Commission remands Academy Valley lot-split to staff after fire-access concerns; asks for conditions from Eagle Fire
October 20, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission remanded the Academy Valley subdivision application back to staff for additional work and to coordinate with Eagle Fire after members and members of the public raised questions about secondary access, past approvals on Rush Road and safety implications.
What the plan proposes: Greencastle Building LLC asked to subdivide a roughly 4.84-acre lot (former Lot 15 in the Academy Place subdivision) into two residential lots. The applicant said a new dwelling would be built on the second lot and the project would use existing septic and well service and historic irrigation. The applicant asked for a waiver of pressurized irrigation and a sidewalk waiver for Rush Road.
Why it matters: Eagle Fire provided written comment that it does not support additional units on Rush Road without a secondary access, citing a district practice that developments should not exceed 30 dwelling units without a second means of access. Commissioners and members of the public debated whether past approvals along Rush Road should have triggered the same concern and whether sprinkling or additional setbacks could address fire-safety risks.
Public comment: Neighbors testified they are concerned about the narrow, dead-end character of Rush Road, existing emergency access and the distance to the nearest fire hydrant. One resident urged the commission not to permit more lots on the dead-end road because emergency responders and neighbors alike would be put at greater risk.
Staff recommendation and commission action: Planning staff told commissioners the application meets dimensional standards for the RE (residential estate) zone but that Eagle Fire’s letter recommending denial unless secondary access is provided must be addressed. Rather than approve or deny, the commission voted to remand the application to staff to work with Eagle Fire on conditions; staff was asked to return the item to the commission at the Nov. 17 meeting with a proposed conditions set addressing fire-safety mitigations, sprinkler requirements and any alternatives the fire district would accept.
Ending: The item was not approved or denied; the remand will give staff and Eagle Fire additional time to craft conditions or solutions (for example, sprinkler requirements, enhanced setbacks or other mitigation) so the commission can consider a complete set of conditions at a future meeting.
What the plan proposes: Greencastle Building LLC asked to subdivide a roughly 4.84-acre lot (former Lot 15 in the Academy Place subdivision) into two residential lots. The applicant said a new dwelling would be built on the second lot and the project would use existing septic and well service and historic irrigation. The applicant asked for a waiver of pressurized irrigation and a sidewalk waiver for Rush Road.
Why it matters: Eagle Fire provided written comment that it does not support additional units on Rush Road without a secondary access, citing a district practice that developments should not exceed 30 dwelling units without a second means of access. Commissioners and members of the public debated whether past approvals along Rush Road should have triggered the same concern and whether sprinkling or additional setbacks could address fire-safety risks.
Public comment: Neighbors testified they are concerned about the narrow, dead-end character of Rush Road, existing emergency access and the distance to the nearest fire hydrant. One resident urged the commission not to permit more lots on the dead-end road because emergency responders and neighbors alike would be put at greater risk.
Staff recommendation and commission action: Planning staff told commissioners the application meets dimensional standards for the RE (residential estate) zone but that Eagle Fire’s letter recommending denial unless secondary access is provided must be addressed. Rather than approve or deny, the commission voted to remand the application to staff to work with Eagle Fire on conditions; staff was asked to return the item to the commission at the Nov. 17 meeting with a proposed conditions set addressing fire-safety mitigations, sprinkler requirements and any alternatives the fire district would accept.
Ending: The item was not approved or denied; the remand will give staff and Eagle Fire additional time to craft conditions or solutions (for example, sprinkler requirements, enhanced setbacks or other mitigation) so the commission can consider a complete set of conditions at a future meeting.
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