Minutes - 2007 - Planning & Zoning - 02/05/2007 - Regular
THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
660 E. Civic Lane
February 5, 2007
6:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: JACOBS, ZASTROW, PIERCE, ASPITARTE, McCARREL, Jeremy
Rouche from MY AC.
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
. Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There
will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Chairman, a Commissioner, member
of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in
a sequence determined by the Rules of Order.
. Any item on the Consent Agenda that contains written recommendations from the City of
Eagle shall be adopted as part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Consent Agenda
approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise.
A. Minutes of January 22, 2007.
B. Findin!!s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for FPUD-03-06 & FP-IO-06 & FPUD-4-06
& FP-ll-06 - Final Develooment Plan and Final Plat for Ea!!Iefield Estates
Subdivision Phases 1 & 2- Ea!!lefield. LLC: Eaglefield, LLC, represented by John
Carpenter, PE with Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc., is requesting final
development plan and final plat approval for Eaglefield Estates Phase I, a 39.3,acre, 135-
lot (\ 16,buildable, 19,common) residential subdivision and Eaglefield Estates Phase 2, a
61.8'acre, 130,lot (112-buildable, 17'commom, I ,well lot) residential subdivision. The
entire Eaglefield Estates Subdivision is located on the north side of State Highway 44
approximately 650- feet west of Linder Road.
C. Findin!!s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-17-06 & RZ-23-06 - Annexation and
Rezone with a Develooment A!!reement from RUT to R-E - DA - Dave Callister:
Dave Callister, represented by Penelope L. Riley, is requesting approval of an annexation
and a rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R,E,DA (Residential Estates with a
Development Agreement). The 18.85,acre site is comprised of two properties located on
the east and west sides of North Meridian Road between Beacon Light and Floating
Feather Road at 2650 North Meridian Road and 2421 North Meridian Road.
D. Findin!!s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-19-06/RZ-25-06 & PP-19-06-
Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA and Preliminarv Plat for Castleburv
West Business Park - Caoital Develooment. Inc.: Capital Development, Inc,
represented by Van Elg with The Land Group, is requesting an annexation and rezone
from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to M-U-DA (Mixed Use with Development
Agreement), and preliminary plat approval for Castlebury West Business Park. The 8.52,
acre site is generally located on the northwest corner of West Chinden Boulevard (SH
20/26) and North Meridian Road at 6615 North Meridian Road.
Pierce moves to remove item A and item D from the Consent Agenda. Seconded by
Aspitarte. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES.
Page I of 4
K\P&Z\MINlITES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-02-05-07MIN doc
Pierce moves to approve the consent agenda with items Band C. Seconded by Zastrow.
ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES.
Susan Buxton, City Attorney, discusses item 0 and explains that a new set of findings that
clarifY Commissioner Aspitarte's concerns regarding the right of way issue were provided to
them.
Aspitarte moves to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-19-06/RZ-
25-06 & PP-19-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to MU-DA and Preliminary Plat
for CastIebury West Business Park - Capital Development, Inc as amended. Seconded
by McCarrel. ALL A YES...MOTION CARRIES.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. A-20-06/RZ-26-06/PP-20-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-4-DA and
Preliminary Plat for Summer Cedar Subdivision - Thomas Martin: Thomas Martin,
represented by Doumecq Development, is requesting annexation and rezone with
development agreement from RUT (Rural Urban Transition, Ada County designation) to
R-4-DA (Residential - four units per acre maximum with development agreement) and
preliminary plat approval for Summer Cedar Subdivision, an eighteen (18) lot subdivision
(10 residential, 4 common, 4 future residential- currently a commercial landscape
nursery). The 4.94-acre site is located approximately 500,feet south of Floating Feather
Road on the west side of Horseshoe Bend Road at 11075 Horseshoe Bend Road. This
item was continued/rom the January 22,2007 meeting. Staffis requesting this item be
remanded to staff.
Pierce moves to remand A-20-06/RZ-26-06/PP-20-06 - Annexation and Rezone from
RUT to R-4-DA and Preliminary Plat for Summer Cedar Subdivision. Seconded by
Jacobs. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIES.
B. CU-13-06 - Summer Lawn Nursery and Landscaoe - Thomas Martin: Thomas
Martin, represented by Doumecq Development, is requesting conditional use approval to
maintain an existing nursery and landscape business within a proposed R-4 (Residential-
up to four units per acre maximum) zoned subdivision (Summer Cedar Subdivision). The
0.92 acre site is located approximately 500 feet south of Floating Feather Road, on the
west side of Horseshoe Bend Road at 11075 Horseshoe Bend Road. This item was
continued/rom the January 22,2007 meeting. Staffis requesting this item be
remanded to staff.
Pierce moves to remand CU-13-06 - Summer Lawn Nursery and Landscape. Seconded
by Zastrow. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIES.
C. ZOA-04-06 - Zoninl! Ordinance Amendment - City of Eal!le: An Ordinance of the City
of Eagle, Ada County Idaho, amending Eagle City Code Title 8 "Zoning", Chapter 2
"Zoning Districts and Map", Chapter 2A "Design Review Overlay District", Chapter 6
"Planned Unit Developments", and amending Title 9, Chapter I "General Subdivision
Provisions", Chapter 2 "Subdivision Plats And Procedures", Chapter 3 "Design
Standards", Chapter 4 "Required Improvements", Chapter 5 "Special Development
Subdivisions", providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. This item
was continued/rom the January 22,2007 meeting.
Pierce introduces the item. (The public hearing was left open and continued from the
December 18,2006.)
Bill Vaughan, Zoning Administrator, reviews the changes since the last meeting.
Page 2 of 4
K:\P&ZI}.HNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-02-05-07MIN.doc
Erica Schneider, 639 S. Main Street. Reads a letter on behalf of Pat Towne regarding the
Mixed Use zoning district.
Ron Bath, 1065 E, Winding Creek. Developed Winding Creek. Discusses lot sizes,
landscaping and fencing.
Dave Yorgason, Capital Development, is appreciative of the clarifications made to the
document so far. Mentions there are many members of the BCA unable to make it to testify.
Discusses open fencing. Still has a struggle with the 18% open space requirement.
Discussion on other types of fencing.
Miguel Legarretta, 6206 N. Discovery Way. Here representing the Building Contractors
Association. Presents a letter to the Commission. Feels there should be more of a definition
for subdivisions.
Commissioner Pierce asks the thoughts regarding guidelines.
Ron Whitney, 2365 Primerim Drive. Here on behalf of the BCA. Discusses PUD and ability
to provide creativity and design of development.
Ron Bath discusses design criteria.
Dave Yorgason agrees with Mr. Bath. Discusses application reviews. Discusses design
criteria and open space.
Mike Hormachea, Boise, discusses baseline standards for PUD. Does not believe that certain
PUDs be used. Feel there is no perfect way to articulate City's visioning.
Bill Vaughan rebuts testimony. Stands for questions from the Commission.
Ron Bath has concerns with a restrictive ordinance. Feels there needs to be more flexibility in
the MU zone and Urban Renewal areas.
Commissioner Jacobs discusses restrictions.
General discussion.
Aspitarte moves to continue ZOA-04-06 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - City of Eagle
to the March sth, 2007 meeting. Seconded by Zastrow. ALL AYES...MOTION
CARRIES.
5. REPORTS:
A, Commission: Commissioner Pierce asks about the current Eagle Water issues. SEB explains
the issues with the water and service areas, etc.
B. City Attorney: The County has come up with a foothills plan. M3 will be coming next
Monday.
C. Staff: None.
6. ADJOURNMENT:
McCarrel moves to adjourn. Seconded by Zastrow. ALL AYES...MOTION
CARRIES.
Hearing no further business the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Page 3 of 4
K\P&ZI1\.1INUTES\Ternporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-02-0S-07MIN.doc
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
~{I+O~~ ~
~ SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
","'''11'.,."
~~~~' .q (11 dO....
~~~ 0>>- ........ .!l...( '"
... ..o.:l.L'f'.lfo.. j..,.',
i .eb, .,.... ~ ~
,.. ....." }I.; o. 't: .",
:iI: v~S'i\rjJ~
. ? q~.:
: : ...... : :
. . ..... ..
. .~~ ..
; .., \'< ~ ') : ... ::
\ .....~. 4'Od\\O.. !
iIJ. '.^.. .. ~ftti
..... v,., ......... \') ~~
#...., El dO}. ~ ~~~~
., ..'
",.......1"
APPROVED:
~\~ C? -----
~N W. PIERCE
AIRMAN
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE AT CITY HALL.
Page 4 of 4
K:\P&Z\MINllTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area'JlZ-02-05-07MIN,doc
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
February 5, 2007
ZOA-04-06 - Zonine Ordinance Amendment - City of Eagle
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
PRO?
CON?
TESTIFY?
r i k Cc -Inv (CCI C,r
bAVA" Sdemne\`(,ler
Vt'7 ,h St e4—
x
Yes
tib
Integrating Conservation and Community into Development
Eagle City Hall
February 14, 2007
1:30 — 4:30
You are invited to attend this informative workshop
Presentation focused on the Eagle foothills planning area.
The protection of open space, for scenic values, environmental and habitat protection,
and public enjoyment is a shared vision by all foothills residents and landowners, but
how do we accomplish this vision? Join our speakers as we explore the value of
integrating conservation and community building into development and share
innovative approaches for the ownership, management and funding structures to
accomplish this vision.
Speakers: Wayne Hyatt, Hyatt and Stubblefield P.C.; Atlanta, GA
Kristine Bentz, Sonaran Institute; Tucson, AZ
Tim Brewer, Land Trust of the Treasure Valley
Frank Martin, Hidden Springs Planned Community
Please RSVP to Rosa Lucas at 939-0343 ore -mail her at rosa.lucas@suncoraz.com b'
February 9, 2007.
-114)-(
,.f 6A; to
azr Jir
6.)-(A /r) 4-- A7/4c
6,0
6A 1)- TY/11 fied c`V 1,aildkaz.
BO— 6D'Amlea
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners, Eagle, ID 83616
FROM: Pat Towne, 200 North Edgewood Lane, Eagle, ID 83616
FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
FEB 0 5 2007
File:
Route to:
SUBJECT: ZOA-4-06 — Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment — Update to the Subdivision
Planned Unit Development Standards — City of Eagle
and
1. The purpose for this memorandum is to request further amendment to proposed section 9-3-8 (D),
which specifies that Mixed Use Zoning Districts shall increase from a minimum of 10% to 18% common
area open space. I own original parcels of land, S0509417205 and S0510325600, which comprise
approximately 31.5 acres adjacent to the Winding Creek Planned Unit Development. At approximately 640
feet away, my land is one of the closest parcels near Civic Lane.
2. As we all know, there has been much growth in Eagle over the last few years. I assume that the
Development Area boundaries have since been or will be extended from those represented on the
enclosed 2004 overlay map. I propose an exemption for Mixed Use Zoning Districts in the region east of
Eagle Road, north of the Boise River North Fork, south of Dry Creek Canal, and west of Edgewood Lane.
The aforementioned region is in close proximity to downtown Eagle where an abundance of recreational
areas are available within footsteps. It is also important to note that people move to and visit the downtown
area to be close to commercial and office areas that provide economic opportunities and growth for the
community. These are key reasons the pre-existing standard of 10% open space has worked well for
Mixed Use Zoning Districts in this locality.
3. I ask that a certain degree of flexibility be built into the Planned Unit Development Standards so that the
City Council has the ability to approve or disapprove projects based on the totality of their merit. A number
of quality projects have been given the opportunity to proceed with development even though parts of their
proposals were inconsistent with the open space requirement. An example of this rationale is the Winding
Creek Planned Unit Development, which required 56% open space (due to decrease of minimum lot size
which requires offsetting increase of the same square footage in open space). Obviously, 56% open
space would not have been mutually beneficial to the City of Eagle and the developer. The City Council
should continue to have authority to make case by case decisions that allow future developments the
opportunities received in the past.
4. I respectfully request the Council to carefully consider the above recommendations. Being a long-time
Eagle resident, I urge the City Council to recognize that a blanket application will not adequately address
the needs of the diverse community Eagle has become.
5. Point of Contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at (208) 861-0723.
Enclosures:
2004 Overlay Map
Winding Creek PUD Site Data
PATRICK M. TOWNE
G. SITE DATA:
Total Acreage of Site — 17.43
Total Number of Lots — 90
Total Number of Units — 59
Residential - 59
Commercial - 17
Industrial - 0
Common - 13
Single-family - 59
Duplex - 0
Multi -family - 0
Total Acreage of Any Out -Parcels — 3.93 (while not considered an out parcel, this acreage is to be
re -subdivided at a later date)
Additional
Site Data
Proposed
Required
Dwelling Units
Per Gross Acre
6.14*
20-units per acre (maximum) in the MU zoning district
Minimum Lot
Size
2,432 sq. ft.
(residential)
7,730 sq. ft.
(commercial)
7,000 sq. ft. (minimum) in the MU zoning district
Except that a decrease of minimum lot size in a subdivision may
be allowed if there is an offsetting increase of the same square -
footage in open space and a planned unit development is applied
for and approved) - per ECC Section 8-2-4 (G).
Minimum Lot
Width
32-feet
50-feet in the MU zoning district
Minimum
Street Frontage
32-feet
0-feet (required only in residential zoning districts)
Total Acreage
of Common
Lots (open
space)
2.22-acres*
(excluding the
ditch easement -
.83-acres)
5.37-acres (minimum)*
.96-acres for 10% minimum plus 4.41-acres for lots smaller than
the minimum (7,000 SF) - per ECC Section 8-2-4 (G)
Except that, according to ECC Section 9-3-8 (C) the City may
require additional public and/or private park or open space
facilities in PUDs or in subdivisions with 50 or more lots.
Percent of Site
as Common
Area (open
space)
23%*
56% (minimum - see above)*
Except that, according to ECC Section 9-3-8 (C) the City may
require additional public and/or private park or open space
facilities in PUDs or in subdivisions with 50 or more lots.
* Designates data based on the exclusion of the commercial portion of the development and Lot 1,
Block 3, which is to be re -subdivided at a later date. The density calculation is based on the
residential portion only, consisting of 9.61-acres (total acreage of building lots, common lots,
and private road). See item No. 12 on page 31 of this document for explanation of the provision
for open space.
Page 3 of 33
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2003\Winding Creek PUD ccf.doc
0
0
cn
5
= =
ca 0
0 CD
o<
< ›a
oCD
›m-o
o 3
'CD CD
3
CD
1
CD
(13
si)
0 0
3
cn 3
cp
0
551)
=
co 0 0
Wm
0
a)
(fl—i-.
c
sJoppioo fuiu3
O
0
9
CD
CDs
ek)
-
CD
CD
0_
* r•Tie
m
CO
Q
CD
3
. •
4-•
. • '4"'
-i., •
- '
; s
;
rtl.
';11',1" •,*
••••i /
r• -r •01 a', • •
• . SAIL*, ir!
,
Ct4NDI
•
VP.'l
1956-2006
ErikBUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO, INC.
"50 Years of Building Excellence"
February 5, 2007
Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission
P.O. Box 1520
Eagle, ID 83616
RE: Proposed Planned Unit Development
Dear Commissioners;
6206 N. Discovery Way, Suite A
Boise, Idaho 83713
(208) 377-3550
(208) 377-3553 fax
AMI.t.A with
NAHB
NATIONAL ASSOCIAIIUN
OF How BunDERS
Website: www.bcaswi.org
E-mail: bca@heritagewifi.com
RECEIVED & RILED
CITY OF EAGLE
FEB 0 5 2007
File:
Route to:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment to you today. We appreciate
Eagle working with the development and building community. We have worked
hard to help provide insight in the planning process and appreciate any help to
keep housing affordable and within the reach of every American family.
Keeping in mind our understanding of the city of Eagle's desires for future
developments, we have outlined a list of our primary concerns. I believe that we
can strike a balance to create desirable Eagle communities.
Requiring a PUD on all subdivisions with 50 units or more:
The PUD is meant not as a mandate but rather as an incentive means to creatively
design desirable communities to the benefit of the community and the developer.
Traditionally subdivisions have an expressed standard that can be precisely met,
and PUD's are negotiated to create flexibility and creativity in developing a
community. In addition PUD's are subjective which can make them more complex
in the approval process.
The Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho (BCASWI) would
ask that you keep the current standard subdivision option available and not
mandate the PUD.
Major subdivisions of 50 lots or more:
50 lots is too small to be defined as a large subdivision. The proposed PUD is not
practical for smaller developments. It also creates an obstacle in trying to get
standard size lots while maintaining the proposed percentage open space.
EMBUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO, INC.
"50 Years of Building Excellence"
6206 N. Discovery Way, Suite A
Boise, Idaho 83713 Affiliated with
(208) 377-3550 NAHB
(208) 377-3553 fax NnnorvnL ASSOCIATION
OF HOME BUILDERS
Website: www.bcaswi.org
E-mail: bca@heritagewifi.com
Open space:
The proposed PUD open space requirement is too high as is an 18% requirement
for a standard subdivision. Different zones should have different open space
requirements (i.e. 10% open space for R2 zones and increase 2% per class). It is
not possible to achieve net density in a standard subdivision with 18% open space.
Open space should be a flexible gauge because the costs/benefits will differ based
on size of the development. In addition, it would be preferential to have a reduced
open space requirement (approximately 3% depending on layouts) in lieu of credit
for landscape strips.
50% of lots adjacent to open space in a PUD (30% in a standard subdivision):
We believe that the design will suffer with stringent requirements such as 50% of
lots backing up or connected to open space. This has the potential of creating
small pockets of open space rather than community gathering areas. 50% of lots
adjacent to open space may be achievable in some areas but not all. 30% of lots
adjacent to open space in a standard subdivision is simply unachievable such as an
infill project.
Varied lot sizes:
Varied lot sizes are appreciated as it does create flexibility, but density bonuses
(i.e. 120% of density) would help the developer offset the costs of the increased
design requirements without detracting from the open design.
Fencing:
Requiring all fencing be open creates some significant concerns (clients who want
privacy, higher cost, etc.). We also feel that this is regulating ownership and not
use (the PUD is meant to regulate use). Alternatives such as open fencing along all
common areas could be considered if the desired outcome of the city is to provide
an open feel.
Open fencing suits many areas well, but it is simply just not appropriate in all
areas. There are means to creating an open feeling without a 100% open fencing
requirement.
The building and development industry and the home buying public are very
concerned about the rigidity of this restriction.
Venr
1956-2006
IBM6206 N. Discovery Way, Suite A
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION Boise, daho 3713 .�
(208) 377-3550 N��
OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO, INC. (208) 377-3553 fax NATIONAL sBO4
cr Ho,. Buiu u s
Website: www.bcaswi.org
"50 Years of Building Excellence" E-mail: bca@heritagewifi.com
Different terrain / design:
Not all subdivisions are the same. Flat land subdivisions have a very different
design than foothills.
The BCASWI would request some sort of bonus for useable open space within a
development. We would also request additional credit for recreational open space
such as ponds (15% in the current proposal — increase to 50%).
Trails and Pathways:
The change to this standard — increasing the paved portion of the pathway from 6
feet to 8-10 feet is excessive and unnecessary. This is not only costly but it creates
the feel a road rather than a pathway.
We would recommend revisiting this item. This is not the direction we believe the
city or the development community wants to head down.
Irrigation ditches/pathways:
Irrigation easements are not part of the open space even when there are pathways.
We would ask that pathways at a minimum be counted as passive open space.
Private Streets:
Currently 10% of lots are allowed to be private streets, this requirement should be
eased. Private streets are not the same as gated streets. Private streets are there for
design/use; gated streets are for restricted access.
The BCASWI would recommend increased flexibility for private streets, and
perhaps limiting gated streets to 10%.
Easements and setbacks:
5-foot side yard setbacks are too high. The language indicating all front load
garages to be set back a minimum 20 feet from the back of the sidewalk needs to
be changed. This doesn't work well for corner and smaller lots.
Vonr
1956-2006
IIBUIL BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO, INC.
"50 Years of Building Excellence"
6206 N. Discovery Way, Suite A
Boise, Idaho 83713
(208) 377-3550 (�NAHB
(208) 377-3553 fax NASIONAL Acttocun°H
OF f cx.ff BUILDERS
Website: www.bcaswi.org
E-mail: bca@heritagewifi.com
In summary the BCASWI, representing hundreds of local developers and builders,
feels the proposed Title 8 and Title 9 amendments are not viable for development.
Restrictions are already high in Eagle, coupled with high land costs, the
development community is facing significant challenges. We want to see Eagle
continue to be not only a desirable place to live and a family, but also a desirable
place to develop.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment to you tonight and throughout
this process.
Sincerely,
Miguel Legarreta
Government Affairs Director
Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho (BCASWI)
6206 N. Discovery Way, Ste A
Boise, Idaho 83713
208-377-3550
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
Sample Property Size (Acres)
City of Eagle
Proposed Open Space Analysis
with Proposed Minimum Lot Size
10.00 20.00
FEB 052007
File:
Route to:
40.00
80.00
Acreage dedication
ACHD Right of Way Percentage 25.00% (2.50) (5.00) (10.00) (20.00)
Open Space 20.00% (2.00) (4.00) (8.00) (16.00)
Maximum Acreage Available for Building 5.50 11.00 22.00 44.00
Square Feet Available for Building 239,580 479,160 958,320 1,916,640
Zoning District Analysis
R-1
Minimum Lot Size
Number of Lots
Density Units per Gross Acre
R-2 Minimum Lot Size
Number of Lots
Density Units per Gross Acre
{
R-3 Minimum Lot Size
Number of Lots
Density Units per Gross Acre
R-4 Minimum Lot Size
Number of Lots
Density Units per Gross Acre
R-5
Minimum Lot Size
Number of Lots
Density Units per Gross Acre
37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000
6 13 26 52
0.60 0.65 0.65 0.65
17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000
14 28 56 113
1.40 1.40 1.40 1.41
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
24 48 96 192
2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40
8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
30 60 120 240
3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
34 68 137 274
3.40 3.40 3.43 3.43
•
City of Eagle
Proposed Open Space Analysis
with Adjusted Minimum Lot Size to Meet Zone Density
Sample Property Size (Acres)
10.00 20.00 40.00 80.00
Acreage dedication
ACHD Right of Way Percentage 25.00% (2.50) (5.00) (10.00) (20.00)
Open Space 20.00% (2.00) (4.00) (8.00) (16.00)
Maximum Acreage Available for Building 5.50 11.00 22.00 44.00
Square Feet Available for Building 239,580 479,160 958,320 1,916,640
Zoning District Analysis
R-1
Minimum Lot Size
Number of Lots
Density Units per Gross Acre
R-2 Minimum Lot Size
Number of Lots
Density Units per Gross Acre
R-3 Minimum Lot Size
Number of Lots
Density Units per Gross Acre
R-4 Minimum Lot Size
Number of Lots
Density Units per Gross Acre
R-5 Minimum Lot Size
Number of Lots
Density Units per Gross Acre
24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
10 20 40 80
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
20 40 80 160
2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
30 60 120 240
3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
40 80 160 319
4.00 4.00 4.00 3.99
4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800
50 100 200 399
5.00 5.00 5.00 4.99