Findings - CC - 2012 - A-02-11 & RZ-03-11 - A/Rz From Rut To Bp-Da/10 Acre/8811 N Horseshoe Bend Rd BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION )
FOR AN ANNEXATION AND REZONE )
FROM RUT (RURAL-URBAN TRANSITION) )
TO R-1-DA(RESIDENTIAL ONE WITH A )
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT)AND BP-DA )
(BUSINESS PARK WITH A DEVELOPMENT )
AGREEMENT) FOR KENNETH AND LYNN )
PATTEN )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER A-02-11 &RZ-03-11
A public hearing for annexation and rezone of the subject property from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition —
Ada County designation) to BP-DA (Business Park with a development agreement) was held before the
Eagle City Council for their action on April 24, 2012, at which time public testimony was taken and the
hearing was closed. The Eagle City 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:
Kenneth and Lynn Patten, represented by Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions,LLP,
are requesting approval of an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition-
Ada County Designation) to BP-DA (Business Park with a development agreement) and
R-1-DA (Residential up to one (1) unit per acre with a development agreement). The 10-
acre site is located on the west side of North Horseshoe Bend Road approximately 700-
feet south of the intersection of North Horseshoe Bend Road and East Hill Road at 8811
North Horseshoe Bend Road.
B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
A Neighborhood Meeting was held at 6:30 PM, Thursday, December 8, 2011, on-site in
compliance with the application submittal requirement of Eagle City Code. The
application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on December 28, 2011.
C. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission was published in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code and the Eagle City Code on February 6, 2012 and March 5, 2012. 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 February 2, 2012 and March 2, 2012. The site was posted
in accordance with the Eagle City Code on February 6, 2012 and March 9, 2012. Requests
for agencies' reviews were transmitted on December 29, 2011, in accordance with the
requirements of the Eagle City Code.
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 April 2, 2012. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners
Page 1 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011\A-02-11&RZ-03-11 Patten ccf doc
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 April 9, 2012.
The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code April 9, 2012.
D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
On June 20, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of an
annexation and a rezone with a development agreement for Red Cliff Development(A-10-
04/RZ-16-04).
On June 20, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a
preliminary plat for Optimist Business Park#2 for Red Cliff Development(PP-08-04).
During the hearing process before the City Council the aforementioned applications were
remanded to staff and the applications were never brought back before the City Council
for final action.
E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: Parcel Division, File#PD-03-11
F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
Existing Business Park RUT(Rural-Urban Transition Single-family dwelling and
—Ada County designation) pasture
Proposed No Change BP-DA (Business Park with No change
Development Agreement)and
R-1-DA(Residential up to
one(1)unit per acre with a
development agreement).
North of site Business Park BP-P (Business Park with a Vacant land(originally
Planned Unit Development) proposed Optimist Business
Park)
South of site Business Park BP(Business Park) Mini-storage facility
(Republic Storage)
East of site City of Boise Area of RUT and R4 (Ada County Single-family residence,
Impact designations) Rolling Hills Charter
School, and Optimist Youth
Park
West of site Residential Four R-4(Residential—up to four State Highway 55 and
(4)units per acre) residential subdivision
(Great Sky Estates)
G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT:
Not located within the DDA, TDA, CEDA, or DSDA.
H. TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 10-acres
Page 2 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011\A-02-11&11Z-03-11 Patten ccfdoc
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONE:
See attached applicant's justification letter date stamped by the City on March 2, 2012.
J. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
See attached applicant's justification letter date stamped by the City on March 2, 2012.
K. AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
A letter from the Central District Health Department states that they have no objection to
the project. The applicant indicated within the provided narrative date stamped by the City
on March 2, 2012, that the existing residential dwelling is currently served by a domestic
well and individual septic system. Eagle Water Company has two water mains located
within Horseshoe Bend Road and adjacent to the site. The parcel is located within the
Eagle Sewer District service area but has not been annexed into the District.
L. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP:No map currently exists
M. SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern—No
Evidence of Erosion—No
Fish Habitat—No
Floodplain—No
Mature Trees — Yes — adjacent to the existing dwelling located at the southeast corner of the
property.
Riparian Vegetation—No
Steep Slopes—No
Stream/Creek—No
Unique Animal Life—No
Unique Plant Life—No
Unstable Soils—Unknown
Wildlife Habitat—Unknown
N. NON-CONFORMING USES:
The applicant is proposing to divide the property as shown on the Parcel Division Survey
date stamped by the City on December 25, 2011. The applicant is proposing to rezone
Parcel "A" (location of the existing dwelling) to R-1-DA (Residential up to one (1) unit
per acre with a development agreement) and rezone Parcel `B"to BP-DA (Business Park
with a development agreement). Therefore, no non-conforming uses will be created with
the proposed rezone.
O. AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached to the staff
report. Comments,which appear to be of special concern, are noted below:
Ada County Highway District — Requested that the City of Eagle require cross-access
between the two proposed parcels. The District also provided a list of Site Specific
Conditions of Approval that may be required should the property be developed in the
future.
Central District Health Department — Indicated that they have no objections to the
proposal.
Chevron Pipe Line Company — Indicated that they have no conflicts with the proposed
application.
Page 3 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011\A-02-11&RZ-03-11 Patten ccfdoc
Eagle Fire Depai huent — Indicated that they have no specific concerns regarding the
annexation and rezone. However, if the property is developed in the future site plan
information will need to be submitted for review and approval by the fire department.
Idaho Depai lucent of Lands — Indicated that the proposed annexation and rezone will
have no impact on State Trust Lands.
Idaho Transportation Department — Indicated that SH-55 is adjacent to the site and no
additional right-of-way is anticipated at this time. The correspondence also indicated that
no access will be permitted to SH-55 and at the time of development the applicant should
consider uses that will not be impacted by traffic noise.
Independent School District of Boise City#1 —Indicated that the developer and/or owner
have made arrangements to comply with all requirements of the Boise School District.
Middleton Irrigation Association—Indicated the site is not within their service area.
P. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC:None received to date.
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
• The Comprehensive Land Use Map designates this site as Business Park.
Business Park
Suitable primarily for the development of technical park/research and development
facilities, offices and office complexes, and limited manufacturing activities, including
small-scale production, distribution, and storage of goods. Support activities may also
be permitted.
All development within this land use shall be designed to be within a landscaped
setting and be free of hazardous or objectionable elements such as noise, odor, dust,
smoke, or glare. Such development should be operated entirely within enclosed
structures and generate minimal industrial traffic. Development within this land use
designation should be required to proceed through the PUD process.
B. ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
THIS PROPOSAL:
• Eagle City Code Section 8-1-2 defines Agriculture and Forest as:
The use of land for farming, dairying,pasturage, agriculture, horticulture, floriculture,
viticulture, animal and poultry husbandry and the necessary accessory uses for parking,
treating or storing the produce; provided, however,that:
A. The operation of any such accessory uses shall be secondary to that of normal
agricultural activities; and
B. The above uses shall not include the feeding or sheltering of animals or poultry in
penned enclosures within one hundred feet(100')of any residential zoning district.
Agriculture does not include the operation or maintenance of a commercial feedlot or
stockyard where large numbers of livestock are fed concentrated feeds particularly for
the purpose of fattening for market.
• Eagle City Code Section 8-1-2 defines a Nonconforming Use as:
A building, structure or use of land existing at the time of enactment of this title, and which
does not conform to the regulations of the district in which it is situated.
Page 4 of 12
K:APlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011AA-02-I 1&RZ-03-11 Patten celdoe
• Eagle City Code Section 8-2-1 Districts Established,Purposes and Restrictions:
BP Business Park District:
To encourage the development of technical park/research and development facilities,
offices and office complexes, and limited manufacturing activities including small
scale production, distribution and storage of goods. Support activities may also be
permitted. All development within this district shall be designed to be within a
landscaped setting, and be free of hazardous or objectionable elements such as noise,
odor, dust, smoke or glare. Such development shall be operated entirely within
enclosed structures, and generate minimal industrial traffic. All development
requiring a conditional use permit in the BP zoning district, as shown in section 8-2-3
of this chapter, shall occur under the PUD and/or development agreement process in
accordance with chapter 6 or 10 of this title unless the proposed development does not
meet the area requirements as set forth in section 8-6-5-1 of this title. In that case a
cooperative development, in conjunction with adjacent parcels (to meet the minimum
area requirements), shall be encouraged. Otherwise a conditional use permit shall be
required unless the proposed use is shown as a permitted use in the BP zoning district
within section 8-2-3 of this chapter.
R Residential District:
To provide regulations and districts for various residential neighborhoods. Gross
density in an R district shall be determined according to the numeral following the R.
The numeral designates the maximum number of dwelling units per acre. Multi-family
and two-family units/developments are prohibited in R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5
zoning districts, unless approved as part of a planned unit development (PUD).
Centralized water and sewer facilities are required for all subdivision and lot
split applications submitted after the effective date hereof in all districts
exceeding one dwelling unit per two (2) acres (R-E). Whenever there is a conflict or
difference between the provisions of this section and those of other chapters and/or
other titles,the chapter or title with the more restrictive provision shall prevail.
• Eagle City Code Section 8-2-3 states that an Agricultural and forest use is a prohibited use in
the BP (Business Park)zoning district.
• Eagle City Code Section 8-2-3 states that a Single-family dwelling is a prohibited use in the
BP (Business Park) zoning district.
• Eagle City Code Section 8-3-3 Supplemental Yard and Height Regulations:
D. Side And Rear Yards For Nonresidential Uses Abutting Residential Districts:
Nonresidential buildings or uses shall not be located nor conducted closer than forty feet
(40')to any lot line of a residential district; except that the minimum yard requirements
may be reduced to fifty percent(50%)of the requirement if acceptable landscaping or
screening approved by the council is provided. Such screening shall be a masonry or solid
fence between four(4) and eight feet(8') in height,maintained in good condition and free
of all advertising or other signs. Landscaping provided in lieu of such wall or fence shall
consist of a strip of land not less than twenty feet(20') in width planted with an evergreen
hedge or dense planting of evergreen shrubs not less than four feet(4') in height at the
time of planting.
Page 5 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011\A-02-11&RZ-03-11 Patten ccfdoc
• Eagle City Code Section 8-2-4 Schedule of Building Height and Lot Area Regulations:
Zoning Maximum Front Rear Interior Street Maximum Minimum Lot Minimum
District Height Side Side Lot Covered Area(Acres Or Lot
Sq. Ft.) G And H* Width I*
R-1 35' 30' 30' 15' 30' 35% 37,000-sq.ft. 100'
• Eagle City Code Section 8-3-5 Unique Land Uses addresses the placement of Accessory
Buildings:
Certain unique land uses pose special problems that may have detrimental influences on
surrounding land uses. The following performance standards for such unique land uses
shall be adhered to in addition to all other provisions of this title:
A. Accessory Building:
1. Will not be located in any required front or street side yard area;
• Eagle City Code Section, 8-7-5 Amendments:
A. Authority: Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning
practices require,the council may, by ordinance after receipt of recommendation thereon
from the commission and subject to procedures provided by law, amend, supplement,
change or repeal the regulations,restrictions and boundaries or classification of property.
F. Action By Commission: (Reads in part)
1. The commission shall ensure that any recommendations for amendments are in
accordance with the following findings:
a. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment is in accordance with the comprehensive
plan and established goals and objectives and the future land use map;
C. DISCUSSION:
• The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this site as Business Park. The applicant is
requesting annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County
designation) to the BP-DA (Business Park with a development agreement) and R-1-DA
(Residential up to one (1) unit per acre with a development agreement) zoning designations.
Within the revised narrative date stamped by the City on March 2, 2012, the applicant is
requesting a R-1-DA (Residential up to one (1) unit per acre with a development agreement)
zoning designation to allow for the existing single-family dwelling to remain on the property at
its current location. The requested development agreement is to address the duration of the
residential use, timing of connection to central water and central sewer facilities and to ensure
that when a business park development is proposed for the site that future proposed uses will
be compatible with the surrounding properties. The applicant has also submitted an application
for a parcel division to allow for the existing residential dwelling to be located on a separate
parcel from the remainder of the site. The requested R-1-DA (Residential up to one (1) unit
per acre with a development agreement) zoning designation is for the proposed parcel where
the existing residential dwelling is located.
• The Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance describe the Business Park designation to be
those lands suitable primarily for the development of technical park/research and development
facilities, offices and office complexes, and limited manufacturing activities, including small-
scale production, distribution, and storage of goods. Support activities may also be permitted.
Page 6 of 12
K:APlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&AA2011\A-02-11&RZ-03-11 Patten ccf doc
All development within this land use is to be designed to be within a landscaped setting and be
free of hazardous or objectionable elements such as noise, odor, dust, smoke, or glare. Such
development should be operated entirely within enclosed structures and generate minimal
industrial traffic. Development within this land use designation should be required to proceed
through the PUD process. Although the business park designated lands are described to be
designed to be free of hazardous and objectionable elements the requested R-1-DA
(Residential up to one (1) unit per acre with a development agreement) is not listed within the
Comprehensive Plan's Eagle City Zoning Compatibility Matrix as a compatible zoning
designation within an area with a Business Park Comprehensive Plan designation. The
Comprehensive Plan's reference to support activities may be permitted may provide an avenue
for the existing dwelling to possibly be used for a business park support activity when a
business park development is proposed in the future.
• With the exception of the area where the residential dwelling is located the remainder of the
site is currently in agriculture production. Although the applicant is requesting a BP (Business
Park) zoning designation they are not proposing any business park uses at this time. Within the
revised narrative date stamped by the City on March 2, 2012, the applicant indicated that the
current uses of agriculture and the existing home are the only permitted uses until a site
development plan is reviewed and approved by the city. The applicant is requesting to
continue the current uses on the site until such time a business park use is proposed on the site.
To make allowances for the above mentioned uses, the applicant should be required to modify
the development agreement prior to a change of use and/or development being proposed for
the site.
• The site plan date stamped by the City on December 28, 2011, shows the site to be 10.06-acres
(gross) and 9.81-acres (net) in size. It appears that the 10.06-acre(gross)parcel includes the an
area measured to the centerline of North Horseshoe Bend Road and the 9.81-acre (net) parcel
recognizes the parcel area as measured 33-feet east of the centerline of North Horseshoe Bend
Road. Ada County Highway District(ACHD)provided comment, date stamped by the City on
January 24, 2012, which indicated Site Specific Conditions of Approval that the District may
require when it reviews a future development application. One of the Site Specific Conditions
of Approval addressed the future dedication of 42-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of
Horseshoe Bend Road, abutting the site. The correspondence also indicated a concern
regarding the proposed split and the need for cross-access between both parcels to eliminate
the need for multiple access points to Horseshoe Bend Road. The site currently has three (3)
access points to North Horseshoe Bend Road; two (2) of the access points are for a circular
driveway that currently provides access to the existing residential dwelling. The third access
point is located approximately 30-feet north of the circular drive access point. This access
point provides access to an area located behind the existing residence and the remainder of the
site that is currently in agriculture production. A condition of development should be placed in
the development agreement requiring the applicant to comply with requirements of ACRD and
ITD, as applicable, including, but not limited to, access approaches to North Horseshoe Bend
Road, dedication of right-of-way, and future road design prior to issuance of a zoning
certificate for a change of use on the site.
• The site plan date stamped by the City on December 28, 2011, shows a footprint of a shed
(accessory building) located in the front yard between the residential dwelling and North
Horseshoe Bend Road. Per Eagle City Code, accessory buildings are not to be located within
any front yard and also,the side yard setback for a structure located in a R-1 (Residential up to
one (1) unit per acre) is 15-feet. The site plan also shows the shed (accessory building)
located 4.5-feet from the southern property line. Staff defers comment to the Commission and
Council with regard to requiring the accessory structure to be relocated so it is not located
Page 7 of 12
K.\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011\A-02-11&RZ-03-11 Patten ccf.doc
within the front yard and also meet the 15-foot side yard setback. If the Commission and
Council allow the accessory structure to remain in its current location, condition 3.2 of the
development agreement should be deleted.
• The applicant has also submitted a parcel division which shows the existing residential
dwelling to be located within a proposed new parcel. The applicant is also proposing to
continue utilizing the existing potable well and septic system associated with the residential
dwelling. It should be noted that since the applicant is requesting a residential zoning
designation smaller in size than one(1)unit per two(2)acres that pursuant to Eagle City Code
Section 8-2-1, centralized water and sewer facilities would be required. The timing of
connecting the existing residential dwelling to centralized water and sewer facilities should be
addressed within the development agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
Based upon the information provided to staff to date, staff recommends approval of the requested
annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to BP-DA
(Business Park with a development agreement) and R-1-DA (Residential up to one (1) unit per acre
with a development agreement) with conditions to be placed in a development agreement as noted in
the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing for annexation and rezone of the subject property from RUT (Rural-Urban
Transition — Ada County designation) to BP-DA (Business Park with a development agreement)
was held before the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation on
February 21, 2012, at which time public testimony was taken and the hearing was closed. The
Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission directed the applicant to request an R-1-DA (Residential
up to one (1) unit per acre with a development agreement) for the proposed parcel associated with
the residential dwelling and BP-DA (Business Park with a development agreement) for the
remaining parcel. The Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission also directed staff to re-notice the
application to address the additional zoning request. Upon completion of the re-notice requirement
the above-entitled annexation and rezone applications came before the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission for their recommendation on March 19, 2012, at which time public testimony was
taken and the hearing was closed.
B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by
no one(other than the applicant/representative).
C. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by no one.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted 4 to 0 (Villegas absent)to recommend approval of A-02-11 and RZ-03-11
for an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to
BP-DA (Business Park with a development agreement)and R-1-DA (Residential up to one(1)unit
per acre with a development agreement) for Kenneth and Lynn Patten with conditions to be placed
within a development agreement as provided within their findings of fact and conclusions of law
document, dated April 2, 2012.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the City Council on April 24, 2012, at which
time testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed. The Council made their decision at
that time.
Page 8 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011\A-02-11&RZ-03-11 Patten ccfdoc
B. Oral testimony in favor of the application was presented to the City Council by no one (not
including the applicant/representative).
C. Oral testimony in opposition to the application was presented to the City Council by no one.
COUNCIL DECISION:
The Council voted 4 to 0 to approve A-01-11 and RZ-02-11 for an annexation and rezone from
RUT (Rural-Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to BP-DA (Business Park with a
development agreement) and R-1-DA (Residential up to one (1) unit per acre with a development
agreement) for Kenneth and Lynn Patten, with the following Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended conditions of development to be placed within a development agreement:
3.1 The Concept Plan (Exhibit B) represents the Owner's current concept and approved uses for
the Property. Prior to future development and/or change of use on the Property the Owner will
submit a development agreement modification application with a revised Concept Plan. The
owner will also submit such applications regarding design review, preliminary and final plat
reviews, and/or any conditional use permits, if applicable, and any other applicable
applications as may be required by Eagle City Code, which shall comply with Eagle City
Code, as it exists at the time such applications are made except as otherwise provided within
this Agreement.
3.2 The shed (accessory structure) located in the front yard between the residential dwelling and
North Horseshoe Bend Road and adjacent to the southern property line shall be allowed to
remain on Parcel A (R-1-DA) as long as the principal permitted use on the property is
residential.No replacement or expansion of the shed will be allowed.
3.3 The existing residential dwelling may continue to be serviced by the existing well and septic
system, however should the existing well fail the Owner shall be required to connect the
residential dwelling to the available central water system.
3.4 Upon future development or sale of the property, and prior to application for a building
permit, the owners shall provide a cross access agreement between parcel A and parcel B (if
required by Ada County Highway District) for review and approval by the City Attorney. The
cross access agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to development of, or sale, of the
property.
3.5 The Owner(s) shall comply with the requirements of ACHD and ITD, as applicable, including,
but not limited to, access approaches to North Horseshoe Bend Road, dedication of right-of-
way, and future road design prior to issuance of a zoning certificate for a change of use on
either parcel as shown on the Concept Plan.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. A Neighborhood Meeting was held at 6:30 PM, Thursday, December 8, 2011, on-site in
compliance with the application submittal requirement of Eagle City Code. The application for this
item was received by the City of Eagle on December 28, 2011.
2. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was
published in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle
City Code on February 6, 2012 and March 5, 2012. 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 February 2, 2012
and March 2, 2012. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on February 6,
2012 and March 9,2012. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on December 29, 2011,
in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code.
Page 9 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011\A-02-I1&RZ-03-11 Patten ccf doc
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
April 2, 2012. 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 April 9, 2012. The site was posted in accordance with the
Eagle City Code April 9, 2012.
3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed rezone (RZ-03-11)
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 zoning designation of BP-DA (Business Park with a development
agreement) is consistent with the Business Park designation as shown on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The requested R-1-DA(Residential up to one(1)
unit per acre with a development agreement) is in accordance with the comprehensive
plan although it does not strictly conform with the Business Park designation.
However, the requested annexation and initial zoning request maintains the presently
existing use of the property which is also consistent with present use of the adjacent
properties. While the comprehensive plan identifies the site as appropriate at some
point in the future as a Business Park, maintaining the presently existing uses in
conjunction with the annexation of the property are nonetheless in accordance with
the components of the Comprehensive Plan.' The residential dwelling on the site has
1 An annexation and initial zoning application need not conform with every aspect of the
comprehensive plan ... to deny an application based solely on non-compliance with every facet of
the plan elevates the plan to the level of a legally controlling zoning law. For example, in Bone v.
City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 693 P.2d 1046 (1984), the Idaho Supreme Court rejected a
developer's argument that he was entitled to rezone his property from residential to commercial
merely because it was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The land use map in the
comprehensive plan depicted the property to be suitable for commercial use. The Idaho Supreme
Court held that the"in accordance with"language pertaining to a comprehensive plan coupled with
a land use map designation did not mandate that the city council approve the request to approve
the commercial zoning of the property.
In Balser v. Kootenai County Bd. of Comm 'rs, 110 Idaho 37, 39, 714 P.2d 6, 8 (1986),
the comprehensive plan designated the subject property as appropriate for industrial use. When the
property owner sought to rezone the property as industrial, the County denied the request, stating
that the comprehensive plan stated future directions for development but did not mandate that
current zoning immediately be conformed to the future industrial use. The Court agreed with the
County that the decision to rezone was not"a purely ministerial duty" and that there might be good
reasons for departing from the comprehensive plan.
In Ferguson v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 110 Idaho 785, 718 P.2d 1223 (1986), the
Supreme Court deferred to the land use agency's determination of whether the application is in
accordance with the comprehensive plan, again allowing some departure from a strict reading of
the comprehensive plan. The Idaho Supreme Court overturned the district court's determination
that the rezone of one corner of the Overland and Five Mile intersection (at that time in Ada
County's jurisdiction)was not in accordance with the Ada County comprehensive plan. The Court
held it was acceptable to adopt a zoning classification in conflict with the comprehensive plan
when "non-conforming uses are so pervasive that the character of the neighborhood has actually
changed from the purported zoning classification."
Page 10 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011\A-02-11&RZ-03-11 Patten ccf.doc
In Giltner Dairy, LLC v. Jerome County, 145 Idaho 630, 181 P.3d 1238(2008),the Court
reiterated that a landowner is not entitled to a zone change simply because the requested change is
consistent with a more intensive use contemplated by the land use map in the comprehensive plan.
Giltner's take home message is that comprehensive planning is forward thinking and thus
inherently different than in-the-present zoning actions. Accordingly, in-the-present zoning
decisions are not expected to conform precisely and immediately to the comprehensive plan.
Note that Ferguson is postured differently than Bone and Balser. In Bone and Balser, a
developer sought an up-zone that was consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the County's
decision to deny the upzone was affirmed. In other words, the Court said that the County was not
required to accede to an upzone just because it was requested new use was expressly contemplated
in the comprehensive plan. The situation in Ferguson was reversed. The developer sought an
upzone that was not consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the County's decision to grant it
anyway was affirmed. In all three cases,the Court emphasized that there is no requirement of exact
conformity. Similarly in this action, while it certainly may be true that at some point in the future
the subject property will be appropriate for Business Park development,the City in its discretion is
not precluded from approving the property owner's request to annex and zone the property
consistent with its present existing uses which are compatible with presently existing adjacent uses
and are otherwise in accordance with the Comprehensive plan.
existed at its current location since 1939 and the applicant would like to continue to
reside in the residential dwelling. Since the Business Park Comprehensive Plan
designation encourages development of such land use to be designed within a
landscaped setting and free of hazardous or objectionable elements such as noise,
odor, dust, smoke, or glare, the allowance of an existing residential dwelling to remain
is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and will not impact adjacent Business
Park uses;
b. The information provided from the agencies having jurisdiction over the public
facilities needed for this site indicated that adequate public facilities are not in
proximity to this location. The single-family dwelling units on this property will be
served by individual well and septic. Upon failure of the well the owner will be
required to connect the residential dwelling to the available central water system;
c. The proposed BP-DA (Business Park with a development agreement) and R-1-DA
(Residential up to one (1) unit per acre with a development agreement) zoning
designations are compatible with the BP-P (Business Park—PUD) and zone and land
use to the north since that area may be developed with a use that is compatible with
the comprehensive plan and the existing zoning, and;
d. The proposed BP-DA (Business Park with a development agreement) and R-1-DA
(Residential up to one (1) unit per acre with a development agreement) zoning
designations are compatible with the BP (Business Park) zone and land use to the
south since that area is developed with a storage unit facility which is consistent with
the comprehensive plan and the existing zoning designation;
e. The proposed BP-DA (Business Park with a development agreement) and R-1-DA
(Residential up to one (1) unit per acre with a development agreement) zoning
designations are compatible with the R-4 (Residential-up to four (4) units per acre)
zoning and land use to the west since that area is developed into a residential
subdivision and is buffered from this proposed use by a masonry wall and State
Highway 55, and;
f. The proposed BP-DA (Business Park with a development agreement) and R-1-DA
(Residential up to one (1) unit per acre with a development agreement) zoning
designations are compatible with the R4 and RUT (Ada County designations) zones
and land uses to the east since that area contains a single-family residence, public
charter school and a Boise City public park;
Page 11 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011\A-02-11&RZ-03-11 Patten ccf.doc
g. The land proposed for rezone is not located within a "Hazard Area" and "Special
Area"as described within the Comprehensive Plan; and
h. Since the existing residential dwelling will be located within the R-1-DA (Residential
one (1) with a development agreement) zoning designation no nonconforming uses
will be created with the proposed rezone.
i. The requested zoning designation of R-E-DA (Residential-Estates—up to one (1) unit
per two (2) acres with a development agreement) is consistent with the designation as
shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map;
DATED this 8th day of May 2012.
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ad County,Idaho
I James D. Reynolds, Mayor
ATT ST:
Sharon r:ergmann,Eagle City"erk,`/
•
C.): 0 ; t•
••'P. a ie•P• 4$•
`PPTE 0 ,..`
N ••
•pIIIIIIiII®IIII4 '*
Page 12 of 12
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\2011\A-02-11&RZ-03-I1 Patten ccf doc