Findings - CC - 1993 - rezone from AR to R3 - Quail Ridge Farm Rezone From Ar To R3
CI'l'Y 01' ~..
I. TD _'.PDR 01'
ROO_R C. CDllDLBJlIU-
QUAIL RIDCa I'AJUI .All
APPLICA'1'IOII MR
RBIO.I.G
)
)
)
)
I'IJlDIIIGS 01' I'AC'!'
.AlID COlICLUSIOlIS 01'
LAW
On May 11, 1993, pursuant to public notice and hearing procedures
set forth in Section 67-6509, Idaho State Code, and Section 8,
Eagle City Code, Ed Thomas, representative for Roger C.
Crandlemire, the applicant, came before the Eagle City Council for
the City of Eagle, Idaho, requesting approval of a rezone from AR
(Agricultural-Residential) district to R3 (Residential) district.
Based on the application, testimony from the applicant and all
interested parties and, together with all documentary evidence
submitted concerning the application, the Eagle City Council finds
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
The records in this matter indicate all notices, and
publications have occurred as required by law. The records
further reflect notice of the public hearing was sent to
relevant public entities, including the Ada County Assessor
and Ada County Engineer, Central District Health, Eagle Sewer
District, Eagle Water Co., Eagle Fire Dept., Idaho Power, and
Ada Highway District. The City was advised by said entities
that there was no objection to the applicant's request. Eagle
Sewer District indicated this parcel is within the Sewer
District's Planning Area but is not annexed into the District.
There are no lines to serve the property.
2.
On April 5, 1993, a public hearing was conducted by the Eagle
Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and zoning
Commission heard testimony to the proposal.
The Commission concludes that there is not adequate evidence
showing that this rezone at the proposed location satisfies
the general standards and is appropriate for approval of a
rezone set forth in Title 8, of the Eagle City Code.
Specifically, that the use will be harmonious with and in
accordance with the general objectives of the Title 8, and the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission concludes the application submitted by Roger
Crandlemire for the rezone is not in accordance with the Eagle
Comprehensive Plan, and does not serve the welfare of the
general public nor is it in the best public interest.
The granting of the application may violate the intent of
zoning in the Idaho Code and may nullify the interests and
purposes of the Eagle City Code and Eagle Comprehensive Plan.
The Eagle Planning and zoning Commission recommends denial of
the application for rezoning and recommends the following:
that the property continue to be zoned A-R (Agricultural-
Residential) pursuant to Eagle City Code, Section 8-2-1
DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED, PURPOSES AND RESTRICTIONS! A-R
District: To provide for the transition of agricultural land
no longer used for extensive agricultural purposes into
residential areas, while preserving agricultural uses
compatible with residential development. Gross density will
not exceed one single family dwelling unit per five (5) acres.
3.
The concerns of the public were the following: water
availability and water rights, density, development control
and preservation of open space, impact on schools and roads,
violate of codes and irrigation rights.
4.
Written testimony opposing the rezone was received from!
Glida Bothwell, Catherine Byne, Judith L. McAdams, Kent and
Rebecca Quinney, Jim and Ann Carlin, Eva M. Michael, Anthony
and William H. West, Delmar D. and Shirley M. Vail, Alan
Hockstrasser, Jr., Elbert Gass, Letha Roberts, Willma Stapes,
Marie Alder, Beth Grinstead, Phil Zurmuhlen, and Linda Brown.
5.
Written testimony in favor of the rezone was received from
Kathie B. Nahas.
6.
On May 11, 1993 the City Council continued the matter until
the May 25, 1993 meeting until the City has a legal opinion as
to which Comprehensive Plan to consider and other matters.
7 .
On May 25, 1993 the City Council continued the matter until
the June 8, 1993 meeting for decision in order to receive a
legal opinion.
8.
Susan Wiebe, attorney for the City, in Mona Mack's absence,
was asked to give an opinion on the 1990 Eagle Comprehensive
Plan compared to the 1993 Eagle Comprehensive Plan, in
relationship to this application. Which plan should apply?
The opinion was that the 1990 Plan applies but to address the
new plan as well.
9.
June 8, 1993: Ed Thomas, representative for the Crandlemire
proposal, made the following proposal to Council: "that the
original request for zoning of R3 on the property be granted
10.
as an R1, with an additional stipulation that we enter into a
development agreement as part of that zoning which will also
require first, a PUD proposed be presented to the city for its
approval at the time the plans are finalized by the land owner
for development of this property; that a 5% allowance be made
on the PUD in recognition of the landowners utilization of the
common areas and pathways to the school site; that a 15%
allowance be made in recognition of the landowners response to
a request by the Meridian School District to sell 35 acre
parcel from the original 130 acres for a site for a middle
school and in doing so the residential lots to be developed
total no more than 114; that no connection take place to
Washum Rd, but that a common area be included in the PUD which
might allow future connection to that road should it be deemed
necessary by ACHD and that the PUD include appropriate
transition to the south which speaks to the density in Downing
Downs subdivision and to the north which speaks to the density
of property on Rush Road through the use of berms, landscaping
and where possible larger lot sizes. We believe these changes
would allow a density, 1.3, of that originally proposed; and
would set down guidelines for the preparation of a PUD that
deals with many of the concerns expressed by the public. It
would allow the Crandlemires to continue to seek a developer
who would fulfill the unique requirements of this property's
geography and location.
The City Attorney advised the Council that a development
agreement can be entered into by the city and applicant, but
it does contain commitment. A specific development is not
needed at this time.
11.
There was a motion to rezone the 95 acres to R1 with a
development agreement, to eliminate Washam Road and make
larger parcels to the south and north and to look at a
development in the future by the future developer, not to
restrict Eagle Planning and Zoning to a concept, which is
really not a plan; however, there was a dissenting vote.
There were only 3 Council me~ers in attendance. The City
Attorney, quoting ECC 8-7-5~1r, advised the Council that it is
necessary to have a vote of one-half (1/2) plus one of the
members, the motion died. Mona Mack, City Attorney, advised
the Council that the Mayor votes only upon a tie. In order to
resurrect the vote the dissenting member can move to
reconsider tabling the matter until a full member Council is
present. A motion to reconsider was passed. The matter will
continue until a full member Council is present.
The standards used in evaluating the application are in the
following sections of the Eagle City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING DISTRICTS
8-2-1: Districts established
R Residential Districts: to provide regulations and
districts for various residential neighborhoods. Density
in an R District shall be determined according to the
numeral following the R. The number designates the
maximum number of dwelling units per acre. Centralized
water and sewer facilities are required in all districts
exceeding one dwelling unit per acre.
8-2-31 Schedule of District use Regulations 1 district regulations
shall be as set forth in the Official Schedule of District
Regulations and in the performance standards.
8-7-2:
Zoning Permits and certificates of occupancy
A. Zoning Permit
1. Application
2. Plan
3. Approval
4. Expiration
5. Occupancy
of permit
1990-EAGLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE: Residential uses- 1. The residential densities in the
City limits shall not exceed twenty five (25) units per acre.
COMMUNITY DESIGN: Policies and Goals:
Page 11.1: --"encouraging growth outward from the City of Eagle but
precludes establishment of other city centers".
Page 11. 5 1 "Development within the Eagle Impact Area should be
encouraged to grow out from the city limits of Eagle.
POPULATION:
Page 16: With the adoption by Ada County and the City of Eagle of
an Area of Impact Agreement in 1980, urban development is more
effectively managed by encouraging growth within the City limits
and the Urban Service Planning Area.
COIICLU8IOR
The City Council concludes that the rezone from AR to R1 portion of
the property is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Eagle
Comprehensive Plan and Eagle City Codes. The zoning in that
location is appropriate and follows the orderly development of the
city and protects the health, safety and welfare of the new 1993
comprehensive plan.
Based upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW, the Eagle City Council denies the request for R3 zoning,
but approves the application for a rezone to R1 from AR
conditioned on the following 11 conditions:
ADOPTED by the Eagle City Council the City of Eagle, Idaho this
13 day of July, 1993.
'",
\ \
. l \ .
10.
11.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Central Water and Sewer
No access to Washum Road
Development Agreement signed within 60 days of approval of
zone change
Lots bordering Rush Road be no smaller than 2 acres
Lots on Floating Feather no smaller than 1 acre
Future proposals shall meet the following:
a. R1 subdivision (no lot smaller than 1 acre)
b. PUD that meets Eagle Ordinances which includes up
to an 15% increase allowance for ascetic improvements.
Provide appropriate landscaping buffer on Nand S boundary
of the subdivision
Provide for connection of road to E (future development)
All lots bordering existing lots with Washum Road addresses
shall be no smaller than 1 acre
Ditch (pipe) along Floating Feather shall not be covered by
landscaping
Any parcel sold prior to pre plat submittal shall be excluded
from gross acreage consideration
7 .
8.
9.
ð~DI
---;"" f
Mayor v
City of Eagle
n~