Loading...
Minutes - 2023 - City Council - 09/26/2023 - Regular EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES September 26,2023 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Pierce calls the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: GINDLESPERGER, PIKE, BAUN, RUSSELL. A quorum is present. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pierce leads the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. ADDITIONS,DELETIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA: None 5. REPORTS: A. Mayor and Council: Gindlesperger provides an update on the Library Board Meeting and states the Friends of the Library Sale will be occurring on October 13 and October 14. B. Department Supervisor: 1.City Treasurer, Financial Reports for August 2023. (KR) August 2023 Monthly Financial Statement C. Eagle Police Department:No report D. City Attorney:No report 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 1: This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding concerns or comments they would like to provide to the City Council regarding subjects not on the agenda. At times,the City Council may seek comments/opinions regarding specific City matters during this allotted time.This is not the time slot to give formal testimony on a public hearing matter, land use application,or comment on a pending application or proposal. Out of courtesy for all who wish to speak, the City Council requests each speaker limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Burk Mantel, 4690 North Hartley Road, Eagle, Idaho. Mantel states that a public hearing item description on the agenda is inaccurate. Mayor Pierce states this is not the time to discuss Public Hearing items. Tim Muirfield, 4795 North Hartley, Eagle, Idaho. Muirfield expresses concern about the three recent fires within the foothills. He urges Council to reconsider the amount of policing and fire protection needed within the community. 7. ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ARE CONSIDERED ACTION ITEMS: 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 Mayor, a Councilmember, 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 City Council. • Any item on the Consent Agenda which contains written Conditions of Approval from the City of Eagle City Staff, Planning& Zoning Commission, or Design Review Board shall be adopted as part of the City Council's Consent Agenda approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise. A. Claims Against the City. Page 1 C:\Users\hcsencsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23mi n.docx B. Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation: A proclamation for the City of Eagle declaring October 2023 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the City of Eagle,Idaho.(JWP) C. Canal Crossing Agreement Between Drainage District No.2 and the City of Eagle: Canal Crossing Agreement between the Drainage District No. 2 and the City of Eagle to install a conduit and fiber optic cables across and over a drain located on the east side of East Hill Road. (ELZ) D. Fiscal Year 2024 Valley Regional Transit Cooperative Agreement:Authorizing the City to fund Valley Regional Transit(VRT)for services in Fiscal Year 2024 in an amount not to exceed $129,162.00. (NBS) E. Joint Powers Subscriber Agreement Between Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP)and the City of Eagle for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.Council authorization for the Mayor to execute the Joint Subscriber Agreement between ICRMP and the City of Eagle.(TEO) F. A Subscription Agreement Between the City of Eagle and the Patron Point : A Subscription Agreement between the City of Eagle and Patron Point, a provider of digital marketing tools for the Eagle Public Library, to renew the annual subscription through September 30, 2024 in the amount of$9,826.25.(SJB) G. Permanent Pathway Easement Agreement Between the City of Eagle and Endurance Holdings, LLC, for a Public Pathway within Beaconwood Subdivision No. 1: Endurance Holdings, LLC is requesting approval of a permanent pathway easement agreement for the public pathway located within Beaconwood Subdivision No. 1. The 37.34-acre site is located on the southeast corner of West Beacon Light Road and North Lanewood Road.(MJW) H. Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Eagle and Ada County Sheriffs Office Relating to Law Enforcement Services for Fiscal Year 2023-2024: Council approval and authorization for the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of Eagle and the Ada County Sheriffs Office in an amount not to exceed $4,536,646 for fiscal year 2023-2024 for law enforcement services. (JP) I. Prosecution Services Agreement Fiscal Year 2023-2024:Council approval and authorization of the Mayor to execute an agreement between Ada County,the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and the City of Eagle relating to prosecution services for fiscal year 2023-2024,in an amount not to exceed$128,958.36. (JP) J. Intergovernmental Agreement between the Idaho Transportation Department(ITD)and the City of Eagle:An intergovernmental agreement between the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) and the City of Eagle for the collection of proportionate share fee payment from Avimor Development LLC and First American Title Insurance Company. (VV) K. Agreement for Building Inspector Services Between the City of Eagle and Rick Wenick: Agreement for Building Inspector Services Between the City of Eagle and Rick Wenick to provide building inspector services for the Building Department.The fee payable to the contractor shall not exceed$18.00 per inspection and forty(40%)of any re-inspection fees collected. (SJN) L. Agreement for Mechanical Inspector Services Between the City of Eagle and RIMI,INC.: An Agreement for Mechanical Inspector Services between the City of Eagle and RIMI, Inc. to provide mechanical inspection services for the City of Eagle Building Department. The Contractor shall receive 60%of the permit fees collected and 25%of the plan review fees collected. (SJN) M. Agreement for Electrical Inspector Services Between the City of Eagle and Electrical Controls and Instrumentation, LLC.: An Agreement for Electrical Inspector Services between the City of Eagle and Electrical Controls and Instrumentation,LLC to provide electrical inspection services for the City of Eagle Building Department.The Contractor shall receive 60%of the permit fees collected. (SJN) N. Agreement for Plumbing Inspector Services Between the City of Eagle and John Stocke, Inspect LLC:An Agreement for Plumbing Inspector Services between the City of Eagle and John Stocke, Inspect LLC to provide plumbing inspection services for the Building Department. The Contractor shall receive 60%of the permit fees collected. (SJN) O. Eagle Arts Advisory Committee Grant Funding Approval: The Eagle Arts Advisory Committee is seeking Council approval to award the Eagle Jazz Festival a grant not to exceed $4,000.00 This is a budgeted amount.(BLA) Page 2 C:\Users\hcse ncsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23mi n.docx P. Eagle Arts Advisory Committee Grant Funding Approval: The Eagle Arts Advisory Committee is seeking Council approval to award the Eagle Plein Air Festival a grant not to exceed $2500.00. This is a budgeted amount. (BLA) Q. Eagle Arts Advisory Committee Grant Funding Approval: The Eagle Arts Advisory Committee is seeking Council approval to award the Eagle Marching Clinic and Competition a grant not to exceed $4,500.00. This is a budgeted amount. (BLA) R. Eagle Arts Advisory Committee Grant Funding Approval: The Eagle Arts Advisory Committee is seeking Council approval to award the Eagle Art Walk a grant not to exceed$500.00. This is a budgeted amount.(BLA) S. Eagle Arts Advisory Committee Grant Funding Approval: The Eagle Arts Advisory Committee is seeking Council approval to award the Summer Concerts At The Chateau a grant not to exceed$3500.00. This is a budgeted amount. (BLA) T. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Approval of the FPUD-03-23 & FP-03- 23 - Final Development Plan and Final Plat for Beaconwood Subdivision No. 1 - Trilogy Development: Trilogy Development, represented by Matt Price from J-U-B Engineers, is requesting final development plan and final plat approvals for Beaconwood Subdivision No. 1, a 77-lot (72-buildable, 5-common), residential subdivision. The 37.34-acre site is located on the southeast corner of West Beacon Light Road and North Lanewood Road. (MJR) U. FPUD-02-23 & FP-06-23 — Final Development Plan and Final Plat for Shingle Creek Subdivision— Mike Cook, represented by Kent Adamson: Mike Cook, represented by Kent Adamson, P.E., with RiveRidge Engineering Company is requesting final development plan and final plat approvals for Shingle Creek Subdivision, a 12-lot (9-buildable, 3-common), residential subdivision.The 4.41-acre site is located on the north side of State Highway 44 approximately 400- feet west of the intersection of West State Street and State Highway 44 at 2500 West State Street. (MJW) V. FPUD-06-23 & FP-09-23 — Final Development Plan and Final Plat for Benari Estates Subdivision No. 2—Eagle 1,LLC, represented by Laren Bailey: Eagle 1,LLC,represented by Laren Bailey, is requesting final development plan and final plat approvals for Benari Estates Subdivision No. 1,a 49-lot(39-buildable, 10-common),residential subdivision.The 19.21-acre site is located on the northeast corner of West State Street and North Ballantyne Lane at 1770 West State Street.(MJW) W. Development Agreement for RZ-08-22—Benari Estates Subdivision—G20,LLC: Council authorization for Mayor to execute the development agreement associated with the rezone from A (Agricultural) to R-3-DA-P (Residential with a development agreement—PUD). The 35.29-acre site is located at the northeast corner of West State Street and North Ballantyne Lane at 1770 West State Street. (MJW) X. Development Agreement for RZ-12-22 — Tierpointe Subdivision — Todd S. and Patti A. Henderson: Council authorization for Mayor to execute the development agreement associated with the rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to a R-6-DA (Residential with a development agreement). The 16.01-acre site is located on the north side of State Highway 44 approximately 0.6-mile west of the intersection of State Highway 44 and North Linder Road.(MJW) Y. Development Agreement for RZ-02-20 MOD — Linder Senior Apartments — Intermountain Pacific, LLC: Council authorization for Mayor to execute the development agreement associated with the rezone development agreement modification for Intermountain Pacific,LLC.The 10.44-acres site is located on the east side of North Linder Road approximately 90-feet south of the intersection of West Temple Drive and North Linder Road at 6910 and 6940 North Linder Road. (MJW) Z. First Amended and Restated District Development Agreement for Avimor Community Infrastructure District(CID) No. 1 by and Among City of Eagle, Idaho and Avimor Community Infrastructure No. 1 and Avimor Development LLC and Avimor Partners LLC and Spring Valley Livestock Company Inc and First American Title Insurance Company: Page 3 C:\Users\hcse ncsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23min.docx Council authorization for the Mayor to execute the development agreement associated with the first amended and restated Avimor Community CID No. 1. (CDM&VV) AA. Precision Pumping Systems: Authorization for the purchase of an irrigation pump for Pamela Baker Park in an amount not to exceed$67,075. (ELZ) AB. Northwest Data Exchange (NWDE) Subscription: Staff is requesting Council authorization for the use of ARPA funds and the approval of the subscription to the NWDE for 2023-2024,in an amount not to exceed$2,500.The subscription rate remains the same as for fiscal year 2022-2023.(TEO) AC. AmeriBen Human Resource Consulting Membership Agreement: Staff is requesting Council authorization for the use of ARPA funds and the approval of an agreement between the City of Eagle and AmeriBen Human Resource Consulting for a 12-month membership, in an amount not to exceed$2,000.00. (TEO) AD. Approval of Idaho Power Quote for power service for irrigation pump service at Pamela Baker Park. Staff is seeking Council approval of the Idaho Power quote of$18,422 for electrical service for the irrigation pump at Pamela Baker Park, and $ 1,131 for the engineering fees for the same and authorization of the Mayor to execute the notice to proceed. (EZ/NBS) AE.Request Continuation of ARPA Funding for Digital Marketing: Staff is seeking Council approval to continue to use ARPA funds for the services of Social Eyes Marketing,LLC. a digital marketing company, to continue their work of digital marketing materials and placement of the same online and on social media platforms.The requested amount shall not exceed$24,000.(JWP) Mayor Pierce introduces the item. Baun requests removing item 7H from the Consent Agenda. Pike moves to approve consent agenda items A-AE excluding item H. Seconded by Russell. GINDLESPERGER-AYE; PIKE-AYE; BAUN-AYE; RUSSELL-AYE. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. H. Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Eagle and Ada County Sheriff's Office Relating to Law Enforcement Services for Fiscal Year 2023-2024: Council approval and authorization for the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of Eagle and the Ada County Sheriffs Office in an amount not to exceed $4,536,646 for fiscal year 2023-2024 for law enforcement services. (JP) Baun wants to make sure that the Public is aware of what has been identified as part of the budget including the $500,000 as well as two deputies and the Tahoe component. It was said that the contract was not going to happen, and they have continuously said from day 1 that they have been working on this. Some of the political stuff in the public has had an adverse impact on this. We as Council direct the mayor to work with the Sherriff's Office. Some of the things got in the way of that and sideswiped it. Pike states that he is happy to have the opportunity to work towards the increase of police staffing. There is still a deficiency in our staffing levels of 25.The$503,000 has to come from the emergency reserves and questions where the remainder will come from. There has been no discussion regarding the additional deputies coming on board. Both Star and Kuna are also contracting cities and they have taken a positive and proactive approach to bring their levels up. Baun states there was significant discussion regarding this matter. Pike states that the question at hand is where we are getting the money for the additional deputies. Page 4 C:\Users\hcse ncsits\Des ktop\CC-09-26-23mi n.docx Mayor states that the decision will be made by the Council. There is $128,000 that Avimor has decided to give to the City during the annexation process. The Council needs to look where the priorities are and move some around to get the extra officers added. Gindlesperger agrees with Baun that unfortunately this was made public. There were follow-up replies that were not made public to support the initial outing of the Chiefs email to Council. It hindered the ability for the Mayor to maintain a proper contract and the ability to present to the Council and it did not offer the best negotiations for the residents of Eagle. Gindlesperger greatly appreciates the contract that includes the additional officers and supports the ACSO contract on the consent agenda. Russell agrees with Councilwoman Gindlesperger's comments as well as Councilman Bauns. During our budget meetings this year, Council Pike did not offer any comments requesting additional officers at our tentative budget hearing on July 8. Which is where they set the numbers for publication. Safety is a top priority, and she is happy to support the ACSO contract. Mayor Pierce explains the contract process. General discussion. City Attorney addresses the Idaho Open Meeting Law and states that there were no violations. Baun makes a motion to approve Consent Agenda item 7h Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Eagle and Ada County Sheriff's Office Relating to Law Enforcement Services for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 in the amount of $4,536,646. Seconded by Gindlesperger. Gindlesperger-AYE; Pike-AYE; Baun-AYE; Russell-AYE. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 9. ALL PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ARE CONSIDERED ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC HEARINGS:Public hearings will not begin prior to 6:00 p.m. • Public Hearings are legally noticed hearings required by state law. The public may provide formal testimony regarding the application or issue before the City Council. This testimony will become part of the hearing record for that application or matter. • Public hearing testimony time limits: Individuals testifying are allotted three(3)minutes for non-repetitive testimony. • Disclosure of ex parte and/or conflict of interest Pike recuses himself from items 9A—Cl since he is a Fire District Commissioner. A. CPA-01-23 —Fire Protection Capital Plan Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment— City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting a comprehensive plan text amendment to Chapter 4.4: Fire Protection of the Eagle is HOME Plan to identify the most recent Eagle Fire Capital Improvements Plan. (NBS) Mayor introduces the item. Director of Long-Range Planning,Nichoel Baird-Spencer provides an overview of the Fire Protection Capital Plan Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Bob VanArnem, 3049 South Whitepost Lane, Eagle, Idaho supports item A. Page 5 C:\Users\hcse ncsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23mi n.docx Mayor Pierce closes the Public Hearing. Baun makes a motion to approve action item 9A CPA-01-23 — Fire Protection Capital Plan Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment — City of Eagle as identified by Staff. Seconded by Gindlesperger. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. B. Eagle Fire District Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study: The City of Eagle is requesting approval of the updated Eagle Fire District Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study. (NBS) TischlerBise, Colin Macaweeny, 999 West Main Street, Boise, Idaho, provides an overview regarding the development impact fees and how the impact fee process works. Mayor Pierce opens the Public hearing. No one chooses to speak. Mayor Pierce closes the Public hearing. Gindlesperger makes a motion to approve Eagle Fire District Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study. Seconded by Russell. Gindlesperger-AYE; Baun-AYE; Russell-AYE. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. C. A Public Hearing to Consider New and/or Increased Fees for Development Impact Fees for Fire in Excess of 5%. (NBS) Mayor introduces the item. Director of Long-Range Planning, Nichoel Baird-Spencer provides an overview of the new and/or increased fees for Development Impact Fees for Fire. Baun makes a motion to approve item 9C A Public Hearing to Consider New and/or Increased Fees for Development Impact Fees for Fire in Excess of 5%. Seconded by Rusell. Gindlesperger-AYE; Baun-AYE; Russell-AYE. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. C l: Resolution 23-29-Resolution of the City of Eagle Adopting a Fee Increase for Fire Impact Fees: A Resolution of the City of Eagle, Idaho, adopting a fee increase for Fire Impact Fees directly related to a fee increase imposed the the Eagle Fire Protection District and providing for effective date. (NBS) Russell makes a motion to approve item 9C1 Resolution 23-29 - Resolution of the City of Eagle Adopting a Fee Increase for Fire Impact Fees motion to approve. Seconded by Gindlesperger. Discussion. Gindlesperger-AYE; Baun-AYE; Russell-AYE. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. D. A Public Hearing to Consider a Solid Waste Collection Fee Increase D irectly Related to an Increase in Ada County Landfill Charges. (TEO) D.1. Resolution 23-28 - Solid Waste Collection Fee Schedule: A Resolution Of The City Of Eagle, Idaho, Adopting A Fee Increase in the Eagle Solid Waste Collection Services Page 6 C:\Users\hcsencsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23min.docx directly related to a fee increase imposed by Ada County Landfill; And Providing For Effective Date. (TEO) Mayor introduces the item. Staff is requesting this item be tabled to address a notification matter. Baun moves to table action item 9D and 9D.1. Seconded by Russell. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. E. RZ-11-22/CU-13-22/PPUD-07-22/PP-17-22 — Rezone, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat for Gora Estates Subdivision — Roth Ryczkowski, LLC: Roth Ryczkowski, LLC, represented by Ryan Wallace, is requesting a rezone from A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to R-1-DA-P (Residential with a development agreement—PUD),conditional use permit,preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat approvals for Gora Estates Subdivision (re-subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Sulik Subdivision), a 6-lot (4-buildable, 2-common) residential planned unit development. The applicant is also requesting waivers of the required open space, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The 4.7-acre site is located on the north side of West Beacon Light Road approximately 1,285-feet east of the intersection of North Hartley Road and West Beacon Light Road at 6390 West Beacon Light Road. (MJW) Mayor introduces the item. There are technical difficulties with the applicants PowerPoint and the Mayor moves on to item 9F. F. A-05-23/RZ-07-23 — Annexation and Rezone from RR (Rural Residential — Ada County Designation) to PS (Public/Semipublic) — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle, is requesting annexation and rezone from RR(Rural Residential—Ada County designation)to PS (Public/Semipublic) for three (3) BLM parcels (Parcel Nos. S0328141800; 120-acres, S0327223200; 160-acres, and S0322315200; 400-acres). The parcels are generally located at State Highway 16 approximately 2,500-feet northeast of the intersection of State Highway 16 and West Equest Lane. The land will remain under the ownership and stewardship of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (DLM) Mayor introduces the item. Planning Staff, Daniel Miller reviews the staff report and matters for special consideration. Mayor Pierce opens the Public Hearing. Burk Mantel, 4690 North Hartley Road, Eagle, Idaho. Mantel expresses that the statement of"the land will remain under the ownership and stewardship of the BLM" is not accurate and misleading. This item should be tabled until the application information is corrected. Mayor Pierce closes the Public Hearing. Baun makes a motion to approve item 9F A-05-23/RZ-07-23—Annexation and Rezone from RR (Rural Residential — Ada County Designation) to PS (Public/Semipublic) — City of Eagle. Seconded by Gindlesperger. ALL AYE. Pike Abstains...MOTION CARRIES. Page 7 C:\Users\hcsencsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23min.docx E. RZ-11-22/CU-13-22/PPUD-07-22/PP-17-22 — Rezone, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat for Gora Estates Subdivision — Roth Ryczkowski, LLC: Roth Ryczkowski, LLC, represented by Ryan Wallace, is requesting a rezone from A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to R-1-DA-P (Residential with a development agreement—PUD), conditional use permit,preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat approvals for Gora Estates Subdivision (re-subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Sulik Subdivision), a 6-lot (4-buildable, 2-common) residential planned unit development. The applicant is also requesting waivers of the required open space, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The 4.7-acre site is located on the north side of West Beacon Light Road approximately 1,285-feet east of the intersection of North Hartley Road and West Beacon Light Road at 6390 West Beacon Light Road. (MJW) Mayor Pierce introduces the item. Ryan Wallace representing Roth Ryczkowski reviews the application and requests striking site-specific condition 7 and un-strike condition 9. Planning Staff,Mike Williams reviews the staff report and matters for special consideration. Mayor Pierce opens the Public Hearing. Dong Henderson, 6404 Beacon Light Road. Henderson has many objections. The density is too high, and the property line has been there for 50 years. She strongly recommends denial of this application. Daniel Inks, 6344 Beacon Light Road, Eagle, Idaho. Inks is the neighbor to the north and east. He has concerns with the density and requests denial of the open space waiver. The applicant is making false claims and recommends denial of the application. Lori Redick, 536 Mango Drive,Eagle,Idaho. She hopes that this Council will listen to these neighbors and deny the application. Wallace provides a rebuttal to the testimony that was provided. Mayor Pierce closes the Public Hearing. General discussion amongst the Council. Baun makes a motion to approve RZ-11-22/CU-13-22/PPUD-07-22/PP-17-22—Rezone, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat for Gora Estates Subdivision. The condition regarding the well, strike and add the well shall be constructed on the Inks property and shall be completed prior to signature of final plat. Strike condition 5 for the exemption of open space requirement and strike 7 with the replaced with the proposed language that the applicant submitted. And unstrike and amend Condition 9 regarding the private road and curb and gutter And make sure condition 3.7 the arborist report is in there as well. Seconded by Russell. Discussion. Amend motion to adjust the well requirement as prior to any construction activity. Seconded by Russell. Russell and Baun AYE. Pike and Gindlesperger NAY. Mayor Pierce NAY. Mayor Pierce calls a five-minute break at 7:57 p.m. Mayor Pierce calls the meeting back to order at 8:07 p.m. Page 8 C:\Users\hcse ncsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23min.docx G. A-04-23/RZ-05-23/PP-05-23 — Annexation, Rezone, and Preliminary Plat for Hevostila Subdivision — Criterion Land Management: Criterion Land Management, represented by Nicolette Womack,with Kimley-Horn,is requesting annexation,rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to R-3-DA (Residential with a development agreement [in lieu of a PUD]), and preliminary plat approvals for Hevostila Subdivision, a 38-lot(32-buildable, 6-common)residential subdivision. The 12.14-acre site is located on the south side of East Floating Feather Road approximately 355-feet west of the intersection of North Falling Water Avenue and East Floating Feather Road at 2385 East Floating Feather Road. (MJW) Mayor introduces the item. Nicolette Womack, with Kimley-Horn, 1100 West Idaho Street Suite 210, Boise, Idaho, reviews the application. Planning Staff,Mike Williams reviews the staff report and matters for special consideration. Mayor Pierce opens the Public Hearing. Joel Flannigan, 1219 North Falling Water Way, Eagle, Idaho. Representing the Berkshire HOA. They are neutral. They want to preserve the current open space which is utilized by children and residents. There are safety concerns and would like to slow the traffic. Christina Wagner resides in Melvins Eagle Pointe, she has traffic concerns. Applicant provides a rebuttal. Mayor closes the Public Hearing. Bann makes a motion to approve action item 9G A-04-23/RZ-05-23/PP-05-23 — Annexation,Rezone, and Preliminary Plat for Hevostila Subdivision adding condition 22 that a site survey be conducted during flowering season. Amending the motion to site specific conditions identified by Planning and Zoning and adding site specific condition 24 which is the site survey. Seconded by Russell. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. H. PP-04-23 —Preliminary Plat for Ambrosia Garden Subdivision — Steven Ricks and Susanne Ricks Family Trust: Steven Ricks and Susanne Ricks Family Trust, represented by Anna B. Canning with Centurion Engineers,Inc., is requesting preliminary plat approval for Ambrosia Garden Subdivision, a 6-lot (6-buildable) commercial subdivision. The 3.45- acre site is located at the northwest corner of State Highway 44 and North Park Lane at 101 North Park Lane. (MJW) Mayor introduces the item. Steven Ricks, 308 Terra Drive, Boise, Idaho reviews the staff report and matters for special consideration. Planning Staff,Mike Williams reviews the staff report and matters for special consideration. Mayor Pierce opens the Public Hearing. Page 9 C:\Users\hcsencsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23min.docx Stanislav Kazin,4181 West Stone House, Eagle, Idaho,has concerns with the drive through restaurants that are permitted within the development and believes there will be traffic and safety concerns. Thomas Cizmar, 4925 W Stone House, Eagle, Idaho, has concerns with access to the development. The traffic within the area is horrible and very congested. Applicant provides a rebuttal. Mayor Pierce closes the Public Hearing. Tom Firch, 577 West Rush Court, Eagle, Idaho with ACHD states that the ACHD staff report does not address a right in or right out. Gindlesperger makes a motion to approve item 9H PP-04-23 — Preliminary Plat for Ambrosia Garden Subdivision. Seconded by Pike. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. 10. NEW BUSINESS: A.ACTION ITEM: Fiscal Year 2024 to Fiscal Year 2028 Capital Plan: Adoption of the City of Eagle Fiscal Year 2024-Fiscal Year 2028 Capital Plan. (NBS) Mayor introduces the item. Baird-Spencer reviews the Fiscal Year 2024 to Fiscal Year 2028 Capital Plan. Russell makes a motion to approve action item l0A Fiscal Year 2024 to Fiscal Year 2028 Capital Plan with staff recommended changes. Seconded by Gindlesperger. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. B.ACTION ITEM Resolution 23-27 - Fiscal Year 2024 to Fiscal Year 2028 Capital Plan: (NBS) Russell makes a motion to approve action item 10B Resolution 23-27 - Fiscal Year 2024 to Fiscal Year 2028 Capital Plan. Seconded by Gindlesperger. Gindlesperger-AYE; PIKE-AYE; BAUN-AYE; RUSSELL-AYE. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. C. ACTION ITEM: Ordinance 908 — Annexation and Rezone Ordinance — Route 44 Crossing Subdivision: An ordinance annexing certain real property situated in the unincorporated area of Ada County, Idaho, and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Eagle, to the City of Eagle, Idaho; changing the zoning classification of said real property described herein from R1 (Residential — Ada County designation), C2 (Community Commercial —Ada County designation), and C-1-DA (Neighborhood Business District with a development agreement)to C-1-DA-P(Neighborhood Business District with a development agreement — PUD); amending the zoning map of the City of Eagle to reflect said change; directing that copies of this ordinance be filed as provided by law; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. (MJW) Mayor introduces the item. Page 10 C:\Users\hose ncsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23min.docx Baun moves,pursuant to Idaho Code,Section 50-902,that the rule requiring Ordinances to be read on three different days with one reading to be in full be dispensed with,and that Ordinance#908 be considered after being read once by title only. Seconded by Russell. GINDLESPERGER-AYE; PIKE-AYE; BAUN-AYE; RUSSELL-AYE. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. Baun moves that Ordinance #908 An Ordinance Annexing Certain Real Property Situated In The Unincorporated Area Of Ada County, Idaho, And Contiguous To The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Eagle, To The City Of Eagle, Idaho; Changing The Zoning Classification Of Said Real Property Described herein from R1 (Residential—Ada County designation), C2 (Community Commercial — Ada County designation), and C-1-DA (Neighborhood Business District with a development agreement) to C-1-DA-P (Neighborhood Business District with a development agreement —PUD); amending the zoning map of the City of Eagle to reflect said change; directing that copies of this ordinance be filed as provided by law; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Seconded by Gindlesperger. GINDLESPERGER-AYE; PIKE-AYE; BAUN-AYE; RUSSELL-AYE. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT 2: This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding concerns or comments they would like to provide to the City Council regarding any matter, up to and including any subject on the agenda with the exception of Public Hearing and land use items. Comments regarding Public Hearing and land use items need to be made during the open public hearing for said item(s) in accordance with Idaho Code. At times,the City Council may seek comments/opinions regarding specific City matters (excluding Public Hearing and land use items) during this allotte time. Out of courtesy for all who wish to speak, the City Council requests each speaker limit their comments to three(3)minutes. No one in the audience. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 74-206 (1) An executive session at which members of the public are excluded may be held, but only for the purposes and only in the manner set forth in this section. The motion to go into executive session shall identify the specific subsections of this section that authorize the executive session.There shall be a roll call vote on the motion and the vote shall be recorded in the minutes. An executive session shall be authorized by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the governing body. An executive session may be held: Gindlesperger moves pursuant to I.C.74-206(1)that the City of Eagle convene an Executive Session for the purpose of(f) To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation,or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated. Seconded by Russell. GINDLESPERGER-AYE;PIKE-AYE; BAUN-AYE; RUSSELL-AYE.ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. ACTION ITEM: no action 13. ADJOURNMENT: Baun moves to adjourn. Seconded by Gindlesperger. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. 9:52 Hearing no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned. Page 11 C:\Users\hcsencsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23m i n.docx Respectfull, : bmitted: HO .CSENCSITS, idCMCT DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED: J ON IERCE AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT W W W.CITYOFEAGLE.ORG. Page 12 C:\Users\hcsencsits\Desktop\CC-09-26-23mi n.docx EAGLE CITY COUNCIL September 26, 2023 PUBLIC COMMENT 1 SIGN-UP Time is allotted on the agenda at the beginning and end of the council meeting. Time is limited to three (3) minutes per individual. TESTIFY PRO/CON or NAME (please print) ♦ ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL /./-4!?TY Con /7Z2 + 41 / 12c1 -,3 QeaeY t e1ri4�� Esiet 1 re.) COn - 60rA EAGLE CITY COUNCIL September 26, 2023 PUBLIC COMMENT 1 SIGN-UP Time is allotted on the agenda at the beginning and end of the council meeting. Time is limited to three (3) minutes per individual. EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9G SUBJECT: A-04-23/RZ-05-23/PP-05-23 — Annexation, Rezone, and Preliminary Plat for Hevostila Subdivision — Criterion Land Management: TESTIFY PRO/ CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9G SUBJECT: A-04-23/RZ-05-23/PP-05-23 — Annexation, Rezone, and Preliminary Plat for Hevostila Subdivision — Criterion Land Management: TESTIFY PRO/ CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL 12 Iei /J FA L1.1,$)4 w 'tee L.,./y �f651 L kAt,i,e10 1S3ko1 More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9H SUBJECT: PP-04-23 — Preliminary Plat for Ambrosia Garden Subdivision — Steven Ricks and Susanne Ricks Family Trust: TESTIFY PRO/ CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL -S44 001 I S/CM/ k� ; v) 41 el 'vo -lone Al0L-1 c ti°o to o. Y th���h S` �' ' ` More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9H SUBJECT: PP-04-23 —Preliminary Plat for Ambrosia Garden Subdivision — Steven Ricks and Susanne Ricks Family Trust: TESTIFY PRO/ CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9A SUBJECT: CPA-01-23 — Fire Protection Capital Plan Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment — City of Eagle: TESTIFY PRO/ CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9A SUBJECT: CPA-01-23 — Fire Protection Capital Plan Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment — City of Eagle: TESTIFY PRO/CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9B SUBJECT: Eagle Fire District Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study: TESTIFY PRO/ CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9B SUBJECT: Eagle Fire District Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study: TESTIFY PRO/CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9C SUBJECT: A Public Hearing to Consider New and/or Increased Fees for Development Impact Fees for Fire in Excess of 5%. TESTIFY PRO/CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9C SUBJECT: A Public Hearing to Consider New and/or Increased Fees for Development Impact Fees for Fire in Excess of 5%. TESTIFY PRO/ CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9D SUBJECT: . A Public Hearing to Consider a Solid Waste Collection Fee Increase Directly Related to an Increase in Ada County Landfill Charges. TESTIFY PRO/ CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9D SUBJECT: . A Public Hearing to Consider a Solid Waste Collection Fee Increase Directly Related to an Increase in Ada County Landfill Charges. TESTIFY PRO/ CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9E SUBJECT: RZ-11-22/CU-13-22/PPUD-07-22/PP-17-22 — Rezone, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat for Gora Estates Subdivision — Roth Ryczkowski, LLC: TESTIFY PRO/CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL tpohj ffeHrtesri 41 Bead, h fit,t e C 1e , 1J 86t6 Niss geocao Pc/ l` s h r/ More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9E SUBJECT: RZ-11-22/CU-13-22/PPUD-07-22/PP-17-22 — Rezone, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat for Gora Estates Subdivision — Roth Ryczkowski, LLC: TESTIFY PRO/CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9F SUBJECT: A-05-23/RZ-07-23 — Annexation and Rezone from RR (Rural Residential — Ada County Designation) to PS (Public/Semipublic) — City of Eagle: TESTIFY PRO/ CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL 2: n(I l n,e- - /e,' �Ctvcpr f 4 More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: 9F SUBJECT: A-05-23/RZ-07-23 — Annexation and Rezone from RR (Rural Residential — Ada County Designation) to PS (Public/Semipublic) — City of Eagle: TESTIFY PRO/CON NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL More on back EAGLE CITY COUNCIL September 26, 2023 PUBLIC COMMENT 2 SIGN-UP Time is allotted on the agenda at the beginning and end of the council meeting. Time is limited to three (3) minutes per individual. TESTIFY PRO/CON or NAME (please print) ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL EAGLE CITY COUNCIL September 26, 2023 PUBLIC COMMENT 2 SIGN-UP Time is allotted on the agenda at the beginning and end of the council meeting. Time is limited to three (3) minutes per individual. C/_ RESOULTION NO. 23-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO, ADOPTINGA FEE INCREASE FOR FIRE IMPACT FEES DIRECTLY RELATED TO A FEE INCREASE IMPOSED BY THE EAGLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Eagle, Idaho ("City") is a municipal corporation operating under the laws of the State of Idaho;and WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 67-8208 requires a governmental entity imposing a development impact fee to update its capital improvements plan at least once every five years in accordance with the procedures set forth in Idaho Code § 67-8206; and WHEREAS,notice of the proposed increase in fees was published in the Idaho Statesman,a newspaper of general circulation within the City on September 11, 2023, and September 18, 2023, as required by law; and WHEREAS,pursuant to a public hearing on the proposed increase of fees held on September 26,2023,as required by Idaho Code §63-1311A,the City Council of the City of Eagle(the"Council")desires to adopt fees as set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE,IDAHO: Section 1: That the following increase in fire impact fees are hereby adopted: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein as if stated in full. Section 2: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after approval. ADOPTED by the Eagle City Council,Eagle Idaho. This 26th day of September,2023. APPROVED: JASON W. PIERCE MAYOR ATTEST: TRACY E. OSBORN,CMC CITY CLERK k:\council\resolutions\draft resolutions\23-29 fire impact fee increase(draft).docx EXHIBIT "A" ential Persons per Maximum Current Increase/ Housint, Type Housing Unit Supportable Fee Fee (Decrease) Residential ,e •.usin: unit Sing)e FamiI :- $2,133 $897 $1,236 Multi tfa rrii I Mika:8 $1,119 $897 $222 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips M,..-imum 1 Current Increase/ Development Type per KSF Supportabi, Pee I Fee (Decrease) Nonresidential ':er 1,000 ',uare feet Reta i I 14.06 $2,808 $360 $2,448 Office 5.42 $1,082 1 $722 Industrial 2.44 $486 $360 $126 Institutional 5.39 $1,075 $360 5 Residential I—Persons per Maximum i Current Increase/ Housing Type i Housing Unit Supportable Fee j Fee (Decrease) Residential (per housin: unit) Sin:le Family 2.63 $2,111 $897 $1,214 Multifamil 1.38 $1,108 $897 $211 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips Maximum ) Current Increase/ Development Type f per KSF Supportable Fee Fee (Decrease) Nonresidential (•er 1,000 square feet) Retail 14.06 $2,779 $360 $2,419 Office 5.42 $1,071 $360 $711 Industrial 2.44 $481 $360 $121 Institutional 5.39 $1,064 $360 $704 k:\council\resolutions\draft resolutions\23-29 fire impact fee increase(draft).docx INTER City of Eagle Zoning Administration OFFICE To: Mayor Pierce and City Council Members From: Michael Williams, CFM, Planner III' "' Subject: A-04-23/RZ-05-23/PP-05-23 —Annexation, rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to R-3-DA (Residential with a development agreement [in lieu of a PUD]), and preliminary plat for Hevostila Subdivision, a 38-lot (32-buildable, 6-common) residential subdivision. — Criterion Land Management — Kody Daffer, represented by Nicolette Womack from Kimley-Horn Date: September 20, 2023 Attachment(s): Correspondence received from Stephen M. Bender, date stamped by the City on September 20, 2023 Copy To: Nicolette Womack—Nicolette.Womack@Kimley-Horn.com Page 1 of 1 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2023\Hevostila Subdivision A RZ PP\Working Files\Hevostila Sub ME2.doc STEPHEN M. BENDER 1235 North Sevenoaks Place Eagle, Idaho 83616 RECEIVED&FILED CITY OF EAGLE SEP 2 0 2023 September 19, 2023 File: Route to: Eagle Mayor and Eagle City Council City of Eagle 660 Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 SUBJECT: A-04-23/RZ-05-23/PP-05-23 —Annexation, Rezone, and Preliminary Plat for Hevostila Subdivision—Criterion Land Management Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council: I am writing to you regarding the subject public hearing above as President of the Berkshire Yorkshire Association HOA, which is north of the subject property. I am unable to attend the hearing as I will me in San Diego for my brother-in-law's memorial service. Therefore, 1 would ask that this letter be made a part of the public record as if I had been able to testify at the hearing. I spoke at Planning and Zoning and my comments are the four bullets under D. Oral testimony on page 10 of 22 in the package. I support all modifications and agreements brought up there but one. The developer made the statement that their position is that"single family backing to single family" is sufficient for meeting the city's like-kind housing position. We disagree. Lot 16 will back to two of our homes on the south side of Trevino Street. The middle of those three homes is a single story home that is owned by an 86 year old widow and Mrs. Hochstrasser is not able to be at the hearing. I would ask that the council follow its practice of requiring houses of a similar number of stories backing each other. This is a large lot and a layer-cake approach that puts the second story at the front of the lot would not affect her. The only other request that wasn't addressed that night was the matter of traffic on Falling Water. We have four homes at the north end with a significant number of small children who frequently play outside and use the common lot on the east side of the street. We are concerned about traffic flow on Falling Water. This question may be more appropriate for ACHD, but we would ask that a three-way stop be added at Falling Water to calm traffic, and if possible that the speed limit be lowered to 20 MPH. The parents would like speed bumps, but my understanding is that the Fire Department does not want them. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Steve Bender, President Berkshire Yorkshire Estates HOA i Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Submitted to: Eagle Fire Protection District RECEIVED i., FI .r'© CITY OFEAGLE May 19, 2023 SEP 2 2 2023 File: Prepared by: TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC PLANNING 999 W Main Street Suite 100 Boise, Idaho 83702 208.515.7480 www.tischlerbise.com Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Tischle Blse I Galena C OA,CM C. r-LA.W'M7tiC CONSULTING TischlerBiseGalena 999 W Main Street Suite 100 Boise, Idaho 83702 208.515.7480 www.tischlerbise.com TischlerBise I Galena >1$CAL;EG5 NS.C ?J00.1\G CONSULTING Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Development Impact Fee Study Eagle Fire Protection District Executive Summary 1 Idaho Development Impact Fee Enabling Legislation 2 Summary of Capital Improvement Plans and Development Impact Fees 3 Capital Improvement Plan 4 Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fees 5 Capital Improvement Plan 6 Funding Sources for Capital Improvements 7 Fire Protection Development Impact Fees 8 Cost Allocation for Fire Protection Infrastructure 9 Fire Protection Level of Service and Cost Analysis 10 Fire Stations 10 Fire Apparatuses 11 Fire Equipment 12 Share of the Development Impact Fee Study 13 Capital Improvements Needed to Serve Growth 14 Fire Facilities 14 Fire Apparatuses 15 Fire Equipment 16 Fire Impact Fee Credit Analysis 16 Summary of Input Variables and Maximum Supportable Impact Fees 17 Cash Flow Projections for Maximum Supportable Impact Fee 18 Proportionate Share Analysis 19 Implementation and Administration 20 Appendix A. Land Use Definitions 22 Residential Development 22 Nonresidential Development Categories 23 Appendix B. Demographic Assumptions 24 Population and Housing Characteristics 24 Base Year Housing Units and Population 25 Building Permit History 25 Housing Unit and Population Projections 26 Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area 27 Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections 28 Vehicle Trip Generation 30 Residential Vehicle Trips by Housing Type 30 Residential Vehicle Trips Adjustment Factors 31 ii TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 32 Vehicle Trip Projections 33 TischlerBise iii Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Eagle Fire Protection District ("Fire District") retained TischlerBise to prepare a Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study in order to meet the new demands generated by new development within the Fire District. This report presents the methodology and calculation used to generate current levels of service and updated maximum supportable impact fees. It is intended to serve as supporting documentation for updating of the current impact fees in the Fire District. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the Fire District's compliance with Idaho Statutes as authorized by the Idaho Legislature.Consistent with the authorization (Idaho Code 67-8202(1-4)), it is the intent of the Fire District to: 1. Collect impact fees to ensure that adequate public facilities are available to serve new growth and development; 2. Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development; 3. Establish minimum standards for the adoption of development impact fee ordinances by government entities; 4. Ensure that those who benefit from new growth and development are required to pay no more than their proportionate share of the cost of public facilities needed to serve new growth and development and to prevent duplicate and ad hoc development requirements; Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. An impact fee represents new growth's fair share of capital facility needs. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards, which require fulfillment of three key elements: need, benefit and proportionality. • First, to justify a fee for public facilities, it must be demonstrated that new development will create a need for capital improvements. • Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). • Third, the fee paid by a particular type of development should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system improvements. TischlerBise evaluated possible methodologies and documented appropriate demand indicators by type of development for the levels of service and fees. Local demographic data and improvement costs were used to identify specific capital costs attributable to growth. This report includes summary tables 1 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study indicating the specific factors, referred to as level of service standards, used to derive the impact fees.The service area for the analysis and fee collection is districtwide. Lastly, the fees are calculated for both residential and nonresidential development. IDAHO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION The Enabling Legislation governs how development fees are calculated for municipalities in Idaho. All requirements of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act have been met in the supporting documentation prepared by TischlerBise. There are four requirements of the Idaho Act that are not common in the development impact fee enabling legislation of other states. This overview offers further clarification of these unique requirements. First, as specified in 67-8204(2) of the Idaho Act, "development impact fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development." Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) [see 67-8208]. The CIP requirements are summarized in this report, with detailed documentation provided in the discussion on infrastructure. Third,the Idaho Act also requires documentation of any existing deficiencies in the types of infrastructure to be funded by development impact fees[see 67-8208(1)(a)].The intent of this requirement is to prevent charging new development to cure existing deficiencies. In the context of development impact fees for the Fire District,the term"deficiencies" means a shortage or inadequacy of current system improvements when measured against the levels of service to be applied to new development. It does not mean a shortage or inadequacy when measured against some "hoped for" level of service. TischlerBise used the current infrastructure cost per service unit (i.e., existing standards), or future levels of service where appropriate, multiplied by the projected increase in service units over an appropriate planning timeframe,to yield the cost of growth-related system improvements.The relationship between these three variables can be reduced to a mathematical formula, expressed as A x B = C. In section 67- 8204(16), the Idaho Act simply reorganizes this formula, stating the cost per service unit (i.e., development impact fee)may not exceed the cost of growth-related system improvements divided by the number of projected service units attributable to new development (i.e., A = C - B). By using existing infrastructure standards to determine the need for growth-related capital improvements,the Fire District ensures the same level-of-service standards are applicable to existing and new development. Using existing infrastructure standards also means there are no existing deficiencies in the current system that must be corrected from non-development impact fee funding. Fourth, Idaho requires a proportionate share determination [see 67-8207]. Basically, local government must consider various types of applicable credits and/or other revenues that may reduce the capital costs 2 TrBLse • Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study attributable to new development.The development impact fee methodologies and the cash flow analysis have addressed the need for credits to avoid potential double payment for growth-related infrastructure. Importantly, stated in [67-8204A], "Governmental entities . . . that are jointly affected by development are authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements with each other or with . . . fire districts, ambulance districts . . . for the purpose of developing joint plans for capital improvements or for the purpose of agreeing to collect and expend development impact fees for system improvements, or both, provided that such agreement complies with any applicable state laws." Thus, the impact fees for the Eagle Fire Protection District will be collected by the City of Eagle and Ada County.To ensure that the Fire District captures the full potential revenue of the impact fees an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is necessary for the City and County to collect the impact fees on the District's behalf.Those revenues would be remitted to the Fire District periodically. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Development impact fees can be calculated by any one of several legitimate methods. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for each facility type. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent can be interchangeable, because each allocates facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development impact fees involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating development impact fees, and how each method can be applied. Cost Recovery. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built or land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for systems that were oversized such as sewer and water facilities. Incremental Expansion.The incremental expansion method documents the current level of service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard (such as park land acres per 1,000 residents). This approach ensures that there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community. 3 Tvs chlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Plan-Based. The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. Facility plans identify needed improvements, and land use plans identify development. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g., housing units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per specific unit of development (e.g., single family detached unit). Credits. Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of"credits" is integral to the development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There are two types of "credits," each with specific and distinct characteristics, but both of which should be addressed in the calculation of development impact fees.The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations.This could occur when contributions are made by the property owner toward the capital costs of the public facility covered by the impact fee.This type of credit is integrated into the impact fee calculation.The second is a credit toward the payment of a fee for dedication of public sites or improvements provided by the developer and for which the facility fee is imposed. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of a facility fee program. Figure 1 lists impact fee service area, the components to the impact fee, and the methodologies used in the analysis. Figure 1.Summary of Impact Fee Methodologies Cost Incremental Cost Fee Category Service Area Plan-Based Recovery Expansion Allocation Impact Fee Fire Stations, Person & Fire Districtwide Fire Apparatuses, and Study Vehicle Trips Fire Equipment CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Below in Figure 2 is the ten-year capital improvement plan the Fire District is anticipating to accommodate future demand. In the Plan, there are facility, fleet, and equipment expansion that is consistent with the projected need to serve growth at the current level of service. The capital improvement plan is to be updated annually and will be revised to reflect any shift in demand, market, and costs. Figure 2.Capital Improvement Plan I Impact Fee 10-Year Growth-Related Capital Needs Total Cost ( Eligible Station#2 relocation w/mini training ground [1] $9,000,000 $2,500,000 New Station#4-Colchester/Eagle Rd $7,500,000 $7,500,000 Station#4 units:engine,brush truck,water rescue $1,400,000 $1,400,000 New Station#5 -NE Foothills $7,500,000 $7,500,000 Station#5 units:engine and brush truck $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Total $26,600,000 $20,100,000 [1]The new training ground is impact fee eligible.The station relocation costs will be funded through other sources. TsschlerBise 4 Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Figure 3 provides a schedule of the maximum supportable development impact fees by type of land use for the Fire District. The fees represent the highest supportable amount for each type of applicable land use,and represents new growth's fair share of the cost for capital facilities.The Fire Board may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service. The fees for residential development are to be assessed per housing unit based on the person per housing unit factors for single family and multifamily development. For nonresidential development, the fees are assessed per square foot of floor area based on vehicle trip rates. Nonresidential development categories are consistent with the terminology and definitions contained in the reference book,Trip Generation 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These definitions are provided in the Appendix A. Land Use Definitions. Figure 3.Summary of Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fee Residential Persons per t Maximum Current } Increase/ Housing Type Housing Unit j Supportable Fee Fee (Decrease) Residential .er housin: unit) BERIEEMMIll 2.63 $2,111 $897 $1,214 Multifamil 1.38 $1,108 $897 $211 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips Maximum Current Increase/ Development Type per KSF I Supportable Fee Fee (Decrease) Nonresidential(.er 1,000 square feet) Retail 14.06 $2,779 $360 $2,419 Office 5.42 $1,071 $360 $711 Industrial 2.44 $481 $360 $121 Institutional 5.39 $1,064 $360 $704 TischlerBise 5 Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The following section provides a summary of the Capital Improvement Plans depicting growth-related capital demands. First, Figure 4 lists the projected growth over the next ten years in the Fire District. Overall, there is an estimated 45 percent increase is residential development (16,969 new residents and 6,681 new housing units) and a 17 percent increase in nonresidential development (1,632 new jobs and 723,000 square feet of development). Further details on the growth projections can be found in Appendix B. Demographic Assumptions Figure 4.Ten-Year Growth Projections 5-Year Increment Base Year; 1 1 3 4 5 10 Total 2022 j 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2032 Increase Population [1] 37,772 40,200 42,629 45,057 46,653 48,250 54,741 16,969 Housing Units by Type [1] Single Family 13,710 14,591 15,473 16,354 16,933 17,513 19,869 6,159 Multifamily 1,161 1,236 1,310 1,385 1,434 1,483 1,683_ 522 Total Housing Units 14,871 15,827 16,783 17,739 18,367 18,996 21,552 6,681 Jobs[1] Retail 2,269 2,305 2,341 2,378 2,414 2,450 2,657 388 Office 2,837 2,882 2,927 2,972 3,018 3,063 3,322 485 Industrial 2,561 2,602 2,643 2,684 2,725 2,765 2,999 438 Institutional 1,880 1,910 1,940 1,970 2,000 2,030 2,201 321 Total Jobs 9,547 9,700 9,852 10,004 10,156 10,308 11,179 1,632 Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft)[2] Retail 1,069 1,086 1,103 1,120 1,137 1,154 1,251 183 Office 871 885 899 913 926 940 1,020 149 Industrial 1,632 1,658 1,684 1,710 1,736 1,762 1,910 279 Institutional 658 669 679 690 700 710 770 112 Total Floor Area 4,229 4,297 4,364 4,432 4,499 4,566 4,952 723 Vehicle Trips[2] Residential Subtotal 129,283 137,594 145,906 154,217 159,681 165,145 187,364 58,081 Nonresidential Subtotal 27,268_ 27,702 28,137 28,572 29,006 29,441 31,928 4,660 Total Vehicle Trips 156,550 165,296 174,043 182,789 188,687 194,586 219,291 62,741 [1]Source:COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model; TischlerBise analysis [2]Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation,2021 The Idaho Development Fee Act requires Capital Improvement Plans to be updated regularly,at least once every five years(Idaho Code 67-8208(2)).This report projects revenue and fees based on ten-year forecast in an effort to provide the public and elected officials with illustrative guidance of probable growth demands based on current trends however, per Idaho Code, it is expected that an update to all Capital Improvement Plans included in this study will occur within five years. 6 TsschlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study The development impact fee is based on the existing level of service provided for fire facilities. To serve projected growth at current levels of service, the following infrastructure is projected over the next ten years: • 14,126 square feet of new station space • 9.1 new fleet units • 44.1 new equipment units • $15.2 million growth-related costs Below in Figure 5 is the ten-year capital improvement plan the Fire District is anticipating to accommodate future demand. In the plan, there are facility, fleet, and equipment expansion that is consistent with the projected need to serve growth at the current level of service. Figure 5.Capital Improvement Plan 1 Impact Fee 10-Year Growth-Related Capital Needs Total Cost Eligible Station#2 relocation w/mini training ground [1] $9,000,000 $2,500,000 New Station#4-Colchester/Eagle Rd $7,500,000 $7,500,000 Station#4 units:engine, brush truck,water rescue $1,400,000 $1,400,000 New Station#5-NE Foothills $7,500,000 $7,500,000 Station#5 units:en:ine and brush truck $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Total $26,600,000 $20,100,000 [1]The new training ground is impact fee eligible.The station relocation costs will be funded through other sources. FUNDING SOURCES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS In determining the proportionate share of capital costs attributable to new development, the Idaho Development Fee Act states that local governments must consider historical, available, and alternative sources of funding for system improvements (Idaho Code 67-8209(2)). Currently, there are no dedicated revenues being collected by the Fire District to fund growth-related projects. However,there is an existing balance in the Fire District's impact fee fund which has been set aside for future expansions in the CIP. A credit is included in the impact fee analysis to account for the balance's share of the future CIP. Furthermore, the maximum supportable impact fees are constructed to offset all growth-related capital costs for facilities. Evidence is given in in the specific chapters of this report that the projected capital costs from new development will be entirely offset by the development impact fees.Thus, no general tax dollars are assumed to be used to fund growth-related capital costs, requiring no further revenue credits. 7 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study FIRE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The Fire Development Impact Fee is based on the cost per service unit method specified in Idaho Code 67-8204(16), also referred to as the incremental expansion method elsewhere in this report. The Fire infrastructure components included in the impact fee analysis are: • Fire stations • Fire apparatuses • Fire equipment • Cost of development impact fee study The residential portion of the fee is derived from the product of persons per housing unit by type of dwelling unit multiplied by the net capital cost per person. To calculate nonresidential development impact fees, nonresidential vehicle trips are used as the demand indicator. Trip generation rates are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial development. The trip rates for office and institutional land uses fall between the other two categories.This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for fire services from nonresidential development and thus are the best demand indicators. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, do not accurately reflect the demand for service. If employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator,the Fire Development Impact Fees would be too high for office and institutional development. If floor area were used as the demand indicator, the development impact fees would be too high for industrial development. (See the Appendix for further discussion on trip rates and calculations.) Specified in Idaho Code 67-8209(2), local governments must consider historical,available,and alternative sources of funding for system improvements. Currently, there are no dedicated revenues being collected by the Fire District to fund growth-related projects for fire facilities. Furthermore, the maximum supportable impact fees are constructed to offset all growth-related capital costs for facilities. Evidence is given in this chapter that the projected capital costs from new development will be entirely offset by the development impact fees.Thus, no general tax dollars are assumed to be used to fund growth-related capital costs, requiring no further revenue credits. However, there is an existing balance in the Fire District's impact fee fund which has been set aside for future expansions in the CIP.A credit is included in the impact fee analysis to account for the balance's share of the future CIP. 8 ihlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study COST ALLOCATION FOR FIRE PROTECTION INFRASTRUCTURE Both residential and nonresidential developments increase the demand for fire services and facilities.To calculate the proportional share between residential and nonresidential demand on service and facilities, calls for service data is analyzed. Shown at the top of Figure 6, 80 percent of calls are to residential locations, 14 percent to nonresidential locations, and 6 percent are classified as traffic calls. Base year vehicle trips are used to assign traffic calls to residential and nonresidential land uses. This results in 225 additional residential calls (129,283 residential vehicle trips/ 156,550 total vehicle trips X 272 traffic calls for service) and 47 additional nonresidential calls (27,268 nonresidential vehicle trips / 156,550 total vehicle trips X 272 traffic calls for service). After this adjustment 85 percent of calls are attributed to residential development and 15 percent are attributed to nonresidential development.These percentages are used to attribute facilities to respective demand units. Figure 6.Calls for Service Districtwide ' of Land Use Calls for Total Residential 3,503 80% Nonresidential 627 14% Traffic 272 6% Total 4,402 100% Base Year ° of Land Use Vehicle Trips Total Residential 129,283 83% Nonresidential 27,268 17% Total 156,550 100% Adj. Calls %of Land Use for Service Total Residential 3,728 85% Nonresidential 674 15% Total 4,402 100% Source:Ada County CAD&ACCESS NFIRS Reports 9 Tis hlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study FIRE PROTECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND COST ANALYSIS The following section details the level of service calculations and capital cost for each infrastructure category. FIRE STATIONS Listed in Figure 7, the Fire District occupies 34,656 square feet between three stations and based on current construction cost estimates, average cost is $800 per square foot. The proportionate share between residential and nonresidential demand of the facilities is found by applying the calls for service percentages. As a result, 29,458 square feet is attributed to residential demand and 5,198 square feet is attributed to nonresidential demand. The current level of service is found by comparing the attributed square footage to the current population and nonresidential vehicles trips.As a result,there is 780 square feet per 1,000 residents and 191 square feet per 1,000 vehicles trips. The average cost per square foot is combined with the current levels of service to find the capital cost per demand unit.This results in a cost of$624 per person and $153 per vehicle trip(780 square feet per 1,000 persons x$800 per square foot= $624 per person, rounded). Figure 7.Fire Station Level of Service&Cost Analysis Square Replacement Fire Stations Feet Cost Station 1 21,400 $17,120,000 Station 2 5,256 $4,204,800 Station 3 8,000 $6,400,000 Total 34,656 $27,724,800 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share 85% 15% Share of Square Feet 29,458 5,198 2022 Population/Nonres.Vehicle Trips 37,772 27,268 Square Feet per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips I 780i 191 Cost Analysis Residential Nonresidential Square Feet per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips 780 191 Average Cost per Square Foot [1] $800 $800 Capital Cost per Person/Vehicle Trip 1 $6241 $153 [1] Estimated cost for future station 10 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study FIRE APPARATUSES Per the Idaho Act, capital improvements are limited to those improvements that have a certain lifespan. As specified in 67-8203(3) of the Idaho Act, "'Capital improvements' means improvements with a useful life of ten (10)years or more, by new construction or other action, which increase the service capacity of a public facility." Listed in Figure 8 are fire apparatuses that have a useful life of ten or more years qualifying to be impact fee-eligible. Shown in Figure 8, the Fire District has 22 units in its fleet with a total replacement of$8.6 million. The proportionate share between residential and nonresidential demand of the facilities is found by applying the calls for service percentages.As a result, 18.7 units are attributed to residential demand and 3.3 units are attributed to nonresidential demand.The current level of service is found by comparing the attributed units to the current population and nonresidential vehicles trips.As a result, there is 0.50 units per 1,000 residents and 0.12 units per 1,000 vehicles trips. The average cost per unit is combined with the current levels of service to find the capital cost per demand unit. This results in a cost of $195 per person and $47 per vehicle trip (0.50 units per 1,000 persons x $390,000 per unit=$195 per person, rounded). Figure 8.Fire Apparatus Level of Service&Cost Analysis Current Total Apparatuses Units Cost Replacement Engines 3 $800,000 $2,400,000 Ladder Truck 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Brush Truck 4 $400,000 $1,600,000 Tender 1 $450,000 $450,000 Heavy Rescue 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Command Vehicle 8 $80,000 $640,000 Water Rescue Vehicle 1 $200,000 $200,000 Safety Trailer 1 $100,000 $100,000 Command Trailer 2 $100,000 $200,000 Total 22 $8,590,000 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share 85% 15% Share of Units 18.7 3.3 2022 Population/Nonres.Vehicle Trips 37,772 27,268 Units per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips I 0.501 0.12 Cost Analysis Residential Nonresidential Units per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips 0.50 0.12 Average Cost per Unit $390,000 $390,000 Capital Cost per Person/Vehicle Trip I $1951 $47 TischierBise 11 Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study FIRE EQUIPMENT Per the Idaho Act, capital improvements are limited to those improvements that have a certain lifespan. As specified in 67-8203(3) of the Idaho Act, "'Capital improvements' means improvements with a useful life of ten (10)years or more, by new construction or other action,which increase the service capacity of a public facility." Listed in Figure 9 are fire equipment that have a useful life of ten or more years qualifying to be impact fee-eligible. Shown in Figure 9,the Fire District has 108 equipment units with a total replacement of$1.03 million.The proportionate share between residential and nonresidential demand of the facilities is found by applying the calls for service percentages.As a result,91.8 units are attributed to residential demand and 16.2 units are attributed to nonresidential demand.The current level of service is found by comparing the attributed units to the current population and nonresidential vehicles trips. As a result,there is 2.43 units per 1,000 residents and 0.59 units per 1,000 vehicles trips. The average cost per unit is combined with the current levels of service to find the capital cost per demand unit.This results in a cost of$24 per person and$6 per vehicle trip(2.43 units per 1,000 persons x$10,000 per unit=$24 per person, rounded). Figure 9.Fire Equipment Level of Service&Cost Analysis Current Total Equipment Type Units Cost Replacement SCBA 60 $8,600 $516,000 Generator 5 $13,000 $65,000 Radios 42 $8,700 $365,400 Air Compressor 1 $80,000 $80,000 Total 108 $1,026,400 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share 85% 15% Share of Units 91.8 16.2 2022 Population/Nonres.Vehicle Trips 37,772 27,268 Units per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips 1 2.431 0.59 Cost Analysis Residential Nonresidential Units per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips 2.43 0.59 Average Cost per Unit $10,000 $10,000 Capital Cost per Person/Vehicle Trip 1 $241 $6 Tischler ise 12 Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study SHARE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY Under the Idaho enabling legislation, the Fire District is able to recover the cost of the study through the collection of future fees. An impact fee study must be completed every five years, so the study cost is compared to the five-year projected increase in population and nonresidential vehicle trips. As a result, the cost per person is$2 and the cost per vehicle trip is$2. Figure 10.Share of the Development Impact Fee Study Share of Residential Nonresidential Study Cost Share Share $19,720 85% 15% Residential Five-Year Capital Cost Growth Share Population Increase per Person 100% 10,478 $2 Nonresidential Five-Year Capital Cost Growth Share Veh. Trip Increase per Trip 100% 2,173 $2 13 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SERVE GROWTH Needs due to future growth were calculated using the levels of service and cost factors for the infrastructure components. Growth-related needs are a projection of the amount of infrastructure and estimated costs over the next ten years needed to maintain levels of service. FIRE FACILITIES The current levels of service are combined with the population and vehicle trip projections to illustrate the need for new fire facilities. Shown in Figure 11, over the next ten years, there is a need for 14,126 square feet.The average cost per square foot is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($11,300,800). Figure 11. Projected Demand for Fire Facilities Infrastructure 1 level of Service 1 Cost/Unit Residential 780 per 1,000 persons Fire Stations Square Feet $800 Nonresidential 191 per 1,000 veh.trips Growth-Related Need for Fire Stations Nonres. Residential Nonresidential Total Year Population Vehicle Trips Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Base 2022 37,772 27,268 29,462 5,208 34,670 Year 1 2023 40,200 27,702 31,356 5,291 36,647 Year 2 2024 42,629 28,137 33,250 5,374 38,624 Year 3 2025 45,057 28,572 35,144 5,457 40,601 Year 4 2026 46,653 29,006 36,389 5,540 41,929 Year 5 2027 48,250 29,441 37,634 5,623 43,257 Year 6 2028 49,846 29,876 38,880 5,706 44,586 Year 7 2029 51,443 30,310 40,125 5,789 45,914 Year 8 2030 53,039 30,745 41,370 5,872 47,242 Year 9 2031 53,890 31,336 42,034 5,985 48,019 Year 10 2032 54,741 31,928 42,698 6,098 48,796 Ten-Year Increase 16,969 4,660 13,236 890 14,126 Projected Expenditure $10,588,800 $712,000 $11,300,800 Growth-Related Expenditures for Fire Stations 1$11,300,800 Tssch rel B\ise 14 Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study FIRE APPARATUSES The current levels of service are combined with the population and vehicle trip projections to illustrate the need for new fleet units.Shown in Figure 12,over the next ten years,there is a need for 9.1 units.The average cost per unit is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($3,549,000). Figure 12. Projected Demand for Fire Apparatuses Infrastructure 1 level of Service I Cost/Unit Residential 0.50 per 1,000 persons Fire Apparatuses Units $390,000 Nonresidential 0.12 per 1,000 veh.trips Growth-Related Need for Fire Apparatuses Nonres. Residential Nonresidential Total Year Population Vehicle Trips Units Units Units Base 2022 37,772 27,268 18.8 3.2 22.0 Year 1 2023 40,200 27,702 20.1 3.3 23.4 Year 2 2024 42,629 28,137 21.3 3.3 24.6 Year 3 2025 45,057 28,572 22.5 3.4 25.9 Year 4 2026 46,653 29,006 23.3 3.4 26.7 Year 5 2027 48,250 29,441 24.1 3.5 27.6 Year 6 2028 49,846 29,876 24.9 3.5 28.4 Year 7 2029 51,443 30,310 25.7 3.6 29.3 Year 8 2030 53,039 30,745 26.5 3.6 30.1 Year 9 2031 53,890 31,336 26.9 3.7 30.6 Year 10 2032 54,741 31,928 27.3 3.8 31.1 Ten-Year Increase 16,969 4,660 8.5 0.6 9.1 Projected Expenditure $3,315,000 $234,000 $3,549,000 Growth-Related Expenditures for Fire Apparatuses 1$3,549,000 Tis 15 chlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study FIRE EQUIPMENT The current levels of service are combined with the population and vehicle trip projections to illustrate the need for new equipment units. Shown in Figure 13, over the next ten years, there is a need for 44.1 units. The average cost per unit is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($441,000). Figure 13.Projected Demand for Fire Equipment Infrastructure 1 Level of Service I Cost/Unit Residential 2.43 per 1,000 persons Equipment Units $10,000 Nonresidential 0.59 per 1,000 veh.trips Growth-Related Need for Equipment Nonres. i Residential Nonresidential Total Year II Population 11 Vehicle Units Units Units Base 2022 37,772 27,268 91.7 16.0 107.7 Year 1 2023 40,200 27,702 97.6 16.3 113.9 Year 2 2024 42,629 28,137 103.5 16.6 120.1 Year 3 2025 45,057 28,572 109.4 16.8 126.2 Year 4 2026 46,653 29,006 113.3 17.1 130.4 Year 5 2027 48,250 29,441 117.2 17.3 134.5 Year 6 2028 49,846 29,876 121.1 17.6 138.7 Year 7 2029 51,443 30,310 125.0 17.8 142.8 Year 8 2030 53,039 30,745 128.8 18.1 146.9 Year 9 2031 53,890 31,336 130.9 18.4 149.3 Year 10 2032 54,741 31,928 133.0 18.8 151.8 Ten-Year Increase 16,969 4,660 41.3 2.8 44.1 Projected Expenditure $413,000 $28,000 $441,000 Growth-Related Expenditures for Equipment I $441,000 FIRE IMPACT FEE CREDIT ANALYSIS The district currently has an impact fee fund balance of $1,100,000, which requires consideration of a credit.As shown below in Figure 14,this balance accounts for 5 percent of the ten-year projected growth expenditures, resulting in a 5 percent credit of the impact fee. Figure 14.Fire Impact Fee Credit Analysis Fire Im.act Fee Fee Credit Available Fund Balance $1,100,000 10-Year Ca•ital Plan $20,100,000 Available Fund Balance%of Plan I 5% 16 TISC Bise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study SUMMARY OF INPUT VARIABLES AND MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE IMPACT FEES Figure 15 provides a summary of the input variables (described in the chapter sections above) used to calculate the net cost per person and vehicle trip. The residential Fire Development Impact Fees are the product of persons per housing unit by type multiplied by the total net capital cost per person. For example, the single family maximum impact fee is $2,111 per unit ($803 per person x 2.63 persons per housing unit=$2,111, rounded).The nonresidential fees are the product of vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet multiplied by the net capital cost per nonresidential vehicle trip. The Fire District Board may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service. Figure 15.Summary of Input Variables and Maximum Supportable Impact Fees Fee Cost 1 Cost Component per Person per Vehicle Trip Fire Stations $624 $153 Fire Apparatuses $195 $47 Fire Equipment $24 $6 Im•act Fee Stud $2 $2 Gross Total $845 $208 Credit for Fund Balance(5%) ($42) ($10) Net Total $803 $198 Residential Persons per Maximum Current I Increase/ Housing Type Housing Unit Supportable Fee Fee I (Decrease) Residential .er housin: unit BERECIIIM 2.63 $2,111 $897 $1,214 Multifamil 1.38 $1,108 $897 $211 Nonresidential Vehicle Trips Maximum Current Increase/ Development Type per KSF Supportable Fee Fee (Decrease) Nonresidential(ser 1,000 square feet) Retail 14.06 $2,779 $360 $2,419 Office 5.42 $1,071 $360 $711 Industrial 2.44 $481 $360 $121 Institutional 5.39 $1,064 $360 $704 17 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS FOR MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE IMPACT FEE This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the Fire District if the development impact fees are implemented at the maximum supportable amounts. The cash flow projections are based on the assumptions detailed in this chapter and the development projections discussed in Appendix B. Demographic Assumptions. The summary provides an indication of the impact fee revenue generated by new development. Shown at the bottom of the figure, the maximum supportable fire impact fee is estimated to generate $14.5 million in revenue while there is a growth-related cost of$15.3 million.The revenue is able to mitigate 95 percent of growth-related costs. The remaining funding gap is the result of the credit for the existing impact fee fund balance and the impact fee program will be made whole with those funds. Figure 16.Cash Flow Summary for Maximum Supportable Impact Fees Infrastructure Costs for Fire Facilities Total Cost Growth Cost Fire Stations $11,300,800 $11,300,800 Fire Apparatuses $3,549,000 $3,549,000 Fire Equipment $441,000 $441,000 Impact Fee Study $39,440 $39,440 Total Expenditures $15,330,240 $15,330,240 Projected Development Impact Fee Revenue Single Family Multifamily Retail 1 Office ] Industrial Institutional $2,111 51,108 $2,779 1 $1,071 $481 $1,064 per unit per unit per KSF j per KSF 1 per KSF j per KSF Year Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2022 13,710 1,161 1,069 871 1,632 658 1 2023 14,591 1,236 1,086 885 1,658 669 2 2024 15,473 1,310 1,103 899 1,684 679 3 2025 16,354 1,385 1,120 913 1,710 690 4 2026 16,933 1,434 1,137 926 1,736 700 5 2027 17,513 1,483 1,154 940 1,762 710 6 2028 18,092 1,532 1,171 954 1,788 721 7 2029 18,672 1,581 1,188 968 1,814 731 8 2030 19,251 1,630 1,205 982 1,840 742 9 2031 19,560 1,656 1,228 1,001 1,875 756 10 2032 19,869 1,683 1,251 1,020 1,910 770 Ten-Year Increase 6,159 522 183 149 279 112 Projected Revenue $13,002,203 $577,937 $507,575 $159,400 $134,115 $119,652 Projected Revenue=> $14,501,000 Projected Expenditures=> $15,330,000 Non-Impact Fee Funding=> $829,000 18 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS Development impact fees for Eagle Fire Protection District are based on reasonable and fair formulas or methods. The fees do not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the District in the provision of system improvements to serve new development. The District will fund non- growth-related improvements with non-development impact fee funds as it has in the past. Specified in the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Idaho Code 67-8207), several factors must be evaluated in the development impact fee study and are discussed below. 1) The development impact fees for Eagle Fire Protection District are based on new growth's share of the costs of previously built projects along with planned public facilities as provided by the Fire District. Projects are included in the District's capital improvements plan and will be included in annual capital budgets. 2) TischlerBise estimated development impact fee revenue based on the maximum supportable development impact fees for the one,districtwide service area; results are shown in the cash flow analyses in this report. Existing and future development impact fee revenue will entirely fund growth-related improvements. 3) TischlerBise has evaluated the extent to which new development may contribute to the cost of public facilities. 4) The relative extent to which properties will make future contributions to the cost of existing public facilities has also been evaluated in regards to existing debt. 5) The District will evaluate the extent to which newly developed properties are entitled to a credit for system improvements that have been provided by property owners or developers.These"site- specific" credits will be available for system improvements identified in the annual capital budget and long-term Capital Improvement Plans. Administrative procedures for site-specific credits should be addressed in the development impact fee ordinance. 6) Extraordinary costs, if any, in servicing newly developed properties should be addressed through administrative procedures that allow independent studies to be submitted to the District. These procedures should be addressed in the development impact fee ordinance. 7) The time-price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times has been addressed. All costs in the development impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the annual evaluation and update of development impact fees. 19 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (hereafter referred to as the Idaho Act) requires jurisdictions to form a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee (DIFAC). The committee must have at least five members with a minimum of two members active in the business of real estate, building,or development. The committee acts in an advisory capacity and is tasked to do the following: • Assist the governmental entity in adopting land use assumptions; • Review the capital improvements plan, and proposed amendments,and file written comments; • Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; • File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the capital improvements plan and report to the governmental entity any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the development impact fees; and • Advise the governmental entity of the need to update or revise land use assumptions,the capital improvements plan, and development impact fees. Furthermore, it is the collecting jurisdiction that is required to form the DIFAC. In this case, Eagle Fire Protection Impact Fees will be collected by the City of Eagle and Ada County.Thus, those jurisdictions will form separate DIFACs. Per the above, each jurisdiction has formed a DIFAC. TischlerBise has met with each DIFAC during the process and provided information on land use assumptions, level of service and cost assumptions, and draft development impact fee schedules.This report reflects comments and feedback received from the DI FACs. The Fire District must develop and adopt a capital improvements plan (CIP) that includes those improvements for which fees were developed. The Idaho Act defines a capital improvement as an "improvement with a useful life of ten years or more,by new construction or other action,which increases the service capacity of a public facility." Requirements for the CIP are outlined in Idaho Code 67-8208. Certain procedural requirements must be followed for adoption of the CIP and the development impact fee ordinance. Requirements are described in detail in Idaho Code 67-8206.The Fire District has a CIP that meets the above requirements. TischlerBise recommends that development impact fees be updated annually to reflect recent data. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction costs by means of an index like the RSMeans or Engineering News Record(ENR).This index can be applied against the calculated development impact fee. If cost estimates change significantly the Fire District should evaluate an adjustment to the CIP and development impact fees. 20 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Idaho's enabling legislation requires an annual development impact fees report that accounts for fees collected and spent during the preceding year (Idaho Code 67-8210). Development impact fees must be deposited in interest-bearing accounts earmarked for the associated capital facilities as outlined in capital improvements plans. Also,fees must be spent within eight years of when they are collected (on a first in, first out basis) unless the local governmental entity identifies in writing (a) a reasonable cause why the fees should be held longer than eight years;and (b)an anticipated date by which the fees will be expended but in no event greater than eleven years from the date they were collected. Credits must be provided for in accordance with Idaho Code Section 67-8209 regarding site-specific credits or developer reimbursements for system improvements that have been included in the development impact fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development approval process are not eligible for credits against development impact fees. Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits or developer reimbursements for system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the fees. The general concept is that developers may be eligible for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in CIP and development impact fee calculations. If a developer constructs a system improvement that was included in the fee calculations, it is necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees in the area that benefits from the system improvement.The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on TischlerBise's experience, it is better for a reimbursement agreement to be established with the developer that constructs a system improvement. For example, if a developer elects to construct a system improvement, then a reimbursement agreement can be established to payback the developer from future development impact fee revenue.The reimbursement agreement should be based on the actual documented cost of the system improvement, if less than the amount shown in the CIP. However,the reimbursement should not exceed the CIP amount that has been used in the development impact fee calculations. 21 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study APPENDIX A. LAND USE DEFINITIONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT As discussed below, residential development categories are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Single Family Units: 1. Single family detached is a one-unit structure detached from any other house, that is, with open space on all four sides. Such structures are considered detached even if they have an adjoining shed or garage.A one-family house that contains a business is considered detached as long as the building has open space on all four sides. 2. Single family attached (townhouse) is a one-unit structure that has one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures. In row houses (sometimes called townhouses), double houses, or houses attached to nonresidential structures, each house is a separate,attached structure if the dividing or common wall goes from ground to roof. 3. Mobile home includes both occupied and vacant mobile homes, to which no permanent rooms have been added. Mobile homes used only for business purposes or for extra sleeping space and mobile homes for sale on a dealer's lot,at the factory,or in storage are not counted in the housing inventory. Multifamily Units: 1. 2+ units (duplexes and apartments) are units in structures containing two or more housing units, further categorized as units in structures with "2,3 or 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 19, 20 to 49,and 50 or more apartments." 2. Boat, RV, Van, etc. includes any living quarters occupied as a housing unit that does not fit the other categories(e.g.,houseboats, railroad cars,campers,and vans). Recreational vehicles, boats, vans, railroad cars, and the like are included only if they are occupied as a current place of residence. TischlerBise 22 Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES Nonresidential development categories used throughout this study are based on land use classifications from the book Trip Generation (ITE, 2021). A summary description of each development category is provided below. Retail: Establishments primarily selling merchandise, eating/drinking places, and entertainment uses. By way of example, Retail includes shopping centers, banks, restaurants, and movie theaters. Office: Establishments providing management, administrative, professional, or business services. By way of example, Office includes offices and business services. Industrial: Establishments primarily engaged in the production and transportation of goods. By way of example, Industrial includes manufacturing plants, distribution facilities,warehousing facilities. Institutional: Public and quasi-public buildings providing educational, social assistance, or religious services. By way of example, Institutional includes schools, churches, daycare facilities, and health care facilities. 23 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study APPENDIX B. DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Impact fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit or persons per household to derive proportionate share fee amounts. Housing types have varying household sizes and, consequently, a varying demand on District infrastructure and services. Thus, it is important to differentiate between housing types and size. When persons per housing unit (PPHU) is used in the development impact fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. In contrast, when persons per household (PPHH) is used in the development impact fee calculations, the fee methodology assumes all housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. TischlerBise recommends that fees for residential development in Eagle be imposed according to persons per housing unit. Based on housing characteristics, TischlerBise recommends using two housing unit categories for the Impact Fee study: (1) Single Family and (2) Multifamily. Each housing type has different characteristics which results in a different demand on District facilities and services. Figure 17 shows the districtwide US Census American Community Survey 2020 5-Year Estimates data for Eagle.Single family units have a PPHU of 2.63 persons and multifamily units have a household size of 1.38 persons. Additionally, there is a housing mix of 92 percent single family and 8 percent multifamily. The estimates in Figure 17 are for PPHU calculations. Base year population and housing units are estimated with another, more recent data source. Figure 17.Persons per Housing Unit Housing Persons per Persons per Housing Housing Type Persons Units Housing Unit Households Household Unit Mix Single Family [1] 26,942 10,226 2.63 9,897 2.72 92% Multifamily[2] 1,194 866 1.38 713 1.67 8% Total 28,136 11,092 2.54 10,610 2.65 [1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes [2] Includes all other types Source: U.S.Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 24 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study BASE YEAR HOUSING UNITS AND POPULATION Base year population is derived from Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) traffic analysis zone data. Based off of this data, the base year population estimate for the Fire District is 37,772. PPHU data shown in Figure 17 is used to convert this total population number to a total housing unit number, which is estimated to be 14,871. Then the housing unit mix percentage is applied to this total housing unit estimate to get a breakdown between single and multifamily units. Figure 18.Base Year Housing Units and Population Eagle Fire Base Year Protection District I 2022 Population 1 37,772 Housin: Units[2] Single Family 13,710 Multifamil 1,161 Total Housin: Units 14,871 [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model [2] U.S.Census Bureau,2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, TischlerBise analysis BUILDING PERMIT HISTORY To illustrate residential development trends in the Fire District the past five years of building permit history is listed for the City of Eagle in Figure 19. Although the Fire District provides service beyond the City of Eagle the annual totals indicate overall growth in the area.As shown, between 2018 to 2020 there were over 700 housing units being constructed in Eagle annually. In the past two years, construction has slowed with only 187 single family units and no multifamily development being built in 2022. Over the past five years, there has been an annual average of 455 single family units and 141 multifamily units (nearly 600 units total annually). Figure 19.City of Eagle Building Permit History i 1 I 5-Year Housing Type 201S 2019 j 2020 . 2021 2022 Total Average Single Family 681 519 434 452 187 2,273 455 Multifamil 48 250 277 131 0 706 141 Total 729 769 711 583 187 2,792 596 Source:Ada County Assessor's Data Database for City of Eagle TischlerBase 25 .4 > a) C ' C C LD •� "O -C (0 > ++ (0 N o :A , O O CO ) 0 a) i .1... ♦+ � a) U a) U 0 0. C U +� CO C a) 4-00° a) C O 'a = C i OU „�. m N a •0 a) 10 13 a� Ln a) t v L_ .as � x °C° N a) N ...c....) Q. a) Q a) ON '-I Ql m N W N _� O C f6 C N ^ co LLDD LLnn ? c I _ O O �- ai .--i ri c a) 0 fo (•) N Ln a--I N CO 0 0 3 a) a) 0 to Q L _C +-, 0 O LD N `^ (6 a) 0 _C •Ui- M 00 Ln ).0 NJ CD m 0" 0A O m a) ri1. ,-I N (Ca U LE 3 2 N Ln .-I N C aJ a, CD_a to c6 m Lam() OM 0�0 • y +' m LE (c Om O N lD CO E v a) "' E O m ai r-i o -0 al O E O CU N in ,--I N 0 C Q N a••. 0a) 0 m N %1 (-0 CU 0- 00 a) �O -0 C N V NO m N CO � �•+ L.0 4.' •= O ,--c 00 .-i o N Y a) a••• to 7 U• N Ln e--1 N H 0 a) a) • N to N N V >. Caate••+ 0 i N CON O" CO Tr a) M N -(0 E w 0- N 00 O 1n LD N N }' 00 0 i L_ O 0";.. 00 r-I al < N 7 0 > .0 03 CO N .--1 .--I u CD c4= N ,1 -o �0•, •� O M M Up aJ co N. Ln -1 CO al RS N -' X (a U a"•I N N Ln CY al H 0 .N a) w- O 00 N ri 00 C +� N V r-1 ,.-1 0 V) 4". CO (0 ▪ Q -c v N -0 +' in m Cr) lD "a .N a L_ O J 0 N LC) al Cr CO N a) 0A a) Ln -0 0 o LD 1A r-1 00 a) C C > -O > LJ N V' r-1 4-1 N O O O _CO = C0 L co N Ln V) 0 0 0_ U Ln Lf) 00 m 0 .7 L C a) U Q ul 1,4 O m m N 1n CO +�-' >. E '+0 N O x ri ri 0 C O • c NC f6 I- >, t o m o m 0 U (0 - H N n r-1 co •�' 4- (0 'a-•+ E a) (0 N LD M 1� cL th coL N O N Ln e--I LD 0 Z �' > LL f0 N e--1 •-1 00 0 (n ro E N aJ >, O a-1 LD N. Q (n (0 (v C N M O al Cr) N 0D e Q .0 N C a� c c N N in N 00 C -CL!1 N a••, _O Co 4-1 ri 4-1 C 03 CID C.• U E a) a) i CD r-1 .--I d C 02. 0 L `J N N "I 00 4- Z O S Z -C d ., No C O aJ N L G N 0 h (0 L a) '` E .... 0 a) 00 a 0 > L E m E U C W 0 (0 a F CU 0 F d N C OO C U a-i 41 i O N d Oi LDC 4-0 CO " G .- >' a)Za) 0 a, ao Ca+ �< O ,r CL_ a 0 C(o Cv � O ya • W Y t . Z }, co G >; > 'E •E N .ice to N aa) (v (0 (0 O O 01 L 7 L -q.. O +� 7, C 0J 0 ' U) w t a) 1.02 C a.)) i OU 00 ,_ ,- i- C a) Q >. Q a) LL r 4. Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CURRENT EMPLOYMENT AND NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA The impact fee study will include nonresidential development as well. Utilizing COMPASS traffic analysis zone data, 2022 total employment in the Fire District is estimated at 9,547 jobs. Idaho State Demographic Community profile data is used to breakdown this job total.As a result,there are an estimated 2,269 retail jobs, 2,837 office jobs, 2,561 industrial jobs, and 1,880 institutional jobs located in the district. Base year nonresidential floor area estimates are based on GIS Ada County GIS parcel data. There is an estimated total of 3.9 million square feet of nonresidential floor area in the Fire District. Retail industries accounts for the greatest share, with approximately 36 percent. Institutional accounts for 24 percent, office accounts for 22 percent, and industrial accounts for 18 percent of the total. Figure 21.Base Year Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Eagle Fire Base Year %of Base Year %of Protection Jobs[1] Total Sq.Ft.[2] Total Retail 2,269 24% 1,412,030 36% Office 2,837 30% 880,906 22% Industrial 2,561 27% 693,197 18% Institutional 1,880 20% 963,163 24% Total 9,547 100% 3,949,296 100% [1]COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model; Idaho State Demographic Community Profile [2]Source:Ada County GIS parcel data �,�..----�•..` 27 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EMPLOYMENT AND NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA PROJECTIONS Job and nonresidential ten-year projections are provided in Figure 23. Job growth is projected using COMPASS traffic analysis zone data. Over the next 10 years there is a projected 1,632-increase in jobs, a 17 percent increase from the base year. Office development accounts for the greatest share of the increase. Job growth is converted into nonresidential floor area using the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) square feet per employee averages shown in Figure 22. For the retail industry the Shopping Center land use factors are used; for office the General Office factors are used; for industrial the Light Industrial factors are used;for Institutional the Hospital factors are used.Over the next ten years,the nonresidential floor area is projected to increase by approximately 723,000 square feet. Figure 22.Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Employment Density Factors Employment FTE Demand Emp per Sq. Ft. Industry Code Land Use Unit f pmd Unit!, per Emp Retail 820 Sho..i n: Center 1,000 S. Ft 2.12 471 Office 710 General Office 1,000 S. Ft 3.26 307 Industrial 110 Li:ht Industrial 1,000 S. Ft 1.57 637 Institutional 610 Hos.ital 1,000 S. Ft 2.86 350 Source:Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,11th Edition(2021) TischlerBise 28 •U .O N ram.. 0 V) ▪ C) O O) O LL ..1:+ 4-. U U Cu 0 O 0. a - �, CI 00 Lt100 CO a-1 N M 01 01 N M ✓ CO 00 M N M 00 cr 1� ai N y M M tO ei ai N e i N ▪ E O i ei n O I- C _ul T W C) N N Ol e- 0-, r O1 0 0 0 N f0 > N N O N Vl 1 O Vl N a--I N V) C M O N N N 0 m CO f1 c-I O Ol Ol co O N M (N N c-I i-1 .--1 .--1 C) -o N ei N C Co f6 co O e•-1 N co r1 V1 t0 O C 1-4 CR. tp V tD N N O 1� Vl t0 v 10 M t0 N 01 a-I CT N O 00 N co t F. O N M N N O r1 ei ci t N N c..1 C I- 0) O1 01 CO O V) V1 N 0 N Ol E p VI 01 CO N LD 0 00 tD C) M V1 rl 00 .-I N N Ol 00 N N "O cu C n G N M N N O e- ei c C tl � N M N O M 00 00 cr ei e1 C E 01 N V1 Tr Ol e 1 Co tip r-i M O 0 - N V1 a-i 00 O t0 rl O1 00 1� N N YNO N M N N O ei r Ct �n l E. VI f0 tD 00 LIDi c- O eI Cr 00 ei 'Cr ? U 03 00 O O tD t0 N V1 00 N M _co N N eir, r N t CO 00 0 l O1 1� 0 N O N M N. N O ai r1 0 N eI u N w O M Vl O CO ch 0 N 0 t0 co N in VD t0 m O in Tr t0 .-I t0 L ,-IN .4 O N O M ‘--IO1 N N in 1- N N N M N N O ci cI CO CO V1 0 VD 1� t0 t0 0 01 "10 C tO ei ei N O Vl M N M O CFI — •O N O N O ei e I al 1-- N +' i" N N M N N -O e I .--I a- v v r-I3 C 00 N cr O O M O O N +-. (D in1� N 00 No N ei el Ol M O N co O) tD 01 O .-1 01 1-, t) cr, N ,4 NN N N e-i O ei ei Tr 41-1 0 O ei I, M O N vi- M Cr) [t 01 - C a, a.. d' N cr in O) co N Lb O C) a N M CT) t0 Cr) 00 ei CO t0 t0 M C N N N N ei 01 N eiI. ei co cr .0 'Fp 1- ,_ O C w O V1 N N O O ,r+ t0 V1 CO Ol 1� N C L e. O 00 O ei O Co 00 V1 l0 O1 Q O O N M 00 t0 01 N a O 00 lO tO N to CI N N N N e1 Q1 C ei e1 v C mi O C t. Ol N r1 O N O Ol .--I N CO Ol C a 1` t0 M t0 Co v � M LO 1 In N fO N _ } N N 00 V1 00 V1 LC, (.0N O 00 t0 O_ C 01 U O N N N .-i O1 N .--I e-i a� Z- f0 7 N E FL y m Q O = O E C) :, 0 E " O w O Y Z f6 U 'VVIi 'G - ._ - C I.: co C co _ 10 C - C 0) - C u0 CO 0 co 0 N - ' ' (1) i 1= n r a °C 'i �v01 WC.) _. - a v - - Uv V Y - O OE - c^ r0 iC N U V1 O a ., CC 0 = I- Z 0 I° , N i 0. E ......r M i C N 1v U ,U) H .. Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS BY HOUSING TYPE A customized trip rate is calculated for the single family and multifamily units in the Eagle Fire Protection District. In Figure 24, the most recent data from the US Census American Community Survey is inputted into equations provided by the ITE to calculate the trip ends per housing unit factor. A single family unit is estimated to generate 14.26 trip ends and a multifamily unit is estimated to generate 5.60 trip ends on an average weekday. Figure 24.Customized Residential Trip End Rates by Housing Type Households by Structure Type2 Tenure by Units Vehicles Single Vehicles per Multifamily Total in Structure Available' Family HH by Owner-Occupied 20,913 9,061 13 9,074 2.30 Renter-Occupied 2,418 836 700 1,536 1.57 Total 23,331 9,897 713 10,610 2.20 Housing Units3 10,226 866 11,092 Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average Local Trip National Trip Housing Type , Households Ends Type of Unit Ends Trip Ends Ends per HH Ends per Unit' Single Family 26,942 74,990 22,153 207,235 141,113 14.26 9.43 Multifamily 1,194 2,653 1,129 5,338 3,996 5.60 4.54 Total 28,136 77,644 23,282 212,574 145,109 13.68 1.Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 2. Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 3. Housing units from Table B25024, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 4.Total population in households from Table B25033, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 5.Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2021). For single-family housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.89*LN(persons)+1.72).To approximate the average population of the ITE studies, persons were divided by 19 and the equation result multiplied by 19. For multi- family housing(ITE 221),the fitted curve equation is(2.29*persons)-64.48(ITE 2017). 6.Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2021). For single- family housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.92*LN(vehicles)+2.68).To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies,vehicles available were divided by 34 and the equation result multiplied by 34. For multi-family housing(ITE 221),the fitted curve equation is(4.77*vehicles)-46.46(ITE 2021). 7.Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition(2021). 30 TischlerBise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS ADJUSTMENT FACTORS A vehicle trip end is the out-bound or in-bound leg of a vehicle trip. As a result, so to not double count trips, a standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to trip ends to calculate a vehicle trip. For example,the out-bound trip from a person's home to work is attributed to the housing unit and the trip from work back home is attributed to the employer. However, an additional adjustment is necessary to capture District residents' work bound trips that are outside of the District. The trip adjustment factor includes two components. According to the National Household Travel Survey, home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends).Also, utilizing the most recent data from the Census Bureau's web application "OnTheMap", 90 percent of Eagle workers travel outside the District for work. In combination, these factors account for 14 percent of additional production trips (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.90 = 0.14). Shown in Figure 25, the total adjustment factor for residential housing units includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (14 percent of production trips) for a total of 64 percent. Figure 25.Residential Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters Employed Eagle Residents(2019) 8,866 Residents Working in Eagle(2019) 861 Residents Commuting Outside of Eagle for Work 8,005 Percent Commuting Out of Eagle 90% Additional Production Trips 14% Standard Trip Adjustment Factor 50% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 64% Source:U.S.Census,OnTheMap Application,2019 31 Tischle Bise Eagle Fire Protection District 2022 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study NONRESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS Vehicle trip generation for nonresidential land uses are calculated by using ITE's average daily trip end rates and adjustment factors found in their recently published 11th edition of Trip Generation.To estimate the trip generation in the Eagle Fire Protection District,the weekday trip end per 1,000 square feet factors listed in Figure 26 are used. Figure 26.Institute of Transportation Engineers Nonresidential Factors Employment ITE j Demand 1 Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Industry ( Code I Land Use Unit l per Dmd Unit per Employee Retail 820 Sho..i n: Center 1,000 S. Ft 37.01 17.42 Office 710 General Office 1,000 S. Ft 10.84 3.33 Industrial 110 Li:ht Industrial 1,000 S. Ft 4.87 3.10 Institutional 610 Hos.ital 1,000 S. Ft 10.77 3.77 Source:Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021) For nonresidential land uses, the standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to office, industrial, and institutional. A lower vehicle trip adjustment factor is used for retail because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work,the convenience store is not their primary destination. In Figure 27,the Institute for Transportation Engineers' land use code, daily vehicle trip end rate,and trip adjustment factor is listed for each land use. Figure 27.Daily Vehicle Trip Factors ITE Daily Vehicle Trip Adj. Daily Vehicle Land Use Codes Trip Ends Factor Trips Residential(per housing unit) Single Family 210 14.26 64% 9.13 Multifamily 220 5.60 64% 3.58 Nonresidential(per 1,000 square feet) Retail 820 37.01 38% 14.06 Office 710 10.84 50% 5.42 Industrial 110 4.87 50% 2.44 Institutional 610 10.77 50% 5.39 Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021); 'National Household Travel Survey, 2009 32 TischlerBise +-' ? a) CO M is 13 U E • V1 U a) CO a) czi y co `� C al `- m a) O u. C CO 0A N CO• 0 a) NE C 'N CJ N CO e-1 01 N CD tO 0 r'i +-' 0. .� ri tD CO tO 0 N O t0 Ch O H eNi Y N 00 O V1 00 CD LID N C L I-- v e-1' N in in CD I C -0 O a) c y CO 4-' O) c_ C CO M c-1 Tr O N N 01 00 r 1 m M lD O N V1 Tr N Ol p1 O }, O C a) M M O M CO V1 t0 ,--1 0) N W 01 a) OU 0) O r-1 l0 N N Vl cr ri al > _, U 0D N 00 00 r-1 m ri a) +•+ CO 00 ri r 1 N C - i Nto 'a T-1 M Oin N N I.O N m CO C O = -0M V1 01 Cr N VI O m N U -6 t00 V O 1 T N V1 Tr .-i V1 C CO c +-+ N N 00 i--1 M e-i f0 ri e--1 N CO E_ O CO L at Tr m N 00 O1 Tro0 C a) Y 0A O L0 00 lr) 01 M tot-, 01 N N Q- C a) o V) V1 e-1 1p V1 cr m O N E •L- N N N 00 r♦ M ri a) + +' ri ri N O L a) V V a O 1 l0 N m 00 N l0 01 O CO 0. i >. O lD N o v .-1 m r-i co E t 6N V lD 0 N N at m m - > -O • O O O V1 l0 40 V1 Tr M O l0 CO a) 00 •fa N ri M NJ 0 ' N C O- +�+ U C CO ri 01 0l N M N l0 V1 o 0)'L .-1 a1 O LC) N in 0o N 00 CC C �+ " N c-1 V lD r-1 m 00 00 Nto 0A 4) 0 LA. V1 O lD V1 d' m 01 O N = lD N r O ,--1 0 T N i N I--1 ri N N aJ co O in V1 at N O 1.0 r1 ID O L a) N Cr) r1 Tr N 01 01 N Cr 00 U CO >, 0_ N 00 M ri N O N 00 S V1 C > L. h O V1 l0 V1 - m N art O c) O f0 r1 ri ri • '� ri O .--I 01 ri LD ) lD N W CO C a) N Tr Tr00 00 N N VD O 00 .0 • CO N (N.. N Inri l0 0) O N N O lO ._i U Y C O Vl 01 Vl V) K1 Ol 00 ri Vl V1 ri N 00 CO U •- N r-1 r-i ri CO Q) H •Q" a) M cr N O l0 m m N Ql a:, L V1 l0 ri V1 LD r-I N 00 O c00 CO N 0; N N al ri n V1 ty to 'yi N i_ O Ol [r V Vl r1 00 N C C 0 U U N r�i rsi '-1 N 00 O O ,E •_ U i > - cm l0 lD O ri O N N co •� a1 O 00 3 a ON 1�0 001 1r 0000, O 11D rm-1 o I' NO ri Ti Vl Vl v v ri 00 v i Q C -�1 O- N ri N N a1 •L ri ri ri 0) 0, .7, N ++ C c , c_ L a) a) lD N 01 N 01 Co O O at 42 U_ M .-i Tr, in N O lD N (N W U 7 •I-' LE 0.. O M V N V1 Ti. Ti. r) N Vl p C H > O N rMi rmi ri N l0 p aJ 7 ++ > CO 0U - > . ri ri M ri O m Tr oo O Y Q) /; N CD 00 M N N - LID in i c 0 CO "✓3 et '� N ri ri N O N 01 V1 N V1 O CO a, In a-•+ 4, _ �, O N N r-1 V M M N O. C N N CO 0 0 '" N r-I .--1 ri f0 VI Z 0 U) 0 i-•+ t C N H 0e O a) O CD r G 0 C Y Q 0 v L Q 0 l6 U % . to F- +a) C a) a V N •Q- `° Y 0 CO Q ° F cWr c f° E a — C L CO ac L N t) .' L1 d O C u ( Y Y cc O Y d ~ N a. 0) +- _ �_ > C 0) Y W " .O O Y O L _ U .n •- O u C •. L/� d t_ aJ N CO t p to - C u• "a , - co 7 W CD -05 c en — 01 ar 3 v c c O X > p c > a cc in 2 N Z o O ut > O N �rr o • LJ N a) i tat 'O L U J an a) C OA i N V +-' co O a) i NairvI • a) -0 Q L co 3 ,dt 10/6/2023 OF Ttr ,f. 'C> BLM PARCELS kog,* ANNEXATION AND REZONE O A-05-23/RZ-07-23 Eagle City Council Public Hearing September 26, 2023 City Staff: Daniel Miller,AICP/PLA I Planner Ill Phone:(208)939-0227 E-Mail: 1 Application Summary: The City of Eagle is requesting: • Annexation; and • Rezone from RR (Rural Residential — Ada County Designation) to PS (Public/Semipublic) for three (3) BLM Parcels. Parcel Nos.: • S0328141800; 120-acres, • S0327223200; 160-acres • S0322315200; 400-acres 2 2 1 10/6/2023 Vicinity Map: r , , ,, A SUBJECT , PARCELS S. S . • ti • 5 ._. fix '‘I .i .;''' R ..✓47,.tfr1 +x. •}` f P`r✓4,,i 1 e. 1 WR'� �vk 4. 4744 >�� ;t � .a �� «�„ ,,_ -;., , Jac t, 9� �R�avk� • 's7se S' `3 risi-tq A11- cam. -K .kr#i' MY • �,--+�T°a �'�. ��. � .� � ,�, EMS ,R � >41f r- +. 6 � ��y.�,. }' I " t� Grp . �, f t ,�� � gy ,� �( .:lilicar.4 ems` , � v i �� r ' !_ :' - ,,,,.. •A• pro - ,••, fit' '., «� d. s id � �,a4. :@ 7., t +h `,f ,;... . W BEACON LIBNT RD 3 Application Information: • The City is requesting annexation of three (3) parcels. • City staff discussed this annexation with Brent Ralston (Field Manager; Boise District Bureau of Land Management) and the BLM did not present opposition to the annexation. • The parcels will remain under BLM ownership and stewardship; no development is scheduled to occur within these parcels as part of this application. • The purpose annexing these parcels is to provide contiguity to the adjacent Valnova parcels adjacent to State Highway 16. 4 2 10/6/2023 ,, '' \ ' VALNOVA DEVELOPMENT ..4 otl*., 1 ANNEXED :ALNOVA DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT APPROVED FOR ANNEXATION IN PARCELS 2007;REQUIRES CONTIGUITY \ FOR FORMAL ANNEXATION TO BE COMPLETED ' ,, o In. , - -� ,S46 , s --A*( ~1A a „ CCy,hAo sK'Awr. 1�. .� y $ _. � pi ,a h� stats n { ri Y t A1J �i*' . ti. ,�_ �I� � 4� Nla� si *e� Os., '' q-T y g'fl A �, gy� drt, &RRqa .ACON LIGHT RD ' ril 4';'Yk PI . tualtri 5 •03/ .•" • • t. • �, •• ..0, • • • .0. VALNOVA PARKWAY: • '�� • ��' ,.� r CONNECTS SH66 INTO THE VALNOI. $ , , PROPERTY THROUGH THE BLM LAND SUBJECT <' THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS APE, • PARCELS PLACE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT,EI.:', 4 I ,or. '0 ACED.AND LTD. THE APPLICANT ONLY HAS THE ABIL,T'- :I L` TO INSTALL STREET.SIDEWALK&TO �:'��^^X MITIGATE ANY DISTURBED AREAS Il "s/T WITH NATIVE SEED MIX WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY AREA Y a 14 THE STREET IS NOT A CITY v'y APPLICATION- - it ' 14 u , jl.tH . e `V 'ge . :& .sd$.,. J! ..... 1... „a it k. L %�'.1 r uT» t Y. ,,,MMes4 t wR n .. ;- x , O 6 3 10/6/2023 Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map Designation: COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE DESIGNATION DESIGNATION Existing Public/Semi-Public RR(Rural Residential-Ada Natural Habitat&Open Space County Designation) Proposed Public/Semi-Public PS(Public/Semipublic) Natural Habitat&Open Space North of site Foothills Residential RR(Rural Residential-Ada Natural Habitat&Open Space County Designation) Natural Habitat&Open Space/Future South of site Foothills Residential R-1-DA(Residential) Valnova develo.ment Natural Habitat&Open Space/Future East of site Foothills Residential R-1-DA(Residential) Valnova development West of site Foothills Residential RR(Rural Residential-Ada Natural Habitat&Open Space/Future County Designation) Valnova development 7 Comprehensive Plan Designation: x Public/Semi-Public: t `` • Primarily for parks, recreation �_ -- facilities,greenways, public service Public/ rl facilities, etc. 1 Semi-Publicr • Is not a residential land use . � • designation. I 1 J J Eagle is HOME Comprehensive Plan—Chapter 6—Land Uses s 8 4 10/6/2023 Zoning Compatibility: ZONING COMPATABILIT/MATRIX CITY ZONING CUSSIF ICAI ioNs1 Residential asMtts NMgbbor Central Agricultural Residential limited Commerdal hood General H�ghwaY Busiress light Induswl NeaW FicrxtWe Pudlc/Semi- MvM Agricultural Resitlenbal Estate R'6to Office Airport Business Buss s Busines DistrictDistrictIndustrial Part NMustrial Industrial Public the FMJRELAND USEDESIGNAT1ONS' IA .AR) (Rif Cl- R-7 R-3 R-a R-5 R-10 1-0 C-A I. C. C.3 s MD M1 1.4-A1 MI M3 PS Agncu prnlural X . _■ ■■■.____■______—©— steResidential Nelghhorhood" ©©©eeee■-_---_____—©_ © ©eeeee©_u��m____�© ��iiu■■eee©©1111111111©_111111111©111111111111__1111M© e=smommummommimimmummnsumummorommummEmm11111111111MIININIIIIIMINIIIM 11111111111111111 ■■■■■ __1111111•©© -■M■�iiiiii©____©©©__©� ���■■■■■__ate_ _a©©©■� ©��■■■■■____________© 1:2191111E1111111111111111111•111MIIMEN11111=1111111MMIMI11111111111•11111MMIIIIIMMINEMEINIENIMI Eagle is HOME Comprehensive Plan—Figure 6.8 Zoning Compatibility Matrix 9 Planning Commission Recommendation: On August 21, 2023, the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend pprovaF of this application as it is reflected within the Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 10 10 5 10/6/2023 End of Presentation 11 6 10/6/2023 FIRE IMPACT FEE INCREASE hialop.4 September 26,2023 Nichoel Baird Spencer,MCRP,AICP THE CITY 0 Director of Long-Range Planning&Projects E AG T 1 M CV N Amount to Include in Impact Fee Calculation $8,269.000 W Percentage of Future Growth W Residential 89% Non Residential 11% W Amount Attributable to Future Growth — Residential $ 7,388,315 Non Residential $ 880.685 Future Growth 2017-2026 Residential (per unit) 8.234 Non Residential (per square foot) 2.453.705 Impact Fee Residential (per unit) $ 897 Non Residential (per square foot) $ 0.36 2 1 10/6/2023 NResidential p Persons per ( Maximum Current Increase/ Stratification of Uses: CV Housing Type j Housing Unit Supportable Fee Fee (Decrease) ' Residential rer housin: unit) Variation LW EIMEEBIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2.63 $2,111 $897 $1,214 SF +235% Multifamil 1.38 $1,108 $897 $211 MF+135% Ci W Nonresidential O Vehicle Trips Maximum Current Increase/ el— CD Development Type per KSF Supportable Fee Fee (Decrease) Nonresidentialr 1,000 •uare feet Variation ° Retail +672/o • Retail 14.06 $2,779 $360 $2,419 ` {{ Office NEW Office 5.42 $1,071 $360 $711 t Industrial +133% Industrial 2.44 $481 $360 $121 1 Institutional NEW Institutional 5.39 $1,064 $360 $704 3 NEXT STEPS: Adoption of Resolution No. 23-29 as amended to implement the following fire impact fees: Residential Persons per Maximum Current Increase/ Mousing Type 1 Mousing Unit Supportable Fee Fee (Decrease) Residential .er housin;unit $2,111 MITTEI® EIREMIIIIM $1,108 MESI® Nonresidential Vehicle Trips Maximum Current Increase/ Development Type per KSF Supportable Fee I Fee (Decrease) Nonresidential •er 1 000-•uare feet • °,„„ , , 52,779=1E13111111113=1 r e.n - $1,071�® ' Industrial ' 2.44 5481 IIIMETE® Institutional 539 $1,064 IMMIIIIMES 1' - —I1 QUESTIONS? movie-wip. l ----- --------------- 2 10/6/2023 THE CITY OF V7:::3 /\/\ /`l' : Ah ,ENDMENT CPA -01 -23 EAGLE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 � " I�:.I�r�E' �' �: Nichoel Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP �� ' jk; " Director of Long-Range Planning & Projects 1 r 7 ,/ 7 0(-((// -4 A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY INITIATED APPLICATION: CPA-01 -23: FIRE PROTECTION CAPITAL PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT — CITY OF EAGLE 2 1 10/6/2023 (////0 (' (i(• (('( Under Idaho Section 67-82: Development Impact Fees the City can collect impact fees for Police & Fire Services. Impact fees are intended to off set the capital cost of providing services to new development to maintain the communities adopted level of service (LOS). CPA-01 -23 is an update to the language in Chapter 4.4: Fire Protection, adopted in 2020, to continue the collection of fire impact fees. 3 I/1 74 ' • Fire impact fees are not used by the City- pass through to the EFD • These are not discretionary dollars: • Can only be spent on the projects identified in the capital plans • Must be spent within 7-years or po back to developer/homeowner- last plan was dated 2018 • Only funds the proportionate share of capital associated to growth • Does not change the 2020 identified minimum level of service*** 4 2 10/6/2023 I (4.410,101* • Eagle Fire has adopted and requests the City's adoption of the 2023 Fire District Capital Plan. • This action requires the City to update the language in the Comprehensive September 7,2023,Idaho .,a In 2020,the Eagle Fire Protection District underwent its' 4 Supreme Court Decision: first a capital facility planning process in accordance with Idaho Code Title 67,Chapter 82 to identify the impact of Northwest Neighborhood growth on the provision of fire services within the City Association V.City of Boise and the larger district."he 4448 adopted Fire OP establisheds a level of service of 85 percent tractile the Council's failure to provide a reasoned statement response time of 4-minutes and establisheds the frame work for a Fire Impact Fee commensurate with this leve explaining its decision necessitates that the of service approvals of the applications In cooperation be invalidated pursuant to a.,..w.w with the Eagle Fire District,the City in compliance with Idaho Code section 67- PROTECTION SERVICES ARE ABLE .NO Idaho Code Title 67,Chapter 82 may update and amend 6535(2)(a). The failure to ACCONIMODAPOPULATION IWo"»�we�»us:EOEMµOs POSE","<G,OW the adopted Fire CIP from time to time by ordiance to • provide a reasoned statement '•' °-""5 keep the plan current with the needs of the District and that enables this Court to to ensure the adopted level of service is being met. engage in meaningful judicial review" 5 /4re ,(iNfAtoekit( Chapter 11 : Implementation, Section 3 - Amendments & Updates, Subsection 2 - City Initiated Review & Updates: Is an update needed to: A. Ensure the City is coordinating with the planning efforts of our jurisdictional Partners? /-rmurs fot4 firs, Plor it rarcPn h C. Address changes to State Statutes and/or development regulations? bow,aoftiok rce wit47-mar p4/r4 wiadoo" F. Support the design review process and/or to promote quality land development? (see page 2-3 of P&Z Commission staff memo) 6 3 10/6/2023 cr0� ald lliegrof61 ( ► If the commission recommends approved, the following will need to be completed the new capital plan can be adopted: a. City Council hearing to amend the plan, b. City Council hearing on adopting the new Eagle Fire Capital Plan and associated impact fees, c. City Council approves Fee Resolution to implement the new fees schedule The Eagle Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee has already reviewed, held a hearing, and recommended approval of the Capital Plan and proposed fire impact fee to the City Council. These ore items 9B & 9C on tonight's Agenda. 7 > /('(/1l7((7( ri' (\' ( ('(' (4 (7 ( ((1/, 660/10`6I(G (16101(ir • On July 17, 2023, the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission, after holding a public hearing, voted 5 to 0 to recommend APPROVAL to the Eagle City Council on: CPA-01 -23: FIRE PROTECTION CAPITAL PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT 8 4 M N 0 , N �, 0 '-I P I U, a) >- c O a, Z E I Q O a, a, u > c a, a) u U 3 a) U) c -o O a, ou > U v > tn v� m °I o cZ U ,� A -0 a) a m an op a, — •', a, t• v Z c > c 7 to = O'UZ O 0' II, m t w a, ~ U c Q W N I O ro U \ Y n 6Ya, ....•▪ N - 0a i 2 C CO a? C 7 C /�C E c E a) C U I �/CT '� W y "E U a, w 73 > c S co " C E 2 'E' C 0 ra vi �n L z N O a, f6 Q U Q, O c N CU o0)z y v, O E U E +' Q E co c O Y �O {, a, a, — i U N E U C on E Z al V \ Y N a, 01 a Y > V;, U- f0 16 N r0 _ Y Y fi O a, —Q Q. to - Q L f0 — a, C a, Q C v,N ,., . m c c a, U U co Q D LL N l.L U al O_' LL W G O 1 a w, Y V WTo„ CD 3 U C a) U G) 7 • ,w(alO Y i > Li' So.- C }tr -,. (/J 7 c 0 N (P '- - .', . 7 — Cl. Uy f v 7 E N I, -,.. 1— g ' ° a, 0 +' r, UI- c i C al or , _ ,� `� E a'i �, ++ OC e • r, c o°1cn o v ate• N 0 a, -0 ` Y a c. a, O U. E " 1 ro 7 co v c a, d t v N a ,:. j E .n al RI 15; h m � = .I. O Y :I) E ro er v t • oaE O w > v N W , i 1 - 1--r aci m ru E X" v G.,E • a Vs j — :r — a' X c E co > -o c no Q , ` ,, . co N N v L v O 1 g • O O Z m '. • a O Y Z • • • • • M m r N 0 N (-0• 0 r-I p 07„ I El., _c OD 3 2 c rvo a, ° rv� - L — u Y Su U ) � rn 3 •N N O> = G ry n a, a, a TaQc 0a Y e• c -3 Em v 'd a a, E a U ° WC73u, N o rve ° a -C ...- IA .75 ‘..) M ; i 2`,3 4-F'.. N C > ° 'a a i >m pr C EW ) a+4� u Nta NO eL 0 o® F ry e - Le E U W Tu." m Y ¢ o W his ry o mmmwE c eZ Y N m bp L°a- o o 0 v fd ar :° '®i4.4 In o a II X X a L -0 la C W W 'a e W 0 o i m o� ii, a, Wo a, a, as E c - c -¢a 3 ®• q c c c W W a, m c C a, — z _ = o Y C E E E m m `O 3 c 3 `o Y Y Y 3 z W O -o •O - p ° O,- !, �' o c(tz al a, a, > > as a, w .,.. , -o V o , n ,, • • • L. • a, as E E 0 - uiLi o o E c o 7 -O as CO T. T. C t -0 o 4+ O C 3 a z II ? ! N •rl Y 0 LE ', a) O r.Li W dc a _ i ai ♦U C > C / m . mflV NQ - L N Cfl, C U Q a, 41_ '. f0 C w o- 3 �4 IA' 3 N 13 W m o v � ) C p £ d 3 al m ; c 7 N a ` 3 O ." co 3 MI 0 o m 3 W C W . — 3 c m m W h N E E. 4m N _W (p 3 > C O 3 C ac w E c t E - n oa Y N J W ad+ u W E a m W m ,Ca '.z a .L n o E E E m 3 r a a N _ 2 u v ¢ w . . . . b N. M n N O N uo O r-I 7 a+ N w +•, u Cu a Ili- 13C C Cu y,,` 2 2 N g e Z 9 m ] >4. C m a _� v b v r 0 W � W N W v - £ w 3 N -p 0 N N ? r o Di . C VI (O ¢o \ fo W 7 N u o 8 N (O o.}i 8 C H G« n O o Q U - _ - a E a co O n c u tea'3— W 4— C OJ (O a) O C C • a 0 O N N 7 .4-, Y co j0 + .4 a. V1 V) u u v a) c • • L.L. u_ • • . O NI .--I '-I p : � C Cll alv . r m'i o ..E. :° fao�P m i Z �? g0 +I is 0`! _o`, a ° Y wW3a o q 22nggo ,0o N N - o n n +.. tn ..00 t e o" 4 7 C - 3 u i N v 3 _z C v-y"« 3 Y y Jam-,T., c 0 =3a"F � a�oo— Z .--i u li O> m ` (-NI ry 0 e - 4- \ k| i !:�!!!;\!;!!!$. k77|# ill { 3 _ ® - 5H P:-"la : / ; -- ;ii ii >, I \ ,� I ! ' _ § \U 6;-- ®-1 � : e \#rR[$!/ (/\� k - , < } J « ,..., 2 2 J \\ \ \ 2 u j}~ ' & a |} ! §. ! `E■+ki-ii�,Eli 0 ` . )\ _ } le' \ ! :«.:■s;� 1,! u ° ,_! a\ , 4 \ A | iifi - -- - \ !s§' at. z « MADAM! , �V91 ! \ / . , c 23M 3 M lis E = d / / ) e e it2 ` � ( r 1 ! ; ! 9 a!q§Q :° § - 3 « #! !!!q |~® / � \ '_ ! :) . / MS ,\a q#q, M ~ - . } ."."` , ; -: V. { ! f ° � /y ! \\ " ! d] ! ; _ \ I :Jj ® \ | t \|i |!I f - ' o n al o_ \ \ co _ \ - _ ' Ln § \ / ('A u N 0 N D. O r-1 II II . mmmmm.< aa �eee �mmmoo IF CII cot 0 • E- c 9' v ▪ assa ,VP,rmmag ›, a II e = ,.,.nmmrmmm$i Qegm 11 N e y N C « o •O _ r r r r m r m,,„,c u_ a • m.� � oa c Y - a a a.a a a a i$E v c E U 3 O IS a-' w I -0 v CU LL 0 ti N F 6 % 88888 0 LL v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 II m r m m m N R U o v a8 a o 0 o N o u v1 in o .co. E ur .n n m N H m m m m m m m m m m m o g Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 « O o 0 0 0 0 -' O O O O O O N . 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U N UI o 1�--NN—rl N W .U2 O 1- 8 .U2 F • y., _- NN,. rm 0 E N H n K4• U - E mmrrnrHH N K4 v c m� ? o, E II II v u c v E rl �8 r P r� v « —_ 9 � `v W Z 11 n m e a , m W n\ o • _ 'm" c E a N m...e @ U z t c o c o m v a m d u 3 F, o ._ — cw U — -_-_ d « v u N p o :vy1 u J m.$ m a$ (v Y O # O * O R 0 VI• - $iaaaaar w � N 0 O_ O 13 o W v - _ i+ co 0�•- c N z N 3 Co C a,+ 0_ _ Q a Y 0 N 0_ v L Co u_ U • • N. r-I •--I m Ni O . N . lD O T-1 Iv N N j W C 2 F. O W L 2. � L W L d � -_ .. n n n n n n A.- d g _--VA3 U) to a 2 m.imr1a$ "s`sF4 0 Z �oaasYagmg2 it A 0 - 0. eYnn?gym121 ', iiiii 4 ;V.Ji� •' 1"" �$ j . LL eE i ERR—MO I• e • �S ..n.•.,2 9 e =.. .n. a CU E CC W a O d N , N N I L �i�� hi ith I E F. 00m0000 £ iPl1. _ En 5 - L E. .`"ionaro F,Nmue ..y g ..y z H H .n Z a a i Z E E E Q) u_ Q) E • E Ix — N U II 'c4 r4 gVj.b.N : bb_ �m Y �i u Q ri ��Q o 1 ... = .44 A w u w L w C S 8 O G ~. 0_ — ro iu U V w 2 U 2 NE IPi -II II a 7 0 E co• lit! $ ..LL 1. w a) C 4 4 4 E C D V gu u_ 2 ii N , 10/6/2023 �of TT,r r, 4 ..,1, __r GORA ESTATES SUBDIVISION Nik RZ-11-22/CU-13-22/PPUD-07-22/PP-17-22 Eagle City Council Public Hearing September 26, 2023 City Staff: Michael Williams,CFM,Planner Ill Phone: 939-0227 E-Mail: 1 Project Summary Roth Ryczkowski, LLC, represented by Ryan Wallace, is requesting: • A rezone from A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to R-1-DA-P (Residential with a development agreement — PUD), conditional use permit, preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat approvals for Gora Estates Subdivision (re-subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Sulik Subdivision), a 6-lot (4- buildable, 2-common) residential planned unit development. The applicant is also requesting waivers of the required open space, sidewalk, and curbs and gutters. • The 4.7-acre site is located on the north side of West Beacon Light Road approximately 1,285-feet east of the intersection of North Hartley Road and West Beacon Light Road at 6390 West Beacon Light Road. 2 1 10/6/2023 Vicinity t„ Map , , jj 1,14.. r 4 4 s , iSs•4 1 . t 0 VC' 125031:01MENEEME50 ..... . 3 Preliminary Plat -LI 1 .•4 el f -I--.-...-.,;-• r:,,,-.. -.. eari s .4• 1 , .4 ,t I -—-,.7...=•...--.1.• -••-.4..-111 -- ..=.....--;.--.....:...-......."----..::.-7...----T.-----t.-.t. ',or.r . .. it--- I - r----.-- ----- -- ,. _ r,..... . .,_ , ,., ...-- 1 - - =..4....-L-2, ..... =-a... 4.17;117r-H I Hi. . i I L r-1....1 . . ill L. j 1 1,.- 1 ,I '-1 1 -, iI II r ' : I lit - , .i 1 1 , 1 4g, . , - _ et` 114; " I 4i A I •r '.1 ls I 1 1: —e% s•• II, ea --- L • de . II *I'". .• 1 t a 1 I .11 1.1 I i 1 i I I I r tt 11 4 1 i 1,I I 1 %.*4' .1 t,' .4.1." p-.-- , _-----V--------':----- ---,- .."."`?1_,....„'J' -_,-...._..,,..-.__- _Atz..___.-_______ ,4. ,, .... ---.-;--,-..7,-----:- 4 2 . 10/6/2023 Final Plat for 4 Sulik Subdivision Sulik The W 1.2 ot the W 1,2 of the SW 1 la ol the SW ha or ,,,,,. Seaton 35.Tomoship 5 North.Range 1 West.B M. i t la...,1114,22 : umarm: Oh,or Eagle,Ada County.Idaho 1 Subdivision 2010 . ommwr nom 1 MU ' ' Saar Wu .F.,.....,...i..77442:a;:.5•Tr..I,":72'..,'. 4 t.'..15".":. WU.2•[01.L.I.2 Titn 20M1.1.1.00.....1..5 . Rekninoss '=....11.=.1:72,===,11".P"....;""" 1•S•10 off•Aa , ...... a'11741:4 .17X1=i AVMS r.:::::$1, Lagand a + ''IL VIA=2:=.1'42-•'''''''''"'""'' -r--. ---P"..7",1 ; . 2h:et:Ft:Z.,' •Wm...ft a wax...OM 02,4.21.M.•••••••••2.1 i; • 00, a u242.2.•••••••▪•••••m•12.••••••••••20 .....,2". ; ....................—. .....,.;.i 1. ....iva•Cr.AI :5 .., ''".::^X2r=• r55 VSP:=Alraink rar •:I '' ————,...... ......., "elaialEalre.:(4.:ZIFY4.. --... i II 1f5.V2 i ......_frt1:-- -- .....,.... . , a.AA=. **/.,aa«... adu paw i : :ea...AA [arum, I- ::.. .. . , ...ii.r.ri..‘.1;_ it.t 40 .;L_......___ . \ -'1,, 21'.1. 17e'''‘41%;1----14-117=11..1 Owners ova go.g., UM POPO 2 41t::.'.1'.j G 6 r 4 Pamir CPO YIP b BASK Of OMSK 5 Site Data Total Acreage of Site — 4.7-acres Total Number of Lots — 6 Residential -4 Commercial -0 Industrial-0 Common-2. Total Number of Units—4 Single-family-4 Single-family (attached)-0 Multi-family-0 Total Acreage of Any Out-Parcels — 0 6 3 10/6/2023 Site Data Additional Site Data Proposed Required .85-dwelling units/acre .85dwelling units per acre maximum(as limited Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre by the development agreement) 41,817-square feet 37,000-square feet Msnrmuml.ot Size Except that a decrease of minimum lot size in a subdivision may be allowed if lhere is an offsetting increase of the same percentage in open spore and a planned wit development is applied for and approved)—pursuant to ECC Section 866-5 (A). I60.9-feet 100-feet(minimum) Minimuml-ot Width 88-feet 35-feet Minimum Street Frontage .28-acres• .94-acres(minimum) Total Acreage of Common Area Open Space 6%• 20%(minimum) Percent of Site as Common Area Open Space Except that,according to ECC Section 9-3-8 IC)the City may require additional public and/or private park or open space facilities in PUDs or in subdivisions with 11 or more lots. Percent of Common Area Open Space as Active Open Space 0% 15%(6,142-square feet)(minimum) 7 Issues of Special Concern • Existing trees (Condition of Development #3.7 and 3.8) • Existing well (SSC #4) • Open space (SSC #5) • STL fees (SSC #6) • Private street vs. Public street (SSC #7) • Private street (SSC #8) • Plat note revisions 8 4 10/6/2023 Existing Trees r iiii. . r 9 Conditions of Development • 3.7 Owner shall provide a detailed arborist 3.8 in conjunction with 3.7 above, all living report and a tree inventory map identifying trees shall be preserved, unless otherwise all existing trees located on-site. The report determined by the Design Review Board. A shall identify, at a minimum, species, size, detailed landscape plan showing how the trees and health of the trees. The arborist report will be integrated into the open space areas and map shall be provided with the submittal (unless approved for removal and mitigation by of a design review application. Owner shall the Design Review Board) shall be provided for provide a narrative indicating how the trees Design Review Board approval prior to the will be incorporated into the design of the submittal of a final plat application. subdivision or mitigated prior to removal of the trees. No trees shall be removed from the site prior to city approval of a tree removal and replacement plan. 10 5 10/6/2023 Existing Well Figure 1 - --Eti=---,_� �--1,_--_- �:-, „- -----�--:--.-�--=-fit • l L. I L •#.t., �G*-'. Ali I o •1 ..5 _ — IT .---I r LT 1 I n -1 I r r ,.: ;I I -1 —2`t 4' I a i I i M, 11 3. DOMESTIC WATER-SHARED USE OF LOT 2 WELL Exi s t i n g A 6 inch well is currently located and owned by the owner of Lot 2. This 6 inch well has been tested and shown to produce approximately 35 gallons per minute W e I I of water. This section allows Lot 1 to pump water from this well for domestic \VJ\VJ household use,not including irrigation,for a single family home on Lot 1 under the following conditions. A.Conditions ...... .... .... A 12 foot easement shall exist,extending from the well on Lot 2,generally northerly,to the north property line of Lot 2,centered on an existing buned pipe and electrical line. The purpose of this easement is to accommodate the existing buried pipe and electrical line for domestic supply of water to Lot 1. This easement will continue indefinitely until the Lot 1 use is terminated as described below. This easement will be vacated by Lot 1 and no longer exist when the Lot 1 use is terminated. Easement access will be allowed for maintenance and repairs of the buried pipe and service wire extending to the well from Lot 1. Each Lot will provide and maintain its own well pump,well piping and wire, electricity to power its respective well pump as well as the underground piping system extending to the house on its own lot. Each Lot will be responsible for the cost and maintenance of its own individual system. If for any reason both well pumps and well piping must be pulled to service either of the two pumps,the owner of the pump requiring such service shall bear the full cost of removal and replacement of both pumps. If during the process of removing both pumps for the servicing of one of the pumps,the owner of the second pump which did not require servicing(secondary pump)desires to repair or maintain the secondary pump,the secondary pump owner shall pay that portion of removal and replacement costs associated with that pump, If the secondary pump owner does not choose to repair or maintain his system at this time,the owner of pump initially requiring service shall pay for all of the costs to remove and reinstall both pumps. 12 6 10/6/2023 8. Termination Ex i s t i n g If a defect exists in the well itself,1e g.a broken screen),that is common to each system,then both Lots will share equally in the cost of repair. If Lot 1 chooses not pay for the common repairs or decides to stop using water from this well,this We I I shared use agreement will be terminated and the well use will revert to the sole \yl/\�/j use of Lot 2 A six month grace period will go into effect upon notice of termination Presently Lot 1 utilizes a pump with a capacity ranging horn 10 to 12 gallons per minute and Lot 2 a pump with a capacity of 13 to 15 gallons per minute. Neither Lot I nor Lot shall increase the pump size above these ranges.In the event that the well fails to produce enough water to satisfy each house at these pumping rates.this shared use agreement will terminate and Lot 1 will be responsible to supply its own water source such as city water or its own well. No wafer right is given herein to Lot 1 from the Lot 2 well. This agreement is for the convenience of the current situation. Upon termination of this agreement per the conditions above,no right for a shared use by Lot 1 will exist from this well. When this agreement is terminated for reasons described above,Lot 1 will have a grace period of 6 months to continue shared use of the water from this well.At the end of the 6 month grace period Lot 2 may slop the use of water by Lot 1,by any means necessary within Lot 2 Lot 1 shall be responsible for the removal of the Lot 1 well pump and well piping A.wire in the well or shall reimburse the Lot 2 Owner for these costs if the Lot 2 owner chooses t0 have them removed after the grace period has expired. The buried pipe and electrical wire on Lot 2 may be left abandoned in place. Upon termination of the Lot 1 rights to shared Lot 2 well use.all associated easements shall cease to exist. All communication regarding the well must be made in writing. Lot 1 may terminate this agreement at any time. 13 Existing C Devebpment We e I I If Lot 1 develops first, this agreement will automatically terminate Except that the house on Lot 1 may continue to share this well until City water or a community water supply system is in place to serve the development on Lot 1. When new system is in place and in use by Lot 1,said owner shall immediately stop using the shared well and pay any associated removal costs per 'termination"above. If Lot 2 develops first, Lot 1 will be allowed to share this well as long as is practically possible so long as it does not hinder or cause economic harm to the development.At a point in time,2 months before the well starts to hinder or cause economic harm to the development,Lot 2 shall notify Lot 1 that the water will be discontinued after two(2)months from the date of notification. Lot 1 will be responsible to provide its own water supply within the two month time period. There will be no grace period beyond the two(2)month notification. If the well must be capped or discontinued for any reason related to the development, Lot 2 shall notify Lot 1 two(2)months before this occurs. Lot 1 will be responsible to provide its own water supply within the two month time period. There will be no grace period beyond the two(2)month notification. 14 7 10/6/2023 Private street vs. Public street Eagle City Code Section 9-3-2-5(A), states that the Council must Lind that any proposed private streets must be in compliance with specific criteria,three(3)of which are as follows: 2. Safe and effective movement of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic,sidewalks,and parking are provided. \ccess and good transportation planning to adjacent property and to the area travel networks is not adversely affected. 5. Adjacent property will not he landlocked by the site layout. 15 Private street _.r vs. Public street 14 -E _.,. • '""; �3 eik 411 .a 1 $. 16 8 10/6/2023 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 4.Provide documentation from a well specialist (agreed upon by the owners of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Sulik Subdivision) indicating the existing well does not have an adequate water supply to serve both properties. The documentation shall be provided prior to submittal of a final plat application. 5.If the Council does not approve the requested waiver of open space, the applicant shall provide a revised preliminary plat showing the lot sizing reduced to a maximum of 34,754-square feet and add a centralized common open space lot within the development which is a minimum 28,680-square feet in size.The revised preliminary plat shall be provided prior to submittal of a design review application.(ECC 8-6-5-2[A]) 6.The applicant shall pay the required $4,200.00 preliminary plat Storage Trunk Line fee along with the associated final plat Storage Trunk Line fee at the time of submittal of the final plat application. (Resolution No.08-09) 7. Provide a revised preliminary plat with a new street section showing North Stags Lane(Private)to be a public street.The revised preliminary plat shall be provided prior to submittal of a design review application. (ECC 9-3-2-5[A]) 8. If the Council approves the private street, the applicant shall be required to provide a revised preliminary plat with a new street section showing vertical curbing located adjacent to the street.The area of the private street located within the shared access easement shall have two-foot-wide ribbon curbing located on the north side of the street to allow ingress/egress by the adjacent property owner. If the Council approves the private street without vertical curbing,the applicant should be required to provide a revised preliminary plat with a street section showing rolled or ribbon curbing located adjacent to the street.The revised preliminary plat shall be provided prior to submittal of a final plat application. (ECC 9-3-2-5[B][1]and ECC 9-4-1-3) 17 Staff Recommendation If the rezone with development agreement, conditional use permit, preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat are approved, staff recommends the conditions of development on If the preliminary plat is approved, staff recommends the site specific conditions of approval on of the Staff Report and standard conditions of approval on ,age of the Staff Report. 18 9 10/6/2023 Planning Commission Recommendation On August 21, 2023, the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend of the applications with the conditions of development, site specific conditions of approval, and standard conditions of approval provided on page 19 of the Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 19 End of Presentation 20 10 10/6/2023 Comprehensive Plan Map Designation & Zoning Map Designation COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE DESIGNATION DESIGNATION Existing Neighborhood Residential(Transition .85-dwelling units/acre .85-dwelling units per acre maximum(as Overlay) limited by the development agreement) Proposed No Change 41,817-square feet 37,000-square feet Except that a decrease of minimum lot size m a sabdivisiommay be allowed if there is an offsetting increase of the same percentage in open space and e planned unit development is applied for and approved)—pursuant to ECC Section 866-5(A). North of site Neighborhood Residential(Transition 160.9-feet 100-feet(minimum) Overlay) Neighborhood Residential(Transition 88-feet 35-feet South of site Overlay) East of site Neighborhood Residential(Transition 28-acres• .94-acres(minimum) Overlay)and Public/Semi-public West of site Neighborhood Residential(Transition 6%• 20%(minimum) Overlay) Except that,according to ECC Section 9-3-a(C)the City may require additional public and/or private perk or open space facilities in PUDs or in subdivisions with l I or more lots. 21 11 10/6/2023 Gora Estates Owner/ Developer: Ryczkowski ROTH, LLC Project Manager: Ryan Wallace 1 Project Overview • Applications • Rezone from A-R-DA to R-1-DA-P • Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat • 4.7 Acre project • Annexed into the City of Eagle under Sulik Subdivision in 2010 • Located in the Village Planning Area of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan • Project consists of: • Four, roughly 1-acre buildable lots • 1 private road • 1 landscape buffer lot 2 1 10/6/2023 Site Location kag,' 3 Current Site RN:T R°MJR'AN it INKS r TAYLORJERRY(Q � LMN TRU T1/L14 HENoERSON _ ..�!': t- ". ..srr.�uarszsxr-, F - ..� t t ORJERRYdI• ' ,� v� �,.E x �l�G����a]!r'S NG TRUST 11/3 C�.Jd? • Yt RCTi i,LLC , IS II• CL REFGRO } ;. e a G.CHARL'ES W T COM['EI�'E�4N y r - - aR { j J g Ft', ' t �` -ten ',5 O., 9 1 �' y:, AiyMMM��CCC 4 ' i Wit; i i } € x , COTTONWOOD { ca:laf gg 4 2 10/6/2023 ,�« r / t. •I ,. �, t ". ' a z'„;,,,'-„. fi r pig' x r Rt t . , .. "+ 'r , : ` ' } :1 '':“4%.*,. ''ati; ;, + — , Yx # f \ + d# ; t a� 2 i1 ` �i S., - 4ir . i t _ •� r r.. '�.. — rh: �aFT ._ " 'z"-"'T` •, YSR" K r 5 4 vi rw ... ,l.,._. __a 1. _ , g i p `F ,, .3 lit HQ`+ _ ''„bpi°:. -�R t....-.... i ' X. ".. U 4 '1 .'.. f 1' S s `REGIONAL OPENSPACE OVERLAP FESSIO OFFICE/BUSINESS PARK TRANSITION OVERLAY OOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL DOWNTOWNMIXEDUSE COMMUNITY CENTER AGRICULTURE/RURAL NAL VILLAGE/COMMUNITY CENTER SCENIC CORRIDOR ESTATE RESIDENTIAL III COMMERCIAL '... FLOODWAY LARGE LOT INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORHOOD OR PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC COMPACT BLM PARK INFILL/HIGH DENSITY EAGLE ISLAND SPECIAL USE AREA iEll1111 FUTURE LAND USE 61P 6 3 10/6/2023 Eagle Future \ - ••• ••'. . . .... . . ... Land Use Ma ••••• • • � _ ••.• • • Located in Eagle • • •' ,•, Village Planning Area • - br - f ht portion of Comprehensive Plan • Future Land Use Map shows Large Lot c REGIONAL OPENSPACE OVERLAY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/BUSINESS PARK MIXED USE T TRANSITION OVERLAY FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL DOWNTOWN . COMMUNITY CENTER AGRICULTURE/RURAL VILLAGE/COMMUNITY CENTER SCENIC CORRIDOR ESTATE RESIDENTIAL >•COMMERCIAL FLOODWAY LARGE LOT INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORHOOD UNPUBLC/SEMI-PUBLIC COMPACT ELM PARK INFILL/HIGH DENSITY EAGLE ISLAND SPECIAL USE AREA 7 � r I I I •.4 LOTS 1.01< LOY 3 1.017 giin.rfl,t I E I I• � r GORA ESTATES EAGLE.IDAHO If!,.'AI I Al'I '•` 8 4 10/6/2023 Access -_ .- ___-._______ __-.v:, F ; Entry From Beacon Light • Utilizes Site Plan that was approved for Sulik ) Subdivision in 2010 • Design aligns with the entrance to Staggs Crossing directly to the south _ F m^ • '' • Removes existing access point to the property at 1 r� the west edge. I• Roadway enter off Beacon light through exiting access easement and then gradually turns onto the property +• _ j • Agreed to Changed Internal Design Per P&Z (,*(4 _ • Now including a detached sidewalk on the interior . -. . of the property along west edge of N Staggs Ln. • Provided ribbon curbing along roadway edge w BEACON UGH?so throughout the subdivision 9 P&Z Items of Concern -Shared Well Agreement with Inks property to the ( north(Site Specific Conditions of Approval 4) • An agreement has been executed where the development will share the cost of a new well and — infrastructure for the Inks Family. -Desire for N.Stags Lane to be Public vs Private o i E • P&Z concerns was the potential to landlock the 10 ) I Acre parcel to the east(Townsend) • ACHD confirmed on August 25th that ACHD can not • deny access to the parcel.Access will be granted f through the development process t - t • This parcel/project is not contiguous with the 10 " acre parcel in question. • W.BEACON LIGHT RD ate . a+ r 10 5 10/6/2023 �R 47. Neighbor Concerns Access to Beacon Light 4 - d •" • Design is congruent with previously approved Sulik Subdivision Access • Utilizes a recorded access easement i r fr • Meets design requirements of ACHD r = �°`+ ��` Y4.Ky�. Boundary Concerns on West End of Parcel ' 'tt.^• J Y F ? cat •. _ • Current Fence line is not congruent with property ' .,:y 9 boundary on the West End • Original Fencing was placed adjacent to roadway for ' containing livestock aropp • Property boundaries were pinned in 2010 as apart of Sulik Subdivision and was not contested at that time • We have extended a lifetime easement agreement for ►-rt �►fa„ r t, the dirt driveway on the East side of the Henderson � • r t.fA:, parcel at no cost to the Henderson's , \• � \ � ' .- • 'a 11 Staff Report Agree with Staff Report and P&Z Decision Request two changes to the Site Specific Conditions of Approval: • Strike Condition 7 • "Provide a revised preliminary plat with a new street section showing North Stags Lane (Private) to be a public street.The revised preliminary plat shall be provided prior to submittal of a design review application." • Due to ACHD's comments on the matter.The current access is via an adjoining parcel and access easement,this street must remain private. • According to ACHD this will not landlock or deny access to the 10 AC parcel to the East as this project/parcel is not contiguous with that parcel. • The street design meets the requirements of the Eagle Fire Department for Emergency Services. 12 6 10/6/2023 Staff Report Cont. • Propose to Un-Strike and amend Condition 9 • "The applicant shall be required to provide a revised preliminary plat with a street section showing the design of the street and sidewalk designed in conformance with Eagle City Code Section 9-4-17. The revised preliminary plat with street section will show rolled or ribbon curbing located adjacent to the street. The Revised preliminary plat with street section will show 5'detached sidewalks on the west side of the private street, North Stags Lane.The revised preliminary plat shall be provided prior to submittal of a design review application." • Ribbon curbing and sidewalks were agreed to at P&Z 13 i•• 1, Conclusion ' • Project aligns with the Eagle fi comprehensive plan t • Project provides a transition from higher density to the south and west to a lower ( ' I density to the north • We have attempted to remedy all issues ! # t, and concerns within our control _ =: • Agree with the staff report and .i conditions of approval pending the ! f.! approval of the proposed amended o condition 9 • Request approval as presented 3,4 14 7 10/6/2023 End 15 16 8 10/6/2023 Potential Easement on the West Side of Parcel • Arthur Henderson, owner of 6404 W Beacon Light Rd expressed concerns regarding the west property line. • Met with Arthur on May 2, 2023 to discuss the issue • The "lot line dispute" arises from the fence line being placed inaccurately years ago. • According to Mr. Henderson the fence is accurate at Beacon light and then jogs about 20' to the east at the very end of his property. • The current survey stakes show this discrepancy and after discussing it with Mr. Henderson on May 2nd, there will be no impact to his road-way, so he had no other concerns. 17 r VJ ra� __`E,.' 1 ] ] ] � �� a � � I�� jai '`=J m� a a o 0.fr i i I —�5 a� m e w 1 $ I�J v,,....� i�gm`; ,.,.tee b_. I. wt 1. ' -- ' - Y '-' t o¢III � 't� _ 1:-.:4:-.., :`' - -_ sna • Cx L .f Y_ _ g - w J - AC� Z$ I 0 ;� ' 18 9 10/6/2023 Shared Well Agreement- Status • An agreement has been made with the rear neighbor to dig an additional well at 6344 w Beacon Light or to connect to City Water as apart of this project if a well is not allowed by city code. • This process has already begun and the once complete the easement will cease to exist and the shared well agreement will be null and void. • We have allotted 90 days for completion of this well • The well easement will be removed as apart of the final plat • Water rights (external and internal water) and well will only service 6390 Beacon light • 6344 has separate water rights at this time (external and internal) • This is referenced in your staff packet under Site Specific Condition of Approval 4 19 \ r ' a 4 d� t — • - k w i e r -q-� �, . M. is x y x .=, s 7rS z1 1 x` + + fin, 1+G �t °` e l! e ii n„ k i k 4 .�"",��,i, a rye" �. rktiVpA 1 y �,.I h pz"4 -�"' n, ',V', is'it' ,,,'..;,\_,'i, .:, , l '...; — t ill,Mkt 5r �'1 ri .,1 kli tom,•AA v, ti Ir ft Q�1'"r9 fi4. ,.ill 'z.P 1; , 'tit. �i ; 1,', 1 1)4,407, ! /}�. r �� t °Y +�, q�Z`°�\� I�yg44��r �� uf��p.�4Y? _ ��: �1 1° ,' +�i- j' J9{l�.E"NA�s. ''' Ippy S.I;ii '!-r -'-, �`1 if "_,( { - 0..1 } mob' ^- N. � # �.��.�z � � � �-.r� _:'� 1tl1lSYC� 1t 1 c r?'yr'�1 ��'+s�-t a 20 10 10/6/2023 i Access Easement on the East Side of Property • Daniel Inks owner of 6344 W Beacon light expressed concern �`t` regarding the current easement '11 across his property and the � developments use of this '��*: r -n ' q i easement. �.. 21 itt Easement Details G iNKS G. • Established in 2010 as apart of Sulik Subdivision CC&R's and ACHD's development agreement. • Easement was recorded 9/20/2010 ». � • Intent of the easement was to provide safe congruent access to both parcels from Beacon Light ..TO • Easement aligns with the Stags Crossing neighborhood entrance to the south RNFZZKKaA, ROTH I Lf • The original easement was for 350' from right of way • Modified in 2013 to be reduced to 107' E1MA�G1 N r• Referenced on Pg 65-66 in the staff packet +.. _ * 22 11 10/6/2023 j ADA DOOM REWROER ChagnnD Rio WWI,1e DC 0 • I1 11 I 100E GM WWI It SS All I 1 __ DEANY toilet YI1IN'11111114 111111111MI1111) I I RECORDED-REPRSI Of t hal Sue £ 4 I a CHANGE TO THE DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS,COVENANTS AND a RESTRICTIONS OF SULIK SUBDMSION $$ ti 1 =o,4,.�r,+ Nv...6.r I Ioag-1sto s.��n a LI 1 LOT 2 INGRESS/EGRESS ACCESS li A_.Easement Deealoacrl 1 Ir III i x Change here { a In order to provide ingress and egress to and from Lot 2 there shag be an easement across o I II I I Pa,r the driveway of Lol 1 fora distance not o exceed 350 feet northerly horn the Beacon Light •°o it \ \CIs Roed right of way. al IL-, a . 1, I ' \ "�n Change to -2 d €m p _. P In order to provide ingress and egress to and from Lot 2 there shall be an easement across _. the driveway of Lot t Ira a distance not to exceed 107 feet northerly from the Beacon Light s I 2H Road right d way . ' hS xa 1/ ps 0 g ..� O x� \ \ ,. I r 1 I 1 a-..�.illn.,_ n __ 1 6,..+a1 P I s,.i:k £� a�oy SOS>AS .rewFKA Sus>o S,,I:k r A' `t i—Wt i } r if _' Sae'1 7 631 2643 34 q ry OASIS 11 BEARING n a p•I..•., .:rELx LLC W+- ,.11 eD Ed 23 Waivers Originally Requested 1. Sidewalks inside the subdivision 2. Gravel shoulders / no curbing 3. PUD requirement waivers 1. Private Street 2. PUD Open Space Waiver 24 12 10/6/2023 Sidewalks • Ryczkowski ROTH, LLC would like to amend the Gora Estates application to include a 5' wide detached sidewalk on the west side of the street along North Stags Lane. • This is referenced in the staff recommendations, Item 9. (pg. 7) 25 Curbing • Ryczkowski ROTH, LLC would like to amend the Gora Estates application to include ribbon curbing along all roadways • This is referenced in the staff recommendations, Item 8. (pg. 7) 26 13 10/6/2023 — --- -� e ~f N POLKA LANE f , 'z n,i 0 ll/ III I .�W. � Lois I' rOr♦ • it 10T7 I I lOi1 r • •I �I; i LT , , c GORA ESTATES EAGLE.IDAHO 27 Referenced on Pg 65-66 In Staff Packet EXHIBIT i A Easement Description, The purpose of this drawing is to provide cIarfiication In order to provide ingress and egress to and from Lot 2 there shall be an pictorially to what is wrinen n the rein above.This drawing is not to scale.The text takes precedence il an error is easement across the driveway of Lot 1 for a distance not to exceed 350 feet discovered in this drawing northerly from the Beacon Light Road right of way. This easement follows the centerline of the Lot 1 driveway only,except where the I , i second driveway starts and goes in a semi perpendicular manner to Lot 2.The I easement on the second driveway will be equal in width to the Lot 1 driveway or a minimum width of 20 feet or as required by local or state statutes. ere ICri I The second driveway,at its starting point as it turns west to Lot 2 will not go more than 50 more additional feet north before it crosses over to Lot 2.The intention I here is that the second drive way has a turning radius instead of a sharp 90 degree turn,yet does not utilize more than 50 feet of Lot 1 to do so. �f I C. Development If Lot 1 develops before Lot 2 and the driveway must be improved to agency " " standards,Lot 1 will bear the entire cost of improvement of its driveway.Lot 2 will ........0."t \ bear the entire cost of improving that portion of the driveway extending from the �"�'*" Lot 1 driveway to Lot 2. If Lot 2 develops before Lot 1 and the driveway must be improved to agency — ergr '" standards,Lot 2 will bear the entire cost of improvement of Lot 1's driveway from I the Beacon Light Road right of way to the most Northerly point of the Lot 2 extension and for the extension itself. i i I When development of the lagging lot occurs the lagging lot will reimburse the first developed Lot,one half of the improvement cost of that portion of driveway that is used in common by both Lots. 28 14 10/6/2023 Potential Easement on the West Side of Parcel • Received a new complaint from the Henderson's on August 7, 2023 • Contacted the Henderson's via phone August 7, 2023 • Their new concern is that the fence line is the property line not the survey stake. • To mediate this issue, we will follow the current fence line at this time. • We have offered be providing a continuous use agreement/ lifetime easement to the Henderson's which acknowledges their right to use the property indefinitely until they develop, sell, or pass away. • This would be acknowledged in the final plat and the agreement will be recorded. • Surface water rights are regulated by the canal district and IDWR 29 Concerns over surface irrigation water • Jordan Miller & Thomas Smith • Received August 1st, 2023 • Concerns regarding 4 additional lots accessing irrigation water off of the current lateral. • The surface water rights will be managed by the HOA and the rights will not be split further • According to the irrigation plan, the subdivision will have no effect on other users and the subdivision will only use the water that it is legally entitled to. 30 15 pI TXa; ...4iiiiir, *s HEVOSTILA ESTATES SUBDIVISION ^A A-04-23/RZ-05-23/P P-05-23 _, .., tom` Eagle City Council Public Hearing September 26, 2023 City Staff: Michael Williams,CFM,Planner Ill Phone: 939-0227 E-Mail: 1 Project Summary Criterion Land Management— Kody Daffer, is requesting: • Criterion Land Management — Kody Daffer, represented by Nicolette Womack with Kimley-Horn, is requesting an annexation, rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to R-4-DA (Residential with a development agreement [in lieu of a PUD]), and preliminary plat approvals for Hevostila Estates Subdivision, a 38-lot (32-buildable, 6-common) residential subdivision. • The 12.14-acre site is located on the south side of East Floating Feather Road approximately 355-feet west of the intersection of North Falling Water Avenue and East Floating Feather Road at 2385 East Floating Feather Road. 2 a�, ----..-Ti ,:--,;- \,. i i i - 1 t� itis�,Vicinity M a p ;� : i ? _s 112 �' 4 , , 4 it 77 a • `.. .. ' • hod• ,R •r ff(( �;y44›- am ,. ' ., 77 �41:- 1..,,,,ki.,_ii_r_.,:::111';':::. r ' '1 s''" s+s Preliminary 1 (_ _ Plat - .r, .. I _ i pi J. ,1 4 >—•b �I ! ?• Z .r. i ±, --•Ile __ c_r T .- ,,j . —,�i j_ . - ""T 1 ; �-:__ 11 . ' --i-----..-4.,.. +` ..o.� -41 5. jrTt--- ' -IS 0 4 Site Data Total Acreage of Site— 12.14-acres Total Number of Lots— 38 Residential—32 Commercial—0 Industrial—0 Common—6 Total Number of Units— 32 Single-family—32 Single-family(attached)—0 Multi-family—0 Total Acreage of Any Out-Parcels—0 5 Site Data Additional Site Data Proposed Required Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre 2.64-tests per acre 2.64-tmits per acre maximum(as limited within the development agreement) Minimum Lot Size 8,514-square feet 8,000-square feet(minimum) Minimum Lot Width 70-feet 70-feet(minimum) Minimum Street Frontage 35-feet 35-feet(minimum) Total Acreage of Common Area 2.84-acres 2.42-acres(minimum) Percent of Site as Common Area 23.4%(2.84-acres) 20%(minimum) Percent of Common Area Open Space as Active Open Space 75%(2.13-acres) 15%(minimam)(.43-acres) 6 Issues of Special Concern • Setbacks (Condition of Development #3.5) • Existing trees (Condition of Development #3.10) • ACHD stormwater and drainage easements (SSC #4) • Overhead power and power pole removal (SSC#5) • Existing building removal (SSC #6) • Lots with shared driveways (SSC #9) 7 Setbacks sw eron SW CUR rw aaao s•col.* MOP rcaxcart SCR.% voew.,a woo ran,to aaoo roa,.c cows no�aa�nt� 4,00+ LOCAL ROAD SECTION NT.S 5 The required setbacks shall be as follows: Front 20-feet(living and/or side entry garage) 31-feet(front-load garage) Rear 25-feet Interior Side 7.5-feet(first story)5-feet(each additional story) Street Side 20-feet Maximum Lot Coverage 40% 8 Existing Trees 3.10 All living trees shall be preserved unless otherwise determined by the City Council. A detailed landscape plan showing how the trees will be integrated into the open space areas (unless approved for removal by the City Council) shall be provided prior to the submittal of a final plat. Construction fencing shall be installed to protect all trees that are to be preserved, prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. 9 ACHD Stormwater and Drainage Easements • Plat note #23 of the preliminary plat indicates that Lots 5, 10, 11 and 15, Block 1, are servient to and contain an ACHD stormwater and drainage easement. Lots 11 and 15, Block 1, are buildable lots. 4. Provide a revised preliminary plat showing the ACHD stormwater and drainage easement located entirely within the common lots (Lots 5 and 10, Block 1) Lots 11 and 15, B-lock 1, reduced in width to include the area withthe adjacent coffin-ion lets to allow for the ACHD stormwater and drayage eascx+ent to be totally contained within the adjacent common lots. Plat note #23 of preliminary plat shall be revised to remove the reference to Lots 11 and 15, Block 1. The revised preliminary plat shall be provided prior to submittal of a design review application. 10 Overhead Power and Power Pole Removal - - - -' ' i. 5. The applicant shall place all t , overhead power lines serving the site underground. After placing the zn, X ,. power lines underground, the 1 ; applicant shall remove all power -I poles located within the site and ' remove the two (2) power poles ; located on the south side of the ' � Farmers Union Canal prior to the OW j — _ City Clerk signing the final plat. «., -4 (ECC 9-4-1-8) 11 Existing Building Removal • 6. Provide a revised preliminary • plat (existing conditions) map 0 t ; showing all the existing w•. -`f o ; }T structures located within the site ,i ;` � to be demolished. A revised - - ; preliminary plat (existing ,` conditions) map shall be ,, 1 o provided prior to submittal of a h ', �it ' _—. design review application. The existing structures shall be removed prior to the City Clerk =„t F « •'y'-tom signing the final plat. (ECC 9-2- -,." ,_ .. , 3[C][3][f]) 12 Lots with Share Driveways 620*Cif: \ EL! I - # _ It Q: I T 1 • I Ia 13 C YS"1 r- E.` 1- tbv so rr R I. 14 -I f is i x e ffS 03I/IC TZ rc qr...by R 11 I I es.err I M.lip IT R I I o 4 13 Shared Driveway • ra ' D �a, 8. Provide a revised s: ` preliminary plat showing Lots ( {#f x i 7 and 14, Block 2, with a ►�' :I minimum street frontage of `ire .'_ ;s ! - - 0. 35-feet removed. The revised 1 :,,,,,-,,c--,. -:,... t preliminary plat shall be _ . 8 provided prior to submittal of 1 a design review application. , �. r 14 New Site Specific Condition No. 22 22. The applicant shall replace the 0.40:1V11.1.0AM" chain link fence located along the "' Sorra"' YAW ."' e north property line of Lot 3, Block 3, ' '' T - -- ,• ,.<.; , with a 6-foot high black wrought iron * ;` z r, ,� (or equivalently looking) fence. The "L��� """ �x°°"I j fencing material shall be reviewed i. f - and approved by the Design Review u 1 ._„^ Board and City Council prior to installation. xaxf µ ., n ` x 15 New Site Specific Condition No. 23 23. The 10-foot-wide concrete pathway located within Lot 1, Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a residential dwelling. 16 Staff Recommendation If the annexation and rezone with development agreement (in lieu of a PUD) are approved, staff recommends the conditions of development on If the preliminary plat is approved, staff recommends the site specific conditions of approval on of the Staff Report and standard conditions of approval on of the Staff Report. 17 Planning Commission Recommendation On August 21, 2023, the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend of the applications with the conditions of development, site specific conditions of approval, and standard conditions of approval provided on page 10 of the Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 18 End of Presentation 19 Comprehensive Plan Map Designation & Zoning Map Designation COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE DESIGNATION DESIGNATION Existing Neighborhood Residential RUT(Residential—Ada County designation) Single-family residence and agriculture Proposed No Change R-4-DA(Residential with a Development Single-family residential subdivision Agreement[in lieu of a PUDI) 2.64dwelling units/acre North of site Neighborhood Residential R-3(Residential) Single-family residential subdivision (Berkshire Estates Subdivision) 2.8-dwelling units/acre South of site Compact Residential R-4-DA(Residential with a development Single-family residential subdivision(Rene agreement) Commons Subdivision) 3.05/dwelling units/acre East of site Neighborhood Residential R-4(Residential) Single-family residential subdivision (Echohawk Estates Subdivision No.2) 3.47-dwelling units/acre West of site Neighborhood Residential R-4(Residential) Single-family residential(Melvin Eagle Pointe Subdivision No.9) 2.98-dwelling units/acre 20 10/6/2023 TRAILRIDGE� Kimley)Horn 4 CRITERION I.ttir,M.)Nf ..MEN)I.i(' Hevosti la Estates September 26, 2023 i immiliss - NW ' .•' Applicant Team Weir KODY DAFFER TELLER BARD, PE Project Manager Civil Engineer Criterion Land Management LLC Kimley-Horn Meridian,Idaho Boise,Idaho a4. f IAN CONNAIR, PE NICOLETTE WOMACK, AICP Planner " }-'` Civil Engineer Kimley-Horn Kimley-Horn Boise,Idaho Boise,Idaho 2 1 10/6/2023 CRITERION :AND LI t' Based in the Treasure Valley, its principals, affiliate companies and investors have developed over 50 single family residential community projects throughout the Pacific Northwest and Southwest over the past 30 years. Our projects, both infill and larger, have been developed in over 15 different communities and focus on meeting the market and community needs in their location. Our team works closely with staff, community leaders, and local quality builders to produce projects with exceptional livability and high value. 3 • Annexation • Bring into the City • Initial Zoning • Assign R-4 Zoning Before you Tonight • Development Agreement • In lieu of a PUD • Bind conditions of approval • Preliminary Plat • Plat parcels for individual sale 4 2 10/6/2023 1 Sept 2023 •CC HEARING Aug 2023 LI I •PZC HEARING / July 2023 •PPRC REVIEW May 2023 Z1I •APPLICATION April 2023 SUBMITTAL — •NEIGHBORHOOD Nov 2022 MEETING ✓•PRE-APPLICATION MEETING 5 ... 11.;lc dci3i t.!!L'SL* r'.r_. {fitly' il: �fli,S I %. 'I�' `AiS PI ,'ar"' �1�E tt .,.4:' n1gr'2210due2t AZ ,�i.i ,,\ fit•A F' ' _, °+ e.t ear R l,1I4 W'l•' at erl' _, . ( ^�"'1`i 1q 11"8463.116aim .�ifi- Ifi�• l �.1�� F1 p �m'J�. '.2385 E , �IW a' L,y 'tiro _* 11. , ;^titil�, .� h" -_h 1.4 "..: i ;[1t 1"r n •--° �i ate.-,a ` I'✓.. J 3C^ 1 -n+ t_141 t 1 ,t, fail �4 P 7�r 1a : •l4• ,...� ,,4.:_l i4 51gAu a t . 1. p1� +b` f1Y't as ma-IC - Bather Rd %tli1� 4� 4111 - LI 61 �s:l e•I4 r� SITE•a �Cy ' r ' *�� �N a F''� C�C Ca, f "fit t_' �a�ir oivi •r rLi ert y .c/'�i I1fr �M��t.� 4' 4r, ''•` .n. ,�q1� ly, [ QG.'i.,ja�I y7�1},<� ,s4 i Y �171�.J` IS, L'-1C 1 i k'T riJt.4...2- ,1....1C-A7L/Vn.•...l.k; / k6`.. 4.I. ;igc` 12.12 acres .. .r ro�.:��.r rm it.. ,k .•�,„.,,,, . r,41,,. , `# . sR ' I, - > 4 1 l , �t �`' -" .,' V .,' 11 t Li,pi 1.-1.i 4 �,, V. >i .,aIr. -- *' . P • . 6 3 10/6/2023 � ' t z "Hevostila"or'Horse Farm'in Finnish x ' _ represents the seller's family heritage. This heritage will also be incorporated 4„ -.� �- within the central common area. �d §er i r y y s-4 i ,,� • a.i:OF `- � � HEVOST ILA y esr.xoxa ; • , Hews,, �yC' � l��v.g��.'' ., 'is axX� � ��✓"�` '�... �r 7'4. w i* 4rF' illy a� .` " +'b 7 ce, County enclave, infill project j Completing the road&pedestrian network-3 stubs l Retaining the existing landscaping,where possible Opportunities & Constraints Consistency with 4 adjacent varied subdivision designs Existing access to Floating Feather A. Irrigation canal/pathway easements 8 4 10/6/2023 . . • i • Feather • ...:. uture Land , �., 5- E se Map 4 CD*,. m 14 6 ,, -tallVtier E - „. s '. .Single-family -� �'` L O ESTATE RESIDENTIAL 1 , _ esidential densities rom 2-4 units/acre LARGE LOT .. :-- - NEIGHBORHOOD COMPACT a!'' J 9 17 Qnlnt„ r Rn3 if c a'u.m.rJ.,scz • a z ET hlfm,,„ , z crag.,,,,_c R-4 r 1 R-4 R-4 DA aunty Enclave g ' Requesting R-4 4' -RUT U R-4rDA 10 5 10/6/2023 ,. ,--- 4- -1...-- 11:'^"z _—..... •131 ,,,..,..... ......-- 1,1 \ • I ',' - evostila .., .,,......, : .....„ 71= states , 1: • ,asit ' 1 ...,..„ . -..... ( ,' i 1 -_-_-_-_-- \i •-:-..... • --It. ,,..; ;1;1 _,.. .1 t ..:- •"'41 -I, + - --,----T 7,:.... '-,,, i - -,':' ;.1 r.„,.........--,._. • , 1 • .-..-..... , t.,,-,... 'li,1 .,,t ,.1,,t Property Size: 12 12 acres ' ;= - Single-Family 32 PI l. .:t!:--. ' t. AI .-4 , , ; -..., •_• _ v_._1 Residential Lots: • I ;, LT-,,,/ ; i! Common Lots: 6 I 1 Min.Lot Size: 8,377 SF ...; t. E I.: c 1-, 1: Average Lot Size: 10,584 SF Gross Density 2 64 du/acre ....1................, ..IGILINE SEE MOW, 11 ,.. ' . Vehicular ite Acces i - I i -,! f * i 1 c, ' I 1 :I I! - ' .-= •,—'1'31+--11 , _ ' 1 , ....,...• • , ,, .., i ,. 4_,, .- , , • --..... 1 , _it-, ...„ losing Floating 1— ._ .I i ; , i 1 li 1---,--- ' ----eather Access r. / 01111111•111•MOISIND 12 6 10/6/2023 .a 3• 0c •'am ' ,•••,- ommn/ . � .. he. ared riveway { . 35- 4 _._ Lots ., 6 8 •' i 9 �" 'setback from 1 ommon driveway to a., 'z: �; .''garage face ,; ' i --- J. Driveways Driveways which provide access to no more than two(2)lots shall be allowed within any subdivision provided at least one(1)of the lots has the minimum street frontage required in section of this code. 13 • 138.5 r- } r—._ ._ .. —740'-.. _—_ -r', + ) , 3 _ 1 \ b� .......-- Alternative �,72,�t Im 11 V \\ • ". Frontage F,�- r _ 3.0' � .�/ � 35 �. ,as �---- e1.r . - Design� n �. 3� g I «3 Imm (13,712 SF) I 7 6 ' I� (11,043 SF) Fi (11,696 SF) bN mbl 2.1! o1 91q• I _._.l„.. 37q.__Y 42.T , __ GRMWG 9CNE M FEET 14 7 10/6/2023 A Open Space _ : ,.a, L & Amenities ; • Turf Play Area rn '°" - ' �~ • Paver Patio r >. l 0 3 , , , 1 _ i k • Seat Walls _ . • Picnic Tables " �� • Dog Waste Stations o a l ° I� , • Trash Cans c • Bicycle Rack m L i;+ • Pathways c ! r-~ I c 3 i� Required: 2.42 acres o_ Total Provided: 2.84 acres(23.4%) / Al 25' Future _ Pathway Easement 15 4111.0110 10. . P---„, ______---"' ) , Villa;e of°;1 Illii i 111111 i . 4‘,..i \ri ‘ '1 ,\\...../., ,.!,.{.1 s. 1� k \ ., _____.- • Furniture Concepts 16 8 10/6/2023 ! Toomr— ...;**, ipil . i iM lips tG� t I nip ,IF i Luxury Home _.._ , x r Concepts •. S.� • X -, _�No 2,500 -4,000 SF Max 2 stories ;y .„ i t. is i f ,.. te _. 17 k .- • t _ Y . 1 's- • , �� IF : -. . Signage Concepts 18 9 10/6/2023 Generally in Agreement with: • Increasing the front load garage setback to 31 ' • Provide an arborist report • Remove the 2 power poles on the south side of Farmers Union Canal • PPRC recommendation for playground equipment or pickle ball court • Updated conditions from PZC as written in staff report 19 Requested Action Approval of Annexation, Zoning, DA& Preliminary Plat 20 10 10/6/2023 Comprehensive Plan Policies Section Section Section Section 10.3.F 8.3.F 8.4.1.P 8. yw Section Section Section 9.3.2.0 9.3.3.B 9.3.3.D 21 • Update Condition #3.1 • Max density of 2.64 du/ac (32 SFD) • Remove Condition #9 • Require adequate frontage be provided on all lots, allowing Lots 7 and 14, Block 2 to remain ondition pdates •• Update Condition #4 • Provide a revised preliminary plat showing the ACHD stormwater and drainage easement wholly within the common lots (Lots 5 and 10, Block 2). The revised preliminary plat shall be provided prior to submittal of a design review application. 22 11 10/6/2023 opF Ti-tr, , f . / N p AMBROSIA GARDEN SUBDIVISION * 1 * PP-04-23 o je le 'Jr INI,V Eagle City Council Public Hearing September 26, 2023 City Staff: Michael Williams,CFM,Planner III Phone: 939-0227 E-Mail: 1 Applicant Information Applicant: Steven Ricks and Susanne Ricks Family Trust Address: 3085 South Terra Drive Eagle, ID 83616 Represented by: Anna Canning with Centurion Engineers, Inc. Phone: 208-343-3381 E-mail: abcanning@centengr.com 2 1 10/6/2023 Project Summary • Steven Ricks and Susanne Ricks Family Trust, represented by Anna B. Canning with Centurion Engineers, Inc., is requesting preliminary plat approval for Ambrosia Garden Subdivision, a 6-lot (6-buildable) commercial subdivision. • The 3.45-acre site is located at the northwest corner of State Highway 44 and North Park Lane at 101 North Park Lane. 3 • Aerial Photo .. f d d- !' l'--� r y �; .. . • • 4 2 10/6/2023 Vicinity m - , Hq„5,1, 0 Map 9 a,v,� ry 0 i il amccEc--n dim rends SUbdivisl ni .%.,,i ''. ,�•�� �-� Irmo+al• . • ' C.�f.. r F er<<ero, 1_ _FIINIII �� ‹ow Bronco Acre Subdivision f UU 44Troasirq' ;•. . 1-WI e --r--��' -- \`i JIB — w /' ., J! I 5 Preliminary Plat 'r--.'..',': 4rNY,vIry = _.._ . _ s > ; 2I Tlis y # 5 I tie+i 1 l I, • . . -. • \ c •- s • °i ♦ I !�>eg -i Y - $ 1 1 .. .. - • 1 r s .i. ,I• i y 4 x. a Q 1 gs w!az i ,iii #, N' 1 I 1• ; ; ' p•' }k is 6 10/6/2023 Site Data Total Acreage of Site— 3.45-acres Total Number of Lots — 6 Residential—0 Commercial—6 Industrial—0 Common-0 Total Number of Units —0 Single-family—0 Single-family attached—0 Duplex-0 Multi family—0 Total Acreage of Any Out-Parcels — 0 7 Discussion • The parcel associated with the proposed subdivision was originally shown as a single-lot (Lot 64, Block 3) on the approved Skyview Subdivision preliminary plat (PP-08-21). The applicant is requesting to further subdivide the parcel to create additional commercial lots. 8 4 10/6/2023 Issues of Special Concern • Regional pathway easement (SSC#4) • Perpetual reciprocal cross-parking and cross-access agreement (vehicular and pedestrian ingress-egress) (SSC #5) • Maintenance of pressurized irrigation, parking lots, landscaping, and amenities (SSC #11 and #12) 9 Regional Pathway Easement 4. Provide a revised preliminary plat showing the 10-foot-wide regional pathway located within a 25-foot-wide public access easement in favor of the City of Eagle. The revised preliminary plat shall be provided prior to submittal of a final plat application. The applicant shall record the 25-foot-wide public pathway easement associated with the 10-foot- wide regional pathway and reference the recorded easement on the face of the final plat. 10 5 10/6/2023 Perpetual reciprocal cross-parking and cross-access agreement (vehicular and pedestrian ingress-egress) 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the CC&Rs which contain language addressing the reciprocal cross-parking and cross-access for vehicle and pedestrian ingress-egress to the public right-of-way. The CC&Rs shall be submitted with the final plat application for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat. 11 Maintenance of pressurized irrigation, parking lots, landscaping, and amenities 11. The applicant shall place a note on the final plat that the pressurized irrigation system is to be owned and maintained by the Ambrosia Garden Business Owner's Association. 12. The applicant shall be required to provide a copy of the CC&Rs which contains the following provisions: (a) An allocation of responsibility for maintenance of all community and privately owned pressurized irrigation facilities, service drive aisles, parking lots, and amenities. The repair and maintenance requirement shall run with the land and that the requirement cannot be modified and that the Agreement cannot be dissolved without the express consent of the city. (b) A requirement that all landscaped areas are to be privately owned but shall be described in and subject to a reciprocal easement allowing for common use by all property owners within the development. The Agreement shall provide that a designated property owner or group (i.e. business owner's association) shall have the duty to maintain and operate all the landscaped areas in a competent and attractive manner, including watering, mowing, fertilizing and caring for shrubs and trees in accordance with Eagle City Code, in perpetuity. (c) A requirement that all parking areas shall be shared within the subdivision. 12 6 10/6/2023 Recommended changes to Site Specific Condition of Approval No. 6 6. The developer shall provide shade-class trees (landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board) along both sides of all service drives streets within this development. Trees shall be placed at the front of each lot generally at each side property line, or as approved by the Design Review Board. The trees shall be located within an 8-foot-wide landscape strip between the 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk and the curb. Any and all drainage swales and/or seepage beds, shall be Claced so as to not interfere with the required placement of street trees. Prior to the ity Clerk signing the final plat the applicant shall either install the required trees, sod, and irrigation or provide the City with a letter of credit for 150% of the cost of the installation of all landscape and irrigation improvements. Trees shall be installed prior to obtaining any occupancypermits for the buildings homes. A temporary occupancy may be issued if weaher does not permit landscaping. Partial reductionp of the surety may be,permitted for any portion of the development that is completed, including service drives street trees that have been installed. On-going surety for service drive street trees for all undeveloped portions of the development will be required through project completion. 13 Staff Recommendation Based on the information provided to date, if the preliminary plat is approved, staff recommends the site specific conditions of approval on page 4 and the standard conditions of approval are provided on page 13. 14 7 10/6/2023 Planning Commission Recommendation On August 21, 2023, the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend of this application with the site specific conditions of approval and standard conditions of approval provided on page 9 of the Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 15 End of Presentation 16 8 10/6/2023 Restaurant with Drive-Through Condition of Development #3.6 (Reads in part) In addition, and in accordance with Eagle City Code Section 8-6-4, Uses Permitted, which allows up to ten percent (10%) of the gross land area to be directed to other commercial uses that are not allowed with the land use district, a Restaurant (with drive-through) use shall be permitted on one (1) lot within the Property. 3.6.1 If a building with a drive-through use is approved, Owner shall provide a minimum forty-eight-inch (48") tall buffer (berm, decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall) between the drive-through lanes and the adjacent roadway to reduce the impact of the vehicles utilizing the drive-through lanes (i.e. vehicle headlights and vehicle cueing). 17 Condition of Development #3. 11 3.11 Owner shall submit a design review application showing at a minimum: 1) proposed development signage, 2) planting details within the proposed and required landscape island and all common areas throughout the development, 3) landscape screening details and buffering for the residential units from the commercial area, 4) elevation plans for all proposed common area structures and irrigation pump house (if proposed), 5) landscape screening details of the irrigation pump house (if proposed), 6) detailed architectural plans for the pool house, 7) design of the tot lot, and 8) useable amenities such as picnic tables, covered shelters, benches, gazebos, and/or similar amenities (if proposed). The design review application shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle Design Review Board and Eagle City Council prior to the submittal of the first final plat. 18 9 10/6/2023 Comprehensive COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE DESIGNATION DESIGNATION Mixed Use MU-DA(Mixed Use with Vacant Existing Development Agreement[in Lieu Plan Map of a PUD]) Designation & No Change No Change Proposed Commercial Subdivision ZoningMap Mixed Use R-9-DA(Residential with a Single-Family Attached North Of development agreement[in heu of Residential(Proposed Skyview Designation site a PUD]) Subdivision) South of Mixed Use M-U(Mixed Use) State Highway 44 site Mixed Use MU-DA(Mixed Use with Residential Subdivision East of site Development Agreement[in Lieu (Warrior Park Subdivision), of a PUD]) Convenience store with fuel service Neighborhood Residential R-9-DA(Residential with a Single-Family Attached West of site development agreement[in lieu of Residential(Proposed Skyview a PUD]) Subdivision) 19 10 10/6/2023 CITY OF EAGLE FISCAL YEAR 2024 - 2028 CAPITAL PLAN .„Tr Ppirr--% am September 26, 2023 Nichoel Baird Spencer MCRP,AICP ITY OF Director of Long-Range Planning&Projects EAGLE L nbaird a@cityofeaalb.orq (`•JT 1 THE GOAL: To provide the City - citizens, elected official, and staff - a road map for major investments and maintenance within the City that is collaborative and fiscally constrained. Sit 1 10/6/2023 BENEFITS OF A CAPITAL PLAN Expands the City's vision to 5-year planning window for capital projects, capital maintenance & capital liability Decreas, demand on a s ' '- fiscal year Creates an annual process for the public involvement: to hear, understand and request projects- Transparency in Budgeting Creates a City-wide/Cross departmental list of priorities Evaluates competing demands for resources based on City's prioritization and the City's long- term goals and objectives (is one project worth all the funding) Helps position the City for outside funding & partnership options Provides a means for the implementation of strategic and comprehensive plans within the City's fiscal capacity Decreases vulnerability during economic crisis & emergencies 3 WHAT IS THE CAPITAL PLAN? The first year of the Plan aligns with the City's adopted FY24 Budget. Sets forth the strategies, projects, The remaining years focus on City's priorities and priorities which (what do we want) and fundings options the City of Eagle will (what can we afford and &when). pursue over the next five years. Allows elected officials,staff, partner agencies, and the public to work in a This is a fiscally constrained plan coordinated fashion to implement projects OnlyFY 24 is "funded" (Grants, Public-Private Partnerships, Local S. Cost share agreements & capital planning). 4 2 10/6/2023 THIS PLAN . . . Does: Does Not. Provide the public a list of expected projects •Guarantee a project beyond an approved contract Prioritizes projects for funding "Commit the City to construction in a specific Mirrors current FY Budget year Establishes an anticipated cost for projects "Commit continued funding of maintenance Helps the City save for future construction & Guarantee priorities are constructed in the need Maintenance order of the plan "Leverages impact fees, general fund and outside funding options Genet. fund dollars that are used to fund the majority of the Capital Plan Fund are unincumbered moved as deemed necessary by the Council. 5 NOT A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN City has three (3) adopted CIPs for the collection of parks, pathways, police impacts these funds. Projects within these plans are prioritized as part of the Capital Plan. •Doesn't meet the requirements of Idaho Code 67-8208 •Isn't used to collect impact fees just coordinate expenditure •Doesn't establish an adopted LOS "Doesn't include a complete inventory the existing City assets •Water & Fiber as enterprise funds are not part of this plan 6 3 10/6/2023 I PLANNING FOR EXISTING & NEW CAPITAL Capital Maintenance "Existing' Capital Projects "New" Replacement Upgrade,or renovation of an New project, facility,or investment that has a cost existing capital investment that has a cost of of $20K or more and a lifespan of 5-years or $10K of more and a lifespan of 5-years or more. more. For every y of Capital investment it is cited the City should set aside 31 annually Example: New parks& Trails,expansion of for maintenance &replacement. existing facilities,may include preliminary planning & engineering Flood damage,vehicle replacement, replacement of park structures Funding Guideline: $2 million (plus increased capital liability)/year Funding Guideline*1- : $1.5 million in GF/year Capital Liability: The City's increased cost/responsibility to maintain improve or replace a piece of infrastructure. Can occur as part of ,_apital maintenance or a capital project. 7 FY 23 IN REVIEW - MAINTENANCE FY 2023-Capital Maintenance Year End Status O A 0 /Q Project No. Description Comments 83.41 PW CM Heritage Park $ 613,000.00 $ 28,320.00 4.62% Preliminaryeng.&savings for future Defered by the Council to FY z4,Carry of project funds PW CM-15 OK Park $ 130,000.00 $ - 0.0004 Forward expended/saved IT CM-7 Servers $ 8,500.00 $ - 0.00% Defered to FY 24,Carry Forward as planned PW CM-17 Jackson House $ 90,000.00 $ 8,908.25 9.90 Occupancy Challenges,work bgan % 9/2023,carry forward TRL CP-4 N.Channel Bank Repairs $ 550,000.00 $ 133,273.40 24.23% Completed,savings should go to Capital Reserves. PW CM-16 Equipment Replacement $ 2,500.00 $ 3,699.00 147.96% Completed Project defered,$shifted to cover FY 23 TRL CM-11 FEMA Trail Repair84 $ 215,000.00 $ - 0.00% increased cost in Library AC,carry forward Maintenance TRL CM-2 FEMATrail Repairs $ 676,491.00 $ - 0.00% Project complete in FY 22 Implementation PW CM-18 Library Air Unit Upgrade(from ARPA) $ 70,400.00 $ 100,330.00 142.51% Completed PW CM-19 Trolley $ 15,000.00 $ 14,720.25 98.14% Repairs are on-going Grad e: T&P CM Floodway/City Property Protection $ 10,000.00 $ 957.00 9.57% As of September 25,2023 $ 2,380,891.00 $ 290,207.90 FY 23 Actual' %of Bud:et — 8 4 10/6/2023 FY 23 IN REVIEW - PROJECTS FY 2023-Capital Projets Year End Status 1=1. Description �� Comments 8 3.8 8% - $ 851,400.00®0 Savin:for FY 24/FY25 Construction a/ of project funds T&P CP-3 Eagle Road Ped Bike Bridge $ 3,300,000.00 $2,945,946.28 89% Substaintially Complete-Painting and •lantin:s in floodwa to be com•leted expended/saved PW CP-2 City Owned Shop $ 350,000.00 $ - 0% Saving for Future Construction as planned T&PCP-6 Olde Park $ 600,000.00 $ 22,051.25 4% Preliminary en: &savings for future P&R CP-2 Regional Sports Park $ 2,589,000.00 $ 2,230,535.24 86% On-:oing construction P&RCP-8 Foothills Shooting Range $ 500,000.00 $ 193,642.15 39% Under Contract for full amount T&P CP-2 Aikens Street Extension $ 680,000.00 $ - 0% Savin for Future Construction P&R CP-9 Parks,Trails&Open Space Master Plan $ 100,000.00 $ - 0% Staff capacity issue No Number Parks Impact Fee Update $ 3,700.00 $ 3,595.00 100% Completed,Unplanned Pro.et PW CP-9 Mace Park $ 136,800.00 $ 12,343.75 9% Preliminary eng.&savings for future PW CP-11 Pamela Baker $ 276,200.00 Will complete irrigation pump by end of FY 23 Projects $ 86,628.00 0% year T&PCP-12 Linder Road(OH 44 to FF) $ 40,000.00 Waiting on contractor billing&saving Implementation $ 3,950.00 0% for future construction Grade: T&P CP-10 11211MIE $ 25,000.00 $ - Car forward to FY 24 TRL CM FEMA Trail Repairs $ 676,491.00 $ - 0% Completed in FY 23 GEN CP-1 Unanticipated Projects/Opportunities $ 75,000.00 $ - 0% Added to 3CRX carry forward to FY 24 $ 10,203,591.00 IITEMMUNIMM FY23 Budget FY 23 Actual' %of Budget Savings for future $3,060,005.00 29.99% 9 FY 23 INCREASED LIABILITY FY 23 Increased Capital Liability Annual Set- Project Specific Project No. Description Project Cost Aside/Project$ increase T&P CP-3 Eagle Road Ped Bike Bridge $ 3,200,000.00 $ 96,000.00 P&R CP-2* Regional Sports Park $ 2,230,535.24 $ 66,916.06 $ 0.03 P&R CP-8* Foothills Shooting Range $ 193,642.15 $ 5,809.26 TRL CP-4 N.Channel Center Bank Repairs $133,273.40 $ 3,998.20 Total Cost: $ 5,757,450.79 New Liability: $ 172,723.52 *Incomplete projects,costs are based on work to date FY 2025 will be the 1"year that the staff will request an increase to the annual capital maintenance set-aside from $1.5M to $1.53M due to increased capital maintenance due to construction. Details about Capital Liability is On page 13 10 5 10/6/2023 CLOSE OF 20231411111k 'r •j: Eagle Road Ped/Bike Bridge ° l <_ 1 • Advanced Construction 1-yr • Reduced City Construction Share - • 2023 AIC Award for Transportation _ { id ihi !.4.111iip.._iik ;Tp -,,,! ::4: '-,;.-... 7'"7.- ''..-..:.10:,.. ,-. 7..f.!.Vi,t...,,,,,,.it:';',i.1 M. J rl #` 1`.� z .■r r P- -tor.717^'- �„ ^2 .„,4111 N.Channel Center Trail & ':� _3"' Bank Restoration 0111i_1 ; a^Nd �-.tom' T'. ..yp l- K• '�4 11 STEP 1: FY 2024-28 DATA GATHERING Collect data about the facilities and services the City provides: THE PLANNING PROCESS • Annul budget Maintenance aces and upgrevrnueades sources • Annual operation 8 maintenance practices nd • Major Capital opiration&maintenance ante pg dice •Calculate increase Capital Liability City Commbtees,Commissions& Boards Ideas STEP 2: CIT,WIDE Six (6)outreach meeting with the Committees.Commissions& PROJECT Project Scoping: sc. • Preliminary Scoping by City Departments Boards. • First Review by the City Council • Staff Prioritization&Scoring New in 2023 - began online project submittal process STEP 3: Cnv City Council Review: New in 2023 - Eagle City Council held 2 Quarterly reviews: co. .C • Review or all projects submitted • Review of staff Scoring - Q1: February 9, 2023 • Review of Public Participation s, ' Q2:April 5, 2023-Included a FY 23plan Amendment gyCons nd Pion P Drafting of Fiscally Constrained Pion -3i Five(5)separate agendized workshops between April & June of ADOPT& City Adoption Beaty AGAIN • The Plans a guide, 2023: Planmlorstnecys �.d ""` Begin Again: April 5,2023,May 18,2023, June 1,2023,June 22, 2023 & i6 .sbegins m the Fall ofeach year June 29,2023 ublicE Engag of ement (FY 25-29) Public Engagement 'f+ll♦il i -. A Public Open House on July 1 2, 2023,including 2-week poster f a7n^4 " re ' City of Eagle mr mnP EAGLE Capital Planning Process 12 6 10/6/2023 • FY 2023 TO FY 2027 CAPITAL PLAN Projects prioritization includes: 1 ) City Council's Prioritization Committee,Commission,& Board Recommendation(October& November 2021) Staff Scoring updates Council Project by project prioritization(2 rounds) 2) Year Requested Staff Updated project request years based on current conditions 3) Leveraging & Inclusion CIP Plans completed in compliance with Idaho Code 67-82 Parks,Pathways& Police 4) Availability of Funding Plan is fiscally constrained limited to$10M across 5 years Highest ranked projects Prioritization is influenced by the availability of outside funding get priority funding in the 5) Compliance with Planning Goals year requested. 13 THE FY 24-28 PLAN Capital Planning Goals (page 5) Status of FY 22 Projects (page 1 1) Capital Liability Discussion (page 13) Prioritized Projects in Years 24-28 (page 15) Future & Unfunded Projects (page 29) Formatting — Capital Project Summary Sheet ;gage 24) Detailed funding sheets by year/project (appendix) Maps by year for Maintenance (appendix) 14 7 10/6/2023 Fiscal Year 2024-2028 Capital Maintenance Priorities Total FY 24 FY 24-Funded ..... Maintenance Budget: Len t-- — $2.146M W CD ° " General Fund: R23.11 PLAN CC ..,� "" $1.188M(55%) W ... " Carry Forward: LaJ ,,,:t� ;::t,« $928.5K(44%) Z �. .� " Reserves: Q a M..ee..e,:.-ce „n.....,: � a . pv $20K(1%) Z.- �. --�t Outside Funding: µ...SW.. » . W..1014 I ill $1OK(0.5%) ,...w..e rmr. "'"'," "'"- Q rY I U a , MANC .`per n.. CV N WPM Details for FY 25-28 on pages 16-22 L.L ,_�_�°� & appendix pages 30-42 15 EMZEMMEIM Changes Since August Budget Draft i r r N.ChannelMteM,Completed c.7 Incomplete TRL N.Channel Bank Repairs ' OMPLETE I$ loom() 400K under budget Z 5 to be used to offset carry forward Q = Department:Public Works Staff:Eric Ziegenfuss 1 r t Library Roof Replacement 1 10 PW CM-8 Library Roof Year Requested:2023 $ 250,000 Z Priority:Planned Replacement Q Amount Requested:$150K , Ranked#10 FY 23-27 PLAN YEAR:2024 Z Library Roof Replacement L:L Department:Planning& Estimated at$150K Zoning Staff: i'' Bill Vaughan Increased to $250K = FEMA Trail Repair 84A 21 TRL CM-11 FEMA Repair4A Year Requested:2023, $ 104,000 Qr. Incomplete in FY 21,22,&23 Money Moved from Priority:FEMA Repair A Amount Requested:$272.3K ,Ranked #21/26 FY 23-27 PLAN YEAR:2023 FEMA Repair 4A/Merrill Greenbelt CV Reduced from $204K to $104K O Department:Public Works CV Staff:Eric Ziegenfuss Greenbelt Merrill Park 26 TRL CM-4 Greenbelt Merrill Year Requested:2023 $ 104,000 L Priority:Planned Replacement Amount Requested:$180K FY 23-27 PLAN YEAR:2025 16 8 10/6/2023 MEFm--- =qe... �m n,aria.. __ a..,_.ra.. mt> ®®� stma Eagle a..w4as sror..r..r ry.v.. voxarrr,.rnem...Kao,,,,....Mo..r�,.....m.a m®®�� II teteeecnon ao,o�.:n.. .e....w..e.awa.a.....,.��.�s....�.�w..r.,�.I .,r.aew nummimilmitc= ..... .. .. i. ®®®®® Caner am.am vmr br m ®®=1®® L' Funded Cpea1 Pra(eds FY 28-FY 28 Projects are now shown by project progression versus by fiscal year. = mrumi�® CI- =1=111111111111=11E1110011011 J ® --^- illilESSIES Project Summary shows progression is measured in three categories: I--• 111911EMBEFfill111 0"' ____M- ��.� Planning/Engineering/Design 0� =0©©.. Q l0 '..Z:::: ®c©©©© ivSavings v 111211.-wi====irammum 00 ® Eliiar e (' Construction/Purchase 11111111 1111 © o=1 m �_____ =®.... >— 11111EBEII.11113111111 ® '" Il��1 ® p- em©■■■. 17 Vl Funded Capital Projects FY 24 Funded �� ProlectName 24IFB PrNoed Total FY 24 VPro' Name z4 a on,nrrno Projects Budget: IW MI Three Cities River Crossing(3CRX) tyro studyCity Mall Facility Projects ns $4.498M CD Ce^ Eagle Road Ped-Bike Bridge FY24 construction �®Linder RoadiSH-44 to FF� ry za ce.ign&sav�e� i= General Fund: el Ill &Eegie interoection FY24FYConstruction liParksTrails&OpenSpaceMasterPlan FY24Study $1.85M(41%) Carry Forward: Mitt,owned shop FY 24 Study Only �fl Charlie Wood Park FY24 study $1.65M(37%) G_ Reserves: t1 Q 1111 Olde Park Extension FY 24 Engineering ® : Mace Park Fr z4 comn.atan $870K(1 9%) V Outside Funding: •flrtegionei S rts Park-Phase 1 Pod/BikeStudies-FF&BLRds. FY24studies $125K(3%) • F PO Comtructan N 0>we Foothills Shooting Sport Park w 24 umned Fleet Expansion(changed from PW vehicles) .vings ca�eracrwn II..L—. , II $4,4913,000 Details for FY 25-28 on pages 24-26 & appendix pages 43-77 18 9 10/6/2023 FY 2025 TO 2028 PROJECTS Things are harder to predict. . .. •Changes in Fiscal Outlook Changes in Cost of Construction Changes in priorities Unanticipated Partnerships & Opportunities Changes in Leadership 19 Requested Actions: Approve the FY 24-28 Capital Plan with the staff recommended changes. Approved Resolution 23-27 adopting the FY 24-28 Capital Plan Next Step: October 2023 - Meetings with Committees, Commissions & Board QUESTIONS? 1111111P.A.w., THE CITY OF EAGLE 20 10