Council approves Reigning Horse annexation with conditions after weeks of revisions
October 28, 2025 | Eagle, Ada County, Idaho
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Eagle City Council approved the annexation, rezone and preliminary plan for the Reigning Horse subdivision on Monday, voting to accept the developer’s lower-density redesign with a set of council-directed changes to private-street, sidewalk and setback conditions.
The applicant, represented by Sean Nicholl of Core Building Company, had reduced the plan from an earlier seven‑lot proposal to four buildable lots and one common lot. The council’s approval includes direction to staff and the applicant to revise conditions to reflect council decisions on sidewalks, private-street standards, the existing accessory building on Lot 2 and other items discussed during the public hearing.
Council members said they supported the applicant’s move to fewer lots and the developer’s change to obtain irrigation from the Dry Creek Ditch Company, which staff and the applicant said removed earlier objections tied to lateral 75. But councilors and attendees pressed the developer on pedestrian access, emergency access and whether neighbors should be granted a cross‑access easement.
The city’s planning staff summarized the application as a request to annex 7.68 acres on the north side of West Floating Feather Road east of Meridian Road, rezone it from Ada County RUT (rural‑urban transition) to the city’s R‑1‑D‑A single‑family district with a development agreement, and to approve a preliminary plan showing four buildable lots ranging roughly from 1.3 to 1.85 acres. Daniel Miller, planning staff, told council the revised lot sizes “transition better to the adjacent subdivisions” than the prior submittal.
During public comment, Canterbury subdivision residents said the reduced lot sizes made the project more compatible. Adjacent landowner Jeff Gilbertson asked the council to require a formal access easement over the private street so he can continue to move farm equipment to his property; he said he has used the path with the owners’ permission for about 30 years. A resident and disability‑rights advocate, Cheryl Bloom, urged the council to require sidewalks, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act (28 CFR 35.151) and local code.
Applicant Nicholl said the reduced density — three new homes on the private street rather than six under the earlier plan — was the basis for asking the council to allow the existing barn on Lot 2 to remain in place and to approve ribbon curb and no sidewalks on the private street. He said the owner had purchased shares in the Dry Creek Ditch Company and would pressurize irrigation from that source, removing an earlier lateral‑sharing issue with neighboring parcels.
After extended discussion, council members reached a consensus on revisions for staff to implement in the final development agreement and plat: require a sidewalk on one side of the private street (the council directed a five‑foot sidewalk on the north side without an eight‑foot planter strip), keep the applicant’s requested modifications that reflect the Dry Creek connection (so condition 20, which referenced lateral 75 review, would be stricken), remove the proposed condition requiring a cross‑access easement for the neighbor (condition 21 will be stricken), and allow the private‑street design subject to the council’s modifications (council asked staff to strike or modify the code‑based conditions that would otherwise force a different plat). Council members also accepted the waiver of the 20% PUD open‑space requirement given the large lot sizes. The setback allowance that permits the existing accessory structure on Lot 2 to remain at its current location (with a specified minimum front setback) remained in the approved conditions as proposed.
Council instructed staff to work with the applicant on a revised plat and to return final, redlined conditions and documents for ministerial review. The motion to approve carried with council members in favor and no recorded opposition.
The council’s direction preserves the developer’s lower density while adding a requirement for a defined pedestrian route and clarifying that cross‑access for farming is not being imposed on the new homeowners’ association. Staff said they will return with revised documents reflecting the council’s instructions.
What happens next: staff will incorporate the council’s edits into the development agreement and the preliminary plat and will bring the final documents back for administrative processing and recording. The applicant will be required to submit construction drawings for the pressurized irrigation system and final plat materials before building permits can issue.
The applicant, represented by Sean Nicholl of Core Building Company, had reduced the plan from an earlier seven‑lot proposal to four buildable lots and one common lot. The council’s approval includes direction to staff and the applicant to revise conditions to reflect council decisions on sidewalks, private-street standards, the existing accessory building on Lot 2 and other items discussed during the public hearing.
Council members said they supported the applicant’s move to fewer lots and the developer’s change to obtain irrigation from the Dry Creek Ditch Company, which staff and the applicant said removed earlier objections tied to lateral 75. But councilors and attendees pressed the developer on pedestrian access, emergency access and whether neighbors should be granted a cross‑access easement.
The city’s planning staff summarized the application as a request to annex 7.68 acres on the north side of West Floating Feather Road east of Meridian Road, rezone it from Ada County RUT (rural‑urban transition) to the city’s R‑1‑D‑A single‑family district with a development agreement, and to approve a preliminary plan showing four buildable lots ranging roughly from 1.3 to 1.85 acres. Daniel Miller, planning staff, told council the revised lot sizes “transition better to the adjacent subdivisions” than the prior submittal.
During public comment, Canterbury subdivision residents said the reduced lot sizes made the project more compatible. Adjacent landowner Jeff Gilbertson asked the council to require a formal access easement over the private street so he can continue to move farm equipment to his property; he said he has used the path with the owners’ permission for about 30 years. A resident and disability‑rights advocate, Cheryl Bloom, urged the council to require sidewalks, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act (28 CFR 35.151) and local code.
Applicant Nicholl said the reduced density — three new homes on the private street rather than six under the earlier plan — was the basis for asking the council to allow the existing barn on Lot 2 to remain in place and to approve ribbon curb and no sidewalks on the private street. He said the owner had purchased shares in the Dry Creek Ditch Company and would pressurize irrigation from that source, removing an earlier lateral‑sharing issue with neighboring parcels.
After extended discussion, council members reached a consensus on revisions for staff to implement in the final development agreement and plat: require a sidewalk on one side of the private street (the council directed a five‑foot sidewalk on the north side without an eight‑foot planter strip), keep the applicant’s requested modifications that reflect the Dry Creek connection (so condition 20, which referenced lateral 75 review, would be stricken), remove the proposed condition requiring a cross‑access easement for the neighbor (condition 21 will be stricken), and allow the private‑street design subject to the council’s modifications (council asked staff to strike or modify the code‑based conditions that would otherwise force a different plat). Council members also accepted the waiver of the 20% PUD open‑space requirement given the large lot sizes. The setback allowance that permits the existing accessory structure on Lot 2 to remain at its current location (with a specified minimum front setback) remained in the approved conditions as proposed.
Council instructed staff to work with the applicant on a revised plat and to return final, redlined conditions and documents for ministerial review. The motion to approve carried with council members in favor and no recorded opposition.
The council’s direction preserves the developer’s lower density while adding a requirement for a defined pedestrian route and clarifying that cross‑access for farming is not being imposed on the new homeowners’ association. Staff said they will return with revised documents reflecting the council’s instructions.
What happens next: staff will incorporate the council’s edits into the development agreement and the preliminary plat and will bring the final documents back for administrative processing and recording. The applicant will be required to submit construction drawings for the pressurized irrigation system and final plat materials before building permits can issue.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting