR THE WEEK OF -2/12/07 Project number: EG020505 Location: East of N. Horseshoe Bend Rd. Funding Source: City of Eagle (DEQ loan) accepted in Aug. 2006. Status of loan reservoir): Classification A. Administration B. Land, ROW C. Engineering D. Inspection E. Construction F. Miscellaneous G. Total funds and costs incurred (well #3, well #1 upgrade, and east Eligible Costs $95,500 $80,000 $159,000 $130,500 $2,085,000 $40,000 $2,590,000 H. Percentage complete Design Engineer: Tofor S. P.E. approval: Kasey K. Previous Periods $0 $75,750 $25,632 $6,262 $11,709 $8,325 $127,678 This Period Total $0 $0 $0 $75,750 $26,346 $51,978 $8,451 $14,713 $0 $11,709 $0 $8,325 $34,797 $162,475 6% Date of new easement acquired: Vern B. will be working on this with the City Attorney. Two easements will be required, one to surrender the old easement and one to acquire a new easement. The legal descriptions have been completed by Dean Coon. All information for this easement has been submitted to the City Attorney for processing. Water modeling work: This work was started on Sept. 20, 2006. Andy G. has now completed the modeling work for the reservoir as of Dec. 6, 2006. 10% Design schedule: Preliminary design -completed in Oct. 2006- Tofor S. Map- completed in Oct. 2006- Tofor S. General plan- completed in Oct. 2006- Tofor S. Specifications list- completed Nov. 15, 2006-Tofor S. 50% Design schedule: Design report -completed Dec. 1, 2006- Tofor S. Soils report- received Nov.6, 2006- GEO Preliminary plans -completed Dec. 1, 2006- Tofor S. Earthwork & road design- completed Nov. 6, 2006- Tofor S. and Mike Huffaker. Preliminary specifications- Completed Dec. 10, 2006- Tofor S. Application for permits- ACHD ROW permit application will be submitted by the contractor. 90% Design schedule: Final plans- due Feb. 22, 2007- Tofor S. Final specifications- due Feb. 22, 2007- Tofor S. Total estimated cost including engineering: $1,856,000 Submittal to DEQ: Feb. 23, 2006- Tofor S. Comments expected back from DEQ: April 2, 2007 Final expected approval from DEQ: April 13, 2007(pending) Ada County Landfill may need a water service line for a number of uses including a shooting range just north of the reservoir. An 8" line will be stubbed to the property line for this purpose. Size of tank: 1 million gallons, located on 3 acres. This tank will be 30 ft. tall but all or a large majority of it will be buried in the earth. Andy G. and Tofor S. will be designing a PRV station. This design will be completed by: Feb. 22, 2007 Advertisement for bids date: April 16, 2007.* Bid opening date: May 7, 2007.* Approval by City Council date: May 15, 2007.* Pre -construction conference: May 25, 2007.* Start of construction date: May 29, 2007.* End of construction date: Dec. 1, 2007.* *Subject to date of DEQ final approval and recording of new easement. Construction activity: None Project scope of work: reservoir system connection pry station Project function: Provides water and fire flow for future developments, and be able to maintain full time emergency service to the City system. Comments: • Ada County has given preliminary approval for the road layout location. • Reservoir drainage & overflow has been located in two swales above the skateboard area but outside the area for the Veledrome. • The road easement needs to be relocated based on slopes at the site. Fence enclosure not planned at this time due to buried tank design. ee 02/461 CITY OF EAGLE CITY OF EAGLE WELL #3 (BROOKWOOD) - PROJECT STATUS REPORT FOR THE WEEK OF -2112107 Project numbers: EG083706 Location: NE corner of Eagle Road and Floating Feather Rd. Interim Funding Source: Developer Mike Hormaechea. Final Funding Source: Developer 50% and a DEQ loan by the City for 50%. Status of loan funds and costs incurred (well #3, well #1 upgrade, east reservoir): Classification Eligible Costs Previous periods This Period Total A. Administration $95,500 $0 $0 $0 B. Land, ROW $80,000 $75,750 $0 $75,750 C. Engineering $159,000 $25,632 $26,346 $51,978 D. Inspection $130,500 $6,262 $8,451 $14,713 E. Construction $2,085,000 $11,709 $0 $11,709 F. Miscellaneous $40,000 $8,325 $0 $8,325 G. Total $2,590,000 $127,678 $34,797 $162,475 H. Percentage complete 6% Contractor for drilling well hole #3: Riverside -privately funded by developer. Start date of well #3 bore: November 13, 2006. Chris D. coordinated this work. Completion of well #3: Dec. 23, 2006. Pump test will take place February 20- 23, 2007. Design and approval Engineer for Well House and Pump Station: John B. Water modeling work: This work was started on Sept. 20, 2006. Andy G. has indicated that on Dec. 6, 2006 he was finished with the modeling work. He has printed out the pump and system curves for the well that John B. is completing. 10% Design schedule: Preliminary design- completed Oct. 2006 by John B. Map- completed in Oct. 2006 by John B. General plan- completed in Oct. 2006 by John B. Specifications list- prepared in Oct. 2006 by John B. 50% Design schedule: Design report- completed Nov. 7, 2006- John B. Soils report- none required Preliminary plans- completed Nov. 7, 2006- John B. Earthwork & road design: none required Preliminary specifications- draft done Nov. 7, 2006- John B. 90% Design schedule: Final plans- completed Dec. 23, 2006- John B. Final specifications- completed Dec. 23, 2006- John B. Total estimated cost including engineering: $554,000 Submittal to DEQ: Nov. 29, 2006 DEQ comments: Received on December 22, 2007 Addressed DEQ comments: Jan. 23, 2007 Final approval expected from DEQ: Feb. 28, 2007(pending) Advertisement for bids date: March 1, 2007* Bid opening date: March 20, 2007* Approval by City Council date: March 27, 2007* Pre -construction conference: April 12, 2007* Start of construction date: April 23, 2007* End of construction date: June 22, 2007* * Subject to date of DEQ final approval Construction activity: Well drilling work has been completed. Project scope of work: well construction well house pumps system connection Project function: Provides water for future Eagle Sports Reservoir, and surrounding municipal service area. Comments: • Well #3 pump test is scheduled for Feb. 20-23, 2007(depending on weather conditions). East Old Barn Rd. will have to be closed for 72 hours during this test. • Chase Mitigation is completed. • Mike Hormaechea was sent a copy of the plans and now understands what the size of the pump house will be. • No artesian well head will be constructed with the #3 well construction project. • Kasey K. has submitted the well house plans to Control Engineering so they can complete the electrical design. Completed plans are expected in February. • Mike Echeita will coordinate the road closure on East Old Barn Rd. for the pump test. &c a/ido� CITY OF EAGLE CITY OF EAGLE WELL #4 (LEGACY) -PROJECT STATUS REPORT FOR THE WEEK OF -2/12/07 Project number: EG061204 Location: ' mile north of HWY 44, between HWY 16 and Linder Rd. Funding Source: Developer 100% Water Rights status: A hearing was conducted on December 18, 2007. IDWR has requested the entire analysis be resubmitted in a written report format. Chris Duncan is preparing this report that is expected to be delivered to IDWR in Feb. of 2007. Stanley Consultants are the Engineers for the Developer (water distribution). Design and approval Engineer: Holladay Engineering Co. will provide the water supply design, which includes: site plan, well house, and pump. John B. is the designer and gives P.E. approval. Water modeling work: This work was started on Sept. 25, 2006. All preliminary work has been completed by Andy G. 10% Design schedule: Preliminary design- completed Sept. 2006 by John B. Map- completed in Oct. 2006 by John B. General plan- completed in Oct. 2006 by John B. Site acquired- in Oct. 2006 Specifications list- prepared in Oct. 2006 by John B. 50% Design schedule: Design report- completed Nov. 1, 2006- John B. Soils report- received Nov. 1, 2006 Preliminary plans- completed Nov. 1, 2006- John B. Earthwork & road design: none required Preliminary specifications- completed Nov. 1, 2006- John B. 90% Design schedule: Final plans- completed on Dec. 18, 2007- John B. Final specifications -completed on Dec. 18, 2007- John B. Submittal to DEQ: Dec.22, 2006 DEQ comments received: (pending) Final approval from DEQ: Feb.23, 2007(pending) Advertisement for bids date: March 12, 2007* Bid opening date: April 13, 2007* Approval by City Council date: April 23, 2007* Pre -construction conference: May 3, 2007* Start of construction date: May 16, 2007* End of construction date: July 25, 2007* *Subject to date of DEQ final approval Construction activity: None Project scope of work: well house pumps system connection Project function: Provides water for future residential areas on the west side of the city. Comments: • The future Legacy (well #4) and Eaglefield (well #5) wells will be hydraulically tied together to provide adequate initial water for this western region of the city. • A large diameter test well was constructed in the Legacy plat in the summer of 2006. This test well will be used as the permanent well #4. • Holladay Engineering Co. received the final water distribution plans from Stanley Consultants on Jan. 16, 2007, so the final plan reviewing can now be completed by Kasey. • DEQ is currently reviewing their policy on QLPE Certification. DEQ will be writing an interpretation of this policy. Cc cakVo INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning Administration To: From: Subject: Date: Attachment(s): Copy To: Mayor Merrill and City Council Nichoel Baird Spencer I.�1PDS— Ada County Foothills Sub -area Plan February 13, 2007 N/A Bill Vaughan, Susan Buxton On September 26, 2006 the City received a transmittal for a draft Ada County Comprehensive Plan and Foothills Sub -area Plan requesting comments. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the plan and provided comments to the plan that are included. On January 31, 2007 Ada County Development Services released a revision to the document providing further clarifications. The comments below are inclusive of both the September 2006 and January 2007 drafts: Ada County Comprehensive Plan: 1. After reviewing the provided plans the City of Eagle have serious concerns about the placement of Planned Communities outside of Areas of Impact and the proposed densities in the north foothills which are remotely located away from basic services found in municipal boundaries. Since 2004, the County has been a participant in the Blueprint for Good Growth process that encourages Planned Communities to be developed in cities and Areas of Impact (as stated in Chapter 5, page 8-9). Throughout the current Ada County Comprehensive Plan update process the same encouragement of developing Planned Communities within cities and Impact Areas has been voiced from the citizens and the Steering Committee. 2. The recent revisions further water down the intent and commitments of the County to the BPGG process to limit development in the unincorporated area of the county. Focusing development into areas of city of impact. 3. The Ada County Comprehensive Plan overall statement regarding Planned Communities state that they must demonstrate the ability to fund and operate the community's utilities and services and are to be self supporting so as to not be subsidized by residents living outside the community. The remaining goals and policies stated within the plan steer Planned Communities toward being completely self-supporting communities. With this in mind, the City has still concerns about the overall accumulative impacts these proposed communities will have on Eagle and the surrounding cities. Each future proposed Planned Community might be able to show on paper how they will be self supporting in the future, but the total build out of a Planned Community usually takes between 10 and 20 years, sometimes even longer. Therefore, the cities will be greatly impacted until build Page 1 of 5 K\PIsra iag Dept%Ada County Applatiom1CPA120061200000255 cpa memo.doc out is achieved, as is evident with the existing Hidden Springs Planned Community. The plan should eliminate Planned Communities from being developed outside the Areas of Impact, urban and urban type developments should be located within municipalities as stated in Idaho Code 67- 6502(f ), or place limits on the overall number of permits based on the availability of existing schools, employment, commercial opportunities, public services, and transportation systems in the immediate area until new ones are built or improvements are made to support the Planned Community. The proposed plan does not state the timing of when the proposed communities utilities and services, including improvements of existing transportation systems, need to be in place to achieve self-sufficiency. 4. Within Chapter 5, please clarify if this is the entire county or just the unincorporated county. Should a Table 5.1 of the area of the county within the municipalities be included? 5. Within Chapter 5, page 8, the City encourages the plan top reference the Idaho Code Section in case it changes, this will allow the document to remain current longer. 6. The City would encourage limiting County approved development (keep Rural Zones) within the Areas of Impact so that this extraordinary development does not hinder the ability to grow or annex within the Areas of Impact in the future. 7. The City strongly encourages that all development approved by Ada County in the Areas of Impact use land use, zoning, and subdivision standards that mirror those within the parent city in which the development is occurring. Also, all development within the Areas of Impact that is contiguous or within a five year OP should be required to develop within the City. Both Policy 5.2-19 and Policy 5.2-2 should have the same criteria. In general the County should direct the Cities to come to an agreement about common boundaries throughout the County. 8. On page 23 of Chapter 5, the plan allows for industrial uses in rural areas. The plan should discourage the location of commercial and industrial within rural areas due to the lack of infrastructure, fire, police, etc. 9. Table 7.1, found in Chapter 7, is inaccurate and the City encourages that updates be made to it. The City has attached its City of Eagle Services Area for water. In regards to table 7.3, please incorporate the City of Eagles officers and staff support which is contracted through the Ada County. The city has 15 officers and 2 support staff for a total of 17. 10. Within Chapter 8 (Public Land Ownership Regional Park Priorities Outside Areas of Impact), please note that Eagle Island State Park has been in the Eagle area for over 20 years and the City is currently in the process of annexation of the park. Please remove it from the map. North Foothills Sub -Area Plan Comments 1. The North Foothills Sub -Area Plan also allows for Planned Community as a development option. The development of any proposed Planned Community in the north foothills will drastically impact the City of Eagle. Due to the north foothills close proximity to the City, the plan should state that Planned Communities should not be developed outside of Areas of Impact. The plan should explicitly state that Planned Communities should be developed within municipal boundaries. Further, the plan should state any type of development with a density more than the current (1 per 10 acres — RR and 1 per 40 acres - RP) should be located within municipal boundaries. 2. On pages 31to 34, the plans shows the entire planning area divided up into four sub -areas. Each area has been identified with environmental constraints and assessed with an average gross density per area. To better understand the impacts of the densities will have on the City, the plan should Page 2 of 5 K:1Phnning Dept\Ada County Apptications1CPA12006\200600255 cpa memo.doc state in detail how the densities for each sub -area were arrived at and the maximum unit by sub- area. 3. The North Foothills Sub -Area Plan incorporates an environmental constraints -based approach to development in the north foothills. Detailed maps including Drainage (watercourses, floodways, floodplains, wetlands/riparian areas), Soils/Bedrock, Landforms (rock outcrops, ridges, peaks, and unstable slopes), Slope Analysis, View sheds, Wild Life Habitat, Vegetation, and Archeological should be refined and adopted with this plan. 4. The North Foothills Sub -Area Plan discusses the use of standards and design guidelines to minimize development impacts. These standards and design guidelines should be incorporated into a North Foothills Ordinance which would protect hillsides/ridgelines, view sheds, creates more natural open space areas, minimizes disturbance to environmentally sensitive areas, and protects natural drainage ways. The standards and design guidelines should be established and adopted with the plan to better understand how development will impact the area and to limit development applications prior to the implementation of the plan. Being the northern backdrop of the City of Eagle, the City needs to be ensured that development in the area has the least amount of impact to protect the existing environment. 5. On page 36 of the North Foothills Sub -Area Plan, it indicates that one of the most appropriate development patterns within the north foothills planning area is clustering. The City agrees that in some areas this is a better development method to protect the natural environment and preserve more open space, but a Cluster Subdivision ordinance to replace the existing Non -Farm Subdivision ordinance should be drafted and adopted with this plan to ensure that development is consistent with the North Foothills Sub- Plan goals and objectives. 6. On of the short term measures on page 4 of the plan states one way to minimize development in sensitive areas and increased dedicated open space is through density bonuses and other means of transferring density. The plan should indicate in detail how the bonus system would work and what areas are eligible to transfer and receive density. Since the overall plan increases the base density within the area is additional base density increases required or proposed? 7. Though the January revisions places an overall 20 -year development expectation of 12,000 units for the Foothills area located west of Highway 55 to Can -Ada Road how does this number differ from build -out? How will these densities be limited? Where will activity centers be developed within the planning area? What infrastructure is required to support the increase in the base density from 5,000 units to 12,000? 8. Currently, ACI -ID is in the planning process of creating a transportation system in the north foothills, calling it the Northwest Foothills Transportation Plan. At this time, the process has not been completed. Part of the process includes estimating and establishing extraordinary impact fees due to existing infrastructure being insufficient to serve the densities proposed within the North Foothills Sub -Area Plan. The City is concerned about the North Foothills Sub -Area Plan being adopted and new development occurring in the foothills causing impacts to the existing streets prior to ACHD adopting their plan. Therefore, the City requests that the County incorporate the Northwest Foothills Transportation Plan recommendations prior to adopting the North Foothills Sub -Area Plan. 9. One of the objectives of the North Foothills Sub -Area Plan is to have a connected network of open space. BLM manages approximately 11% of the gross land area in the North Foothills area and have indicated that they would be amendable in allowing the lands to be used as recreational open space. The goals and objectives provided by BLM for these parcels of land and the methods available to acquire the land should be placed in the plan. Page 3 of 5 K KI:mis=g DcptMAda County ppiiatic c PA12006120060025S cpa mcmo.doc 10. It is agreed that a detailed evaluation of potential water sources would be needed to facilitate future development. The North Foothills Sub -Area Plan indicates three approaches to secure water; 1) Continue to use wells and existing aquifers, 2) Annex to allow service to an adjacent municipal water service provider (e.g. the City of Eagle), 3) Provide water from another water service agency (e.g. United Water). Larger developments would have the resources to conduct the evaluation of finding potential water sources to serve the development and could connect to an existing system. Smaller developments or individual parcels probably do not have the resources to do this. To minimize the amount of new wells in the area which impacts the water supply for existing residents, therefore, the plan should address the minimum size of lots and maximum size of developments that could be serviced through wells. 11. It is also agreed that a detailed evaluation of potential wastewater treatment facilities would be needed to facilitate future development. The North Foothills Sub -Area Plan indicates four approaches to dispose of wastewater: 1) Septic Systems, 2) Annex to allow service to an adjacent municipal wastewater service provider (e.g. the City of Eagle), 3) Provide wastewater treatment from another wastewater service agency (e.g. Eagle Sewer District), 4) Use central Community Treatment systems. The plan states that "lot sizes required for septic systems in this area could vary significantly, anywhere from one-half acre to ten acres depending on soil and other specific site conditions". The Central Health Department requires a minimum of two acre lots in order to apply for a septic system permit. The County should incorporate the Central Health Department requirements into the plan. It should also be noted that the City of Eagle does not operate its own wastewater system. The City works with the Eagle Sewer District to provide for all its wastewater needs with the City municipal boundaries. The City is also concerned with the long term maintenance of a Community/Package treatment facility. The plan should state that the system be maintained by a licensed professional, such as a sewer district. Park and Open Space Master Plan Comments 1. The Park and Open Space Master Plan indicate that Ada County will not be involved in the acquisition, development, and maintenance of local parks (e.g. Mini -Parks, Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, and Large Urban Parks). The plan states that these types of parks may be accepted by the County through the development of Planned Communities. What happens if Planned Communities are not a development option outside of Areas of Impact? It appears that there are no other options for the County to develop these types of parks. The plan should indicate other options for the development of these types of parks outside of Areas of Impact. Otherwise, the county residents will be forced to use the Mini -Parks, Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, and Large Urban Parks found with the cities. 2. The Comprehensive Plan and Parks and Open Space Master Plan states minimum standards, including guidelines, for the preservation of natural open space for various types of residential communities and Planned Communities based on environmental sensitivity. They indicate that the guidelines will be reviewed on a project -by project basis. The county residents, as well as the City, have goals not limited to establishing larger areas of open space, better connectivity of open space between adjacent projects or other managed open spaces such as county, state or federals land, open space buffers between land uses, and trial connectivity. The plan should establish base guidelines up front to meet the county resident's goals instead of on a project -by project basis. General Comments: 1. Overall the City is concerned with the lack of detail within both plans. The Comprehensive Plan advocate for planned communities but without predictability as to location, regional open space and transportation planning the result may be a series of discontinuous subdivisions that may or may not in a twenty year planning horizon become self—supporting. Page 4 of 5 K:1Planning DcptlAda County Applications1CPA120061200600255 cpa memo.doc 2. The Comprehensive Plan seems to lack a clear vision for what Ada County will look like in 20 - years. Additional detail should be provided as to a comprehensive open space plan, areas that are suitable for development and areas that should remain rural. 3. The format of the plan is awkward. The plan is formatted similar to and environmental impact statement establishing options and disclaimers. Extra language and options should be removed so that there is a clear long-range vision for the county and predictability is provided for citizens and other jurisdictions. 4. The City would encourage that a complete draft including current copies of all exhibits and maps be sent to the City for review prior to additional public hearings and action on this application. Page 5 of 5 K:1Planning Dept\Ada County Applications\CPA120061200600255 cpa mcmo.doc Thomas G. Dater, CLU Business and Personal Insurance 1109 West Myrtle, Suite 300 Boise, ID 83702 Bus. 208 343-4648 Fax 208 342-4136 February 12, 2007 To: Mayor Nancy Merrill cc: Council Members Phil Bandy Stan Bastian Steve Guerber Scott Norstrom Subject: The LOFTS From: Tom Dater Cc: 61j 1,310 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE. FEB 13 2007 File: Route to• It has come to my attention that legal approval of the LOFTS project may be rescinded by the city council. I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding how a development project which was properly publicized, complied with established development procedures, was approved by the city council can now be considered for retraction. I live at 827 E Riverside in Eagle, on the west end of the LOFTS development. As one of the few people directly affected by the project, I fully support the design and more importantly, the value added to Eagle by providing moderately priced housing. Because of the council's approval of the LOFTS, contracts have been ratified between myself and the developers. A change in the council's position is a confiscation of the value placed on my property and would necessitate compensation from the city of Eagle. The potential loss is significant, running into several million dollars. In addition, I would request reimbursement for all fees associated with any litigation. At this point I am requesting a clarification as to the legality of changing your decision. City council had a quorum, heard testimony, public notice was given, and the project has been approved. Something is not morally right in considering any change. I would appreciate your clarification. Respectfully submitted, Thomas G. Dater TGD:dbs ,.T) g.F.v3r; j. •-•");1-! ji flii ;ifJ 1 :; 13ft! ,v) Li:-.1'tlf ijf.;;Tlici;;-1. i_;C: ; in 1 t.) ;;, tigilLE.11!) 11`5 iffit") 7..;(!! ..s; prIL; 1?!;:i V • W.H. DAVISON (1878-1964) FRANK DAVISON (1907-1984) R.H. COPPLE (1919-1995) E DON COPPLE TERRY C. COPPLE JON R. COX HEATHER A. CUNNINGHAM' JAY GUSTAVSEN ED GUERRICABEITIA CYNTHIA YEE-WALLACE City of Eagle c/o Susan Buxton 950 W. Bannock, 5th Fl. Boise, Idaho 83702 RE: The Lofts Dear Mrs. Buxton: DAVISON, COPPLE, COPPLE & COX, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 600 199 N. Capitol Blvd. BOISE, IDAHO February 8, 2007 r 66 a//3/a 5 / TELEPHONE (208) 342-3658 FAX (208) 386-9428 ,. oothttp:/lwww.davisoncopple.com MAILING ADDRESS P.Q. BOX 1583 C OSEAGLE practice in Oregon FEB 13 2007 &j.‘ File: iree FEB 8 - 2007 MSB&T,CTD. Mayor/ City Council City Clerk P&ZDept. V LA' Bldg. Dept Attomey.__- Engineer Upon further review of our correspondence dated February 2, 2007, we failed to emphasize two significant issues which we believe the City Council should strongly consider before it makes its decision on Ms. Lynne Sedlacek's request for a reconsideration of the City Council's approval of The Lofts' conditional use permit. First and foremost, now that the Eagle City Council has approved The Lofts application, the developers have a vested right to move forward as approved. The Idaho Supreme Court has consistently held that an applicants rights are determined by the ordinance in existence at the time of filing an application. Once the applicant has complied with the all the requirements under the zoning ordinances, his rights are vested. South Fork Coalition v. Bd of Com'rs of Bonneville County, 117 Idaho 857, 792 P.2d 882 (1990) and Payette River Property Owners Assoc. v. Bd. of Com'rs of Valley County, 132 Idaho 551, 976 P.2d 477 (1999). In Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, 92 Idaho 595, 448 P.2d 209 (1968) and Ready -To -Pour Inc. v. McCoy, 95 Idaho 510, 511 P.2d 792 (1973), the Idaho Supreme Court held that a subsequently enacted or pending ordinance could not be given retroactive effect to an application filed under the former ordinance. The Court's rationale for its holding was that a City could withhold action on the application in order to change or enact a zoning law to defeat the application, thus giving immediate effect to a future or prosed ordinance before that ordinance was properly enacted by procedure. Although Ben Lomond nor Ready -To -Pour are not directly on point, the Court's reasoning and rationale is applicable to the present facts wherein the City Council approved The Lofts requests, which is final, and now the Council is second guessing its approval after the developers have incurred substantial expense in reliance thereof. The Eagle City zoning a Letter to Mrs. Buxton February 8, 2007 Page 2 of 3 ordinances provide no procedural mechanism authorizing the City Council to reconsider a prior approval. If the City of Eagle grants Ms. Sedlacek's request for which the City has no authority under its zoning ordinances to grant then its actions are no different than what the Idaho Supreme Court holdings in the cases referenced above intended to prohibit governing authorities from doing. The City cannot simply take back its approval for which was lawfully given. The second issue that should be considered by the City is whether, in fact, Ms. Sedlacek's constitutional right of procedural due process was allegedly violated. In Gay v. County Com 'rs of Bonneville County, 103 Idaho 626, 651 P.2d 560 (App.1982), the Idaho Court of Appeals addressed the concept and applicable standards to the constitutional right of procedural due process secured by both the United States and Idaho Constitutions in a zoning proceeding. The Court of Appeals noted that adjoining landowners, who are "affected persons" under Idaho Code § 67-6521, had a property interest entitling to due process protection. The Court quoted the United States Supreme Court's analysis of procedural due process noting that three factors had to be considered: 1) the private interest that would be affected by the official action; 2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probative value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards and 3) the Government's interest. Citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902-03 (1976). Under the facts of this matter, all notice requirements as set forth by the Eagle City ordinance were met and complied with. Per the city ordinance, the City sent out written notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. Secondly, legal notice was provided and published through the City newspaper. And finally, two (2) public hearing notices were placed on the property per the code. Ms. Sedlacek does not own property within 300 feet from the subject property, but rather, her property is over 7,000 feet.from the subject. Ms. Sedlacek's objection to the proposed development concerns the height restriction imposed by the ordinance for which the City Council has the discretion to amend to a particular project under the conditional use application which it did and approved. In essence, Ms. Sedlacek's objection to this proposed development is one of a general grievance suffered by all and not a specialized or particular injury suffered by her, thus she has no standing to challenge the City's approval. Young v. City of Ketchum, 137 Idaho 102, 44 P.3d 1157 (2002). Ms. Sedlacek's contention fails to satisfy even the first factor adopted by the United States Supreme Court and Idaho appellate courts in that she has no private interest other than a general grievance to the City's action of approving the CUP permit. Also, she fails to demonstrate how she is an affected person which is defined as a person having interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of a permit. Idaho Code ag- ,?d6 , c(goi:h ick Ipt))p How is her interest in her real property adversely affected ATTORNEYS AT LAW BOISE, IDAHO Letter to Mrs. Buxton February 8, 2007 Page 3 of 3 by the City's approval when she is over 7,000 feet (approximately a mile and a half) away from the subject property? Secondly, she fails to meet the second factor for consideration in that she, in fact, has a procedural safeguard under LLUPA to appeal the Council's decision, assuming that she could satisfy the standing requirement and demonstrate that her substantial rights have been prejudiced. Young v. City of Ketchum, supra. and Idaho Code § 67-5279(4). Currently, the developers have entered into contractual agreements in excess of 1.4 million dollars and have expended over $200,000 in costs in reliance of the City Council's approval. Needless to say, in light of the substantial investment the developers have incurred, they will not sit idly should the City decision to grant Ms. Sedlacek's request and will proceed immediately into Court for redress. Be advised that Idaho Code § 12-117 mandates that the Court award attorney fees against a government entity if the developer should prevail and the government's actions were without a reasonable basis in fact or law. Based upon the case authority provided herein, we believe there is strong likelihood that the Court would award attorneys fees should the City reconsider its approval. We strongly encourage the City to consider the legal and financial effect its decision to reconsider its prior approval may impose upon it. If you have questions regarding this matter, we would be happy discuss them in detail with you. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, DAVISON, COPPLE, COPPLE & COX Ed Guerricabeitia, of the firm DAVISON, COPPLE, COPPLE & Cox, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW BOISE, IDAHO City of Eagle Estimated Franchise Fees Available for Future Underground Conversion of Distribution Lines Franchise Fees Collected 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total 20061 66,842.72 I 59,394.66 1 82,905.42 1 55,578.37 1 264,721.17 N Estimated Available Funds For Underground Conversions Assuming 3% growth 2006 $ 176,489.60 (66.67% of $264,721.17) 2007 $ 181,784.29 2008 $ 187,237.82 2009 $ 192,854.96 2010 $ 198,640.60 2007 through 2010 Existing Credit beginning 2007 Total available through the end of the agreement $ 760,517.67 $ 53,436.60 $ 813,954.27 CG 41316 4- Pear earl - Source C ,_//:* 1 ' Idaho Power Plans for NW Ada County Foothills Planning Area Existing Distribution Substation • ; • Future Distribution Substation • Future Hub Substations Future_Source_Substations iiTiiId Out 138 kV —Future 500kVTransmission Future 230kVTransmission —Existing 138kVTransmission Existing 230kVTransmission .t• , . P -11,1-•'-',11E101 HOPE ,RICE ;17: --..t • t4 -;i-,-,--4. ii3"—• ' ,..z • . . . r.0 s• fl 1.1 I-- •_. t .13 ASCO . JOPLIN • %31xx ' . , _ j.. ' Lis HWY 20 1 CHI !WE N US HIV.Y1,26 - ••AC _ U „ • ' e ILY co • 7 •1/4 r- TS 0 Er• 0 4, ',FAIIADIS E