Findings - CC - 2008 - RZ-17-04 MOD - Modification To Rezone With Da/Eaglefield Estates
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION )
FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE REZONE )
WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT )
ASSOCIATED WITH EAGLEFIELD ESTATES )
SUBDIVISION FOR EAGLEFIELD, LLC )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER RZ-17-04 MOD
The above-entitled rezone with development agreement modification application came before the Eagle
City Council for their decision on March 18, 2008. The Council continued the item to March 25, 2008, at
which time public testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed. The Council, 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:
Eaglefield, LLC, represented by Peter Harris, is requesting modifications to the
development agreement (Instrument #106057136) associated with the R-2-DA-P
(Residential up to two units per acre with a development agreement - PUD), R-4-DA-P
(Residential up to four units per acre with a development agreement - PUD), and MU-DA-
P (Mixed Use with a development agreement - PUD) zoning classifications for the
Eaglefield Estates Subdivision. The 142.4-acre site is generally located 650-feet west of
Under Road and north of State Highway 44.
B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The rezone modification request was received by the City of Eagle on February 29,2008.
C. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle City Council was published in
accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City
Code on March 3, 2008. 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 March 3, 2008.
The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on March 6, 2008.
D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved an annexation and rezone from RR
(Rural Residential-Ada County Designation) to R-2-DA-P (Residential up to two units per
acre with a development agreement - PUD), R-4-DA-P (Residential up to four units per
acre with a development agreement - PUD) and MU-DA-P (Mixed Use with a
development agreement - PUD), conditional use, preliminary development plan,
preliminary plat, and vacation of right-of-way approvals for Eaglefield Estates Planned
Unit Development (A-II-04/ RZ-17-04/CU-l 0-04/PPUD-3-04/PP-9-04N AC-2-04) for
this site. The Development Agreement (Inst. #106057136) associated with RZ-17-04 is
incorporated herein by reference.
Page 1 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
On February 13, 2007, the City Council approved final development plan and final plats
for Eaglefield Estates Subdivision Phases No.1 & No.2 (FPUD-03-06 & FP-I0-06 No.1)
& (FPUD-4-06 & FP-II-06 No.2), for Eaglefield, LLC.
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMPPLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
Existing High Density Residential/ MU-DA-P (mixed use with a Eaglefield Estates Planned
Transitional Residential! development agreement- Unit Development
Residential Two (up to 2 PUD),R-4-DA-P (residential
units/acre) with a development
agreement-PUD), R-3-DA-P
(residential with a
development agreement-
PUD) R-2-DA-P (residential
with a development
agreement-PUD) Overall
density of 2.61 units per acre
Proposed No Change No Change No change
North of site Residential Two (up to 2 A-R (Agricultural Legacy Development
units/acre) Residential)
South of site High Density Residential RUT (Ada County State Street & proposed
Transitional Residential designation) Langtree Subdivision
East of site High Density Residential RUT (Ada County Single-family, proposed
Transitional Residential designation), MU-DA-P Eaglefield Estates II
(mixed use with a Planned Unit Development,
development agreement- and proposed Cabra Creek
PUD),R-4-DA-P (residential Subdivision
with a development
agreement-PUD), R-2-DA
(residential up to two units
per acre with development
agreement)
West of site High Density Residential! RUT (Ada County Legacy Planned Unit
Transitional Residential/ designation), R-2-DA-P Development and single-
Residential Two (up to 2 (residential with a family dwelling &
units/acre) development agreement- agriculture
PUD)
Page 2 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
F. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA, CEDA, or DSDA.
G. TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 142.4-acres
H. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONE MODIFICATION:
See applicant's justification letter attached to the staff report and incorporated herein by
reference.
1. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists.
J. NON-CONFORMING USES: None are apparent on the site.
K. AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have previously responded with the original application (A-II-04/
RZ-17-04/CU-l 0-04/PPUD-3-04/PP-9-04N AC-2-04) and their correspondence is
attached to the staff report:
Ada County Highway District
Ada County Street Name Committee
Boise River Flood Control District
Central District Health
Division of Environmental Quality
Drainage District #2
Eagle Fire District
Eagle Sewer District
Idaho Department of Transportation
Meridian School District: Letter includes a warning that all schools are over capacity
Middleton Mill Ditch Company
L. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: None received to date
DISCUSSION:
· The applicant is requesting a modification to the development agreement (Instrument
#106057136) associated with RZ-17-04 for the Eaglefield Estates Planned Unit Development to
amend Article II, "Conditions of Development" as noted within their narrative date stamped by the
City on February 29, 2008.
· The applicant is requesting to modifY Condition of Development 2.2 specifYing the approved
setbacks for the development. The following table shows Condition of Development 2.2, as shown
in the recorded development agreement, follows:
o Condition 2.2:
Dimensional standards within the development shall be as follows: (product type location is
attached as Exhibit C)
Page 3 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
ImenSlOna an ar s >y ro uc .ype
The Gables-M-U Zone (four-plex lots) Min. of 15 ft between buildings
Size frontage front setback rear setback side in side out width
10,000 35 20 20 5 20 50
The Cedars-R-4 Zone (single family detached)
Size (sq ft)* frontage front setback rear setback side in side out Width
6,000,6,500 & 7,000 35 20** 20 7.5 & 5 20 50
. All IOrs oerween 0, UUU ana 0,'1'1 sq snail nave snarea/common artves. All 100S less man ,UUU sq n
shall be alley loaded. See Exhibit D for lot access requirements.
**See Site Specific Condition #49
Size frontage front setback rear setback side in side out Width
8,000 35 20 25 7.5&5 20 70
The Vintage -R-3 Zone (single family detached)
Size frontage front setback rear setback side in side out Width
10,000 35 30 25 7.5&5 20 70
The Fairway -R-2 Zone (single family detached)
Size frontage front setback rear setback side in side out Width
per plan 11,000 + 35 30 30 10& 5 20 75
per plan 10,999- 35 30 25 7.5 &5 20 75
D' 1 St d d b Pdt T
Site Specific Condition No. 35 within the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Eaglefield Estates
Planned Unit Development (A-l 1-04/ RZ-17-04/CU-IO-04/PPUD-3-04/PP-9-04N AC-2-04) contains the
following setbacks and maximum lot coverage:
35. The following setbacks and lot coverage requirements shall apply (see Exhibit A of the
development agreement for product location):
The Gables-MU Zone (four-plex 10ts)Prefer to use a building envelope
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out width
35% 10,000 35 20 20 5 20 50
The Cedars-R4 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size* frontage setback setback side in out Width
6,000, 6,500 & 5ftlst+
35% 7,000 35 20** 20 2.5ft 2nd 20 50
* All lots between 6, 000 and 6,999 sq ft shall have shared/common drives. All lots less than
6,000 sq ft shall be alley loaded. See Exhibit D for lot access requirements.
**See Site Specific Condition #44
Page 4 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
The Meadows-R4 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out Width
7.5ftlst
35% 8,000 35 20 25 + 5 ft 2nd 20 70
The Vintage -R4 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out Width
7.5 ft 1st
35% 10,000 35 30 20 + 5 ft 2nd 20 70
The Fairway -R2 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out Width
10ftlst
35% per plan + 11,000 35 30 30 + 5 ft 2nd 20 75
7.5 ft 1st
35% per plan -10,999 35 30 25 + 5ft 2nd 20 75
The Conditions of Development and Site Specific Conditions found within the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for the annexation, rezone, conditional use permit, preliminary development plan and
preliminary plat, have conflicting side setbacks for the "Cedars" area and conflicting rear setbacks for the
10,000 square foot lots.
The applicant is requesting the following changes (shown in bold) to the setbacks and maximum lot
coverage requirements (staff recommendations are shown in italic and underline):
The Cedars-R4 Zone (single AS
family detached) APPROVED
Front Rear Side Side
Coverage Size* Frontage Setback Setback in out Width
5 ft 1 st
35% 6,000,6,500 35 20** 20 + 20 50
2.5 ft
7,000 2nd
* All lots between 6,000 and 6,999 sq ft shall have shared/common drives. All lots less
than 6,000 shall be alley loaded. See Exhibit D for lot access requirements
** See Site Specific Condition #44 #15
Page 5 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
The Cedars-R4 Zone (single family detached) AS
(excludin~ Alley Loaded lots) REQUESTED
Front Rear Side Side
Coverage Size* Frontage Setback Setback III out Width
5 ft 1 st
6,000,6,500, +2.5
35% 40% 7,000 35 20** 20 ft 2nd 20** 50
15**
Refer to
Site
Specific
Condition
No. 15
* All lots between 6,000 and 6,999 sqft shall have shared/common drives. All lots less
than 6,000 shall be alley loaded. See Exhibit D for lot access requirements
** All lots 6,000+ sq ft may have living space at 15' with garage at 20' Since Site Specific Condition
#15 addresses a portion of these lots this reauest should be deleted
AS
Alley Loaded Lots REQUESTED
Front Rear Side Side
Covera2e Size Frontage Setback Setback in out Width
10 20*
Refer to 5 ft
Site 1st
Specific +2.5
Condition ft.
50% 40% 5,500 35 No. 15 20 2nd 10 50
* 15-foot front yard setback:
Lots 1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. Block 5 (Shown in pink on the final plat exhibit date
stamped by the City on January 19, 2007)
10 ft. street side setback Lots 1 & 11. Block 5 (Shown in pink on the final
plat exhibit date stamped bv the Citv on January 19.2007)
AS
The Meadows-R 4 (single family detached) APPROVED
Front Rear Side Side
Coverage Size Frontage Setback Setback III out Width
7.5 ft
1st +
5ft
35% 8,000 35 20 25 2nd 20 70
Page 6 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
AS
The Meadows-R 4 (single family detached) REQUESTED
Front Rear Side Side
Coverage Size* Frontage Setback Setback III out Width
5 ft
40% 8,000 35 20 2520' lst+ 15 70
5 ft
15* 2nd
*Lots backinl! UP to open space shall be allowed a 15' rear yard setback Delete
Site Specific Condition No. 15 within the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the final plat/final
development plan for Eaglefield Estates Planned Unit Development (FPUD-3-06/FP-I 0-06 & FPUD-4-
06/FP-II-06) contains the following setbacks:
15. The following setbacks shall apply in the "Cedars" (see Exhibit "C", included herein, of the
development agreement for product location):
15-foot front yard setback: (Shown in yellow on final plat exhibit date stamped by the City on
January 19,2007)
Lots 2, 4, 6, & 8, Block 3
Lots 4,6,8, 10, 14, 16, 18, & 20, Block 4
Lots 3, 5, 7, & 9, Block 6
15 ft. front setback & 10ft. street side setback: (Shown in orange on final plat exhibit date
stamped by the City on January 19, 2007)
Lot 10, Block 3
Lots 11 & 12, Block 4
Lot 11, Block 6
. The applicant is requesting the front setback on alley loaded lots less than 6,000 square feet be
reduced from twenty feet (20') in width to ten feet (10') in width. If the applicant's request to
reduce the front yard setback is granted the dwellings adjacent to the street will have a row house
appearance due to the narrowness of the lots. Site Specific Condition No. 15 of the final plat/final
development plan for Eaglefield Estates Planned Unit Development (FPUD-3-06/FP-I0-06 &
FPUD-4-06/FP-II-06) permits a fifteen foot (15 ') front setback alternated on every other lot (as
shown in yellow and orange on the final plat exhibit date stamped by the City on January 19,
2007), to address this request and provide for a variation in the location of the dwellings adjacent
to the street.
. The required setbacks for the R-4 (Residential-up to four units per acre) zoning district are:
Official Height and Area Regulations
Zoning Maximum
District Height
Front Rear Interior Street Maximum Minimum Minimum
Side Side Lot Lot Area Lot
Covered F (Acres Or Width 1*
And J* Square
Feet) H*
1~~17.5' 1~140% 118,000 1170'
IR-4 1135'
Page 7 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
· Site Specific Condition #35 shows the maximum lot coverage to be no more than 35%. Pursuant
to Eagle City Code as amended May 15, 2007, the maximum lot coverage for an R-4 zoning
district is 40% and the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. Therefore, the maximum footprint of
structures pursuant to Eagle City Code would be 3,200 square feet (through the planned unit
development for this project, lots 5,500 square feet in size were approved).The applicant is
requesting that lots less than 6,000 square feet in size be permitted to have the maximum lot
coverage increased from 35% to 50%. As an example, the preliminary plat for Eaglefield Estates
Subdivision shows Lot 2, Block 6, as a 5,500 square foot lot. Should the applicant's request be
approved to increase the maximum lot coverage to 50% the maximum footprint of structures
located on a 5,500 square foot lot would be 2,750 square feet. Utilizing the following setbacks as
approved, the maximum lot coverage for a structure could only be 2,700 square feet. Since the
approved setbacks will allow the requested maximum lot coverage of forty percent (40%) to be
exceeded staff recommends that the approved front setback of twenty feet (20') not be modified.
Front 20 feet
Rear 20 feet
Side 5 feet
. Pursuant to the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law (A-II-04/ RZ-17-04/CU-I0-04/PPUD-
3-04/PP-9-04N AC-2-04), the following rear setbacks were approved:
Lot size Rear Setback
5,500-7,999 square feet 20 feet
8,000-9,999 square feet 25 feet
10,000-10,999 square feet 20 feet
The applicant is requesting that the rear setback for lots backing up to open space be reduced from
twenty-five feet (25') and twenty feet (20') to fifteen feet (15'). The result of a reduced rear
setback will give the appearance that the open space lots adjacent to these lots will be serving as
the backyard for the adjacent dwellings. Open space within a development is created to provide an
amenity to all of the residents of the development not just those adjacent to it. Staff recommends
the rear setback for all lots less than 10,000 square feet in size be modified to twenty feet (20')
while the other referenced lots remain at twenty feet (20').
. The applicant is requesting the side setbacks on lots 8,000-9,999 square feet in size be reduced
from seven and one-half feet (7.5') to five feet (5') for the interior sides and from twenty feet (20')
to fifteen feet (15 ') for the street side. It should be noted that the proposed maximum building
coverage of forty percent (40%) of the lot area is more restrictive than the setbacks as currently
approved; therefore, staff recommends that the approved side setbacks for lots 8,000-9,999 square
feet in size not be modified.
o Condition 2.9 states:
As required by Title 6, Chapter 5, of the Eagle City Code, the Property shall become
part of the City of Eagle's municipal water system and comply with the terms of the
September 13, 2005, Memorandum of Agreement signed by the City and the Property
Owner's representative attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit
F. All water mains to be dedicated to the public shall only be constructed on rights of
way, easements or publicly owned property. Easements or permits secured for main
extensions shall be obtained in the name of the City, along with all rights and title to the
main at the time of service is provided to the customer paying for the extension. Water
mains shall be extended by the Property Owner to the boundaries of the development at
Page 8 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
locations designated by the City Engineer where future water system extension is
expected to occur.
The applicant is requesting that the municipal water system Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) dated September 13, 2005, (Exhibit "F" attached hereto), be modified. Since
Condition of Development 2.9 references an MOA with a specific date, amendments to the
MOA would not be permitted without amending the development agreement. The applicant is
requesting that Condition No.5 of the MOA be modified to allow the City Clerk to sign the
final plat upon the approval by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) (for the
leased water rights to serve the municipal water system).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT MEMORANDUM:
Staff recommends approval of the following modifications to the development agreement with the
amended conditions to read as follows:
2.2
The Gables-MU Zone (four- lex lots )Prefer to use a building envelope
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out width
35% 10,000 35 20 20 5 20 50
The Cedars-R4 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size* frontage setback setback side in out Width
6,000, 6,500 & 5 ft 1 st +
40% 7,000 35 20** 20 2.5ft 2nd 20** 50
* All lots between 6, 000 and 6,999 sq ft shall have shared/common drives. All lots less than
6,000 sq ft shall be alley loaded. See Exhibit D for lot access requirements.
**See Site Specific Condition #15
** 15-foot front vard setback:
Lots I. 3. 5. 7. 9. II. Block 5 (Shown in yellow onjinal plat exhibit date stamped by the City
on January 19, 2007)
10 ft. street side setback Lots 1 & 11. Block 5 (Shown in oink on final olat exhibit date
stamoed bv the Citv on Januarv 19 2007)
The Meadows-R4 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out Width
7.5 ft 1 st
40% 8,000 35 20 20 + 5 ft 2nd 20 70
The Vintage -R4 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out Width
7.5 ft 1st
35% 10,000 35 30 20 + 5 ft 2nd 20 70
Page 9 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
side
Covera e Size fronta e side in out Width
10ft 1st
35% Ian +11,000 35 30 30 + 5 ft 2nd 20 75
7.5ftlst
35% Ian -10,999 35 30 25 + 5ft 2nd 20 75
2.9 As required by Eagle City Code, Title 6, Chapter 5, the Property shall become part of Eagle's
municipal water system and comply with the terms of the September 13, 2005, Memorandum of
Agreement or as amended and attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit F. All water
mains to be dedicated to the public shall only be constructed on rights of way, easements, or
publicly owned property. Easements or permits secured for main extensions shall be obtained in
the name of Eagle, along with all rights and title to the main, at the time water service is provided.
Water mains shall be extended by Applicants to the boundaries of the Property at locations future
water system extensions are expected to occur, as designated by the City Engineer.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Council on March 18, 2008. The Council
continued the item to March 25, 2008, at which time testimony was taken and the public hearing
was closed. The Council made their decision at that time.
B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by no one (other than
the applicant/representative).
C. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by no one.
COUNCIL DECISION:
The Council voted 4 to 0 to approve RZ-17-04 MOD for a modification to the Conditions of
Development and associated exhibits within the development agreement (Instrument #106057136)
for Eaglefield, LLC, with the following modifications to the development agreement with
strikethrough text to be deleted by the Council and underline text to be added by the Council to the
previously approved development agreement:
2.2
The Gables-MU Zone (four-J lex 10ts)Prefer to use a building envelope
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out width
35% 10,000 35 20 20 5 20 50
The Cedars-R4 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size* frontage setback setback side in out Width
6,000, 6,500 & H~ft 1st
+ ~ 2.5 ft
40% 7,000 35 20** 20 2--nd 20** 50
* All lots between 6, 000 and 6,999 sq ft shall have shared/common drives. All lots less than
6,000 sq ft shall be alley loaded. See Exhibit "Dl" for lot access requirements.
**See Site Speeifie CElndition #15
**15-foot front yard setback:
Page 10 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
Lots 4.6.8. and 10. Block 3
Lots 4.6.8.10.11.13.14.15.16. and 18. Block 4
Lots 1,3,5, 7, 9, and 11, Block 5 (Exhibit "Dl")
Lot 1 O. Block 3. Lots 11-12. Block 4. Lots 1 and 11. Block 5. shall have street side yard
setback of 10ft.
lOft. street side setbaek Lots 1 & 11, Block 5 (Shown in pink on final plat exhibit date
st8:IRped by the City on Janl:lary 19, 2007) (Exhibit "G")
All lots within the "Cedars" requiring shared driveways shall be allowed front yard setbacks
of 15' to side loaded garages. Front loaded garages shall have a 20' setback.
The Meadows-R4 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out Width
7.5ftlst
40% 8,000 35 20 ~20 + 5 ft 2nd 20 70
Sideyard setback of 5'
Lots 4.5.7.8.9.10.11.12.16.17.22.23. and 24. Block 12 (Exhibit "D2")
The Vintage -R4 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out Width
7.5ftlst
35% 10,000 35 30 ~20 + 5 ft 2nd 20 70
The Fairway -R2 Zone (single family detached)
front rear side
Coverage Size frontage setback setback side in out Width
10ft 1st
35% per plan +11,000 35 30 30 + 5 ft 2nd 20 75
7.5 ft 1st
35% per plan -10,999 35 30 25 + 5ft 2nd 20 75
2.9 As required by Eagle City Code, Title 6, Chapter 5, the Property shall become part of Eagle's
municipal water system and comply with the terms of the September 13, 2005, Memorandum of
Agreement or as amended and attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit F. All water
mains to be dedicated to the public shall only be constructed on rights of way, easements, or
publicly owned property. Easements or permits secured for main extensions shall be obtained in
the name of Eagle, along with all rights and title to the main, at the time water service is provided.
Water mains shall be extended by Applicants to the boundaries of the Property at locations future
water system extensions are expected to occur, as designated by the City Engineer.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The rezone modification request was received by the City of Eagle on February 29,2008.
2. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle City Council was published in accordance
with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City Code on March 3, 2008.
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 March 3, 2008. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on March 6,
Page 11 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
2008.
3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed rezone modification (RZ-
17-04 MOD) 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 zoning designation of MU-DA-P (Mixed Use with a development agreement and PUD),
R-4-DA-P (Residential up to 4 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), R-3-
DA-P (Residential up to 3 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), R-2-DA-P
(Residential up to 2 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD) is in accordance
with the High Density Residential, Transitional Residential and Residential Two classification
as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map;
b. The information provided from the agencies having jurisdiction over the public facilities
needed for this site indicated that adequate public facilities exist, or are required to be
provided, to serve a single-family and multi-family dwelling residential subdivision on this
property under the proposed zones;
c. The MU-DA-P (Mixed Use with a development agreement and PUD), R-4-DA-P (Residential
up to 4 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), R-3-DA-P (Residential up to
3 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), R-2-DA-P (Residential up to Two
units per acre with a development agreement and PUD) zoning districts are compatible with
the RUT (Ada County designation), MU-DA-P (Mixed Use with a development agreement
and PUD), R-4-DA-P (Residential up to 4 units per acre with a development agreement and
PUD) and R-2-DA (Residential up to 2 units per acre with a development agreement) zones to
the east since that area is expected to be developed or is being developed with the same
density and types of uses as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map;
d. The MU-DA-P (Mixed Use with a development agreement and PUD), R-4-DA-P (Residential
up to 4 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), R-3-DA-P (Residential up to
3 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), R-2-DA-P (Residential up to 2 units
per acre with a development agreement and PUD) zoning districts are compatible with the R-
2-DA-P (Residential up to 2 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD) to the
north since that area is being developed with the same density and types of uses as shown on
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map;
e. The MU-DA-P (Mixed Use with a development agreement and PUD), R-4-DA-P (Residential
up to 4 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), R-3-DA-P (Residential up to
3 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), R-2-DA-P (Residential up to 2 units
per acre with a development agreement and PUD) zoning districts are compatible with the
RUT (Rural-Urban Transitional - Ada County designation) and R-2-DA-P (Residential up to 2
units per acre with a development agreement and PUD) zones to the west since that area is
expected to be developed or is being developed with the same density and types of uses as
shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map;
f. The MU-DA-P (Mixed Use with a development agreement and PUD), R-4-DA-P (Residential
up to 4 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), R-3-DA-P (Residential up to
3 units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), R-2-DA-P (Residential up to 2 units
per acre with a development agreement and PUD) zoning districts are compatible with the
RUT zone (Rural-Urban Transitional - Ada County designation) to the south since that area is
expected to be developed with the same density and types of uses as shown on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map;
g. The land proposed for rezone is not located within a "Hazard Area" or "Special Area" as
described within the Comprehensive Plan; and
h. No non-conforming uses are expected to be created with this rezone.
Page 12 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccf.doc
DATED this 15th day of July 2008.
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
,Idaho
ATTEST:
~!(~._~~~
Sharon k. Bergmann, Eagle City Clerk
,.,........,
", I..
"" f EAG{ ....
" _\ 0........ I:' ##
~,.. L ~ ... ... ......tiIl
.. .:........ ..OaA 7' '^ .. ':.
.. "~. ....' ~. ~ .
: vI 0.'0 ."?' ':
. . . -
: : CJ ,.1 _: :
:. I\.."~::
.. . \ S~ 1''''''.... 0 :
~ . P <:J..:...... III
.. ..;~ ",'</. ......":
':0.. ...fOR po\l p-... <" '\" ,:
...., SF ....... _ '\ v "
"" A TE 0 \' "",
""'""11"'"
Page 13 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2004\Eaglefield Estates da MOD ccfdoc