Findings - PZ - 1995 - PP & CUP - Aerie Subd/Pp And Cup24 Units On 1.08 Acres In A C2/6 Res Lots/1 Common
CITY OF EAGLE
IN THE MATTER OF
AN APPLICATION FOR
AERIE SUBDIVISION
PRELIMINARY PLAT &
JOHN BROWNING AND
JOHN BADIOLA
)
)
)
CUP BY )
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT
&
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On September 11, 1995, pursuant to public notice and hearing
procedures set forth in Section 67-6509, Idaho State Code, John
Browning, the applicant, Brian Smith of Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.,
Engineer for the applicant came before the Eagle Planning and
Zoning Commission, for the City of Eagle, Idaho, requesting
approval for a subdivision preliminary plat and Conditional Use
Permit. This subdivision is located on Lot 32 Block 1 of Grossman
subdivision near the intersection of State Street and Edgewood Lane
in Eagle Idaho. The applications for preliminary plat (a re-
subdivision of an existing lot) and conditional use permit for 24
units on 1.08 acres for a gross density of 22.2 dwellings per acre
in a C2 zoning district. The subdivision application is proposed
as 6 residential lots (4 units per lot) and one common lot.
Based on testimony from the applicant and all interested parties,
together with all documentary evidence submitted concerning the
application, the Eagle City Planning and Zoning Commission finds
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. On September 11, 1995, a public hearing was conducted by the
Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission. Testimony was presented by
neighborhood property owners. Testimony: Opposed:John Grimstead,
Allen Barta, Mike Kidder. In favor: Terry Walker
Concerns of the public:
1. Not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, the plan must
be amended and there must be a benefit to the public.
2. Too high density mixed with medium density
3. Too much additional traffic
4. Not enough parking spaces
5. Lack of common area for children to play
6. Sewer and water questions are not answered.
7. Lower values of adjacent property
8. A change in density in the neighborhood
2. Written Testimony was received from:
Dennis and Nancy Bragdon, 1519 E. Bishop Dr.; opposed, high
density, overcrowding of schools, too many zones in a small area.
Richard and Terri Walker, 1545 E. Bishop Dr; opposed, lowering the
quality of life, services can't keep up, inadequate parking,
1
commercial property should be used as commercial, not high density
residential.
Gary and Mary McCoy, 1481 E. Bogey Dr.; opposed, detrimental to
surrounding neighborhood.
Steven and Becky Petersen, 1424 E. Bogey Drive; opposed, traffic,
lower quality of life, lowered property values, overload on parks,
schools and streets.
Petition signed by 84 Eagle residents, mostly from the immediate
neighborhood. "We are concerned citizens of Eagle who are opposed
to the proposed development of 24 condominiums in the area of 1.08
acres, 1/8 mile north of State Street on the west side of Edgewood
Lane, Lot 3, Block 1, Grossman Subdivision. We urge the City not
to approve such a development."
3. The applicant presented the project to the Commissioners and
pictures were distributed to the Commission. Mr. Browning stated
that each unit will have a garage and parking spaces. The density
will be 22.2 units to the acre. This development would generate
144 trips per day according to ACHD, less than a commercial use.
This project lends itself to older retired people or young couples.
4. 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 the appropriate
public and private entities with responses to the proposal being
received in the City Clerk's office from those entities. Those
responses are as follows:
RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM ENTITIES
Ada County Assessor I s Office: The legal description is
unsatisfactory. The description does not close, There is an 8'
difference between the 2 maps submitted.
Eagle Fire District: 9/5/95, Before the development plans are
approved, the following conditions shall be met:
1. Street signs shall be up prior to building homes.
2. Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with Art. 10-Div 11,
1991 UFC, this section covers width and turn-arounds.
3. Fire Flow requirements for buildings: The minimum fire-flow and
flow duration requirements for one and two family dwellings having
a fire area which does not exceed 3,600 sq ft shall be 1,000 gal
per minute. Fire flow and flow duration for dwellings having a
fire area in excess of 3,600 sq. ft shall not be less than that
specified in Table No. A-111-A-1. A reduction in required fire
flow of 50%, as approved by the chief, is allowed when the building
is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system.
The fire-flow for buildings other than one and two family dwellings
shall be not less than that specified in Table No. A-111-A-1, 1991
UFC.
4. The average spacing between hydrants shall not exceed that
listed on table A-111-B-1-, 1991 UFC
2
Ea9le Sewer District: 8/22/95, "The property identified as Aerie
Condominiums Subdivision is within Eagle Sewer District's Planning
Area, and hàs been annexed into our service boundaries. There is
a 15" sewer line in the west right-of-way of Edgewood Lane and in
the north right-of-was of State Street. Either of these lines
could serve the proposed condominiums. Until Eagle Sewer District
resolved our expansion problem with Ada County.....actual sewer
service will remain on a first come, first served basis."
Central District Health: 8/23/95, "After written approval from
appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal
for central sewage. The following plans must be submitted to and
approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Division of
Environmental Quality: Central Sewage and Central Water. Street
runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem." Stormwater
management recommendation guidelines were also attached.
The standards used in evaluating the application are in the
following sections of the Eagle City Code and Comprehensive Plan:
OUTLINE OF CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE ATTACHED TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT
A. Uses allowable with conditions and subject to ability of
political subdivisions to provide services.
B. Notice procedures apply (ISC 67-6509)
C. Can be tied to ability of political subdivisions to provide
services. Sequence, timing, duration, maintenance; can require
site-specific conditions.
D. May require that studies be conducted
E. Transferable from owner but not from parcel.
PRACTICAL POINTERS
The special use permit procedure allows a zoning ordinance to
address uses which are conditionally acceptable in the midst of a
land use zone. The special use procedure allows the application of
special conditions to development of uses which would allow them to
integrate suitably with their surroundings By including the
conditions which are susceptible to special use approval, a permit
applicant is put on notice of what design features should be
considered and might be applied as conditions.
Some of those considerations might be restrictions on lighting,
landscaping requirements, limits on building height or placement,
design considerations.
It may be appropriate to require applicants for a special use
permit to conduct special studies and to provide additional
analysis beyond that normally required of a permit applicant before
a permit can be favorably considered. Special use permits do not
create binding precedent are very site specific in that certain
3
uses can be integrated suitably into certain sites better than
others. Accordingly, special use permits are not transferable from
one site to another, but do continue from one owner to another.
Special use permits can b implemented to time certain, or within a
certain time frame.
EAGLE CITY CODE:
8-7-3-2: GENERAL STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USES: The
Commission/Council shall review the particular facts and
circumstances of each proposed conditional use in terms of the
following standards and shall find adequate evidence showing
that such use at the proposed location:
A. Will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as established in
Section 8-2-3 of this Title for the zoning district involved;
B. Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general
objectives or with any specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan
and/or this Title;
C. Will be designed constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or
intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will
not change the essential character of the same area;
D. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existent or future
neighboring uses;
E. will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection,
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer an schools;
or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment
of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such
services;
F. will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost
for public facilities and services and will not b detrimental to
the economic welfare of the community;
G. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to
any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors;
H. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on
surrounding public thoroughfares; and
I. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature of major importance.
8 -7 -3 - 3 Public
following:
Sites
and open
spaces:
shall
conform to
the
A. Public Uses
B. Natural Features
C. Special Developments
8-7-3-4: Supplementary conditions and safeguards: In granting and
4
CUP the Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds and
safeguards in conformity with this Title. Violations of such
conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms
under which the CUP is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this
Title.
8-7-3-5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
8-7-3-5-C-2:
Upon granting or denying a CUP specify:
a. the ordinance and standards used in evaluating
the application;
b. the reasons for approval or denial; and
c. the actions, if any, that the applicant could
take to obtain a permit.
8-7-3-5-D: Conditions of permit: Upon granting of a CUP conditions
may be attached to said permit including, but not limited to,
those:
1. Minimizing adverse impact on other development;
2. Controlling the sequence and timing of development;
3. Controlling the duration of development;
4. Assuring that development is maintained properly;
5. Designating the exact location and nature of development;
6. Requiring the provision for on site or off site public
facilities or service; and
7. Requiring more restrictive standards than those generally
required in this Title
8-7-3-5-E: TRANSFER OF PERMIT: A CUP is not transferrable from one
parcel to another. (D) A CUP shall not be considered as
establishing a binding precedent to grant other CUP.
COMMUNITY DESIGN:
Comply with the Eagle Tree Plan
CONCLUSION
The Commission concludes that the application for Aerie Subdivision
and Conditional Use Permit is not consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan and Eagle City Codes,
specifically that the proposed density is not consistent or
compatible with neighboring uses.
It is found that it is not in the best interest of the public
welfare and safety and the Subdivision does not provide for the
harmonious development of the area.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF
5
LAW, the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to
the Council the application for a subdivision preliminary plat
and Conditional Use Permit for Aerie subdivision be denied.
the City of
Commission
rbara Montgomer
City of Eagle
11