Findings - PZ - 2007 - ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06 - A/Rz From Rr And Rp To R1-Da-P/8,160 Units/245 Acres Non-Residentital/6,005 Acres
ORIGI~j,4L
BEFORE THE EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF A ZONING ORDINANCE )
AMENDMENT, AN APPLICATION FOR )
ANNEXATION AND REZONE FROM RR )
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND RP (RURAL )
PRESERVATION) TO R-I-DA (RESIDENTIAL )
WITH A PRE-ANNEXATION AND )
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR M3 EAGLE)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06
The above-entitled zoning ordinance amendment and rezone upon annexation applications came before the
Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation on the following dates:
October 16, 2006
October 30,2006
November 13,2006
December 12, 2006
February 12,2007
April 19, 2007
April 23, 2007
May 14, 2007
May 17,2007
June 6, 2007
June 25, 2007
July 9, 2007
July 23, 2007
The public hearing was closed on July 9, 2007 with the Planning Zoning Commission holding a work
session on July 23, 2007. On August 27, 2007, the Commission made their recommendation. 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:
The M3 Companies are requesting an Annexation and Rezone from RR (Rural
Residential- Ada County Designation) and RP (Rural Preservation-Ada County
Designation) to R-I-DA-P (Residential with a development agreement and planned unit
development) with a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement for a maximum of
8,160 units and 245 acres of non-residential uses including commercial, office and mixed
use; a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Eagle City Code Section 8-6 "Planned
Unit Developments" to allow for the establishment of a M3-PUD zone. The +/- 6,005-acre
site is generally located north of the Farmers Union Canal and Homer Road, east of State
Highway 16, west of Willow Creek Road, and south of Chaparral Road.
B. APPLICA TION SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 24, 2006 and
deemed complete on August 23, 2006.
Page 1 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
C. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission was published in the Valley Times in accordance with the requirements of
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City Code on September I l, 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 September 8, 2006. The site was posted in accordance with
the Eagle City Code on September 18, 2006, 2006. Requests for agencies' reviews were
transmitted on September 8, 2006, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City
Code.
D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
This site is also subject of a comprehensive plan map and text amendment application
(CPA-05-0S). The Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to the City
Council approval of the comprehensive plan text amendment on April 9, 2007 and on
June 25, 2007 recommended denial of the comprehensive plan map amendment.
E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: See above
F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMPPLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
Existing Rural Preservation RP (Rural Preservation-Ada Range land
(Ada County) County designation) RR-(Rural
Residential- Ada County)
Proposed Foothills Residential R-I-DA-P (Residential One Master Planned Community
(new designation) with Development Agreement including residential, office
and a PUD) and retail uses
North of site Rural Preservation RP (Rural Preservation-Ada Rangeland
(Ada County County designation) RR (Rural
Residential - Ada County)
South of site Rural Preservation RP (Rural Preservation-Ada BLM Land
(Ada County County designation) RR (Rural
Residential - Ada County)
East of site Rural Preservation RP (Rural Preservation-Ada Rangeland
(Ada County County designation) RR (Rural
Residential- Ada County)
West of site Rural Preservation RP (Rural Preservation-Ada State Highway l6, Hillsdale
(Ada County County designation) RR (Rural Estates, range land
Residential- Ada County)
G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA, CEDA or DSDA.
Page 2 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
H. TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 6,005 +/- acres
I. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT AND REZONE:
See justification letter dated August 23, 2007, provided by the applicant's representative
(attached to the staff report).
J. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (if
applicable):
See justification letter dated August 23, 2007, provided by the applicant's representative
(attached tot eh staff report).
K. A V AILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
The development agreement requires the provision of utilities and services prior to
annexation and the platting of the property. These provisions are contained within the
proposed development agreement.
L. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists.
M. SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES:
See the environmental assessment submitted with this application
N. NON-CONFORMING USES: None are apparent on the site.
O. AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached. Comments which
appear to be of special concern are noted below:
ACHD Letter date stamped 9/13/06,10/13/06,2/6/07,3/16/07,4/25/07,5/7/07,9/11107
City of Eagle - Building Department Letter date stamped 3/16/07
COMPASS Letter date stamped 10/1 6/06
DEQ Letter date stamped 9/20/06
Eagle Sewer District Letter date stamped 9/25/06
HDR (City Consultant) Letter date stamped 8/10/06, 3/9/07
Holladay Engineering Letter date stamped 9/28/06, 2/8/07
Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game Letter date stamped 9/29/05, 10/12/06, 12/5/06
Idaho Dept. of Lands Letter date stamped 8/15/07
Idaho Power Letter date stamped 9/19/06
ITD Letter date stamped 9/26/06, 2/6/07, 3/20/07
Joint School Dist. #2 Letter date stamped 10/26/05, 11/27/06,2/7/07,4/2/07
Thompson Engineers (City Consultant) Letter date stamped 12/4/06,3/21/07
P. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC:
The City received letters from 27 different citizens and groups, some provided multiple letters.
Further, some letters addressed the M3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-5-06) and
those letters were included in the CPA packet. All letters are attached to the Planning and
Zoning Commission staff report and are incorporated herein by reference.
Page 3 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: (staff analysis is in italics)
1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT:
The Eagle Comprehensive Plan establishes three findings that must be considered for the
adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
· Under the "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" Section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c)
(3)) within the 2000 Comprehensive Plan the applicant must show, "the condition or
situation which warrants a change being made in the plan. "
The M3 property is currently located north of the City's planning boundaries and is a
new area for consideration for the City to expand. The City has, over the past three
years, had concerns with urban style development occurring in unincorporated Ada
County in the form of Planned Communities. Under the current Ada County Code, a
planned community can occur anywhere within the unincorporated county upon 640
acres located outside of an area of impact. Due to the large property ownerships in the
Foothills north of the City, the City has begun the process of review development
opportunities and constraints within this area to evaluate their impact on the existing
City. It is staffs opinion that conditions have changed significantly since the adoption of
the Soaring 2025 Plan in 2004 that the foothills area should be considered as a future
unique development area within the probable boundaries of the City of Eagle. Further,
with the City undertaking the North Eagle Foothills Plan this application should be
treated as a specific area plan that provides greater specificity and guidance to the
development that will occur in this portion of the Foothills.
· The "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (4))
seeks to identify "the public benefit that would occur from such a change in the plan."
The public benefit of the applicant's proposal is that it would allow for the City of Eagle
to guide and review development that will impact the overall design and infrastructure of
the City (for land use, parks and interconnectivity).
· The "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (5))
asks for "An explanation of why no other solutions to the condition or situation which
warrants a chang:e in the Plan are possible or reasonable under the current policies of
the Plan".
The options for the developer are to develop in unincorporated Ada County under the RR
and RP zoning designations (10 & 40 acres parcels) or file for a county planned
community application (which may look similar to this application) but under the
jurisdiction of Ada County. The current City of Eagle plan does not provide development
options for this property and comprehensive plan amendments is required
Page 4 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2006\A- I 4-06-06 & RZ- 19-06-06 pzf final.doc
Overall, does the proposed application meet or exceed the purpose and vision of the Eagle
Comprehensive Plan?
· Purpose of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan is to promote the health, safety, and general
welfare of the people of the City of Eagle and its Impact Area as follows (2000 Eagle
Comprehensive Plan 1.1)
a. To protect property rights and enhance property values.
The application, as proposed, will significantly enhance the value of the
applicant's land and greatly expand the city limits. There is some concern about
the impacts that the proposed development will have on properties located to the
south of the site within the existing Area of Impact (AOI). These approval of this
application will include temporary impacts to schools, roads and groundwater.
The most sensitive of these impacts are groundwater and roads.
b. To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the people at
reasonable cost.
The proposed development agreement addresses the applicant's responsibility to
provide and pay for the extension and provision of public facilities within the
development. One of the most contentious issues has been the provision or ability
to condition off site roadway improvements that are the result of this development
or accelerated by this development.
c. To ensure that the economy of the City of Eagle and its Impact Area are protected
and enhanced.
The applicant is proposing to include 245 acres of commercial that will provide
nearly 4,000 new jobs to the City of Eagle. Increasing both the tax base and the
employment options within the City.
d. To ensure that the important environmental features of the City and its Impact
Area are protected and enhanced.
The applicant's submittal shows over 1,400 acres of the site with slopes in excess
of 25%. This is equal to 23% of the total site area. The applicant is proposing to
grade 410 acres of the 1400 acres. Staffis concerned about trying to establish a
maximum density to these areas without first defining a grading standard in the
development agreement that provides a measurable intensity of the extent of the
mass grading we can expect on the site.
Letters receivedfrom the Idaho Department ofFish & Game (IDFG) and the
City's consultant. HDR, indicates that the habitat analysis within the site is
cursory and additional detail as to exact location and proposed mitigation of the
existing habitat needs to be completed. Though some habitat areas may be
mitigated, others may need to be preserved within the open space plan. Without
further details. it is difficult to determine if appropriate areas have been retained
Page 5 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
or if additional open space or mitigation are necessary. Per IDFG map dated
December 5, 2006, the Southwest and Southeast planning areas have been
delineated as containing important habitat.
A portion of the M3 site has been identified as floodway. Existing development
practices within the City of Eagle do not provide residential densities for floodway.
Without an approvedfloodway delineationfor the site, the development agreement
should provide a mechanism for the reduction of density for the future floodway
delineation.
The Eagle Comprehensive Plan and ECC 9-5-8 define the Eagle Foothills as an
area of special concern requiring the completion of a detailed environmental
assessment, including a detail of specific impact change, impact and mitigation,
prior to the establishment of development rights. One possible solution to the
gross residential density issue is to provide a one (1) residential unit per five (5)
acres for areas of special concern as setforth in Eagle City Code S 9-5-8.
Additional density in those areas would be granted phase by phase when specific
mitigation/development standards can be reviewed and approved by the City. We
would be open to discussing some other formula but need something to recognize
the need to address these areas in the Development Agreement.
e. To encourage urban and urban-type development within the incorporated city.
f. To avoid undue concentration of population and overcrowding ofland.
The maximum density proposed within modified the application is 1.3 units per
acre. The base density of the Eagle Area of Impact is calculated at 1.3 units per
acre. This area include uses from commercial, multi-family, industrial to
residential estates similar to the uses found on the M3 site.
The Development Agreement delineates 245 acres of non-residential uses in
addition to the 8,160 maximum dwelling units requested. This intensity of non-
residential uses will result in the creation of nearly 4,000 new jobs. We need to get
a better understanding of how these commercial ratios relate to the overall density
request.
Regarding commercial density, does it also include offices uses, retail, or
hospitality? Our concern is that the commercial square footage proposed exceeds
the existing commercial square footage per household. As an example, the
proposed commercial is approximately 80 square feet higher per household than
the Western Area at 120 square feet per household. We expect and desire the
commercial square footage to be far denser in the downtown core than in any
other commercial use areas in the City. We need to review this issue and
determine whether we are properly zoning the area and whether it is feasible for
such density that far away from the downtown core.
g. To ensure that the development of land is commensurate with the physical
characteristics of the land.
Page 6 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
h. To protect life and property in areas subject to natural hazards and disasters.
See Item "d" above
1. To protect fish, wildlife, and recreation resources.
The proposed development site includes an extensive series of biformal trails that
have been used by hikers, bicyclists and equestrians for years. Though it is
recognized that this is private land through the development process formalization
of regional trails should be incorporated into the development agreement. See the
attached map of existing iriformal trails on the site; the applicant's trail proposal
is also attached.
In addition to the formalization of trails on the site the applicant has proposed to
dedicate880 acres of land contiguous to the City's proposed regional park to be
included and managed together for public use.
j. To encourage local school districts to participate in the community planning and
development process so as to address public school needs and impacts on an
ongoing basis.
Please review the agency comments an e-mail received from the district on April 2,
2007.
How does the M3 proposal meet the "Vision for the City of Eagle" (2000 Eagle
Comprehensive Plan 1.3)?
a. known as a highly livable town that successfully balances many of the rural
elements of its heritage with growth;
The overall density proposed within the M3 application is 1.3 units per acre with
245 acres of non-residential uses. The gross density of the existing city is 1.3 units
per acre.
The project includes uses including multi-family housing to 5 + acre lots. The
Mixture and overall intensity of the development is similar to the existing City.
b. interconnected with user-friendly pathways and roadways;
See the open space and trail discussion above
One of staff's concerns is how to interconnect the existing roadway system into the
foothills providing an efficient system for emergency services and local trips.
Some connectivity should be required through northerly extension of existing roads
but, there should be some limitations on the amount of traffic entering existing
residential areas. Regional trips should be forced/directed to the State Highway
system to reduce the impacts to the north/south routes feed into the regional
transportation system (Hwy 44, 20/26). See attached map of staff's recommended
northerly extensions. (Please bear in mind that the extension of these streets are
Page 7 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06_06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
off site improvements and must be addressed as to who's responsibility it is to
complete and permit and when the improvements must be in place. Staff
recommends northerly connections into the project be along Hartley Lane, Linder
and limited access toN Eagle Road/Willow Creek. All connections north into the
area across the proposed City Recreation area shall include a wildlife/recreation
crossing to be approved by the City, ACHD, Idaho Fish and Game and the ELM
c. economically strong with a distinct downtown economic center;
The M3 Development establishes a single clear community core with smaller
neighborhood centers spread through out the development. Regional types uses
are located adjacent to Hwy16 to capture regional trips from Emmett, Payette and
similar locations.
d. providing diversified employment and housing opportunities for all economic
groups;
The M3 development includes housing opportunities ranging from multi-family
rental units to large lot ranchettes. The development provides a broad range of
housing opportunities for the community and the City of Eagle.
e. an environmentally aware community with distinctive open space, parks and
outdoor recreation;
See the open space and trail discussion above
f. an economically strong city, that fosters local businesses and clean industry;
Though the site is large enough to foster a new employment center for the City of
Eagle there has not been a clear understanding of a specific type of employer or
industry that the applicant would like to pursue in the area further the City has not
been contact by any larger employer looking to locate within the proposed
development.
g. a unique community that maintains its rural residential feel in the midst of the
Treasure Valley.
Though portions of the site contain a rural fiel other take on a more urban feeling:
Rural
Southern ResidentialArea: .5 units/Acre & 47.6% open space
Southwestern ResidentialArea: .5units/acre & 10.8% open space
Non-Rural
Community Core: 6.00 units per acre, 117 acres of non-residential uses
including a 500 room hotel
Northern ResidentialArea: 2.5units per acre, 37% open space (includes
2 golf courses)
Highway Mixed Use-Business Park: 88 acres of non-residential uses
Page 8 of23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzf final.doc
Sustainability at build out (2025): Ensure the ability for the city to continue to
fund, improve and support itself, including infrastructure and parks, without the
use of building permit fees, impact fees and zoning fees.
Though non-residential uses represent only 4% of the gross area of the
development it represents nearly 10% of the buildable area. The desire
was to include uses that support the proposed development and that are in
scale with the residential and scenic nature of the Foothills.
J. Identify "Activity Centers": Identify areas that due to the nature of existing uses,
future uses and/or transportation corridors will lend themselves to increased activity
and non-residential use so to preserve larger areas as primarily residential
neighborhoods.
The proposed development has identified two activity centers for the
development:
Highway Mixed Use-Business Park: 88 acre commercial & mixed
use/office area. This center is located at the proposed permanent access
for the development along State Highway 16. Staff concerns about this
area are based in the design of the overall area more than the overall
intensity of the uses. This area should be treated as a gateway to the City
and should be highly landscaped and architecturally pleasing.
Community Core: 6. 0 units per acre and 117 acres of non-residential
uses including a 500 room hotel. This area is 3 mile long by ~ mile wide
center that runs through the middle of Big Gulch. Per the Army Core of
Engineers Big Gulch is designated as a floodway and riparian area. Staff
is greatly concerned with the size and intensity of the uses in this area.
The Community Core contains approximately 1/3 of the total units and the
majority of the non-residential uses.
k. Preserving Regional Transportation Corridors (State Highway 16 & 44): Preserve
the function of regionally significant roadways through the City while ensuring
compatibility with land uses and design standards of the City.
Per the Applicant's transportation analysis the following improvements need to
be constructed for the site. Projects identified by asterisks (*) are those that
according to the applicant's analysis, are necessary to accommodate the existing
Comprehensive Plan and existing traffic but due to traffic impacts from this
development this development projects with asterisks may need to be constructed
sooner to mitigate the impacts of this proposal.
· Widen SH 44 to 5 lanes between Ballantyne & SH 16 *
· Widen SH 16 to 2 to 2 thru lanes in each direction with turning lanes at
intersections *
· Widen Beacon Light to 3 lane between SH 16 & SH 55*
· Widen Floating Feather to 5 lanes between Eagle Road and SH 55*
Page 9 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
· Widen Linder Road to 5lanes between SH 44 and Floating Feather and
to 3 lanes between Floating Feather and Beacon Light *
· Upgrade SH 16 to interstate with 2 thru lanes in each directions
· Construct interchanges at SH 44, Beacon Light and the site access on SH
16
· Construct overpass at SH 16 and Floating Feather
· Upgrade Beacon Light to lanes between SH 16 and SH 55
· Upgrade SH 55 to 6 lanes north ofSH 44 to Brookside Lane
· Signalization of eight (8) additional intersections:
o Beacon Light & Park Lane
o Beacon Light & Ballantyne
o Beacon Light &Eagle
o Floating Feather &Palmer
o Floating Feather &Linder
o Floating Feather & Park Lane
o Floating Feather & Ballantyne
o Floating Feather & Eagle
o Hwy 55 & Dry Creek*
Staff recognizes that the on-site improvements and the construction of the roads as
proposed will be phased with the build out of the development. The development
agreement should provide a proposed schedule of improvements by phase, unit and trip
count for each of the above improvements. Though a TIS has been completed for the
overall development individual TIS' should be submitted by phase showing how the
individual improvements are being meet or need to be re-prioritized prior to approval of
each phase.
The transportation impacts for this development require significant off-site improvements
that may not occur in the timeline necessary for development. Phases should be limited
by the completion of improvements both on and off-site. Though staff recognizes that an
amendment to the Long Range Regional Transportation Plan will be necessary it is
important to note that priority will not automatically be granted to the Foothills projects.
As the Foothills expand and develop it may be necessary to establish and extraordinary
impact fee to fund the significant improvements specific to the State Highway System and
the additional unplanned impacts to the local system to ensure a proportion share of the
roadway improvements is bore by each land owner/developer.
The proposed impacts from the development will significantly change the transportation
system with in the Eagle areas. Significant concerns have been expressed about the
intensification of Beacon Light Road west of Eagle from 3 lanes to 5 as well as the
impacts to Eagle Road south of Floating Feather.
I. Increased Employment Opportunities: Identify areas that will provide
significant employment opportunities to the residents of the City of Eagle
thereby allowing the City to be a place to live, work, and recreate.
See item "j" above
Page 10 of23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2006\A- I 4-06-06 & RZ- I 9-06-06 pzf final.doc
B. ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
THIS PROPOSAL: (staff analysis is in italics)
· ECC Section 8-1-2 OPEN SPACE:
A common area platted as a separate lot, provided within a recorded easement, or
dedicated to and accepted by the City. The area shall be substantially open to the
sky, exclusive of streets, buildings and other covered structures, and shall be
designated and intended as a useable and convenient amenity to any proposed
development. Wetland areas, drainage ditches, irrigation ditches, and similar
features shall not be considered as a part of the minimum area of open space
required.
The applicant proposes the inclusion of 40% of the site as open space including
14% regional open space and 26% community open space. Four of the jive sub
areas includes a minimum of 10% open space, the only sub-area that does not
meet this threshold is the highway mixed use area that currently does not include
residential uses.
· ECC Section 8-2-4 (G): A decrease of minimum lot size in a subdivision may be
allowed if there is an offsetting increase of the same square-footage in open space and
a planned unit development is applied for and approved.
Due to the size and scale of the development the off setting increase in open space
will be reviewed at the submittal of preliminary panning units to ensure that the
appropriate offiet has occurred for each phase.
· ECC Section 8-2-4 (I): Minimum lot frontage, the portion of a lot front adjacent to a
public or private street, for all residential zoning districts shall be 35 feet.
Minimum lot dimension will be reviewed as part of the development agreement
for the project.
· ECC Section 8-2A-7 (J) (4)
Major Roadways: New residential developments, including, but not limited to,
subdivisions and multi-family developments, shall be buffered from streets
classified as collectors, arterials, freeways, or expressways, to protect residential
communities from noisy, potentially dangerous, high speed roads. The "buffer
area" shall be defined as the distance from the outside wall of the lowest story of
any single-family attached or detached dwelling and the right of way line of the
roadway. The lowest story must be screened from the view of any street classified
as a collector, arterial, freeway, or expressway. This buffer is required either on
individual lots or as an easement, or as part of the common open space owned and
maintained by a homeowners' association. Any landscaping proposed to be within
the public right of way shall not be included as a part of the buffer area required
below. The height for berming/fencing, as noted below, shall be measured from
the elevation of the final grade of the adjacent roadway (measured at the
centerline) to the top of the proposed berm ing/fenc ing. The required buffer area
width, plantings, and fencing are as follows:
Page 11 of23
K:\Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzf final.doc
a. Any road designated as an urban or rural collector on the Ada County
long range highway and street map:
A minimum of thirty five feet (35') wide buffer area (not including right
of way) shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred (100)
linear feet of right of way: four (4) shade trees, five (5) evergreen trees,
and twenty four (24) shrubs. Each required shade tree may be substituted
with two (2) flowering/ornamental trees, provided that not more than fifty
percent (50%) of the shade trees are substituted.
A minimum five foot (5') high, maximum eight foot (8') high, berm,
decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly
designed concrete wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within
the buffer area. The maximum slope for any berm shall be three feet (3')
horizontal distance to one foot (I ') vertical distance. If a decorative block
wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall
is to be provided in combination with the berm, a four foot (4') wide flat
area shall be provided for the placement of the decorative wall. Chainlink,
cedar, and similar high maintenance and/or unsightly fencing shall not be
permitted.
b. Any road designated as a minor arterial on the Ada County long range
highway and street map:
A minimum of fifty feet (50') wide buffer area (not including right of
way) shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred (100)
linear feet of right of way: five (5) shade trees, eight (8) evergreen trees,
three (3) flowering/ornamental trees, and twenty four (24) shrubs. Each
required shade tree may be substituted with two (2) flowering/ornamental
trees, provided that not more than fifty percent (50%) of the shade trees
are substituted.
A minimum five foot (5') high, maximum eight foot (8') high, berm,
decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly
designed concrete wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within
the buffer area. The maximum slope for any berm shall be three feet (3')
horizontal distance to one foot (I') vertical distance. If a decorative block
wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall
is to be provided, in combination with the berm, a four foot (4') wide flat
area shall be provided for the placement of the decorative wall. Chainlink,
cedar, and similar high maintenance and/or unsightly fencing shall not be
permitted.
c. Any road designated as a principal arterial on the Ada County long
range highway and street map and/or any freeway or expressway:
A minimum of seventy five feet (75') wide buffer area (not including right
of way) shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred (100)
linear feet of right of way: six (6) shade trees, ten (10) evergreen trees,
four (4) flowering/ornamental trees, and twenty four (24) shrubs. Each
Page 12 of23
K:\Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzf fina1.doc
required shade tree may be substituted with two (2) flowering/ornamental
trees, provided that not more than fifty percent (50%) of the shade trees
are substituted.
A minimum ten foot (10') high, maximum twelve foot (12') high, berm,
decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly
designed concrete wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within
the buffer area. The maximum slope for any berm shall be three feet (3')
horizontal distance to one foot (1 ') vertical distance. If a decorative block
wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall
is to be provided, in combination with the berm, a four foot (4') wide flat
area shall be provided for the placement of the decorative wall. Chainlink,
cedar, and similar high maintenance and/or unsightly fencing shall not be
permitted.
Prior to the submittal of the first planning unit the applicant is required
to submittal of a master Streets and circulation plan for the development
that details each of the standards above.
· ECC Section 8-6-1: PURPOSE "PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS":
It shall be the policy to guide a major development of land and construction by
encouraging planned unit development (PUD) to achieve the following:
A. A maximum choice of living environments by allowing a variety of housing
and building types and permitting an increased density per acre and a reduction in
lot dimensions, yards, building setbacks and area requirements;
The proposed application provides a wide variety of housing options and
building types ranging from multi-family rental units to 5+ acre ranchettes.
Though the Zoning of the property is R-1-DA-P the max overall density is 1.3
which reflects that ability to reduce some lot sizes and provide increased density
for the provision of a master planned community that addresses all types of
housing.
B. A more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas and, if permitted as
part of the project, more convenience in the location of accessory commercial
uses, industrial uses and services;
The proposed development will provide a minimum of 40% of the site as opens
space with 14% being regional open space and 26% being community open
space, serving the immediate development. Non-residential uses and services are
provided across the development totaling 240 acres. The location of these retail,
office and employment uses will allow for the creation of approximately 4,000
jobs and ensure the ability to get basic daily services within the development.
C. A development pattern which preserves and utilizes natural topography and
geologic features, scenic vistas, trees and other vegetation and prevents the
disruption of natural drainage patterns;
The applicant and staff have agreed to a graduated density for the project that
will limit he initial entitlements for the site to unconstrained areas and through
more detailed analysis and agency review the ability to development more
intensity when the impacts are deemed to be mitigated. These additional studies
Page 13 of23
K:\PJanning Dept\EagJe Applications\RZ&A \2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzf final.doc
include a wildlife mitigation plan, LOMA for the FEMA Floodway designations,
a City approved grading plan and standards, and the completion of the analysis
required under ECC Section 9-5-8.
D. A more efficient use of land than is generally achieved through conventional
development resulting in substantial savings through shorter utilities and streets;
and
The foothills are a complex land form and traditional utility services and
development practices do not provide a practical means of development. The
applicant is proposing a significant increase in the minimum open space
standard, 40% versus 10%, to address the increased constraints found on the site
as well as working with existing service providers to use new techniques for
Idaho and the Treasure Valley for wastewater and re-use.
E. A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation and
community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
See Discussion above concerning the Comprehensive Plan
· ECC Section 8-7-3-3 CONDITIONAL USES "PUBLIC SITES AND OPEN
SPACES" Public sites and open spaces shall conform to the following:
B. Natural Features: Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees,
water courses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable assets) shall be preserved in
the design of the development.
Similar to legacy and other large projects the applicant is proposing to develop
site specific development standards that address the arid, non-irrigated,
environment within the foothills. The submittal, review and approval of these
standards must be completed prior to the submittal of the first planning unit.
C. Special Developments: In the case of planned unit developments and large-
scale developments, the Council may require sufficient park or open space
facilities of acceptable size, location and site characteristics that may be suitable
for the proposed development.
See discussion of open space above.
· ECC Section 8-7-3-5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
D. Conditions Of Permit: Upon the granting of a conditional use permit,
conditions may be attached to said permit including, but not limited to, those:
1. Minimizing adverse impact on other development;
2. Controlling the sequence and timing of development;
3. Controlling the duration of development;
4. Assuring that development is maintained properly;
5. Designating the exact location and nature of development;
Page 14 of23
K:\Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
6. Requiring the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services; and
7. Requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in this Title.
Similar to the Legacy and other large projects the applicant is proposing to
develop site specific development standards to be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the city prior to the submittal of the first planning unit.
C. DISCUSSION:
According to the Eagle City Code 8-7 -5D the following standards must be addressed in order to
receive a zoning ordinance amendment:
· Is the request in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan and the existing
Eagle City Code?
With regards to the request to amend ECC Section 8-6-2, The Eagle Comprehensive Plan
and City code gives distinct guidance on the design and compatibility of uses within the
City of Eagle ensuring that all development is unique but contains similar qualities and
standards of design. Is there a compelling reason for this application to have separate
and unique standards from the rest of the City? For this application it is understood that
the standards and lot sizing proposed do not easily fit the existing code. With the
completion of the Eagle Foothills Sub-area Plan it is anticipated that new zoning codes
will be developed for the situation the applicant is concerned about. At this point, staff
does not support the use of a development agreement in-lieu of a PUD. The development
agreement the appropriate tool to be used at this time to provide additional guidance and
development control, but the PUD should still be used to review individual plat as to
compliance with City Code and the development agreement while still providing
maximum flexibility for future changing conditions.
Comprehensive Pan Policy questions to be considered:
I) What density of residential uses should be planned for?
2) Should residential density be calculated as a gross calculation or should non-residential
uses be removed? The current plan excludes residential densities for commercial, office,
open space and retail uses.
3) How should the density in the Foothills relate to the overall density of the existing city?
In Staffs opinion it is very difficult to establish densities in previously unplanned areas and
the existing densities of the City must be consulted to determine the existing thresholds.
Existing Eagle Comprehensive Plan Densities
2000Plan 1.04 units per acre gross
2025 Plan 1.80units per acre gross
Overall 1.26 units per acre gross
Since 1999, the City of Eagle has identified the Foothills as an area of special concern noting
the desire to protect steep slopes, habitat, scenic qualities and recreational uses as key areas of
concern. Staff was initially concerned with the gross density proposed. Though the density
Page 15 of23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06_06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
of 2 units per acre originally proposed seemed comparable to the densities in the Western
Area Plan, ].8 units per acre, the number of physical and environmental constraints within the
Foothills required a different way of calculating the base and maximum densities for the
project.
After discussions with the applicant it was agreed that the initial density of the project should
reflect the amount of work that still needs to be completed to delineate floodways, habitat and
steep slopes. Staff recommends an overall density of]. 7 units per acre (as requested by the
applicant)for unconstrained lands and ] unit per 5 acres for areas for areas with slopes in
excess of 25% and critical habitat areas and no density for the existing FEMA designated
floodway equaling an base density of .94 units per acre or 5,64] units.
Base Density wI Constraints
Acres
Non-
Residential residential Units Density
Northern 2,720 40 3,814 1.38
-
Hil!hwav 88 - -
Southwestern.. 407 - 48 0.12
Community
Core 519 117 1,277 2.01
Southern 2,114 - 502 0.24
Totals 5,760 245 5,641 0.94
A complete planning area constraints table is attached to this staff report.
Staff recommends including into the development agreement the ability to request increased
densities for the project at the time of preliminary plat if mitigation plans are approved by
Idaho Fish and Game, slope and grading standards as well as floodway designations are
submitted and found favorable by the City at the same time.
Page 16 of23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06_06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzf final.doc
Density after miti2ation*
Acres
Plannin2 Area Residential Non-residential Units Density
Nortbern 2,720 40 4,551 1.65
Hi2bway - 88 - -
Southwestern ** 407 - 638 1.57
Community
Core 519 117 1,422 2.24
Soutbern 2,113 - 1,549 0.73
Totals 5,760 245 8,160 1.35
* Assumes a city approved grading standard & plan, assumes a LOMAR approval, & an
Approved Habitat Mitigation Plan from IDFG
4) Should the applicant be required to restrict or limit the uses within non-residential areas
through the sub-area planning process similar to the Soaring 2025 Plan? The 2025 Plan
within each sub -area discussed the desired mixture of uses and removed use that were
less desirable or more intensive.
5) Should the applicant delineate the acres/square feet of non-residential uses in the Mixed
Use and Village Center areas? The Soaring 2025 Plan established 3 levels of commercial
centers (neighborhood, community & regional. (Page 53 of 57 of the Western Area Plan)
The applicant has addressed the overall mixture of uses within the 6 sub-areas (complete
text of the sub-areas is attached):
1. Community Core - 636 acres representing 10.5% of the site. The area is to be
developed with maximum residential density of 6 units per acre including 117
acres of non-residential uses including: office, business, civic and neighborhood
commercial.
2. Northern Residential Area - 2,760 acres representing 46% of the site. The area
is to be developed with a maximum density of2.5 units per acre and 40 acres of
non-residential uses, primarily neighborhood commercial uses. Other uses
within the area include potentially 2 golf courses in conjunction with the open
space and homeowners amenities.
3. Southern Residential Area - 2,114 acres representing 35% of the site. The area
is to be developed with a maximum density of 0.5 units per acres (clustered)
including a 20 acre public equestrian facility.
4. Highway Mixed Use/ Business Park - 88 acres representing 1.5% of the site.
The area is to be developed as a of Mixed Use and commercial business park.
Though no residential uses are show to date a maximum residential density of 6
units per acre could be allowed in this area
5. Southwestern Planning Area - 407 Acres representing 6.7% of the site. . The
area is to be developed with a maximum density of 0.5 units per acres, primarily
large lots with fencing restrictions.
Page 17 of23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
6. Eagle Regional Park -800 acres east & west of Willow Creek Road, part of the
Southern Planning Area, to be dedicated to the City for connectivity of the
existing City of Eagle Regional Park.
The current request for non-residential uses within the development is 245 acres or one
(I) acre of non-residential uses for every 33 households within the development. Staff
recommends a reduction calculation similar to the one used in Legacy be included into
the development agreement by planning area, establishing a process that for every acre of
non-residential uses designated an equal number of units per acre are removed,_as used in
calculating the base density of 5,760 units. (See planning area constraints table is
attached to this staff report)
6) When should applicants enter into water MOU with the City and file for water rights with
IDWR? Per Eagle City Code 6-5-23(c) as a condition of annexation and or development a
land owner shall secure sufficient municipal water rights to serve the project.
The applicant has made application with IDWR for approval of a municipal water right to
serve the site. It is unclear how long it will take for this right to be approved by IDWR
and a time line should be included into the development agreement to allow entitlements
to only be acted on once IDWR approval is in place and to be lost if approval is not
granted.
7) How should mass grading be regulated within the City? Currently the City of Eagle does
not have a hillside development ordinance nor do we issue grading permits for
development within the City.
The applicant's submittal shows over 1,400 acres of the site with slopes in excess of 25%.
This is equal to 23% of the total site area. The current development proposal includes a
request to grade 410 of the 1,400 acres. Due to the unstable soils in the area staff has
identified slopes in excess of 25% slope as a constraint and recommends a base density of
1 unit per 5 acres for these slopes. Staff recommends a complete grading plan be
submitted by the applicant and the adoption of city grading standards prior to the
allowance of any grading on the site.
8) If "gross density" is used for comprehensive planning purposes how/when in the
development process should the density of individual development areas be regulated?
Should the Comprehensive plan address the relationship between land capability
(floodway, slope, etc.) and density?
See items" 1- 3" above
9) Should the City regulate single family and multi-family uses at the comprehensive plan
level? The 2000 Comprehensive Plan contains a zoning matrix which correlates to the
zoning designations in ECC 8-1-2 which limit multifamily units in A-R through R-5.
10) Should sub-area planning areas be regulated in size? Sub-planning areas were established
in the Soaring 2025 Plan to enable the City to better discuss the integration of uses within
specific areas of the City. The Soaring 2025 sub-planning areas were limited to
approximately 2,000 acres.
The most recent submittal by the applicant shows specific types of uses within the sub-
areas that provide further guidance as to the types of uses and lot dimensions that will be
included in the project. These lots standards will be reviewed and included as part of the
Page 18 of23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06_06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
development agreement.
11) How should the comprehensive plan direct open space preservation? During the
Community Visioning the public expressed a desire for regional open space should
conservation easements, dedication to the City, or HOA's be used to retain and manage
open space?
The proposed development includes 1,281 acres of community open space (25%) and 880
acres of regional open space (14.7 %). The applicant proposes the use ofa homeowners
association and private entities (for the golf courses) for the maintenance of the
community open space. The applicant proposes to dedicate 880 acres of regional open
space to the City. Though the City has a desire to work with developers to formalize a
regional open space network within the foothills long term funding and maintenance
should be considered. The use of transfer fees, land trusts and endowment have been
used by joint public/private partnership in similar circumstances to establish a predictable
source of funding for large open space areas.
The applicant informed the City that they have made application with the BLM for
exchange of the 880 acres of open space adjacent to the proposed city park for the 815
acres adjacent to their Highway Mixed UseIBusiness Park sub-area along Highway 16.
This exchange would result in the reduction of open space by 14%. Staff though
supportive of the exchange, does not feel that the publicly owned BLM property should
benefit an individual development. Staff would like to see a redesign of the project to
maintain 25% community and 14% regional open space, if approved. Further, the
development agreement should include a density reduction calculator for the affected
areas if the BLM exchange is approved. The inclusion of the 815 acres would require an
amendment to the development agreement.
Staff would like to know what percentage of the community open space is contained
within the proposed golf courses on the site. During the approval of the Legacy
development the development agreement required a minimum of 15% of each phase be
included as community space so that the open space was easily accessible regardless of
location in the development.
Further, during the legacy development approval it was established that at least 50% of all
dwelling units, 65% of all lots less than 5,000 sq ft, and 50% of all lots less than 8,000 sq
ft shall abut open space. Similar standards should be established for the community open
space within the project and be placed as standards within the development agreement.
· As a part of the conditional use for this development the applicant is requesting the potential of a
height exception within the community Core. Exceptions in the City have included the Hilton
Garden Inn (maximum height of 42-feet) and the Legacy Academy Building. Staff recommends
that the use of a height exception be built into the development agreement once a visual impact
analysis has been doe to ensure that the height exception does not result in the ridge lining or
creation of visual impacts to the existing city as detailed in the Foothill Visual Assessment
completed by the City. Staff recommends that the visual assessment be reviewed by staff and the
design review board prior to being submitted to the planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council for consideration with individual planning units.
· Eagle City Code 8-6-6-3, requires all final development plans be reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission as well as the City Council. In the case of M3 the Planning and zoning
commission shall review preliminary PUD "planning units" for compliance with this approval and
the proposed development agreement as well as final development plans. This is partly to allow
Page 19 of23
K:\PJanning Dept\EagJe Applications\RZ&A \2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzf final.doc
for additional City Review for flexibility needed for long-range and large PUD's.
· If The applicant proposes to use private road the following analysis should be complete with the
master transportation study for review and approval by the City prior to the submittal of the first
planning unit:
1. Unique or special circumstances exist with respect to the proposed use, design,
location, topography, or other features of the development or its surroundings such
that private streets will serve to enhance the overall development;
2. The private street provides safe and effective movement of both vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, sidewalks and parking;
3. The private street provides adequate access for service and emergency vehicles;
4. The private street does not adversely affect access or good transportation planning to
adjacent property and to the area travel networks;
5. The private street does not land lock adjacent property due to topography or parcel
layout;
6. Other than to provide emergency access, the private street does not connect one public
street to another, encouraging travel through the development served by the private
street;
7. The use or alignment of the private street does not interfere with the continuity of
public streets; and
8. An appropriate mechanism has been established for the repair and maintenance of the
private street, including provisions for the funding thereof.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
Staff recommends denial of the zoning ordinance amendment since the proposal is not consistent with the
Eagle Comprehensive Plan, and since the use of annexation/development agreements, currently available
under Eagle City Code, can be used to achieve the same end.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Staff recommends a comprehensive plan designation of "Foothills Residential" and the inclusion
of the text of the six (6) sub-areas as land use sub-areas under Chapter 6 and a comprehensive plan
map amendment for the site:
Foothills Residential:
A unique combination ofIand uses within the Eagle Foothills that strives to balance
residential, non-residential, and open space use to create hamlets of development that situate
urban development within the natural environment without overcrowding or significantly
altering the natural features found on the site.
Residential densities should be calculated to commensurate with the existing land conditions
land with lands with slope in excess of 25% and habitat receiving a maximum density of 1
unit per 5 acres.
Page 20 of23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06_06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzffinal.doc
ANNEXATION AND REZONE:
Staff recommends approval of the annexation and rezone from RP (Rural Preservation) and
RR(Rural Residential) to R-I-DA for M3 Eagle with conditions to be placed within the
annexation/development agreement as provided within the staff report
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application first came before the Planning and Zoning Commission on
September 27, 2006, additional hearings, including public testimony, were heard on the
following dates:
October 16, 2006
October 30,2006
November 13, 2006
December 12, 2006
February 12,2007
April 19, 2007
April 23, 2007
May 14, 2007
May 17, 2007
June 6, 2007
June 25, 2007
July 9, 2007
The public hearing was closed on July 9, 2007 with the Planning Zoning Commission
holding a work session on July 23, 2007. The Commission made their recommendation
on August 27, 2007.
B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by six (6) individuals who indicated that the proposed development supports the
growth in Eagle, preferences for Eagle to review/approve development in the Foothills, and
felt it was a quality development.
C. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by eighteen (18) individuals expressed concerns about transportation, water,
schools, economic impacts and wildlife.
D. Oral testimony neither in opposition nor in support to this proposal was presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission by twelve (12) individuals who had concerns about
transportation, water, schools, economic impacts and wildlife.
COMMISSION DECISION:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
On April 9, 2007, the Commission voted 5 to 0, to recommend denial of ZOA-3-06. They felt that
the use of development agreements (ECC 8-10) was a sufficient regulatory tool to meet the needs
of the City and developers and that additional code changes were not necessary at this time.
Page 21 of23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzf final.doc
ANNEXATION AND REZONE:
On August 27,2007, the Commission voted 5 to 0, to recommend approval of A-14-06 & RZ-19-
06 for an annexation and rezone with a development agreement from RR (Rural Preservation-
Ada County designation) and RR (Rural Residential- Ada County Designation) to R-I-DA
(Residential One with Development Agreement) for M3 Eagle, with the following conditions to be
addressed by the City Council and/or be placed within the development agreement, and attached
here to and incorporated by reference as "Exhibit A":
I) The applicant provide and the development agreement contain additional assurances on the
impacts, availability, and construction of necessary infrastructure specifically but not limited to
interchanges along the State Highway system, north south connecting roads to the site (i.e.:
Eagle Road, Linder Road extension and Palmer/Hartley Road Alignment), and off site roadway
improvements within the City of Eagle;
2) The City Council should look closer at the School District concerns and funding issues;
3) The Council should ensure the final development agreement consistent with the decisions
made densities for the associated Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment application
(CPA-05-06) and the City Foothills Comprehensive Plan (CPA-06-07);
4) The City contract a third party to review the economic and study completed by Idaho
Economics prior to City Council hearing on the development agreement;
5) The City should provide all relevant information on water studies and rights to IDWR for
review and comment.
6) The City should ensure the Developer comply with requirements of other jurisdictions
including, but not limited to, the Eagle Sewer District, Fire District and Ada County Sheriff's
Office to meet their concerns with the Project and provisions of the Development Agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 24, 2006, and deemed
complete on August 23, 2006.
2. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was
published in the Valley Times in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho
Code and the Eagle City Code on September 11, 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 September 8, 2006. The
site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on September 18, 2006, 2006. Requests for
agencies' reviews were transmitted on September 8, 2006, in accordance with the requirements of the
Eagle City Code.
3. The Commission reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed rezone (RZ- 19-06)
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 rezone is in accordance with the City of
Eagle Comprehensive Plan and established goals and objectives because:
a. The requested R- I -DA (Residential with a development agreement) zoning designation IS
Page 22 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2006\A- J 4-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 pzf final. doc
consistent with the proposed land use designation recommended by the Commission on June
25, 2007;
b. The information provided from the agencies having jurisdiction over the public facilities
needed for this site indicate that adequate public facilities exist, or are expected to be provided
as conditioned within the development agreement, to serve any and all uses allowed on this
property under the proposed zone;
c. The proposed R-I-DA zone (Residential with a development agreement) is compatible with
the RR zone (Rural Residential-Ada County) and RP (Rural Preservation-Ada County) zones
and land uses to the north, south, east and west since these sites are currently dry land ranches
and are anticipated to develop with similar residential uses;
d. The land proposed for rezone is located within a "Hazard Area" or "Special Area" as
described within the Comprehensive Plan, however, mitigation and/or removal from these
areas is expected to be provided as conditioned within the development agreement, and;
e. No non-conforming uses are expected to be created with this rezone.
DA TED this 5th day of November 2007.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
"\,. ~
~ Pierce, Chairman
ATTEST:
.'".............
,., Of EA,... '"
"," ~ V~ '.
" ~, .......... <.~ ...
~ ,.... .. ...
~ v.. yORAl'.. .':,
~ .. o~ ~ \ ~
i :u :*:
. ~ . _.- . .
! Y' : L ;:: :
0; \.. S 13. A ~.. 0 i
: .."'~ ~Q...'Io: ~
-:. \p ...O/tpo..,...... ~. 11
~, )> ........:Q \. ....
~"'#:'11'E. Of \ ,.,....
#,.,'.......",
Page 23 of23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ- I 9-06-06 pzf final.doc