Loading...
Findings - PZ - 1992 - Subd annex/RZ - Subd Pp/Rz From A To Ar CITY OF EAGLE IN TIIB MATTER OF SCOTTS'GLBN SUBDIVISION .AH APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION PRELIIlIRARY PLAT AHD RBZOHE ) ) ) ) ) FIHDINGS OF FACT AHD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW On January 6, 1992, pursuant to public notice and hearing procedures set forth in Section 67-6509, Idaho State Code, and Sections 8 and 9, Eagle City Code, Peter Wierenga, an owner and developer of the Scotts' Glen project, came before the Eagle Planning and zoning for the City of Eagle, Idaho, requesting approval of a consolidated application for (1) a subdivision preliminary plat and (2) a rezone of the property from Agricultural (A) to Agricultural-Residential, (one single family dwelling unit per five (5) acres. Based on the application, testimony from the applicant and all interested parties and, together with all documentary evidence submitted concerning the application, the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission 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 Central District Health, Eagle Sewer District, Idaho State Transportation Dept., Meridian School District, Eagle Water Co., Eagle Fire Dept., Idaho Power, and Ada County Development Services. Ada County Highway District advised the City that Mace Rd., the road that would provide vehicular access to the development, is not a ACHD dedicated nor improved to minimum design standards road. ACHD further stated that it would require the developer to pay the cost of improving more of the road to minimum standards. Central District health advised the City that they could only approve this development if connected to central sewer. Meridian School District advised the City that busses may not enter the subdivision, and the children may not attend the most local schools. Eagle Sewer District recommended to the Ci ty to require central sewer for the development as the groundwater in the area precludes any consideration of individual septic systems. The Ada County Assessor advised the City that the legal description provided the City was incorrect. 4. 5. 6. 2. On January 6, 1992, a public hearing was conducted by the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission. Testimony was presented by neighborhood property owners that the proposed development may have an adverse impact Mace Rd., ground water and drainage. They have other concerns regarding sewer and septic criteria and the floodplain and floodway, and density. 3. The applicant testified that to determine the impact of the proposed development upon water in the area, the road and other concerns, they are willing to comply with all conditions of approval in connection with the concerns posed at this meeting and to resolve those concerns prior to final plat submission. The applicant indicated that their desire is to establish an area to house the family in one location with separate deeded lots. The development is bordered to the east, south, north and west by agricultural land with residences. The standards used in evaluating the application are in the following sections of the Eagle City Code and Comprehensive Plan. With respect to the review of the preliminary plat: PURPOSE OF GENERAL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCEDURES PLANTING STRIPS AND RESERVE STRIPS STANDARDS REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS (The following are only a portion of the Code.): 1. STREET LIGHTS (MAY BE REQUIRED) 2. SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS 3. WATER SUPPLY AND SEWER SYSTEMS 4. STORM DRAINS 5. FIRE HYDRANTS 6. GREENBELT AREAS (MAY BE REQUIRED) SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISIONS PRESERVATION OF NATURAL FEATURES MAINTENANCE REQUIRED SUBDIVISION WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN SUBDIVISION WITHIN AN AREA OF CRITICAL CONCERN 7. FLOODPLAIN-(B) Environmental, Assessment Plan: the developer shall prepare and submit an environmental assessment along with the preliminary plat application for any development that is proposed within an area of critical concern. 9-1-3: 9-2-3: 9-3-7: 9-4: 9-5-1: 9-5-3-1: 9-5-3-7: 9-5-7: 9-5-8 (C) The content of the environmental assessment shall be prepared by an interdisciplinary team of professionals that shall provide answers to: 1. what changes will occur as a result of the subdivision? 2. what corrective action or alternative development plans could occur so as not to significantly change the area of environmental concern? 3. what is unavoidable? 4. what beneficial or detrimental affect would it have on animal or plant life, social concerns, economic, noise, visual etc. TITLE 10-FLOOD PLAIN: lO-1-5: RULES AND DEFINITIONS: DEVELOPMENT: Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drill operations located within the area of special flood hazard. 10-1-7 (A): DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: Permit required: A development permit shall be obtained and approved before a building permit is issued for construction or development within any area of special flood hazard established in Section 10-1-6 (areas defining the flood plain) of this Chapter. The permit shall be for all structures, including manufactured homes, and for all other development including fill and other activities, as each are defined in Section 10-1-5 (definitions). A development permit shall be required for any development that could possibly increase or alter the flood hazard. 10-1-8-1: GENERAL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS 10-1-8-5 (D): FLOODWAYS (an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectile and erosion potential, the following provisions apply: 1. Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development, unless certification by a registered professional engineer --is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge is prohibited. 2. If 1 is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of 10-1-8. 7. The Commission concludes that the preliminary development plan is not consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 8 of the Eagle City Code and that the proposed development does not advance the public welfare and that the proposed land use 8. 9. 10. presented and their interrelationship with the land uses in the surrounding area do not justify deviation from standard land use in the surrounding area; The Commissions concludes that there is inadequate evidence showing that this development use at the proposed location satisfies the general standards for approval of a rezone and subdivision set forth in said Sections of the Eagle City Code. Specifically, that the use will be not be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Title 8, and Title 9; that the development is premature due to the conditions not being satisfied to date, specifically questions remain regarding adequate service by essential public facilities and services; and that the vehicular approaches to the property have not been designed and may create an interference with traffic and safety concerns on surrounding public roadways and residents. The application submitted by Scotts' Glen Subdivision does not comply with the requirements set forth in the Eagle Comprehensive Plan; The application submitted by Scotts' Glen Subdivision for a rezone from an (A) Agricultural District to a (AR) Agricultural-Residential District is not in accordance with the Eagle Comprehensive Plan and the requested rezone serves the welfare of the general public and is not in the best public interest. 11. The granting of the application may violate the Idaho Code and may nullify the interests or purposes of the Eagle City Code and Eagle Comprehensive Plan, as conditions of approval cannot be satisfied at this time. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the Council the application be denied based on the following: 1. School bus problems, no environmental impact study presented, sewer problems and lack of dedicated road (Mace Rd. ) This recommendation shall not be construed as denouncing the precise location and nature of proposed uses or engineering feasibility. A development plan and subdivision plat must be submitted by the applicant to the Commission and Council proving conformance with City and County Codes established herein and providing such additional information as is required under Sections 8 and 9 of the Eagle City Code. ADOPTED by the Eagle Planning and Zoning Eagle, Idaho this ~ day of February Commission of the City of . , ~~991\.~D>aTI' 'I>~' "¡:~' .Þ~,'t l~~~~."':\"~ ;'" .,' ~>\ ~ ,. '. :: . . APPROVED: ~& CHAI LLOYD ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION C TY,Ç'LERK .. .', ,.:" ,..c":' >",.