Findings - DR - 2017 - DR-76-16 - Common Area Landscaping In Featherglen SubdivisionBEFORE THE EAGLE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION )
FOR A DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE COMMON )
AREA LANDSCAPING WITHIN FEATHERGLEN )
SUBDIVISION FOR JAYO DEVELOPMENT, INC. )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER DR -76-16
The above -entitled design review application came before the Eagle Design Review Board for their
consideration on February 23, 2017. The Board continued the application to March 9, 2017, and made their
decision at that time. The Design Review Board 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:
Jayo Development, Inc., represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, is requesting design review
approval of the common area landscaping within Featherglen Subdivision. The 0.83 -acre site is located
on the south side of West Floating Feather Road approximately 275 -feet west of North Eagle Road at
135 West Floating Feather Road.
B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The City of Eagle received the application for this item on December 7, 2016. Supplemental
information was received by the City of Eagle on December 12, 2016 (Alternate Method of Compliance
application) and February 8, 2017 (arborist report and revised landscape plan).
C. NOTICE OF AGENCIES' REVIEW:
Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on December 9, 2016, in accordance with the
requirements of the Eagle City Code.
D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
On April 14, 2015, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Map Amendment from Residential
Four to Mixed Use and a rezone with development agreement from R-4 (Residential) to MU -DA
(Mixed Use with a development agreement in lieu of a PUD) (CPA-04-14/RZ-08-14).
On July 26, 2016, the Eagle City Council approved a combined preliminary plat/final plat approval for
Featherglen Subdivision, a 7 -lot residential subdivision (PP/FP-02-16).
E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: None
Page 1 of 17
K:\Ptanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Dr\2016\DR-76-16 Feathe%len Subdivision LS drf.docx
F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
Existing
Proposed
North of site
South of site
East of site
West of site
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
Mixed Use
No Change
Transitional Residential
Residential Four
Mixed Use
Residential Four
ZONING
DESIGNATION
MU -DA (Mixed Use with a
development agreement)
No Change
RUT (Rural -Urban Transition
— Ada County designation)
R-4 (Residential)
MU -DA (Mixed Use with a
development agreement)
R-4 (Residential)
LAND USE
Vacant Parcel
Featherglen Subdivision
Single-family residence
and agriculture
Clear Creek Crossing
Dentist Office
Clear Creek Crossing
Subdivision
G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA, CEDA, or DSDA.
H. EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
The site has an existing 35 -feet wide landscape area with an approximately five foot (5') tall berm
located adjacent to West Floating Feather that incorporates two foot (2') tall cobblestone walls and a
seven -foot (7') wide attached sidewalk located adjacent to West Floating Feather Road. The site also
has a landscape area located along the east property line.
The site contains forty-one (41) existing mature trees. The applicant is proposing to retain twenty (20)
trees and remove twenty-one (21) trees. See Section L. "Landscaping Design" herein for a specific
arborist overview of the trees proposed for removal. See the discussion section under staff analysis
herein (page 9) for an analysis regarding the proposed tree removal.
I. SUE DATA:
Total Acreage of Site — 0.83 -acres
Total Number of Lots — 7
Residential — 6
Commercial — 0
Industrial — 0
Common — 1
Total Number of Units -
Single-family — 6
Duplex — 0
Multi -family — 0
J. GENERAL SITE DESIGN FEATURES:
Open Space:
A total of 0.31 -acres (approximately 35%) of open space is proposed within the residential subdivision.
The common area is proposed to contain a shared common driveway area consisting of 7,160 -square
feet, and an existing 35 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Floating Feather Road.
The applicant is requesting an alternate method of compliance to reduce the required buffer along
Page 2 of 17
K:\Planning Dept\Eaglc Applications\Dr\2016\DR-76-16 Featherglen Subdivision LS drf.docx
Floating Feather Road from 50 -feet in width to 35 -feet in width with an approximately 5 foot high
minimum to 8 foot high maximum berm. Pursuant to Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7(J)(4)(b), a fifty
foot (50') wide buffer area with a minimum five foot to eight foot (5' to 8') high berm, decorative block
wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall, or combination thereof is
required to be provided.
Storm Drainage and Flood Control:
Specific drainage system plans are to be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior
to the City Engineer signing the final plat. The plans are to show how swales, or drain piping, will be
developed in the drainage easements. Also, the CC&Rs are to contain clauses to be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney, requiring that lots be so graded that all runoff runs
either over the curb, or to the drainage easement, and that no runoff shall cross any lot line onto another
lot except within a drainage easement.
Utility and Drainage Easements, and Underground Utilities:
Eagle City Code section 9-3-6 requires utility easements to be not less than 12 -feet wide, except that
lesser easement widths, to coincide with respective setbacks, may be considered as part of a planned
unit development (PUD). The property is approved for a MU -DA (Mixed Use with a development
agreement) zoning designation and the applicant requested the development agreement in lieu of a PUD
pursuant to Eagle City Code.
Fire Hydrants and Water Mains:
Hydrants are to be located and installed as may be required by the Eagle Fire District.
On-site Septic System (yes or no) — no
Preservation of Existing Natural Features:
Eagle City Code Section 9-3-8 (B) states that existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic
spots and similar irreplaceable assets) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision. The site
contains forty-one (41) existing mature trees. The applicant is proposing to retain twenty (20) trees and
remove twenty-one (21) trees. See Section L "Landscaping Design" herein for a specific arborist
overview of the trees proposed for removal. See the discussion section under staff analysis herein (page
9) for an analysis regarding the proposed tree removal.
Preservation of Existing Historical Assets:
Staff is not aware of any existing historical assets on the site. If any historical artifacts are discovered
during excavation or development of the site, state law requires immediate notification to the state.
K. BUILDING DESIGN FEATURES: N/A
L. LANDSCAPING DESIGN:
Retention of Existing Trees and Preservation Methods: There are forty-one (41) existing trees on the
site. The applicant is proposing to retain twenty (20) trees and remove twenty-one (21) existing trees.
Below is a list of all existing trees proposed to be removed with their respective conditions identified
within the arborist report, date stamped by the city on February 8, 2017.
Tree Specie Caliper / Height I Condition
Austrian Pine 24" caliper / 25' tall Severe die -back within the
lower 1/3 of the tree from
disease or stress
Austrian Pine 24" caliper / 25' tall I Main leader of the tree is
Page 3 of 17
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\Dt\2016\DR-76-16 Fcathergten Subdivision IS drf.docx
Colorado Blue Spruce
Austrian Pine
Austrian Pine
Austrian Pine
Austrian Pine
Colorado Blue Spruce
Austrian Pine
Colorado Blue Spruce
Crab Apple
Norway Maple
Sweet Gum
Norway Maple
Colorado Blue Spruce
Honey Locust
Austrian Pine
Norway Maple
Crap Apple
28" caliper / 25' tall
16" caliper / 25' tall
16" caliper / 25' tall
16" caliper / 25' tall
16" caliper / 25' tall
16" caliper / 15' tall
16" caliper / 25' tall
16" caliper / 25' tall
12" caliper / 25' tall
12" caliper / 25' tall
8" caliper / 18' tall
4" caliper / 18' tall
26" caliper / 20' tall
16" caliper / 35' tall
16" caliper / 25' tall
16" caliper / 25' tall
6" caliper / 20' tall
leaning to the south and there
is severe die -back within the
lower Y2 of the tree from
disease or stress
Girdling of the main trunk at
the base. Tree was healed in
and kept in their burlap and
twine when planted
Girdling of the main trunk at
the base. Tree was healed in
and kept in their burlap and
twine when planted
Girdling of the main trunk at
the base. Tree was healed in
and kept in their burlap and
twine when planted
Girdling of the main trunk at
the base. Tree was healed in
and kept in their burlap and
twine when planted
Girdling of the main trunk at
the base. Tree was healed in
and kept in their burlap and
twine when planted
Main leader cut, broken or
topped
Healthy
Healthy
Main leader broken or topped
Healthy
Healthy
Main trunk has severe trunk
decay
Healthy
Tree is a multi -trunk (3), which
creates a weak tree base and
can be a severe safety issue as
the tree ages
Healthy
Healthy
Main leader damaged or
topped
Page 4 of 17
K: Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\Di\2016\DR-76-16 Feathergion Subdivision LS drf.docx
Austrian Pine 20" caliper / 25' tall Healthy
(possible removal)
Colorado Blue Spruce 16" caliper / 20' tall Healthy
(possible removal)
Tree Replacement Calculations:
There are 41 existing trees on-site totaling 652 caliper inches. The applicant is proposing to remove 21
trees totaling 340 caliper inches. See the discussion section under staff analysis herein (page 9) for
additional information.
Proposed Tree Mix (Species & Number): To be reviewed by the Design Review Board.
Street Trees: Street trees are not proposed throughout the development.
Maintenance Provisions and Proposed Irrigation Methods: Automatic irrigation required.
Transition Zones: N/A
Parking Lot Landscaping: N/A
M. TRASH ENCLOSURES: N/A
N. MECHANICAL UNITS: N/A
O. OUTDOOR LIGHTING:
A site and parking lot light plan showing location, height, and wattage is required to be reviewed and
approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of any building permits.
P. SIGNAGE:
No signs are proposed with this application. A separate design review application is required for the
approval of any signs.
Q. PUBLIC SERVICES AVAILABLE:
A preliminary approval letter from Eagle Fire Department has been received by the City. A water
service approval has not been received to date. Approval of the water company having jurisdiction
will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
R. PUBLIC USES PROPOSED: None
S. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists.
T. SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - no
Evidence of Erosion - no
Fish Habitat - no
Floodplain — Yes — located within the Dry Creek Area of Special Flood Hazard (1% -chance
floodplain area)
Mature Trees — Yes — see arborist report and landscape plan, date stamped by the city on February 8,
2017
Riparian Vegetation - no
Steep Slopes — no
Stream/Creek - no
Unique Animal Life - unknown
Page 5 of 17
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Dr 2016\DR-76-16 Featherglen Subdivision LS drEdocx
• Unique Plant Life - unknown
Unstable Soils - unknown
Wildlife Habitat - no
U. SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLAN (IF REQUIRED): Not
required
V. AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached to the staff report.
Eagle Fire Department
Idaho Transportation Department
Tesoro Logistics NW Pipeline
W. LE 1"1'RRS 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 Plan Land Use Map (Western Area Plan adopted 09-14-04) designates this site as:
Mixed Use
Suitable primarily for a variety of uses such as limited office, limited commercial, and residential
developments. Uses should complement uses within the Central Business District (CBD).
Development within this land use designation should be required to proceed through the PUD and/or
Development Agreement process, see specific planning area text for a complete description.
B. ZONING CODE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS
PROPOSAL:
• Eagle City Code Section 8 -2A -7(C): Existing Vegetation:
1. Retention Of Existing Trees: Existing trees shall be retained unless removal is approved in
writing by the city. Where trees are approved by the city to be removed from the project site
(or from abutting right of way) replacement with an acceptable species is required as follows:
Existing Tree
1 inch to 6 inches caliper
6'/4 inches to 12 inches
n
12h/4 inches or more
Replacement
2x caliper of tree removed
1.5x caliper of tree removed
1 x caliper of tree removed
.k V. 'WA; \ A -.=`„'.f+'.
Removal of the following trees shall not require replacement: black locust, poplar, cottonwood,
willow, tree of heaven, elm, and silver maple. Trees which are weak wooded, weak branched,
suckering, damaged, diseased, insect infested, or containing similar maladies may be exempt
from replacement if removal is first approved by the city.
Page 6 of 17
K:Wlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Dr\2016\DR-76-16 Featherglen Subdivision LS drfdocx
In all cases, planting within public rights of way shall be with approval from the public and/or
private entities owning the property.
Example: An eight inch (8") caliper tree is removed, an acceptable replacement would be three
(3) 4 -inch caliper trees or four (4) 3 -inch caliper trees.
2. Damage During Construction: Existing trees or shrubs that are retained shall be protected from
damage to bark, branches, or roots during construction. Construction or excavation occurring
within the drip line of any public or private retained tree or shrub may severely damage the
tree or shrub. Any severely damaged tree or shrub shall be replaced in accordance with
subsection Cl of this section.
3. Grade Changes And Impervious Surfaces: Grade changes and impervious surfaces shall be
allowed at a distance from the trunk of a retained tree equal to the diameter of the tree trunk
plus six feet (6'), or to the drip line, whichever is furthest from the trunk.
4. Minimum Landscaping: Existing vegetation which is to be retained may be used to satisfy the
minimum required landscaping. (Ord. 699, 5-28-2013)
• Eagle City Code Section 8 -2A -7(E)
E. Installation And Minimum Standards:
1. Trees shall be planted in accordance with the city of Eagle tree planting specifications
included as an exhibit within the EASD book. Accepted nursery standards and practices
shall be followed in the planting and maintenance of landscaped areas.
2. Soil and slope stabilization must result after landscape installation.
3. Root barriers shall be installed for all new trees planted adjacent to existing or proposed
public or private sidewalks and paving.
4. The minimum acceptable size for deciduous trees shall be two inch (2") caliper, balled and
burlapped.
5. The minimum acceptable size for evergreen trees shall be six feet (6') to seven feet (7')
balled and burlapped.
6. Plant material selection shall be taken from subsection Q of this section.
7. All landscaped areas adjacent to vehicular areas are to be protected with an approved
curbing material.
8. a. Certification Of Completion: Upon the completion of the landscape installation, or other
improvement subject to design review approval, a written certification of completion shall
be prepared by the licensed landscape architect responsible for the landscape plan. The
certification of completion shall state that the installation of all landscape improvements is
in substantial compliance with the city approved landscape plan. This certification shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and is required as a part of, and
not in lieu of, the inspections performed and certificates issued by the city.
b. Report Of Deficiencies: In the event that deficiencies are present after the landscape
installation, or other improvements subject to design review approval, the licensed
landscape architect shall prepare and file with the city a report noting the deficiencies in
the improvements. The city will not accept a certification of completion, or issue a
certificate of occupancy, until the licensed landscape architect has verified that the
deficiencies have been corrected.
Page 7 of 17
K:\Planning Dept\Eaglc Applications\Dr\20I6\DR-76-I6 Featherglen Subdivision LS drt docx
c. Landscape Architect Designee: The licensed landscape architect may, at his or her
discretion, appoint an authorized designee to certify the project provided that the designee
is a licensed landscape architect. (Ord. 699, 5-28-2013)
• Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7(J)(4)(b)
Any road designated as a minor arterial on the transportation and pathway network plan in the
Eagle comprehensive plan:
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 (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.
• Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7(0): Alternative Methods of Compliance:
1. Project Conditions: It is not the intent of these landscape requirements to inhibit creative
solutions to land use problems. Under certain site conditions, a strict interpretation of
requirements may be either physically impossible or impractical. Alternative compliance is a
procedure that allows certain modifications to existing regulations within this section.
Requests for use of alternative landscaping schemes are justified only when one or more of the
following conditions apply:
a. The sites involve space limitations or unusually shaped parcels;
b. Topography, soil, vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full compliance is
impossible or impractical;
c. Due to a change of use of an existing site, the required buffer yard is larger than can be
provided; and
d. Safety considerations are involved. deintensify
2. Request For Alternative Method Of Compliance: The applicant must provide the city with a
written request if an alternative method of compliance is proposed. The request shall state
which requirement as set forth within this section is to be modified, what project conditions
stated within subsection 01 of this section justify using the proposed alternative, and how the
proposed alternative equals or exceeds said requirement.
3. Tree Fund: Persons applying for an alternative method of compliance for relief from regulations
that require all existing trees to remain on site may elect to make a financial contribution to the
Eagle city tree fund in lieu of retaining all trees on site. The condition(s) which warrants the
need for the tree fund alternate method of compliance shall be specified in the application
submitted under subsection 02 of this section. If the application is approved, the amount to be
contributed by the applicant will be based upon the total caliper inches of deciduous tree(s)
removed from the site and the total vertical feet of coniferous trees removed from the site. Cost
per caliper inch for deciduous trees and cost per vertical foot for coniferous trees shall be
determined by resolution of the city council. The applicant shall have the right to review and
Page 8 of 17
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\Dr\2016\DR-76-16 Featherglen Subdivision LS drfdocx
consider the value determination, and following said review, to reapply for other alternative
methods of compliance, without prejudice, in accordance with subsection 02 of this section.
(Ord. 462, 11-11-2003)
C. PRELMINARY PLAT PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS
PROPOSAL:
• Due to site constraints and the existing landscaped berm area, the applicant may submit an
Alternative Method of Compliance application with a Design Review application to be reviewed
and approved by the Design Review Board prior to submittal of a final plat application.
• Provide a tree inventory map indicating the existing trees to remain and existing trees to be
removed. The tree inventory map shall be provided with the design review application to be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to submittal of a final plat application.
D. DISCUSSION:
• The applicant is requesting approval of an alternate method of compliance to reduce the width of
the landscape berm from 50 -foot to 35 -foot adjacent to Floating Feather Road. Pursuant to Eagle
City Code 8-2A-7(J)(4)(b), any road designated as a minor arterial on the transportation and
pathway network plan in the Eagle Comprehensive plan is required to have a minimum of fifty foot
(50') wide buffer area (not including right of way). Floating Feather Road is classified as a minor
arterial. The landscape plan, date stamped by the City on December 7, 2016, shows an existing
thirty-five (35') foot wide landscape area with an approximately 5 -foot high minimum to 8 -foot
high maximum berm adjacent to Floating Feather Road. The applicant is requesting to retain the
existing buffer and not add additional landscaping within the buffer in order to maintain
compatibility with the adjacent Clear Creek Crossing development that has similar landscaping that
was built at the same time. Staff defers comment on the request for an alternate method of
compliance to the Design Review Board.
• The revised landscape plan, date stamped by the City on February 8, 2017, shows the removal of
nineteen (19) existing trees located within the proposed shared common driveway and within Lots
1, 5, and 6, Block 1, and the possible removal of two (2) existing tree located within Lots 5 and 6,
Block 1. There are twelve (12) trees on the site that the applicant has identified as in bad condition
or dead. There are nine (9) trees that merit discussion regarding replacement. These trees are
identified on the landscape plan as the east side of property as K, L, N, 0, Q, S, T, V, and W.
Tree K located on the east side of the property is a 16 -inch caliper, 30 -foot tall Austrian Pine. The
tree is located within the proposed shared driveway and is not identified as dead or in bad condition.
Replacement compensation to the tree fund may be considered if approved for removal and not
replaced on-site. This tree is equivalent to five, 6 -foot tall conifer trees.
Tree L located on the east side of the property is a 16 -inch caliper, 25 -foot tall Colorado Blue
Spruce. The tree is located within the proposed shared driveway and is not identified as dead or in
bad condition. Replacement compensation to the tree fund may be considered if approved for
removal and not replaced on-site. This tree is equivalent to four, 6 -foot tall conifer trees.
Tree N located on the east side of the property is a 12 -inch caliper, 25 -foot tall Red Sunset Maple.
The tree is located on Lot 6, Block 1, and is not identified as dead or in bad condition. Replacement
or compensation to the tree fund may be considered if approved for removal and not replaced on-
site. This tree is equivalent to nine, 2 -inch caliper trees.
Tree 0 located on the east side of the property is a 8 -inch caliper, 18 -foot tall Sweet Gum. The tree
is located on Lot 1, Block 1, and it not identified as dead or in bad condition. Replacement or
compensation to the tree fund may be considered if approved for removal and not replaced on-site.
The tree is equivalent to six, 2 -inch caliper trees (since Tree 0 is between 6' - 12 inches in size,
the replacement multiplier is 1.5 times the caliper).
Page 9 of 17
K:Wlanning Dept\Ragle Applications\Dr\2016\DR-76-16 Feathcrgkn Subdivision LS drf.docx
Tree Q located on the east side of the property is a 30 -inch caliper, 20 -foot tall Colorado Blue
Spruce. The tree is located on Lot 6, Block 1, and is not identified as dead or in bad condition.
Replacement or compensation to the tree fund may be considered if approved for removal and not
replaced on-site. The tree is equivalent to three, 6 -foot tall conifer trees.
Tree S located on the east side of the property is a 16 -inch caliper, 25 -foot tall Austrian Pine. The
tree is located on Lot 6, Block 1, and is not identified as dead or in bad condition. Replacement or
compensation to the tree fund may be considered if approved for removal and not replaced on-site.
The tree is equivalent to four, 6 -foot tall conifer trees.
Tree T located on the east side of the property is a 16 -inch caliper, 25 -foot tall Norway Maple. The
tree is located on Lot 5, Block 1, and is not identified as dead or in bad condition. Replacement or
compensation to the tree fund may be considered if approved for removal and not replaced on-site.
The tree is equivalent to eight, 2 -inch caliper trees.
Tree V located on the east side of the property is a 24 -inch caliper, 30 -foot tall Austrian Pine. The
tree is located on Lot 6, Block 1, and is identified as in good health. The arborist report, date
stamped by the city on February 8, 2017, states that the arborist recommends the tree be retained,
however, if the tree is damaged during construction (loss of 50% or more of its critical root area
due to construction), then removal of the tree should be considered. If the tree is removed,
replacement or compensation to the tree fund may be considered if approved for removal and not
replaced on-site. The tree is equivalent to six, 6 -foot tall conifer trees.
Tree W located on the east side of the property is a 16 -inch caliper, 20 -foot tall Colorado Blue
Spruce. The tree is located on Lot 5, Block 1, and is identified as in good health. The arborist report,
date stamped by the city on February 8, 2017, states that the arborist recommends the tree be
retained, however, if the tree is damaged during construction (loss of 50% or more of its critical
root area due to construction), then removal of the tree should be considered. If the tree is removed,
replacement or compensation to the tree fund may be considered if approved for removal and not
replaced on-site. The tree is equivalent to three, 6 -foot tall conifer trees.
Trees D, I, N, 0, P, and Q located on the west side of the property and trees J, M, P, and U located
on the east side of the property have been identified as dead or in bad condition due to disease,
main leader cut, girdling of the main trunk at the base, or trunk decay. Replacement or
compensation may be exempt for these trees.
The total combined caliper inches of deciduous trees identified for replacement consideration is
46 -inches. The total combined height of conifer trees identified for replacement consideration is
150 -feet. The Design Review Board may determine that a minimum of 46 -inches of new deciduous
tree caliper (equivalent to 23 replacement trees at 2 -inch caliper each) and a minimum of 150 -feet
of new conifer tree height (equivalent to 25 replacement trees at 6 -feet tall) will need to be planted
on the site or, pursuant to Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7(0), the applicant may elect to make a
contribution to the tree fund for compensation for the removal of the trees at this time. The
approximate value of this is determined by calculating the purchase and planting cost of the 23
deciduous trees and 25 conifer trees. Using an average industry value of $350.00 for one (2 -inch)
tree and $350.00 for one (6 -foot tall) conifer tree, the combined value for 23 deciduous trees and
25 conifer trees is $16,800. Should the applicant retain trees identified as Tree V and W located on
Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, the conifer tree height for replacement consideration will be 100 -feet
(equivalent to 17 replacement trees at 6 -feet tall) and the new combined value for 23 deciduous
trees and 17 conifer trees is $14,000.
The applicant is proposing to plant one (1) deciduous tree and one (1) conifer tree on the rear of
each lot totaling 10 trees (Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, each have one (1) existing conifer tree). The
applicant should receive credit for the 10 trees (equivalent to 24 -feet of conifer tree height, 12 -
inches of caliper of deciduous trees, or reduction of the contribution to the tree fund by $3,500).
Page 10 of 17
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle ApplicationsUM2016\DR•76-16 Feathcrglen Subdivision LS drfdocx
If the Design Review Board determines that it is appropriate to remove the trees, then the removal
mitigation may be:
A. Plant a minimum of 34 -inches (46 -inch total replacement value minus 12 -inch credit for 6 -
deciduous trees) of new deciduous tree caliper (equivalent to 17 replacement trees at 2 -inch
caliper each) and 126 -feet (150 -feet total replacement value minus 24 -foot credit for 4 -conifer
trees) of new conifer tree height (equivalent to 21 replacement trees at 6 -feet tall) on the site at
the time of development and prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits.
- OR-
B. If Tree V and W located on Lots 6 and 5, Block 1 respectively, are retained, plant a minimum
of 34 -inches of new deciduous tree caliper (equivalent to 17 replacement trees at 2 -inch caliper
each) and 76 -feet (126 -feet total minus 50 -feet for trees V and W) of new conifer tree height
(equivalent to 13 replacement trees at 6 -feet tall) on the site at the time of development and
prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits.
- OR-
C. Provide a contribution to the tree fund for compensation for the removal of the trees in the
amount of $13,300 (combined value of 48 trees x $350 per tree ($16,800) minus the credit for
10 trees planted on-site ($3,500)), prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits.
- OR-
D. If the trees identified as Tree V and W located on Lots 6 and 5, Block 1 respectively, are
retained, provide a contribution to the tree fund in the amount of $10,500 (combined value of
40 trees x $350 per tree ($14,000) minus the credit for 10 trees ($3,500)) prior to the issuance
of any occupancy permits.
- OR-
E. Any other combination of planting additional trees on-site and/or a contribution to the tree fund
as may be approved by the Design Review Board.
• If the tree identified as Tree V located on Lot 6, Block 1, is retained and is damaged during
construction which necessitates its removal, then the applicant should contribute $1,750 to the tree
fund prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the home located on Lot 6, Block 1.
• If the tree identified as Tree W located on Lot 5, Block 1, is retained and is damaged during
construction which necessitates its removal, then the applicant should contribute $1,400 to the tree
fund prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the home located on Lot 5, Block 1.
• Staff defers comment on the removal mitigation replacement/compensation to the Design Review
Board.
• The landscape plan, date stamped by the City on February 8, 2017, shows the majority of the
landscape buffer on the east side of the property adjacent to the existing dental office to be
removed. The site currently has an existing white vinyl fence on the west and south property lines
of the property. The existing berm is located where the shared common driveway and Lot 6,
Block 1, is proposed, therefore, if the Design Review Board approves the removal of the trees
located within the existing berm, the applicant should be required to install a white vinyl fence to
match the existing fencing along the west and south property lines to provide additional buffering
from the office use. The applicant should be required to provide a revised landscape plan showing
a six foot (6') tall white vinyl fence on the east property line and provide a detailed cut sheet of
the proposed fence. The revised site plan and detailed cut sheet should be reviewed and approved
by staff prior to the issuance of a zoning certificate.
Page 11 of 17
K:Wlanning Dcpt\Eagle Applications\Dr\2016\DR-76-16 Featherglen Subdivision IS drf.docx
• Staff defers comment regarding common area landscaping to the Design Review Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE REPORT:
Based upon the information provided to staff to date, staff recommends approval with the site specific
conditions of approval and the standard conditions of approval provided within the staff report.
PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD:
A. A meeting to consider the application was held before the Design Review Board on February 23, 2017.
The Board continued the item to March 9, 2017, at which time the Board made their decision.
B. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Design Review Board by no one.
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Design Review Board by no one (not
including the applicant/representative).
BOARD DECISION:
The Board voted 7 to 0 to approve DR -76-16 for a design review application for the common area
landscaping within Featherglen Subdivision for Jayo Development, Inc., with the following staff
recommended site specific conditions of approval and standard conditions of approval.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Comply with all applicable conditions of PP/FP-02-16.
2. Provide a revised landscape plan showing a six foot (6') tall white vinyl fence on the east property line
and provide a detailed elevation of the fence which shall match the existing fence located on the west
and south property lines. The detailed elevation showing the style, materials, color, height etc., shall
be submitted. The revised landscape plan and detailed fence elevations shall be reviewed and approved
by staff prior to the submittal of the final plat application.
3. Provide a detailed cut sheet of the street lights showing the style, material, color, wattage, illumination
type, lumen output, height etc. The detailed cut sheet shall be reviewed and approved by staff and two
members of the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a zoning certificate.
4. Provide a contribution to the tree fund for compensation for the removal of the trees K, L, N, 0, Q, S,
and T (on the east side of the property) identified on the landscape plan, dated stamped by the city on
February 8, 2017, in the amount of $6,750.
5. A plan showing construction fencing around the existing trees (a minimum of 10 -feet from the trunk
of the tree or at the drip line of the tree (whichever is closer)) to prevent any damage within the drip
line of the trees should be submitted to the City. Construction fencing shall be installed around Tree
V and W prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. Cups or dams shall be built
within the drip line of each tree in order to retain water and the trees shall be watered on a regular
basis. No activity whatsoever shall take place within the drip line of the trees.
6. Prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat the applicant shall either install the required trees [one (1)
tree in the front yard of each lot and two (2) trees in the rear yard of each lot (Lots 5 and 6, Block 1
will only have one (1) additional tree planted in the rear yard)] or provide the City with a letter of
credit for 150% of the cost of the installation of all required trees. Trees shall be installed prior to
obtaining any occupancy permits for the homes. A temporary occupancy may be issued if weather
does not permit landscaping. Partial reduction of the surety may be permitted for any portion of the
development that is completed. On-going surety for required trees for all undeveloped portions of the
development will be required through project completion.
7. All ground mounted transformers, cable, and phone boxes shall be screened by landscaping per Eagle
City Code.
Page 12 of 17
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\Dt\2016\DR-76-16 Feathcrglen Subdivision IS drf.docx
8. The applicant shall submit payment to the City for all engineering and legal fees incurred for reviewing
this project, prior to the issuance of a zoning certificate and/or upon receipt of an invoice by the City,
whichever occurs first.
9. The applicant shall be required to comply with all applicable conditions placed on this application by
the City Engineer.
10. Submit payment to the City for the Planning and Zoning plan review at the time of building permit
submittal.
11. No signs are proposed with this application and none are approved.
NOTE: In the event a Standard Condition of Approval conflicts with a Site Specific Condition of
Approval contained herein the Site Specific Condition of Approval shall control.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1 The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Ada County Highway District and/or the
Idaho Transportation Department, including but not limited to approval of the drainage system, curbs,
gutters, streets and sidewalks. A letter of approval from the highway district having jurisdiction shall
be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a Zoning Certificate for this site.
2. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare approval of the sewer and water facilities is required prior
issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
3. All permits from Central District Health, Eagle Sewer District & Eagle Fire District shall be secured
prior to issuance of building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
4. Written approval of all well water for any shared or commercial well shall be obtained from the Idaho
Department of Water Resources and shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of any building
permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
5. Unless septic tanks are permitted, wet line sewers will be required and the applicant will be required
to furnish the City Engineer with a letter from the sewer entity serving the property, accepting the
project for service, prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever
occurs first.
6. The applicant shall submit a letter from the appropriate drainage entity approving the drainage system
and/or accepting said drainage; or submit a letter from a registered professional engineer certifying
that all drainage shall be retained on-site prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of
Occupancy, whichever occurs first. A copy of the construction drawing(s) shall be submitted with the
letter.
7. The applicant shall submit plans and calculations prepared by a registered professional engineer to
handle the satisfactory disposal of all storm drainage on the applicant's site. Drainage system plans
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of any building
permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
The plans shall show how swales, or drain piping, will be developed in the drainage easements. The
approved drainage system shall be constructed, or a performance bond shall be submitted to the City
Clerk, prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
The lot shall be so graded that all runoff runs either over the curb, or to the drainage easement and no
runoff shall cross any lot line onto another lot except within a drainage easement.
All design and calculations shall meet the requirements of Ada County Highway District.
Construction of the storm drain disposal system shall be complete before an occupancy permit is
issued.
8. No ditch, pipe or other structure or canal, for irrigation water or irrigation waste water owned by an
Page 13 of 17
K\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\D1\2016\DR-76-16 Feathcrglen Subdivision LS drf.docx
organized irrigation district, canal company, ditch association, or other irrigation entity, shall be
obstructed, routed, covered or changed in any way unless such obstruction, rerouting, covering or
changing has first been approved in writing by the entity. A Registered Engineer shall certify that
any ditch rerouting, piping, covering or otherwise changing the existing irrigation or waste ditch (1)
has been made in such a manner that the flow of water will not be impeded or increased beyond
carrying capacity of the downstream ditch; (2) will not otherwise injure any person or persons using
or interested in such ditch or their property; and (3) satisfied the Idaho Standards for Public Works
Construction. A copy of such written approval and certification shall be filed with the construction
drawing and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of
Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
9. Encroachments including, but not limited to, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and/or pathways shall not
be located within any easement or right-of-way for any ditch, pipe or other structure, or canal used for
irrigation water or irrigation waste water without the express written approval of the organized
irrigation district, canal company, ditch association, or other irrigation entity associated with such
ditch, pipe or other structure, or canal. The applicant shall submit a copy of the written approval from
the irrigation entity prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
10. Street light plans shall be submitted and approved as to the location, height and wattage to the City
Engineer (if applicable) prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy,
whichever occurs first. All construction shall comply with the City's specifications and standards.
The applicant shall provide a recorded easement, acceptable to the City Engineer, for the purpose of
installing and maintaining street light fixtures, conduit and wiring lying outside any dedicated public
right-of-way, prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs
first.
The applicant shall pay applicable street light inspection fees prior to issuance of any Certificate of
Occupancy.
11. Parking lot light plan shall be submitted and approved as to the location, height and wattage by the
City Engineer. All construction shall comply with the City's specifications and standards.
Lighting is required in the parking area and shall be properly illuminated to avoid accidents. Any
lights used to illuminate the parking lot shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from the
adjoining property.
12. The parking area shall be paved and shall be maintained in good condition without holes and free of
all dust, trash, weeds and other debris.
13. One set of building plans, for any non single-family residential use, shall be submitted to the Eagle
Fire Department for approval. An approval letter from the Eagle Fire Department shall be submitted
to the City prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs
first. The letter shall include the following comments and minimum requirements, and any other
items of concern as may be determined by the Eagle Fire Department officials:
a. "The applicant has made arrangements to comply with all requirements of the Fire Department."
b. The fire hydrant locations shall be reviewed and be approved in writing by the Eagle Fire
Department prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
c. Minimum flow per hydrant shall be 1,000 gallons per minute for one and two family dwellings,
1,500 gallons per minute for dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3,600 -square feet, and 1,500
gallons per minute for non-residential uses (i.e.; Commercial, Industrial, Schools, etc.). Flow rates
shall be inspected in accordance with all agencies having jurisdiction, and shall be verified in
writing by the Eagle Fire Department prior to issuance of any building permits or Certificate of
Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
d. The proposed fire protection system shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle Fire Department
Page 14 of 17
K:\Planning Depi\Eagle Applications\Dr\2016\DR-76-16 Featherglen Subdivision LS drf.docx
prior to issuance of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
14. Any recreation area, greenbelt area or pathway area along the Boise River, Dry Creek or any other
area designated by the City Council or Eagle City Park and Pathway Development Committee for a
path or walkway shall be approved in writing by the Eagle City Park and Pathway Development
Committee prior to issuance of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
15. Conservation, recreation and river access easements (if applicable) shall be approved by the Eagle
City Park and Pathway Development Committee and shall be shown on the final plat prior to issuance
of a building permit or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Eagle City Code, pertaining to floodplain and
river protection regulations (if applicable) prior to issuance of a building permit or Certificate of
Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
17. The applicant shall obtain written approval of the development relative to the effects of the Boise
River Flood Plain (if applicable) from the Corps. of Engineers prior to issuance of a building permit
or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
18. The applicant shall obtain approval of the development relative to its effects on wetlands or other
natural waterways (if applicable) from the Corps. of Engineers and the Idaho Department of Water
Resources and/or any other agency having jurisdiction prior to issuance of a building permit or
Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first.
19. Basements in the flood plain are prohibited.
20. The Americans with Disabilities Act, Uniform Building Code, Eagle City Code, and all applicable
County, State and Federal Codes and Regulations shall be complied with. All design and
construction shall be in accordance with all applicable City of Eagle Codes unless specifically
approved by the City Council.
21. New plans, which incorporate any required changes, shall be submitted for staff approval. Staff may
elect to take those plans to the Design Review Board and the City Council for review and approval.
22. Any changes to the plans and specifications upon which this approval is based, other than those
required by the above conditions, will require submittal of an application for modification and
approval of that application prior to commencing any change.
23. Any modification of the approved design review plans, including, but not limited to building design,
location and details, landscaping, parking, and circulation, must be approved prior to construction/
installation of such changes. Failure to do so may result in the requirement to modify the project to
comply with the approved design review and/or result in the inability to issue a final approval for
occupancy of this project.
24. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or
other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest
advises the City of Eagle of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a
waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the
time the change in use is sought.
25. Approval of any Design Review shall expire without notice to the applicant on the date of expiration
of the Design Review if construction has not started prior to that date, as stipulated in Eagle City
Code (one year from approval date).
26. All ground -mounted accent lighting fixtures and monument sign lighting fixtures shall be screened
from view with the use of landscaping (top of the fixture shall be no higher than the surrounding
landscaping). The light source itself shall otherwise be screened as provided for within Eagle City
Page 15 of 17
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\Dt\2016\DR-76-16 Featherglen Subdivision LS drEdocx
Code.
27. The City' s actions on the application does not grant the applicant any appropriation of water or
interference with existing water rights. The applicant indemnifies and holds the City harmless for any
and all water rights, claims in any way associated with this application.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The Board reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed design review application
(DR -76-16) with regard to the Eagle City Code Title 8, Chapter 2, Article A, DR Design Review
Overlay District, and based upon the information provided with the conditions required herein,
concludes that the proposed design review application is in accordance with the Eagle City Code and
the Eagle Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Board reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of the proposed design review in terms of
Eagle City Code 8-2A-13, "General Standards For Design Review" and has concluded that the
proposed design review:
A. Will function in conformance with the applicable strategies of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan and
is in accordance with the regulations of this code since there are no inconsistencies with the
comprehensive plan and an office building is permitted with the approval of a design review
application within the MU -DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement) zoning district;
B. Is of a scale, intensity, and character that is in harmony with existing conforming and planned
development in the vicinity of the site since the proposed subdivision landscaping are designed to
complement the general vicinity;
C. Is designed with adequate off street parking facilities in such a way as to not interfere with
ingress/egress to the site and will serve the intended use so as to not cause conflict with adjacent
uses as anticipated within the zoning district;
D. Will not interfere with the visual character, quality, or appearance of the surrounding area and city,
and where possible, enhance the continuity of thematically common architectural features;
E. Will have facades, features, and other physical improvements that are designed as a whole, when
viewed alone as well as in relationship to surrounding buildings and settings;
F. Will not obstruct views and vistas as they pertain to the urban environment and in relation to artistic
considerations;
G. Will provide safe and convenient access to the property for both vehicles and pedestrians through
patterned traffic circulation and connectivity to abutting development;
H. Is in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare promoting a pedestrian friendly and
walkable environment in balance with protecting a viable residential center area; and
I. Will have signs, if proposed, that are harmonious with the architectural design of the building and
adjacent buildings, and will not cover or detract from desirable architectural features.
3. The Board reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of the proposed design review in terms of
Eagle City Code 8 -2A -7(C), "Existing Vegetation" and has concluded:
A. The existing thirty-five foot (35') wide berm along Floating Feather is approved through the
applicant's Alternate Method of Compliance request in lieu of the required fifty foot (50') buffer
since the thirty-five foot (35') wide previously installed buffer is consistent with the buffer area
directly to the west within Clear Creek Crossing Subdivision.
B. The nineteen (19) trees identified as D, I, N, 0, P, and Q (on the west side of the property) and trees
J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, S, T, and U (on the east side of the property) on the landscape plan, date
stamped by the city on February 8, 2017, are approved for removal.
Page 16 of 17
K:\Planning Dep6Eagle Applications\Dt\20f6\DR-76-16 Featherglcn Subdivision LS drf.docx
The removal of trees K, L, N, 0, Q, S, and T (on the east side of the property) required replacement
consideration.
The total combined caliper inches of deciduous trees identified for replacement consideration was
46 -inches. The total combined height of conifer trees identified for replacement consideration was
150 -feet. Using an average industry value of $350.00 for one (2 -inch) tree and $350.00 for one (6 -
foot tall) conifer tree, the combined value for 23 deciduous trees and 17 conifer trees was $14,000.
The applicant proposed to plant one (1) deciduous tree and one (1) conifer tree on the rear of each
lot totaling 10 trees (Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, each have one (1) existing conifer tree). The applicant
received a credit for the 10 trees in the amount of $3,500 reducing the tree fund contribution to
$10,500 (equivalent to 30 trees x $350 per tree). Furthermore, the original cost value of $350.00
per tree was reduced by $125.00 (planting cost) to account for the fact that the applicant previously
incurred the planting cost when the trees were originally planted (by the applicant). The
contribution amount of $6,750 was calculated using $225.00 per tree x 30 trees. The applicant
agreed to make a contribution to the tree fund in the amount of $6,750.
DATED this 23rd day of March 2017.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
OF THE CIT OF EAGLE
Ada CowYty, aho //
Robert Grubb, Chairman
ATTEST:
v -4v`
Sharon K. Bergmann, Eagle City Clerk
Page 17 of 17
K:\Planning Dcpt\Eagle Applications\Dt120I6\DR-76-I6 Featherglen Subdivision LS drfdocx