Findings - PZ - 1992 - PP/Melvin's Eagle Point #6 - Pp/20 Lot/9.82 Acre
CITY OF EAGLE
IN THE MATTER OF )
AN APPLICATION FOR)
M~LVIN'S EAGLE POINT)
#6 A PRELIMINARY PLAT)
BY )
MAX BOESIGER, INC. )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On December 7, 1992, pursuant to public notice and hearing
procedures set forth in Section 67-6509, Idaho State Code, Richard
Boesiger, Inc., the applicant, came before the Eagle Planning and
Zoning Commission, for the City of Eagle, Idaho, requesting
approval for a preliminary plat for phase #6, Melvin's Eagle Point.
The subdivision includes 20 lot, 19 of which are single family
dwelling lots and 1 common lot. The property included 9.82 acres,
gross density 1.93 per acre.
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.
The records in this matter indicate all notices,
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;
and
2.
On December 7, 1992 public hearing proceedings were conducted
by the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission. No oral
testimony was received. A letter of inquiry was received by
Pat and Bill Richards regarding the common area, asking if a
park was to be designated at that location.
3.
The standards used in evaluating the application are in the
following sections of the Eagle City Code.
TITLE 9-SUBDIVISIONS
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:
Title 9-Land Subdivisions:
9-1-3:
9-2-3:
9-2-4:
9-3-1:
PURPOSE:
The purpose of these regulations is to promote the
public health, safety and general welfare, and to
provide for:
A. The harmonious development of the City and its
area of impact;
B. The coordination of streets and roads within a
subdivision with other existing or planned streets
and roads;
C. Adequate open space for travel, light air and
recreation;
D. Adequate transportation, water drainage and
sanitary facilities;
E. The avoidance of the scattered subdivision of
land that would result in either of the following:
1. The lack of water supply sewer service,
drainage, transportation or other public
services; or
2. The unnecessary imposition of an excessive
expenditure of public funds for the supply of
such services; or
F. The requirements as to the extend and the manner
in which:
1. roads shall be created, improved
and maintained; and
2. water and sewer and other utility
mains, piping connection, or other
facilities shall be installed
G. The manner and form of making and filing of any
plats; and
H. The administration of
defining the powers and
authorities.
these regulations by
duties of approving
Preliminary Plat Procedures
Final Plat Procedures
Design standards
A. Street location and arrangements: When an
official street plan or comprehensive development
plan has been adopted, subdivision streets shall
conform to such plans
B. Minor Streets: Minor streets shall be so
arranged as to discourage their use by through
traffic
C. Stub Streets: Where adjoining areas are not
subdivided the arrangement of streets in the new
subdivisions shall be such that said streets extend
to the boundary line of the tract to make
provisions for the future extension of said streets
into adjacent areas, and shall have a cul-de-sac or
temporary cul-de-sac.
D. Relation to Topography: Streets shall be
arranged in proper relation to topography so as to
result in usable lots,
E. Alleys:---
F. Frontage Roads:---
G. Cul-De-Sac Streets: shall not be more than 500
ft. in length and shall terminate with an adequate
turnaround having a minimum radius of 50 ft for
right of way
H. Half Streets:---
I. Private Streets: shall be prohibited---
J. Driveways: Providing access to no more than 2
dwelling units shall be allowed.
9-3-7: Planting strips and reserve strips standards
a. planting strips shall be required to be placed next
to the incompatible features such as highways, railroads,
commercial or industrial uses to screen--shall be a
minimum of 20 ft wide and not part of the normal street
right of way or utility easement.
9-4-1: Required improvements, (the following are only a
portion of the code)
a. Street lights (City of Eagle standards)
b. Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways
c. Water supply and sewer systems
d. Storm drains
e. Fire hydrants
f. Greenbelt areas (may be required)
9-4-1-9:
9-4-1-10:
Water supply and sewer systems
Storm drainage, Flood controls
9-4-1-12:
Greenbelt Areas, landscaping screening
9-4-2-2:
Guarantee of improvements
a. Performance bond
b. Cash deposit
9-5-4-4: Control during development, time limit
4.
Eagle Planning and Zoning Commissioners recommendation, if
approved by Council, is a proposal of a new road desiqn,
eliminating lot 7 and designing the entrance through that lot
rather than to the N as the design indicates. The cul de sae
would have 2 turn around points, one to the N (lot 25) and the
one indicated in the present design. The common lot would
become, in part, lot 25.
The Commissioners further challenged the easement proposed by
Farms Union District of 15 feet. The Commissioners would like
to see a pathway along the canal. The Commissioners believe
the district may not have exclusive rights to the easement and
a pathway can be established in the same easement.
CONCLUSION
The Commissioners recommended denial of the project, based on
the concept/design and length of the cul de sac, and laek of
completion of Eagle Water Co. Hydraulic analysis. And further
concluded, if this application and project comes back to P&Z
the attorney should review the rights of way (easement of 15
ft.) in order to establish a pathway along the canal.
The Commission concludes that the preliminary development
plan is not consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 9
of the Eagle City Code and that the proposed development does
not advance the public welfare and that the proposed land use
presented and their interrelationship with the land
uses in the surrounding area do not justify deviation from
standard land use in the surrounding area;
There is inadequate evidence showing that this development use
at the proposed location satisfies the general standards for
approval of a 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 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.
The application submitted for Melvin's Eagle Point #6 does not
comply with the requirements set forth in the Eagle
Comprehensive Plan;
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.
ADOPTED by the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Eagle, Idaho this ~ day of December, 1992.
ò\~m ~
C"fIXI . LLOYD GERBER
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
/~-
/
APPROVED:
.. (,
,.",., '
(
"".. ", '. ,;'