Loading...
Findings - PZ - 2006 - CU-07-06 - Height Exception For 38' For Residential Condos In Golf Course/13.34 Acre BEFORE THE EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICA nON ) FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ) A BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR ) EAGLE HILLS CONDOMINIUMS FOR ) EAGLE HILLS GOLF COURSE, INC. ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER CU-07-06 The above-entitled Conditional Use Permit application came before the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration on July 5, 2006. The Commission continued the item to August 21, 2006, at which tirne public testimony was taken, the public hearing was closed and the Commission made their recommendation at that time. The Eagle Planning and Zoning 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: Eagle Hills Golf Course, Inc., represented by Mark Butler with Land Consultants, Inc., is requesting conditional use approval for a building height exception of 38 feet for residential condominiums to be located within Eagle Hills Golf Course. The 13.34-acre site is located at the second hole at Eagle Hills Golf Course, generally near the intersection of Eagle Hills Way and Winged Foot Place. B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: A Neighborhood Meeting was held in compliance with the application submittal requirement of Eagle City Code at 6:00 PM, on April 27, 2006, at the Eagle Hills Golf Clubhouse. The conditional use permit application for this item were received by the City of Eagle on May 4, 2006. 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 June 19, 2006. 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 May 15,2006, and June 27, 2006. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on June 21, 2006. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on May 3,2006, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: N/A E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: PPUD-03-06/CU-06-06 (Preliminary Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Eagle Hills Condominiurns, a 20-unit multi-family residential condominium development.) Page 1 of8 K:\Planning DeptlEagle ApplicationsICUI2006ICU-07-06 pzf.doc F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNA nONS: COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE DESIGNATION DESIGl\ATION Existing Public/Serni-Public R-4 (Residential) Eagle Hills Golf Course Hole No.2 Proposed No Change No Change One condorninium building consisting of 20 residential units North of site Residential Four (up to R-4 (Residential) Hole No.3 and single- four dwelling units per family dwellings (Eagle acre) Hills West Subdivision) South of site Mixed Use A (Agricultural) Vacant land East of site Residential Four (up to R-4 (Residential) Single-family dwellings four dwelling units per (Eagle Hills West acre) Subdivision) West of site Residential Four (up to R-4 (Residential) Single-family dwellings four dwelling units per (Eagle Ranch Subdivision) acre) G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not In the DDA, TDA, CEDA or DSDA. H. EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Eagle Hills Golf Course, Hole No.2 and Hole No.3 1. SITE DESIGN INFORMATION: N/A J. GENERAL SITE DESIGN FEATURES: Nurnber and Uses of Proposed Buildings: The applicant is proposing to construct one (1) building to be utilized as a twenty (20) unit residential condominium. Height and Nurnber of Stories of Proposed Buildings: Condominium = 38' high; two story. Gross Floor Area of Proposed Buildings: The proposed twenty (20) unit residential condominium structure is approximately sixty feet (60') wide by four hundred fifty feet (450') long. On and Off-Site Circulation: The condorninium will be located within a proposed residential development known as Eagle Hills Condominiums. If approved, access to the condominium will be provided from Winged Foot Place utilizing an 800' long driveway. The driveway is proposed to be located on the fairway of Hole No.2. Page 2 of8 K:\Planning DeptlEagle ApplicationsICUI2006ICU-07-06 pzf.doc K. PUBLIC SERVICES A V AILABLE: The site is within the service boundaries of Eagle Water Company, Eagle Sewer District, Eagle Fire District and Meridian School District. Prior to approval of the final developrnent plan approval letters from the service providers indicating services can be provided will be required. L. PUBLIC USES PROPOSED: None M. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists N. SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - none Evidence of Erosion - no Fish Habitat - none Floodplain - no Mature Trees - Yes, see landscape plan Riparian Vegetation - no Steep Slopes ~ yes, see engineer report Stream/Creek: no Unique Animal Life - no Unique Plant Life - no Unstable Soils - yes - hillside above Dry Creek Canal Wildlife Habitat - none known O. SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLAN (IF REQUIRED): An Environmental Assessment Plan will be required prior to approval of the final development plan for the planned unit development. P. AGENCY RESPONSES: The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached. Comments, which appear to be of special concern, are noted below: Central District Health Chevron Pipeline Department of Environmental Quality Eagle Fire Departrnent Eagle Sewer District Idaho Power Q. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: (See file No. PPUD-03-06/CU-06-06 for hard copies of correspondence attached to the staff report and incorporated herein by reference.) Petition with 171 signatures Donald L. Barklow - increase traffic, water issues, and precedent for other holes Debra L. Helton - replicating the Augusta Golf Course Hole No. 12 is not legal Don & Crane Johnson - not in character with area and precedent for other holes James & Kathy Murnford - not in character with the area, increase traffic, height issues Debra L. Helton - not in character with the area, height issues, where will kids play Dale & Irena Fackler - irnpact to residents, increased traffic, loss of views Page 3 of8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CU\2006\CU-07-06 pzf.doc Stu & Mary Hall- irnpact to residents, increase traffic, loss of views, water issues Darell R. Tschacher - revamp will irnprove the course, support deed restrictions for future Jack & Cathy Learned - too much traffic, ruin views Ron & Nancy Viano - support if deed restrictions prohibit any future development Robert D. Helton - building not in scale, concerns with private drive, hole fine, ruin views Peter Langley - change quality of life, building out of scale, water Issues, reduce values Bill Bolen - building out of scale, water issues, increase traffic, reduce values, poor access Gregg Fisher - poor access, building out of scale, water issues, drainage concerns George Neumayer - use not compatible, hole fine, increase traffic, change character of area Conrad Aiken - change character of area Tony & Darcy Blazek - increase traffic, ruin views, water issues, not compatible Covey & Constance Ruye - increase traffic, not compatible, precedent for other holes Torn Tracy - not in character with area, precedent for other holes, loss of views, traffic Sue Tracy - increase traffic, take away open space, loss of views, precedent for other holes Richard and Julie Wambolt - impact of traffic and noise, water issues, loss of views Marie Fodrea - increase traffic, impact neighborhood, will have private drive in back yard Don Parker - precedent for other holes, reduce values, increase traffic, water issues Bill & Virginia Coburn - drainage concerns, loss of views, reduce size of hole Donald Fodrea - increase traffic, changes character of area, precedent for other holes Mary Folger - building out of scale, concerns of unstable soil, loss of views, increase traffic Doug & Viktoria - drainage concerns, increase traffic, loss of views, reduce size of hole Glen & Marlene Raber - precedent for other holes David & Susan Hooley - precedent for other holes, change character of area Nancy Newton - change character of the neighborhood Robert Klamt - loss of open space and views Chadwick E. Richey - will have private drive in back yard, increase traffic Gary & Linda D'Orazio - will have pnvate drive in back yard, increase trat1ic, water issues John P. Meyers - change character of the area, loss of open space Don & Sylvia Wirth - change character of the area, increase traffic Travis McNair - loss of open space and view, increase traffic, change character of area Stephen J. Lord, Attorney at Law - concerns with the application not complying with the Cornprehensive Plan regarding land use, Zoning Ordinance for height exception and whether it is harmonious with the existing neighborhood and the Subdivision Ordinance regarding private roads and cul-de-sacs. Robert Helton - Providing photos of site R. 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 (Eagle City Code Title 8) 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 (Eagle City Code Title 8); C. Will be designed, constructed, operated and mamtained 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; Page 4 of 8 K:\Planning DeptlEagle ApplicationsICUI2006ICU-07-06 pzfdoc D. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses; E. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer and 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 be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; G. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrirnental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, srnoke, fumes, glare or odors; H. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares; and 1. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT: A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: (None) . The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Residential Four, suitable primarily for single- family residential developrnent within an urbanized setting. Residential density of up to four dwelling units per gross acre may be considered by the City for this area. Chapter 12 - Community Design 12.1 Background and Vision Comrnunity design is the organized fashion in which a comrnunity is developed in order that a general mood or theme is established and rnaintained. 12.2 Goal Strive to create an aesthetically pleasing community and protect the unique natural beauty and small town character of the City. B. ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: . ECC Section 8-1-2 Building Height: The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the proposed finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the roof for t1at roofs, to the deck line of mansard roofs, and the top of the peak for gable, hip and gambrel roofs. Page 5 of8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle ApplicationsICUI2006ICU-07-06 pzrdoc . ECC Section 8-1-2 VARIANCE: A modification of the requirements of this title as to lot size, lot coverage, width, depth, front yard, side yard, rear yard, setbacks, parking space, height of buildings or other provisions of this title affecting the size or shape of a structure or the placement of the structure upon lots, or the size of lots. A variance shall not be considered a right or special privilege, but may be granted to an applicant only upon a showing of undue hardship because of the characteristics of the site and that the vanance is not in contlict with the public interest. . ECC Section 8-2-4 Maximum Height: Maximurn height allowed within the R-4 zoning district is thirty-five feet (35') in height. . ECC Section 8-2A-6(B)(6)(a) Architectural appurtenance height restrictions: All spires, poles, antennas, steeples, towers, and any other such structures shall be limited to a maximum offorty feet (40') within the DDA and TDA and thirty five feet (35') in all other locations. Additional height may be permitted if a conditional use permit is approved by the city council. C. DISCUSSION: . The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a building height exception of 38' for a twenty (20) unit residential condorninium. The applicant is proposing a two story condominium with "Craftsman" style architecture. The "Craftsman" style architecture usually does not exceed 1-1 1, stories, however, to accommodate underground parking and to enclose the rnechanical units within a roof well the applicant is requesting a height exception to the ordinance. The residential units will also have to meet conditions of Design Review, approval utilizing the architectural standards within the Eagle Architecture and Site Design book and Eagle City Code, SectlOn 8-2A. . The condominium unit is proposed to be approximately 450' long by 60' wide and is located adjacent to the bluff overlooking the City. The rooflme that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a Height Exception for a building is proposed to be located parallel to the bluff, therefore the entire roofline will be in full view from many areas of East State Street between Stierman and Edgewood. Although portions of the roof appear to be lower than the proposed 38' feet in height the structure would still be substantially higher than the adjacent single-farnily residences located within Eagle Hills Subdivision. . Although Eagle City Code defines Building Height as being measured frorn average elevation of the proposed finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the roof it should be noted that the view of the rear of the building on the southern elevation will very in height from 41' to approximately 56' in height. The southern elevation (rear of building) is the view that will be seen by individuals living in homes and visiting the businesses within Winding Creek Subdivision and people who are traveling East State Street. · During the Conditional Use Permit process the Commission/Council has to make a finding for their decision that the building is to be constructed is to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the character of the area. The proposed building is proposed to be constructed on the bluff overlooking Winding Creek Subdivision; therefore it will also be in view from East State Street. Consideration should be given regarding how this structure fits into the surrounding neighborhood and its relation in height to adjacent reSIdences due to its location on the edge of the bluff. Although there are two story homes in the general vicinity this Page 6of8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CU\2006\CU-07-06 pzf.doc structure will be much higher than the existing homes located in close proximity to the proposed condominium unit. If approved this condominium unit will be much higher and larger in mass than all the residences in the immediate vicinity. Therefore the applicant may want to reduce the height, nurnber of units and possibly place the units in more than one building to be rnore harmonious with the existing neighborhood. . Due to the mass of the building and location adjacent to the ridgeline above the Dry Creek Canal the building will have the appearance of a structure similar in size to the Hilton Garden Inn. The proposed building will tower over existing residences in the neighborhood and as mentioned previously will be in full view from East State Street between Stierman and Edgewood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT: If the City approves the requested height exception, then staff recommends the site specific conditions of approval and the standard conditions of approval provided below. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION: A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 5, 2006. The Cornmission continued the item to August 21, 2006, at which time testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed. The Commission made their recommendation at that tirne. B. Oral testirnony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by fourteen (14) individuals who indicated that the height and size of the proposed condominium will obstruct their view and cause their property values to depreciate. * C. Oral testirnony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Cornmission by five (5) individuals (not including the applicant/representative) who indicated that the proposed condominium would increase the property values in the area and the additional height will be needed to screen the mechanical units serving the condorniniums. * *Note: 47 individuals signed the public hearing sign-up sheet (7 in favor, 40 were opposed); only 19 chose to provide oral testimony. COMMISSION DECISION: The Comrnission voted 4 to 0 (Lien absent) to recommend denial of CU-07-06 for a conditional use permit for a building height exception for Eagle Hills Condominiums for Eagle Hills Golf Course, Inc. The Commission determined that since the underlying development applications (CU/PPUD) were denied, the need for a building height exception no longer eXIsted (since a new building has not be approved for the site). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. A Neighborhood Meeting was held in compliance with the application submittal requirement of Eagle City Code at 6:00 PM, on April 27, 2006 at the Eagle Hills Golf Clubhouse. The conditional use permit applications for this itern were received by the City of Eagle on May 4, 2006. 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 June 19, 2006. 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, Page 70f8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CU\2006\CU-07-06 pzf.doc Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on May 15, 2006, and June 27, 2006. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on June 21, 2006. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on May 8,2006, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. 3. The Commission reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed conditional use permit application (CU-07-06) with regard to Eagle City Code Section 8-7-5 "Action by the Commission and Council", and based upon the information provided concludes that the proposed conditional use permit is not in accordance with the Eagle City Code because: The proposed conditional use; C. Will not 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 since the height and mass of the proposed condominium unit will have a negative impact due to the size and visual obstruction to the residences in the general vicinity. Also due to the height of the proposed condominiums it will not be harmonious in appearance with the residences in the general vicinity. DATED this 5th day of September 2006. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EAGLE Ada County, Idaho y aso Pierce, Chairman ATTEST: ",..,u ...." "......, ~'l' OF J ~.. C\ ....... ~ ..- ... ," ~ .- RPo ........- I 'It .- GO N'I ".---- .. ~ " : ~. _. (l' : : .... . :;. S~ .. \cP~~cAL...." ...,.,,, q"..' ., ~llATf.~ ~.. ," '\... ".~ ....... ~ 0 " ....~~,. OF I'D'" ....'. "........,.,,' Page 8 of 8 K:\Planning DeptlEagle Applications\CU\2006\CU-07-06 pzf.doc