Loading...
Findings - CC - 2005 - CPA-3-05/RZ-3-05 - Cpa From A To R1-Da And R3-Da /1.99 Units Per Acre/47.8 Acre/1501/1601 Wffr ORIGINAL BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT FROM ONE UNIT PER ACRE TO TWO UNITS PER ACRE AND A REZONE FROM A (AGRICULTURAL TO R-I-DA (RESIDENTIAL WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) AND R-3-DA (RESIDENTIAL WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) FOR HILL VIEW DEVELOPMENT LLC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER CPA-3-0S & RZ-3-05 The above-entitled comprehensive plan amendment and rezone with development agreement application came before the Eagle City Council for their action on April 19, 2005, at which time testimony was taken. The Eagle City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; FINDINGS OF FACT: A. PROJECT SUMMARY: Hillview Development Corporation, represented by Land Consultants Inc., is requesting a Comprehensive Plan text amendment from I-unit per acre to two-units per acre, a rezone from A (Agricultural) to R-I-DA (Residential - up to I-unit per acre with development agreement) and R-3-DA (Residential - up to 3-units per acre with development agreement) for an overall density of 1.99 units to the acre. The 47.8-acre site is located approximately one-quarter mile east of Ballantyne Lane on the south side of Floating Feather Road at 1501 and 1601 West Floating Feather Road. B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on January 20, 2005. C. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was published in accordance for requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City ordinances on February 21, 2005. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three-hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on February 16,2005. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on January 20, 2005, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was published in accordance for requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City ordinances on March 28, 2005. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three-hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on March 24, 2005. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on March 24, 2005, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. Page 1 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-O3-0S & RZ-O3-0S ccf.doc D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: With the City's September 14, 2004, adoption of the Soaring 2025 Western Area Plan, the subject site was changed from a Residential One designation to Transitional Residential designation, allowing for an overall development density of up to one-unit per acre. E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: none Page 2 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-O3-0S & RZ-O3-0S cd.doc F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS: COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE DESIGNATION DESIGNA TION Existing Residential One (up to A (Agricultural) Single-family dwelling one dwelling units per & Pasture acre maximum) & Transitional Residential (up to one dwelling unit per acre maximum) Proposed Transitional Residential R-I-DA (Residential with Residential Subdivision (up to two dwelling Development Agreement) & R-3- units per acre DA (Residential with maximum) Development Agreement) North of site Transitional Residential R-E (Residential-Estates) Single-family dwelling (up to one dwelling unit & Pasture per acre maximum) South of site Residential One (up to A-R (Agricultural-Residential) Baker's Acres one dwelling units per Subdivision acre maximum) East of site Residential One (up to R-l (Residential) Downing Downs one dwelling units per Subdivision acre maximum) West of site Residential One (up to R-E (Residential-Estates) Single-family dwellings one dwelling units per acre maximum) G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA or CEDA. H. TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 47.8-acres I. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONE: The letter submitted by the applicant and date stamped by the City on January 20, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference. J. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The applicant has provided a copy of a proposed development agreement, of which the conditions are included for review below under Staff Analysis Section "C". K. A V AILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES: The Eagle Fire Department states that development plans must be designed with certain conditions prior to approval. The Eagle Sewer District states that the property will need to be annexed into the District's service area and construction drawings reviewed by the District and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality prior to connection to sewer service. United Water states that a portion of this site (the proposed R-l zone) is within its service area; the remainder of the site is located within the Eagle Water Company boundary. Page 3 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-O3-0S & RZ-O3-0S cd.doc L. M. N. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists. NON-CONFORMING USES: Based upon the information available, the rezone of the property would not create any noncompliance with any provisions of the Eagle City Code. AGENCY RESPONSES: The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is incorporated herein by reference. Comments which appear to be of special concern are noted below: Central District Health Department Eagle Fire Department Eagle Sewer District Joint School District No.2 United Water O. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: Letter from Mike Malterre, 1795 West Floating Feather Road, Eagle, ill 83616, date stamped by the City on February 28,2005. Letter from Laurie K. Campbell, 1023 Pimlico Drive, Eagle, ill 83616, date stamped by the City on March 1,2005. Letter from Harold Edwards, 865 Preakness Drive, Eagle, ill 83616, date stamped by the City on March 3, 2005. Letter from Frank Stoppello, 782 Arlington Drive, Eagle, ill 83616, date stamped by the City on April 13, 2005 Letter from Harold Edwards, 865 Preakness Drive, Eagle, ill 83616, date stamped by the City on April 14, 2005 Letter from Janet and Russ Buschert, 235 W. Floating Feather Road, Eagle, ill 83616, date stamped by the City on April 18, 2005 E-mail from Harv Babendure 1043 Downing Drive, Eagle, ill 83616, date stamped by the City on April 18, 2005 Letter from Pat and Betty Miller, Eagle, ill 83616, date stamped by the City on April 19, 2005 P. APPLICANT REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: The letter submitted by the applicant and date stamped by the City on January 20, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference. ST AFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT: A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: . The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map currently designates this site as Transitional Page 4 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-O3-0S & RZ-O3-0S ccf.doc . Residential and is located within the Eagle Middle School Planning Area which allows an overall density of up to one dwelling unit per acre. The 2000 Eagle City Comprehensive Plan's TransportationlPathway Network Map #1 of 2 shows a possible future road connection extending through this site from Floating Feather Road to State Street. Chapter 1 - Overview 1.3 The City of Eagle Vision Statement In 1999, City of Eagle citizens envision their future town as a well-planned community that encourages diversified living and housing opportunities, economic vitality that offers jobs for residents, and places for people to recreate and enjoy Eagle's natural beauty. b. known as a highly livable town that successfully balances many of the rural elements of its heritage with growth; h. a unique community that maintains its rural residential feel in the midst of the Treasure Valley. Chapter 6 - Land Use 6.1 Background and Existing Conditions Managing growth and channeling it into orderly community development is the key element of land use planning. Unplanned growth results in undesirable land use patterns. Areas within the City and within the Impact Area are given land use designations which are depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, hereinafter referred to as the "Land Use Map". The Land Use Map is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan. It serves as a planning policy document and planning tool that will assist the City in sustaining responsible growth and development to ensure that evolving land use patterns remain consistent with goals, objectives and strategies of the Plan. Land use designations as reflected on the Land Use Map are based on the existing land use pattern, existing natural physical features such as the Boise River, Dry Creek and the foothills, floodplain areas, capacity of existing community facilities, projected population and economic growth, compatibility with other uses of the land, transportation systems, and the needs of local citizens. 6.5 Goal To preserve the rural transitional identity. 6.6 Objectives b. To encourage development with decreasing density radiating out from the CBD as shown on the Land Use Map Page 5 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-O3-0S & RZ-O3-0S ccf.doc 6.7 Implementation Strategies b. Establish land use patterns and zoning districts that do not exhaust available services such as sewer, water, police, fire, recreational areas, highways and transportation systems. f. Higher density residential development should be located closest to the Central Business District (CBD) as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Chapter 9 - Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces 9.5 9.5.2 9.6 9.6.1 Pathways and Greenbelts Pathways are nonmotorized multi-use paths that are separate features from bicycle and pedestrian lanes constructed as a part of a roadway. Greenbelts are typically land areas that border scenic features or hazard areas (i.e. the Boise River and Dry Creek) and are designed to prevent undesirable encroachment. Greenbelts may include pathways and/or bike lanes. Objectives e. All development should provide developed pathways for connection to Eagle's public pathway system and/or adjoining development's public pathway system. g. Improve/provide access to greenbelt/pathway east of Eagle Road on the south side of the North Channel of the Boise River. Open Space Open space is land which is not used for buildings or structures and offers opportunities for parks, recreation, water amenities, greenbelts, river trails and pathways, tourism, leisure activities, viewpoints, and wildlife habitat. Goal To provide wherever possible open space and natural features such as natural river frontage, greenbelts, river trails and pathways, creeks, flood plains and flood ways, drainage ways and canals, development buffers, wooded areas, grasslands, foothills, and viewpoints for public use and enjoyment. Chapter 12 - Community Design 12.4 Implementation Strategies 1. Buffer and transition zones should be developed between conflicting types of land use. Page 6 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-O3-0S & RZ-03-0S ccf.doc q. Maintain the rural residential character and open space environment in and around the City. Chapter 13 - Implementation 13.5 13.7 Comprehensive Plan Amendments From time to time, changing conditions will result in a need for comprehensive plan amendments. The Land Use Planning Act provides for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The City Councilor any group or person may petition the City Planning and Zoning Commission for a plan amendment at any time. On its own initiative, the City Planning and Zoning Commission may also originate an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. However, the City Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council not more frequently than every six (6) months; however text amendments may be recommended at any time. Implementation Strategies c. Any person applying for a Comprehensive Plan amendment shall submit a justification letter for the amendment which shall include the following: 1. A specific description of the change being requested. 2. Specific information on any property involved. 3. A description of the condition or situation which warrants a change being made in the Plan. 4. A description of the public benefit(s) that would occur from such a change in the Plan and an explanation of why the public would need any such benefit(s). 5. An explanation of why no other solutions to the condition or situation which warrants a change in the Plan are possible or reasonable under the current policies of the Plan. 6. A proposed development plan for any land involved if a specific development is planned at the time the request for the amendment is being made. 7. An analysis showing the estimated impact on infrastructure expected to occur by any proposed change. 8. Any other data and information required by the City for their evaluation of the request. Page 7 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-O3-0S & RZ-O3-0S ccf.doc SOARING 2025 WESTERN AREA PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: Chapter 6 Land Use 6.4 J Eagle Middle School Planning Area During the public visioning process, the densities around the Eagle Middle School site were reviewed and an increase in residential density was recommended. Though these changes are not contained within the Western Planning Area the ultimate development densities in this area will have impacts on the expansion of the City water system. 6.4J.l Uses The land use designation in the Eagle Middle School Planning Area is Transitional Residential, with an overall density for the area to be I-unit per acre with a mix of open space combined with smaller lots located adjacent to the school site transitioning to compatible lot sizes and scaling adjacent to the large lots at the perimeter of the area. 6.4J.2 Access Access to the area should focus on new internal linkages. Proper setbacks and berming should be used to protect the arterials, from increasing residential uses. 6.4J.3 Design Overall residential density of the area shall be 1 unit per acre transitioning into clustered and/or compatible lots adjacent to existing subdivisions at the perimeter. Development in the Eagle Middle School Planning Area shall be submitted as a planed unit development and/or development agreement. Open space and trails should be developed through out the development providing connectivity to the school site. All uses shall be setbacks from streams, irrigation and drains for trails and open space; Use of transitional lot sizes and clustering when new development abuts existing subdivisions, business and office uses. The City would like to acquire approximately 15 acres of park land and/or flood way protection areas for Dry Creek northwest of the intersection of Floating Feather Road and Eagle Road. Page 8 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-03-0S & RZ-03-0S ccf.doc B. C. 6.4J.4 Issues The main concerns in the development of the area are the integration of lot sizes and housing styles. The vision for the area is contingent on the integration of uses and providing a flow of housing units throughout the area to avoid creating defined separation from estate areas and moderate density area, for example. Further the flow and provision of open space and trails through the area should be key to development approval of the area. Special concern shall be made for the Dry Creek flood way and floodplain to limit uses that are not consistent with the delicate nature of these areas ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: None DISCUSSION: . The subject property is currently zoned A (Agricultural) with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Transitional Residential within the Eagle Middle School Planning Area which allows for a density of up to one unit per acre. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to increase the density allowed for the subject site from an overall density of one-unit per acre to two-units per acre and a rezone of the property from A (Agriculture) to R-l and R-3. The following text as shown within the Comprehensive Plan describes, in part, the Eagle Middle School Planning Area (underline text is proposed by the applicant to be added): "The land use designation in the Eagle Middle School Planning Area is Transitional Residential, with an overall density for the area north of Floating Feather Road to be 1- unit per acre with a mix of open space combined with smaller lots located adjacent to the school site transitioning to compatible lot sizes and scaling adjacent to the large lots at the perimeter of the area. The overall density for the area south of Floating Feather Road is to be 2-units per acre with a mix of open space combined with smaller lots transitioning to compatible lot sizes and scaling adjacent to the large lots at the perimeter. . . Under the "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (3)) within the 2000 Comprehensive Plan the applicant must show, "the condition or situation which warrants a change being made in the plan." The applicant's justification letter states that, "The property cannot be developed as proposed without a change in the density as requested herein. With the property layout submitted as a part of this comprehensive plan change, the objectives for a higher density expressed by the property owners and City Engineer can be reasonably accomplished and approved by the City." During the recent visioning sessions (and subsequent adoption) pertaining to the Soaring 2025 Western Area Plan, densities greater than I-unit per two-acres were discussed with regard to the properties north of Floating Feather Road and particularly the area around the Eagle Middle School (EMS). This provision was recognized, in part, with the change of the area around EMS from a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Residential-Estates (up to one unit per two- acres) to Transitional Residential to allow the transition from larger sized lots on the perimeter of a development to smaller lots within the interior while maintaining an overall density of one-unit per acre. Further, while the area around EMS may have been considered for densities of up to 3-units per acre, the Council determined that the subject area should be developed Page 9 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-03-0S & RZ-O3-0S ccf.doc with transitional lot sizes, and a density not to exceed one-unit per acre. The question remains to be addressed; what condition or situation exists that warrants a change in the plan? Since the Comprehensive Plan amendments (and the Soaring 2025 Plan) were approved in September 2004, no new services have been extended to the area. No major land use changes have occurred that would point to a variation in the planning for the area. And, if any new vehicle traffic to the area has occurred, this certainly would not suggest a justification to increase the maximum density allowed for the EMS planning area. In staff s opinion, there has been no situation or new trend established (nor shown by the applicant) that would otherwise justify a change to the plan. . The "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (4)) seeks to identify "the public benefit that would occur from such a change in the plan." The applicant's justification letter states that this change to the plan would provide more home sites close to the Central Business District to aid the pedestrian and commercial environment; provide a greater blend of lot types and sizes; a more cost effective use of infrastructure; an increased tax base, and; more children within walking distance of the Middle School. Staff concurs that these goals are beneficial to the public if they are achieved in an appropriate manner. The existing character of the City (especially the rural aspect) is a value that has been, and continues to be, expressed as a vital ideal to be upheld. A high quality of life and livability is a major reason as to why people desire to live in the area. It may be considered that the compatibility of a new development within an established area is a factor that is more significant than the rewards reaped from the applicant's suggested benefits. This was addressed with the "transitional" element of the plan; to move from larger sized lots on the perimeter of a development to smaller lots within the interior and recognizing that adjacent properties with slight density differences can coexist. Again, while the applicant's proposed benefits are worthy of consideration, it does not mean that the proposed density of two-units per acre on the subject property is the only means to realize those benefits; a one-unit per acre development will achieve similar results. To allow a density higher than one-unit per acre within this residential area would change the character of the area (and be of less benefit) that the residents have come to expect as vital to the enjoyment of their property. . The "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (5)) asks for "An explanation of why no other solutions to the condition or situation which warrants a change in the Plan are possible or reasonable under the current policies of the Plan". The applicant's justification letter states, again, that the property cannot be developed as proposed without a change in the density as requested. This statement does not address the point that the site is eligible to be developed at one unit per acre with varied lot sizes (larger on the perimeter, small on the interior) in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Declaring the property cannot be developed as proposed with the current zoning is akin to "putting a square peg into a round hole". As has been stated in previous staff reports, the development must fit the property, rather than the property being made to fit the development. It is true that the property cannot be developed as proposed because the current zoning and comprehensive plan land use designation (no more than one-unit per acre) have been determined to be the most compatible and suitable for the site based on the existing land uses and character of the surrounding area. It has not been shown that it is to difficult to develop the site at one-unit per acre and that the only solution is to increase the density allowed to two-units per acre. A Development Agreement and concept plan (preliminary plat) has been proposed by the applicant to guide the development of the project. At this time, staff recommends that the proposed development agreement and concept plan not be considered since the documents do . Page 10 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-O3-0S & RZ-O3-0S cd.doc not comply with the current zoning nor goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT: Based upon the information provided to staff to date staff recommends denial of the requested comprehensive plan amendment and rezone with development agreement. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION: A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 7, 2005, at which time the public hearing was closed. The Commission made their recommendation at that time. B. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by eighteen (18) individuals who felt that the proposed density of two-units per acre on the subject site was incompatible with the existing uses, there would be an increase in traffic resulting from the development of the property, there would be an increase in the student enrollment in the already overcrowded schools, the already low water table would be negatively effected, that the current comprehensive plan should be adhered to, and that no adequate justification has been provided to warrant a change to the plan. C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by one (1) individual (other than the applicant/representative) who felt the proposed subdivision plan for the parcel was well thought out and that the new dwellings would increase property values in the area. D. A petition signed by one hundred four (104) individuals was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission which stated that the signers want the subject area to remain at an overall density of no more than one unit per acre. COMMISSION DECISION: The Commission voted 4 to 0 (Aspitarte absent) to recommend denial of CPA-3-05 & RZ-3-05 for a comprehensive plan text amendment and rezone for Hillview Development Corporation. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL: A. A public hearing on the application was held before the City Council on April 19, 2005, at which time testimony was taken, the Council made their decision at that time. B. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by eighteen (18) individuals who had concerns that the proposed density was too high and the proposed bordering lot were not compatible in size, use and lifestyle, that an increase in density would have a detrimental effect on the school system and traffic in the area, that the "rural feel" will be diminished with high density and small sized lots (less than I-acre). C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by three (3) individuals (not including the applicant/representative) who felt that the location and density was appropriate to the location and the proximity to downtown Eagle, that the increase in density allowed for a mix of products that would sell well in Eagle, and that the project would increase adjacent property values. Page 11 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-O3-0S & RZ-O3-0S ccf.doc COUNCIL DECISION: The Council voted 3 to 0 (Sedlacek recused herself) to deny CPA-3-05 and RZ-3-05 for a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to change the transitional density language from I-unit per acre to two-units per acre and a rezone from A (Agricultural) to R-I-DA (Residential- up to 1- unit per acre with development agreement) and R-3-DA (Residential- up to 3-units per acre with development agreement) for an overall density of 1.99 units to the acre based upon the following: 1. The particular facts and circumstances of this proposed comprehensive plan txt amendment (CPA-3-05) and rezone (RZ-3-05) and based upon the information provided concludes that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezone are not in accordance with the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and established goals and objectives because: The proposed density of two-units per acre for the subject site is not compatible with the current land uses in the area and the one-unit per acre designation has been determined to be the most compatible and suitable for the site based on the existing land uses and character of the surrounding area. There has been no situation or new trend shown to exist by the applicant that would justify a change to the plan, nor exhibited that the only solution to any perceived situation is to increase the density allowed to two-units per acre. 2. The Council recognize all the hard work and input contributed by citizens, officials, and staff to create the comprehensive plan, and to maintain the goals, objectives and direction of the plan and the need to use the plan as a guide for development with in the City. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 2. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on January 20, 2005. 3. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was published in accordance for requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City ordinances on February 21, 2005. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three-hundred feet (300-feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on February 16, 2005. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on January 20, 2005, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle City Council was published in accordance for requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City ordinances on August 14, 2004. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three-hundred feet (300- feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on August 11, 2004. 4. The City Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed comprehensive plan text amendment (CPA-3-05) and rezone (RZ-3-05) and based upon the information provided concludes that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezone are not in accordance with the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and established goals and objectives because: The proposed density of two-units per acre for the subject site is not compatible with the current land uses in the area and the one-unit per acre designation has been determined to be the most compatible Page 12 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-O3-0S & RZ-O3-0S ccf.doc and suitable for the site based on the existing land uses and character of the surrounding area. There has been no situation or new trend shown to exist by the applicant that would justify a change to the plan, nor exhibited that the only solution to any perceived situation is to increase the density allowed to two-units per acre. DATED this 26th day of April 2005. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE Ada County, Idah ATTEST: """""""" ~"" f BAG "'" ~~ ~1 0....... t. ¡., " l' ~~ ". ... ~ ~ ~~.. a.& .. i ,.""'.. ~O"""l'~ \ = ....,: o~ . : : : tJ.- i . . - -. i.;' S-e.~~,f 01 ".."+. ....'9 ~ '\ ..fo.I'()8.~"":ò 9 ", <1'» .... ~"- ""« <iTS O~~. ~"""""", Page 13 of 13 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200S\CPA-03-0S & RZ-03-0S cd.doc