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