Findings - PZ - 2005 - RZ-21-05 - Rz From A-R To R-E/4.8 Acre Site/
BEFORE THE EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR
A REZONE FROM A-R (AGRICULTURAL
- RESIDENTIAL) TO R-E (RESIDENTIAL -
EST A TES) FOR GEORGE BOND
)
)
)
)
ORIGINAL
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER RZ-21-05
The above-entitled rezone application came before the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission for their
recommendation on January 3, 2006. The Commission continued the item until February 27, 2006 and
made their decision at that time. The Commission, 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:
George Bond is requesting approval ofa rezone from A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to R-
E (Residential-Estates - one unit per two acres). The 4.8 acre site is located on the east
side of Ballantyne Lane 1,320 feet south of West Floating Feather Road (Lot 1, of Baker's
Acres Subdivision).
A. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on November 3, 2005.
B. 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 December 9, 2005. Notice of 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 December 12, 2005. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code
on December 20,2005. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on November 9,
2005, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code.
C. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
On October 9,2001, the Council voted to deny RZ-02-0l for a rezone of Lots 1,3 and 4 of
Bakers Acres Subdivision from A-R (Agriculture-Residential- one unit per five acres) to
R-l (Residential- one unit per acre). The Council agreed that the 2000 Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map's designation of this site (RZ-02-0l) as "Residential One" is intended
as a guide and that densities under one unit per acre may be considered for the site
provided, however, that consideration is given, in part, to the compatibility of the
proposed development on surrounding properties. Further, the Council determined that
the site proposed for rezone is in area of transition with many of the properties
surrounding the site being lower density (one or fewer units per five acres) with higher
densities generally being located to the west of the site. A rezone to an R-l in this specific
location will allow for a development that is not compatible with adjacent properties and
existing land uses to the north and east.
Page I of6
K:IPlanning DeptlEagle ApplicationslRZ&A \2005\RZ-21-05 pzfdoc
Further, due to the fact that the rezone application (RZ-02-01) was denied, the Council
voted to deny the preliminary plat application for Cedro Glen Estates (PP-03-01) based
upon the fact that the site did not have the appropriate zone for the densities proposed
within the subdivision.
D. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: N/A
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
Existing Residential One A-R (Agricultural- Pasture
Residential)
Proposed No Change R-E (Residential Estates) Residential
North of site Residential One A-R (Agricultural- Single Family Residential
Residential)
South of site Residential Two A (Agricultural) Pasture
East of site Residential One A-R (Agricultural- Residential
Residential)
West of site Residential One R-2-DA-P (Residential-two Countryside Estates
units per acre with Subdivision
development agreement-
PUD)
F. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA, CEDA, or DSDA.
G. TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 4.8-acres
H. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONE:
See attached justification letter dated March 29, 2005, provided by the applicant.
L APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (if
applicable): N/A
J. AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
Lynn Moser with Eagle Sewer District stated in correspondence that the property has not
been annexed into the Eagle Sewer District and would need to be annexed if the property
is in need of central sewer service. There is an 8" sewer main south on Ballantyne Lane at
West Mountain Creek Street. Idaho Power provided no comment on this application.
Eagle Fire Department has no opposition to this application. An approval letter from the
water company having jurisdiction has not been received
K. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists.
Page 2 of6
K:IPlanning DeptlEagle ApplicationslRZ&A 12005\RZ-21-05 pzf.doc
L. NON-CONFORMING USES: None exist
M. AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached. Comments, which
appear to be of special concem, are noted below:
Central District Health Department
Chevron Pipeline
Department of Environmental Quality
Eagle Fire Department
Eagle Sewer District
Idaho Power
N. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC:
David and Kay Maffey requested the City not allow the rezone of properties to allow for the
splitting of a lot to a two acre parcel within the subdivision.
Greg and Chris Holmes requested the City not allow the rezone.
Tracy Cavin requested the City not allow the rezone.
Gerald and Marianne Robinson requested the City approve the rezone.
Tom Marrieau requested the City approve the rezone.
Donald and Debbie Reed requested the City approve the rezone.
Jerry R. Laughlin requested the City approve the rezone,
Virgil and Jamie Hicks requested the City not allow the rezone.
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Western Area Plan adopted 09-14-04)
designates this site as:
Residential One
Suitable primarily for single family residential development within areas that are rural in
character.
Chapter 6
Land Use
6.2
Land Use Issues
Residents of Eagle and its Impact Area have a strong desire to maintain the rural
"feel" of the community.
6.5 Goal
To preserve the rural transitional identity.
6.6 Objectives
Page 3 of6
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2005\RZ-21-05 pzf.doc
c. To discourage lot splits in approved platted subdivisions.
6.7 Implementation Strategies
a. Preserve the natural features and resources of Eagle.
Chapter 8
Transportation
8.6
Implementation Strategies
o. Encourage arterial and collector roadway design criteria consistent with the rural
nature of planned and existing developments generally within the areas designated
on the Land Use Map as Residential Rural (one dwelling unit per five acres
maximum) and Residential Estates (one dwelling unit per two acres maximum).
Such designs should include the following:
1. Vertical Curbs should not be permitted, except where may be required by
ACHD. Where curbs are needed, flat or rolled curbs should be encouraged.
2. Sidewalks and/or pathways should meander and be separated from any
roadway edge or curb to allow for added pedestrian safety. Topography, trees,
ditches and/or similar features may limit the distance between sidewalks
and/or pathways and the roadway edge. Easements may be needed if portions
of the sidewalk and/or pathway is to be located outside of the right-of-way.
3. Unless otherwise determined by ACHD to be necessary for public safety,
roadways should be a maximum of two lanes with a center turn lane only at
driveways and/or street intersections that are expected to generate a minimum
of 1000 vehicle trips per day, or where determined to be necessary for safety
by ACHD. Any portion of a center turn lane which is not used for such a
driveway or intersection should be landscaped. Such landscaped medians
would need to be maintained by the City and would require a license
agreement with the highway district having jurisdiction.
4. The roadways should be constructed to provide a bike lane on both sides of
the roadway.
5. A minimum building setback ordinance resulting in a setback of
approximately 1 25-feet from the roadway centerline should be considered to
be adopted by the City.
B. ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
THIS PROPOSAL: None
C. DISCUSSION:
. The subject parcel is a platted lot (Lot 1) within Bakers Acres Subdivision, which
consists mainly of parcels 5-acres or larger in size with ranchettes (dwellings and
accessory structures, with large open areas for the keeping of horses or similar
livestock).
. The proposed rezone is to facilitate a future lot split. The City of Eagle 2000
Comprehensive Plan states that lot splits are discouraged in approved platted
subdivisions, and the basis for the proposed rezone is for the purpose to potentially
Page 4 of6
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2005\RZ-21-05 pzrdoc
allow the applicant to split a lot into two parcels within a platted subdivision. With
this in mind, it would follow that the rezoning of the subject parcel should not be
approved since it would allow a conceivable land use that is contrary to the objectives
of the comprehensive plan.
It is staffs opinion that if the rezone were approved and a lot split were to occur the
ability to achieve the appropriate streetscape along Ballantyne Road, including, but
not limited to, right-of-way dedication, sidewalks, and berming, that help identify
these areas as part of the City if Eagle could not be accomplished.
. A zoning change from A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to R-E (Residential-Estates) on
this parcel would create a zone and plausible land use that is not consistent with the
surrounding parcels located within the same subdivision. This may be considered the
reverse of appropriate planning since an area must be looked at as a whole with an
established goal rather than in individual pieces with differing purposes that do not
seek any general consensus. Staff has been contacted by one neighbor and received
correspondence from another within Bakers Acres Subdivision in opposition to this
rezone. Further, with previous testimony given at a public hearing regarding a rezone
to allow are-subdivision (RZ-02-0l) of this parcel and two parcels to the east revealed
that the residents of this subdivision are concerned about the character of the area.
While single-family dwellings are the only land uses proposed for the site at this time,
the character of the subdivision may change with a rezone of the property in that the
potential for smaller-sized lots removes the ability to maintain the ranchette style land
uses which are predominant within the subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
Based upon the information provided to staff to date, staff recommends denial of the requested
rezone.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on February
27, 2006, at which time testimony was taken and 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 nine (9) individuals who have concerns regarding changing the size of the lots within the
subdivision. They were also concerned that the rezone and subsequent division of the lot would be in
violation of the Bakers Acres CC&R's.*
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by one
(other than the applicant/representative) individual who would like to rezone his property to allow for a
split. *
*Note: 13 individuals signed the public hearing sign-up sheet (10 opposed, 3 in favor); only 10 chose to
provide oral testimony.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted 4 to 0 (Lien absent) to recommend denial ofRZ-2l-05 for a rezone from
A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to R-E (Residential-Estates) for George Bond. The Commission
agreed that the Western Area Plan (adopted September 14,2004) designation of this site as
Page 5 of6
K:IPlanning DeptlEagle ApplicationslRZ&A 120051RZ-21-05 pzf.doc
"Residential One" is intended as a guide and that densities under one unit per acre may be
considered for the site provided, however, that consideration is given, in part, to the compatibility
of the proposed development on surrounding properties. The Commission also agreed that if the
applicant were to work with the residents of Baker's Acres Subdivision to amend the CC&R's to
allow for smaller lots than what is currently allowed then a rezone may be considered at that time
for allowing additional densities within this area.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
I. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on November 3, 2005.
2. 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 December 9, 2005. Notice of 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 December 12, 2005. The site was posted in
accordance with the Eagle City Code on December 20, 2005. Requests for agencies' reviews were
transmitted on November 9, 2005, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code,
3. The Commission reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed rezone (RZ-2l-05)
with regard to Eagle City Code Section 8-7-5 "Action by the Commission", and based upon the
information provided concludes that the proposed rezone are not in accordance with the goals and
objectives of the City of Eagle because:
The proposed rezone is not compatible with the surrounding area as stated under Commission
Decision above.
DATED this 6th day of March, 2006.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
s~~~
., Chairman
ATTEST:
,1Qru ~\L ~O~f7e--a~
....... Sharo K. Bergmann, Eagle City Clerke
.........".,.
-( 0 F E "~
f''\ ........:~. O~...'-
OY.POR-1;1.....~
* c.; ~
-.- *
~ .^\~C'>SEAL..'"
_ \I~ ..0 "
....,)> '.:PORA"I1-~ _",-0
'. .., l' ....... ....v
.... "OF \"....
I",. .....11"'"
Page 6 of6
K:IPlanning DeptlEagle ApplicationslRz&A \2005IRZ-21-05 pzf.doc