Loading...
Findings - CC - 2007 - ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06 - Annex/Rezone From Rr & Rp To R-1-Da With A Pre-Annexation And Dat1 r- rl BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF A ZONING ORDINANCE ) AMENDMENT, AN APPLICATION FOR ) ANNEXATION AND REZONE FROM RR ) (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND RP (RURAL ) PRESERVATION) TO R -1 -DA (RESIDENTIAL ) WITH A PRE -ANNEXATION AND ) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR M3 EAGLE ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06 The above -entitled zoning ordinance amendment and rezone upon annexation applications came before the Eagle City Council for their action on the following dates: November 20,2007 November 27, 2007 December 5, 2007 December 11, 2007 The public hearing was closed on December 5, 2007. On December 1, 2007, the Council made their recommendation. The Council, having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; FINDINGS OF FACT: A. PROJECT SUMMARY: The M3 Companies are requesting an Annexation and Rezone from RR (Rural Residential- Ada County Designation) and RP (Rural Preservation -Ada County Designation) to R -1 -DA (Residential with a development agreement) with a Pre - Annexation and Development Agreement for a maximum of 7,153 units and 245 acres of non-residential uses including commercial, office and mixed use; a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Eagle City Code Section 8-6 "Planned Unit Developments" to allow for the establishment of a M3 -PUD zone. The +1- 6,005 -acre site is generally located north of the Farmers Union Canal and Homer Road, east of State Highway 16, west of Willow Creek Road, and south of Chaparral Road. B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 24, 2006 and deemed complete on August 23, 2006. C. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was published in the Valley Times in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City Code on September 11, 2006. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three -hundred feet (300 -feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on September 8, 2006. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on September 18, 2006, 2006. Requests for Page 1 of 24 K \Planning Dcpt\1agle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final doc agencies' reviews were transmitted on September 8, 2006, 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 October 22, 2007. 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 October 22, 2007. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on October 22, 2007. D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: This site was also subject of a comprehensive plan map and text amendment application (CPA -05-06). The Eagle City Council on November 20, 2007, voted 4 to 0 not to include the applicant initiated comprehensive plan text and map amendment into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan. E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: See Above. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS: Existing COMP PLAN ZONING DESIGNATION DESIGNATION Rural Preservation (Ada County) RP (Rural Preservation -Ada County designation) RR - (Rural Residential — Ada County) Proposed Foothills Residential R -1 -DA (Residential One with Development Agreement) North of site Foothills Residential South of site Foothills Residential/ RP (Rural Preservation -Ada Public/Semi Public County designation) RR (Rural Residential — Ada County) East of site Foothills Residential RP (Rural Preservation -Ada County designation) RR (Rural Residential — Ada County) RP (Rural Preservation -Ada County designation) RR (Rural Residential — Ada RP (Rural Preservation -Ada County designation) RR (Rural Residential — Ada County) West of site Rural Preservation (Ada County)/ LAND USE Range land Master Planned Community including residential, office and retail uses Range land BLM Land Range land State Highway 16, Hillsdale Estates, range land Page 2 of 24 K:IPlanning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc COMP PLAN ZONING DESIGNATION DESIGNATION Public/Semi Public County) LAND USE G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Scenic Corridor Overlay along State Highway 16 and Willow Creek Road. H. TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 6,005 +1- acres I. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND REZONE: See justification letter dated April 24, 2006 and amended on August 23, 2007, provided by the applicant's representative (attached to the staff report). J. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (if applicable): See justification letter dated April 24, 2006 and amended on August 23, 2007, provided by the applicant's representative (attached to the staff report). K. AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES: The development agreement requires the developer to provide for its proportionate share of public infrastructure which proportionate share will be established through coordinated planning as contemplated by the planning unit master plan process described within the proposed development agreement. L. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists. M. SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES: See the environmental assessment submitted with this application N. NON -CONFORMING USES: None are apparent on the site. O. AGENCY RESPONSES: The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached. Comments which appear to be of special concern are noted below: ACHD Letter date stamped 9/13/06, 10/13/06, 2/6/07, 3/16/07, 4/25/07, 5/7/07, 9/11/07 City of Eagle - Building Department Letter date stamped 3/16/07 COMPASS Letter date stamped 10/16/06 DEQ Letter date stamped 9/20/06 Eagle Sewer District Letter date stamped 9/25/06 HDR (City Consultant) Letter date stamped 8/10/06, 3/9/07 Holladay Engineering Letter date stamped 9/28/06, 2/8/07 Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game Letter date stamped 9/29/05, 10/12/06, 12/5/06 Idaho Dept. of Lands Letter date stamped 8/15/07 Idaho Power Letter date stamped 9/19/06 ITD Letter date stamped 9/26/06, 2/6/07, 3/20/07, 11/9/07 Joint School Dist. #2 Letter date stamped 10/26/05, 11/27/06, 2/7/07, 4/2/07, 12/4/07 Page 3 of 24 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc Thompson Engineers (City Consultant) Letter date stamped 12/4/06, 3/21/07 LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: The City received letters from 33 different citizens and groups, some provided multiple letters. Further, some letters addressed the M3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA -5-06) and those letters were included in the CPA packet. All letters are attached to the Planning and Zoning Commission staff report and are incorporated herein by reference. Additional letters were received from the following NAFCA Letter dated December 3, 2007 Kathy Penissi dated December 3, 2007 Allison Gilbreath dated December 3, 2007 Dave and Chris Fisher dated December 3, 2007 Sheri Randall dated December 3, 2007 Idaho Smart Growth dated December 3, 2007 Jim Banducci dated December 3, 2007 Robert and Debra Helton dated December 3, 2007 STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED W i i riu4 THE STAFF REPORT: A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: (staff analysis is in italics) 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: The Eagle Comprehensive Plan establishes three findings that must be considered for the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment: • Under the "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" Section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (3)) within the 2000 Comprehensive Plan the applicant must show, "the condition or situation which warrants a change being made in the plan." The M3 property is currently located north of the City's planning boundaries and is a new area for consideration for the City to expand. The City has, over the past three years, had concerns with urban style development occurring in unincorporated Ada County in the form of Planned Communities. Under the current Ada County Code, a planned community can occur anywhere within the unincorporated county upon 640 acres located outside of an area of impact. Due to the large property ownerships in the Foothills north of the City, the City has begun the process of review development opportunities and constraints within this area to evaluate their impact on the existing City. It is staff's opinion that conditions have changed significantly since the adoption of the Soaring 2025 Plan in 2004 that the foothills area should be considered as a future unique development area within the probable boundaries of the City of Eagle. Further, with the City undertaking the North Eagle Foothills Plan this application should be treated as a specific area plan that provides greater specificity and guidance to the development that will occur in this portion of the Foothills. • The "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (4)) seeks to identify "the public benefit that would occur from such a change in the plan." Page 4 of 24 K:IPlanning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc The public benefit of the applicant's proposal is that it would allow for the City of Eagle to guide and review development that will impact the overall design and infrastructure of the City (for land use, parks and interconnectivity). • The "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (5)) asks for "An explanation of why no other solutions to the condition or situation which warrants a chane in the Plan are possible or reasonable under the current policies of the Plan". The options for the developer are to develop in unincorporated Ada County under the RR and RP zoning designations (10 & 40 acres parcels) or file for a county planned community application (which may look similar to this application) but under the jurisdiction of Ada County. The current City of Eagle plan does not provide development options for this property and comprehensive plan amendments is required Overall, does the proposed application meet or exceed the purpose and vision of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan? • Purpose of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City of Eagle and its Impact Area as follows (2000 Eagle Comprehensive Plan 1.1) a. To protect property rights and enhance property values. The application, as proposed, will significantly enhance the value of the applicant's land and greatly expand the city limits. There is some concern about the impacts that the proposed development will have on properties located to the south of the site within the existing Area of Impact (AOl). These approval of this application will include temporary impacts to schools, roads and groundwater. The most sensitive of these impacts are groundwater and roads. b. To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the people at reasonable cost. The proposed development agreement addresses the applicant's responsibility to provide and pay for the extension and provision of public facilities within the development. One of the most contentious issues has been the provision or ability to condition off site roadway improvements that are the result of this development or accelerated by this development. c. To ensure that the economy of the City of Eagle and its Impact Area are protected and enhanced. The applicant is proposing to include 245 acres of commercial that will provide nearly 4,000 new jobs to the City of Eagle. Increasing both the tax base and the employment options within the City. d. To ensure that the important environmental features of the City and its Impact Area are protected and enhanced. Page 5 of 24 K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc The applicant's submittal shows over 1,400 acres of the site with slopes in excess of 25%. This is equal to 23% of the total site area. The applicant is proposing to grade 410 acres of the 1400 acres. Staff is concerned about trying to establish a maximum density to these areas without first defining a grading standard in the development agreement that provides a measurable intensity of the extent of the mass grading we can expect on the site. Letters received from the Idaho Department of Fish & Gane (IDFG) and the City's consultant, HDR, indicates that the habitat analysis within the site is cursory and additional detail as to exact location and proposed mitigation of the existing habitat needs to be completed Though some habitat areas may be tnitigated, others may need to be preserved within the open space plan. Without further details, it is difficult to determine if appropriate areas have been retained or if additional open space or mitigation are necessary. Per IDFG map dated December 5, 2006, the Southwest and Southeast planning areas have been delineated as containing important habitat. A portion of the M3 site has been identified as floodway. Existing development practices within the City of Eagle do not provide residential densities for floodway. Without an approved floodway delineation for the site, the development agreement should provide a mechanism for the reduction of density for the future floodway delineation. The Eagle Comprehensive Plan and ECC 9-5-8 define the Eagle Foothills as an area of special concern requiring the completion of a detailed environmental assessment, including a detail of specific impact change, impact and mitigation, prior to the establishment of development rights. One possible solution to the gross residential density issue is to provide a one (1) residential unit per five (5) acres for areas of special concern as set forth in Eagle City Code sr 9-5-8. Additional density in those areas would be granted phase by phase when specific mitigation/development standards can be reviewed and approved by the City. We would be open to discussing some other formula but need something to recognize the need to address these areas in the Development Agreement. e. To encourage urban and urban -type development within the incorporated city. f. To avoid undue concentration of population and overcrowding of land. The maximum density proposed within modified the application is 1.3 units per acre. The base density of the Eagle Area of Impact is calculated at 1.3 units per acre. This area include uses from commercial, multi family, industrial to residential estates similar to the uses found on the M3 site. The Development Agreement delineates 245 acres of non-residential uses in addition to the 8,160 maximum dwelling units requested. This intensity of non- residential uses will result in the creation of nearly 4,000 new jobs. We need to get a better understanding of how these commercial ratios relate to the overall density request. Page 6 of 24 K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-I4-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc g. Regarding commercial density, does it also include offices uses, retail, or hospitality? Our concern is that the commercial square footage proposed exceeds the existing commercial square footage per household. As an example, the proposed commercial is approximately 80 square feet higher per household than the Western Area at 120 square feet per household. We expect and desire the commercial square footage to be far denser in the downtown core than in any other commercial use areas in the City. We need to review this issue and determine whether we are properly zoning the area and whether it is feasible for such density that far away from the downtown core. To ensure that the development of land is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land. h. To protect life and property in areas subject to natural hazards and disasters. See Item "d" above i. To protect fish, wildlife, and recreation resources. J. The proposed development site includes an extensive series of informal trails that have been used by hikers, bicyclists and equestrians for years. Though it is recognized that this is private land through the development process formalization of regional trails should be incorporated into the development agreement. See the attached map of existing informal trails on the site; the applicant's trail proposal is also attached. In addition to the formalization of trails on the site the applicant has proposed to dedicate880 acres of land contiguous to the City's proposed regional park to be included and managed together for public use. To encourage local school districts to participate in the community planning and development process so as to address public school needs and impacts on an ongoing basis. Please review the agency comments an e-mail received from the district on April 2, 2007. How does the M3 proposal meet the "Vision for the City of Eagle" (2000 Eagle Comprehensive Plan 1.3)? b. known as a highly livable town that successfully balances many of the rural elements of its heritage with growth; The overall density proposed within the M3 application is 1.3 units per acre with 245 acres of non-residential uses. The gross density of the existing city is 1.3 units per acre. The project includes uses including multi family housing to 5+ acre lots. The Mixture and overall intensity of the development is similar to the existing City. Page 7 of 24 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc c. interconnected with user-friendly pathways and roadways; See the open space and trail discussion above One of staffs concerns is how to interconnect the existing roadway system into the foothills providing an efficient system for emergency services and local trips. Some connectivity should be required through northerly extension of existing roads but, there should be some limitations on the amount of traffic entering existing residential areas. Regional trips should be forced/directed to the State Highway system to reduce the impacts to the north/south routes feed into the regional transportation system (Hwy 44, 20/26). See attached map of staff's recommended northerly extensions. (Please bear in mind that the extension of these streets are off site improvements and must be addressed as to who's responsibility it is to complete and permit and when the improvements must be in place. Staff recommends northerly connections into the project be along Hartley Lane, Linder and limited access t o N. Eagle Road/Willow Creek. All connections north into the area across the proposed City Recreation area shall include a wildlife/recreation crossing to be approved by the City, ACHD, Idaho Fish and Game and the BLM. d. economically strong with a distinct downtown economic center; The M3 Development establishes a single clear community core with smaller neighborhood centers spread through out the development. Regional types uses are located adjacent to Hwy16 to capture regional trips from Emmett, Payette and similar locations. e. providing diversified employment and housing opportunities for all economic groups; The M3 development includes housing opportunities ranging from multi family rental units to large lot ranchettes. The development provides a broad range of housing opportunities for the community and the City of Eagle. f. an environmentally aware community with distinctive open space, parks and outdoor recreation; See the open space and trail discussion above an economically strong city, that fosters local businesses and clean industry; g. Though the site is large enough to foster a new employment center for the City of Eagle there has not been a clear understanding of a specific type of employer or industry that the applicant would like to pursue in the area further the City has not been contact by any larger employer looking to locate within the proposed development. h. a unique community that maintains its rural residential feel in the midst of the Treasure Valley. Page 8 of 24 K:IPlanning DeptlEagle ApplicationslRZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc Though portions of the site contain a rural feel other take on a more urban feeling: Rural Southern Residential Area: .5 units/Acre & 47.6% open space Southwestern Residential Area:. 5units/acre & 10.8% open space Non Rural Community Core: 6.00 units per acre, 117 acres of non-residential uses including a 500 room hotel Northern Residential Area: 2.5units per acre, 37% open space (includes 2 golf courses) Highway Mixed Use Business Park: 88 acres of non-residential uses i Sustainability at build out (2025): Ensure the ability for the city to continue to fund, improve and support itself, including infrastructure and parks, without the use of building permit fees, impact fees and zoning fees. Though non-residential uses represent only 4% of the gross area of the development it represents nearly 10% of the buildable area. The desire was to include uses that support the proposed development and that are in scale with the residential and scenic nature of the Foothills. Identify "Activity Centers": Identify areas that due to the nature of existing uses, future uses and/or transportation corridors will lend themselves to increased activity and non-residential use so to preserve larger areas as primarily residential neighborhoods. The proposed development has identified two activity centers for the development: Highway Mixed Use Business Park: 88 acre commercial & mixed use/office area. This center is located at the proposed permanent access for the development along State Highway 16. Staff concerns about this area are based in the design of the overall area more than the overall intensity of the uses. This area should be treated as a gateway to the City and should be highly landscaped and architecturally pleasing. Community Core: 6.0 units per acre and 117 acres of non-residential uses including a 500 room hotel. This area is 3 mile long by '/.� mile wide center that runs through the middle of Big Gulch. Per the Army Core of Engineers Big Gulch is designated as a floodway and riparian area. Staff is greatly concerned with the size and intensity of the uses in this area. The Community Core contains approximately 1/3 of the total units and the majority of the non-residential uses. k. Preserving Regional Transportation Corridors (State Highway 16 & 44): Preserve the function of regionally significant roadways through the City while ensuring compatibility with land uses and design standards of the City. Page 9 of 24 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc Per the Applicant's transportation analysis the following improvements need to be constructed for the site. Projects identified by asterisks (*) are those that according to the applicant's analysis, are necessary to accommodate the existing Comprehensive Plan and existing traffic but due to traffic impacts from this development this development projects with asterisks may need to be constructed sooner to mitigate the impacts of this proposal. • Widen SH 44 to 5 lanes between Ballantyne & SH 16 * • Widen SH 16 to 2 to 2 thru lanes in each direction with turning lanes at intersections * • Widen Beacon Light to 3 lane between SH 16 & SH 55* • Widen Floating Feather to 5 lanes between Eagle Road and SH 55 * • Widen Linder Road to Slanes between SH 44 and Floating Feather and to 3 lanes between Floating Feather and Beacon Light * • Upgrade SH 16 to interstate with 2 thru lanes in each directions • Construct interchanges at SH 44, Beacon Light and the site access on SH 16 • Construct overpass at SH16 and Floating Feather • Upgrade Beacon Light to lanes between SH 16 and SH 55 • Upgrade SH 55 to 6 lanes north of SH 44 to Brookside Lane • Signalization of eight (8) additional intersections: o Beacon Light & Park Lane o Beacon Light & Ballantyne o Beacon Light &Eagle o Floating Feather &Palmer o Floating Feather &Linder o Floating Feather & Park Lane o Floating Feather & Ballantyne o Floating Feather & Eagle o Hwy 55 & Dry Creek* Staff recognizes that the on-site improvements and the construction of the roads as proposed will be phased with the build out of the development. The development agreement should provide a proposed schedule of improvements by phase, unit and trip count for each of the above improvements. Though a TIS has been completed for the overall development individual TIS' should be submitted by phase showing how the individual improvements are being meet or need to be re prioritized prior to approval of each phase. The transportation impacts for this development require significant off-site improvements that may not occur in the timeline necessary for development. Phases should be limited by the completion of improvements both on and off-site. Though staff recognizes that an amendment to the Long Range Regional Transportation Plan will be necessary it is important to note that priority will not automatically be granted to the Foothills projects. As the Foothills expand and develop it may be necessary to establish and extraordinary impact fee to fund the significant improvements specific to the State Highway System and the additional unplanned impacts to the local system to ensure a proportion share of the roadway improvements is bore by each land owner/developer. Page 10 of 24 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc The proposed impacts from the development will significantly change the transportation system with in the Eagle areas. Significant concerns have been expressed about the intensification of Beacon Light Road west of Eagle from 3 lanes to 5 as well as the impacts to Eagle Road south of Floating Feather. 1. Increased Employment Opportunities: Identify areas that will provide significant employment opportunities to the residents of the City of Eagle thereby allowing the City to be a place to live, work, and recreate. See item "j" above B. ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: (staff analysis is in italics) • ECC Section 8-1-2 OPEN SPACE: A common area platted as a separate lot, provided within a recorded easement, or dedicated to and accepted by the City. The area shall be substantially open to the sky, exclusive of streets, buildings and other covered structures, and shall be designated and intended as a useable and convenient amenity to any proposed development. Wetland areas, drainage ditches, irrigation ditches, and similar features shall not be considered as a part of the minimum area of open space required. The applicant proposes the inclusion of 40% of the site as open space including 14% regional open space and 26% community open space. Four of the five sub areas includes a minimum of 10% open space, the only sub -area that does not meet this threshold is the highway mixed use area that currently does not include residential uses. • ECC Section 8-2-4 (G): A decrease of minimum lot size in a subdivision may be allowed if there is an offsetting increase of the same square -footage in open space and a planned unit development is applied for and approved. Due to the size and scale of the development the off setting increase in open space will be reviewed at the submittal of preliminary panning units to ensure that the appropriate offset has occurred for each phase. • ECC Section 8-2-4 (I): Minimum lot frontage, the portion of a lot front adjacent to a public or private street, for all residential zoning districts shall be 35 feet. Minimum lot dimension will be reviewed as part of the development agreement for the project. • ECC Section 8-2A-7 (J) (4) Major Roadways: New residential developments, including, but not limited to, subdivisions and multi -family developments, shall be buffered from streets classified as collectors, arterials, freeways, or expressways, to protect residential communities from noisy, potentially dangerous, high speed roads. The "buffer area" shall be defined as the distance from the outside wall of the lowest story of any single-family attached or detached dwelling and the right of way line of the Page 11 of 24 K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A\2006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc roadway. The lowest story must be screened from the view of any street classified as a collector, arterial, freeway, or expressway. This buffer is required either on individual lots or as an easement, or as part of the common open space owned and maintained by a homeowners' association. Any landscaping proposed to be within the public right of way shall not be included as a part of the buffer area required below. The height for berming/fencing, as noted below, shall be measured from the elevation of the final grade of the adjacent roadway (measured at the centerline) to the top of the proposed berming/fencing. The required buffer area width, plantings, and fencing are as follows: a. Any road designated as an urban or rural collector on the Ada County long range highway and street map: A minimum of thirty five feet (35') wide buffer area (not including right of way) shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred (100) linear feet of right of way: four (4) shade trees, five (5) evergreen trees, and twenty four (24) shrubs. Each required shade tree may be substituted with two (2) flowering/ornamental trees, provided that not more than fifty percent (50%) of the shade trees are substituted. A minimum five foot (5') high, maximum eight foot (8') high, berm, decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within the buffer area. The maximum slope for any berm shall be three feet (3') horizontal distance to one foot (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. b. Any road designated as a minor arterial on the Ada County long range highway and street map: A minimum of fifty feet (50') wide buffer area (not including right of way) shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred (100) linear feet of right of way: five (5) shade trees, eight (8) evergreen trees, three (3) flowering/ornamental trees, and twenty four (24) shrubs. Each required shade tree may be substituted with two (2) flowering/ornamental trees, provided that not more than fifty percent (50%) of the shade trees are substituted. A minimum five foot (5') high, maximum eight foot (8') high, berm, decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within the buffer area. The maximum slope for any berm shall be three feet (3') horizontal distance to one foot (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. Page 12 of 24 K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc 'Ilk` Chainlink, cedar, and similar high maintenance and/or unsightly fencing shall not be permitted. c. Any road designated as a principal arterial on the Ada County long range highway and street map and/or any freeway or expressway: A minimum of seventy five feet (75') wide buffer area (not including right of way) shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred (100) linear feet of right of way: six (6) shade trees, ten (10) evergreen trees, four (4) flowering/ornamental trees, and twenty four (24) shrubs. Each required shade tree may be substituted with two (2) flowering/ornamental trees, provided that not more than fifty percent (50%) of the shade trees are substituted. A minimum ten foot (10') high, maximum twelve foot (12') high, berm, decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within the buffer area. The maximum slope for any berm shall be three feet (3') horizontal distance to one foot (1') vertical distance. If a decorative block wall, cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete wall is to be provided, in combination with the berm, a four foot (4') wide flat area shall be provided for the placement of the decorative wall. Chainlink, cedar, and similar high maintenance and/or unsightly fencing shall not be permitted. Prior to the submittal of the first planning unit the applicant is required to submittal of a master Streets and circulation plan for the development that details each of the standards above. • ECC Section 8-6-1: PURPOSE "PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS": It shall be the policy to guide a major development of land and construction by encouraging planned unit development (PUD) to achieve the following: A. A maximum choice of living environments by allowing a variety of housing and building types and permitting an increased density per acre and a reduction in lot dimensions, yards, building setbacks and area requirements; The proposed application provides a wide variety of housing options and building types ranging from multi family rental units to 5+ acre ranchettes. Though the Zoning of the property is R -1 -DA -P the max overall density is 1.3 which reflects that ability to reduce some lot sizes and provide increased density for the provision of a master planned community that addresses all types of housing. B. A more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas and, if permitted as part of the project, more convenience in the location of accessory commercial uses, industrial uses and services; The proposed development will provide a minimum of 40% of the site as opens space with 14% being regional open space and 26% being community open space, serving the immediate development. Non-residential uses and services are provided across the development totaling 240 acres. The location of these retail, office and employment uses will allow for the creation of approximately 4,000 Page 13 of 24 K:1Planning Dept\Eaglc Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc "Irg jobs and ensure the ability to get basic daily services within the development. C. A development pattern which preserves and utilizes natural topography and geologic features, scenic vistas, trees and other vegetation and prevents the disruption of natural drainage patterns; The applicant and staff have agreed to a graduated density for the project that will limit he initial entitlements for the site to unconstrained areas and through more detailed analysis and agency review the ability to development more intensity when the impacts are deemed to be mitigated These additional studies include a wildlife mitigation plan, LOMA for the FEMA Floodway designations, a City approved grading plan and standards, and the completion of the analysis required under ECC Section 9-5-8. D. A more efficient use of land than is generally achieved through conventional development resulting in substantial savings through shorter utilities and streets; and The foothills are a complex land form and traditional utility services and development practices do not provide a practical means of development. The applicant is proposing a significant increase in the minimum open space standard, 40% versus 10%, to address the increased constraints found on the site as well as working with existing service providers to use new techniques for Idaho and the Treasure Valley for wastewater and re -use. E. A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation and community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. See Discussion above concerning the Comprehensive Plan • ECC Section 8-7-3-3 CONDITIONAL USES "PUBLIC SITES AND OPEN SPACES" Public sites and open spaces shall conform to the following: B. Natural Features: Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, water courses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable assets) shall be preserved in the design of the development. Similar to legacy and other large projects the applicant is proposing to develop site specific development standards that address the arid, non -irrigated, environment within the foothills. The submittal, review and approval of these standards must be completed prior to the submittal of the first planning unit. C. Special Developments: In the case of planned unit developments and large- scale developments, the Council may require sufficient park or open space facilities of acceptable size, location and site characteristics that may be suitable for the proposed development. See discussion of open space above. • ECC Section 8-7-3-5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: D. Conditions Of Permit: Upon the granting of a conditional use permit, conditions may be attached to said permit including, but not limited to, those: Page 14 of 24 K:IPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc 1. Minimizing adverse impact on other development; 2. Controlling the sequence and timing of development; 3. Controlling the duration of development; 4. Assuring that development is maintained properly; 5. Designating the exact location and nature of development; 6. Requiring the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services; and 7. Requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in this Title. Similar to the Legacy and other large projects the applicant is proposing to develop site specific development standards to be submitted, reviewed and approved by the city prior to the submittal of the first planning unit. C. DISCUSSION FROM STAFF REPORT: According to the Eagle City Code 8-7-5D the following standards must be addressed in order to receive a zoning ordinance amendment: • Is the request in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan and the existing Eagle City Code? With regards to the request to amend ECC Section 8-6-2, The Eagle Comprehensive Plan and City code gives distinct guidance on the design and compatibility of uses within the City of Eagle ensuring that all development is unique but contains similar qualities and standards of design. Is there a compelling reason for this application to have separate and unique standards from the rest of the City? For this application it is understood that the standards and lot sizing proposed do not easily fit the existing code. With the completion of the Eagle Foothills Sub -area Plan it is anticipated that new zoning codes will be developed for the situation the applicant is concerned about. At this point, staff does not support the use of a development agreement in -lieu of a PUD. The development agreement the appropriate tool to be used at this time to provide additional guidance and development control, but the PUD should still be used to review individual plat as to compliance with City Code and the development agreement while still providing maximum flexibility for future changing conditions. Comprehensive Pan Policy Questions to be considered: 1) What density of residential uses should be planned for? 2) Should residential density be calculated as a gross calculation or should non-residential uses be removed? The current plan excludes residential densities for commercial, office, open space and retail uses. 3) How should the density in the Foothills relate to the overall density of the existing city? In Staffs opinion it is very difficult to establish densities in previously unplanned areas and the existing densities of the City must be consulted to determine the existing thresholds. .4011.+ Existing Eagle Comprehensive Plan Densities Page 15 of 24 KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc 2000P1an 1.04 units per acre gross 2025 Plan 1.80units per acre gross Overall 1.26 units per acre gross Since 1999, the City of Eagle has identified the Foothills as an area of special concern noting the desire to protect steep slopes, habitat, scenic qualities and recreational uses as key areas of concern. Staff was initially concerned with the gross density proposed. Though the density of 2 units per acre originally proposed seemed comparable to the densities in the Western Area Plan, 1.8 units per acre, the number of physical and environmental constraints within the Foothills required a different way of calculating the base and maximum densities for the project. After discussions with the applicant it was agreed that the initial density of the project should reflect the amount of work that still needs to be completed to delineate floodways, habitat and steep slopes. Staff recommends an overall density of 1.7 units per acre (as requested by the applicant)for unconstrained lands and 1 unit per 5 acres for areas for areas with slopes in excess of 25% and critical habitat areas and no density for the existing FEMA designated floodway equaling an base density of .94 units per acre or 5,641 units. Base Density w/ Constraints Acres Non - Residential residential Units Density Northern 2,720 40 3,814 1.38 Highway 88 Southwestern** 407 48 0.12 Community Core 519 117 1,277 2.01 Southern 2,114 502 0.24 Totals 5,760 245 5,641 0.94 , A complete planning area constraints table is attached to this staff report. Staff recommends including into the development agreement the ability to request increased densities for the project at the time of preliminary plat if mitigation plans are approved by Idaho Fish and Game, slope and grading standards as well as floodway designations are submitted and found favorable by the City at the same time. Density after mitigation* Acres Planning Area Residential Non-residential Units Density Northern 2,720 1 40 4,551 1.65 , Page 16 of 24 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc Highway 88 - Southwestern** 407 - 638 1.57 Community Core 519 117 1,422 2.24 Southern 2,113 - 1,549 1 0.73 Totals 5,760 245 8,160 1.35 * Assumes a city approved grading standard & plan, assumes a LOMAR approval, & an Approved Habitat Mitigation Plan from IDFG 4) Should the applicant be required to restrict or limit the uses within non-residential areas through the sub -area planning process similar to the Soaring 2025 Plan? The 2025 Plan within each sub —area discussed the desired mixture of uses and removed use that were less desirable or more intensive. 5) Should the applicant delineate the acres/square feet of non-residential uses in the Mixed Use and Village Center areas? The Soaring 2025 Plan established 3 levels of commercial centers (neighborhood, community & regional. (Page 53 of 57 of the Western Area Plan) The applicant has addressed the overall mixture of uses within the 6 sub -areas (complete text of the sub -areas is attached): 1. Community Core - 636 acres representing 10.5% of the site. The area is to be developed with maximum residential density of 6 units per acre including 117 acres of non-residential uses including: office, business, civic and neighborhood commercial. 2. Northern Residential Area — 2,760 acres representing 46% of the site. The area is to be developed with a maximum density of 2.5 units per acre and 40 acres of non-residential uses, primarily neighborhood commercial uses. Other uses within the area include potentially 2 golf courses in conjunction with the open space and homeowners amenities. 3. Southern Residential Area — 2,114 acres representing 35% of the site. The area is to be developed with a maximum density of 0.5 units per acres (clustered) including a 20 acre public equestrian facility. 4. Highway Mixed Use/ Business Park - 88 acres representing 1.5% of the site. The area is to be developed as a of Mixed Use and commercial business park. Though no residential uses are show to date a maximum residential density of 6 units per acre could be allowed in this area 5. Southwestern Planning Area — 407 Acres representing 6.7% of the site. . The area is to be developed with a maximum density of 0.5 units per acres, primarily large lots with fencing restrictions. 6. Eagle Regional Park —800 acres east & west of Willow Creek Road, part of the Southern Planning Area, to be dedicated to the City for connectivity of the existing City of Eagle Regional Park. The current request for non-residential uses within the development is 245 acres or one (1) acre of non-residential uses for every 33 households within the development. Staff recommends a reduction calculation similar to the one used in Legacy be included into the development agreement by planning area, establishing a process that for every acre of non-residential uses designated an equal number of units per acre are removed, as Page 17 of 24 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A12006\A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc "ais`` used in calculating the base density of 5,760 units. (See planning area constraints table is attached to this staff report) 6) When should applicants enter into water MOU with the City and file for water rights with IDWR? Per Eagle City Code 6-5-23(c) as a condition of annexation and or development a land owner shall secure sufficient municipal water rights to serve the project. The applicant has made application with IDWR for approval of a municipal water right to serve the site. It is unclear how long it will take for this right to be approved by IDWR and a timeline should be included into the development agreement to allow entitlements to only be acted on once IDWR approval is in place and to be lost if approval is not granted. 7) How should mass grading be regulated within the City? Currently the City of Eagle does not have a hillside development ordinance nor do we issue grading permits for development within the City. The applicant's submittal shows over 1,400 acres of the site with slopes in excess of 25%. This is equal to 23% of the total site area. The current development proposal includes a request to grade 410 of the 1,400 acres. Due to the unstable soils in the area staff has identified slopes in excess of 25% slope as a constraint and recommends a base density of 1 unit per 5 acres for these slopes. Staff recommends a complete grading plan be submitted by the applicant and the adoption of city grading standards prior to the allowance of any grading on the site. 8) If "gross density" is used for comprehensive planning purposes how/when in the development process should the density of individual development areas be regulated? Should the Comprehensive plan address the relationship between land capability (floodway, slope, etc.) and density? See items "1-3" above 9) Should the City regulate single family and multi -family uses at the comprehensive plan level? The 2000 Comprehensive Plan contains a zoning matrix which correlates to the zoning designations in ECC 8-1-2 which limit multifamily units in A -R through R-5. 10) Should sub -area planning areas be regulated in size? Sub -planning areas were established in the Soaring 2025 Plan to enable the City to better discuss the integration of uses within specific areas of the City. The Soaring 2025 sub -planning areas were limited to approximately 2,000 acres. The most recent submittal by the applicant shows specific types of uses within the sub- areas that provide further guidance as to the types of uses and lot dimensions that will be included in the project. These lots standards will be reviewed and included as part of the development agreement. 11) How should the comprehensive plan direct open space preservation? During the Community Visioning the public expressed a desire for regional open space should conservation easements, dedication to the City, or HOA's be used to retain and manage open space? The proposed development includes 1,281 acres of community open space (25%) and 880 acres of regional open space (14.7 %). The applicant proposes the use of a homeowners association and private entities (for the golf courses) for the maintenance of Page 18 of 24 K:1Planning DepAEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc the community open space. The applicant proposes to dedicate 880 acres of regional open space to the City. Though the City has a desire to work with developers to formalize a regional open space network within the foothills long term funding and maintenance should be considered. The use of transfer fees, land trusts and endowment have been used by joint public/private partnership in similar circumstances to establish a predictable source of funding for large open space areas. The applicant informed the City that they have made application with the BLM for exchange of the 880 acres of open space adjacent to the proposed city park for the 815 acres adjacent to their Highway Mixed Use/Business Park sub -area along Highway 16. This exchange would result in the reduction of open space by 14%. Staff though supportive of the exchange, does not feel that the publicly owned BLM property should benefit an individual development. Staff would like to see a redesign of the project to maintain 25% community and 14% regional open space, if approved. Further, the development agreement should include a density reduction calculator for the affected areas if the BLM exchange is approved. The inclusion of the 815 acres would require an amendment to the development agreement. Staff would like to know what percentage of the community open space is contained within the proposed golf courses on the site. During the approval of the Legacy development the development agreement required a minimum of 15% of each phase be included as community space so that the open space was easily accessible regardless of location in the development. Further, during the legacy development approval it was established that at least 50% of all dwelling units, 65% of all lots less than 5,000 sq ft, and 50% of all lots less than 8,000 sq ft shall abut open space. Similar standards should be established for the community open space within the project and be placed as standards within the development agreement. • As a part of the conditional use for this development the applicant is requesting the potential of a height exception within the community Core. Exceptions in the City have included the Hilton Garden Inn (maximum height of 42 -feet) and the Legacy Academy Building. Staff recommends that the use of a height exception be built into the development agreement once a visual impact analysis has been doe to ensure that the height exception does not result in the ridgelining or creation of visual impacts to the existing city as detailed in the Foothill Visual Assessment completed by the City. Staff recommends that the visual assessment be reviewed by staff and the design review board prior to being submitted to the planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for consideration with individual planning units. • Eagle City Code 8-6-6-3, requires all final development plans be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the City Council. In the case of M3 the Planning and zoning commission shall review preliminary PUD "planning units" for compliance with this approval and the proposed development agreement as well as final development plans. This is partly to allow for additional City Review for flexibility needed for long-range and large PUD's. • If The applicant proposes to use private road the following analysis should be complete with the master transportation study for review and approval by the City prior to the submittal of the first planning unit: 1. Unique or special circumstances exist with respect to the proposed use, design, location, topography, or other features of the development or its surroundings such that private streets will serve to enhance the overall development; Page 19 of 24 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf fnal.doc 2. The private street provides safe and effective movement of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sidewalks and parking; 3. The private street provides adequate access for service and emergency vehicles; 4. The private street does not adversely affect access or good transportation planning to adjacent property and to the area travel networks; 5. The private street does not land lock adjacent property due to topography or parcel layout; 6. Other than to provide emergency access, the private street does not connect one public street to another, encouraging travel through the development served by the private street; 7. The use or alignment of the private street does not interfere with the continuity of public streets; and 8. An appropriate mechanism has been established for the repair and maintenance of the private street, including provisions for the funding thereof. Page 20 of 24 K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED VV i i nil+l THE STAFF REPORT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Staff recommends denial of the zoning ordinance amendment since the proposal is not consistent with the Eagle Comprehensive Plan, and since the use of annexation/development agreements, currently available under Eagle City Code, can be used to achieve the same end. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Staff recommends a comprehensive plan designation of "Foothills Residential" and the inclusion of the text of the six (6) sub -areas as land use sub -areas under Chapter 6 and a comprehensive plan map amendment for the site: Foothills Residential: A unique combination of land uses within the Eagle Foothills that strives to balance residential, non-residential, and open space use to create hamlets of development that situate urban development within the natural environment without overcrowding or significantly altering the natural features found on the site. Residential densities should be calculated to commensurate with the existing land conditions land with lands with slope in excess of 25% and habitat receiving a maximum density of 1 unit per 5 acres. ANNEXATION AND REZONE: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and rezone from RP (Rural Preservation) and RR(Rural Residential) to R -1 -DA for M3 Eagle with conditions to be placed within the annexation/development agreement as provided within the staff report PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION: A. A public hearing on the application first came before the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 27, 2006, additional hearings, including public testimony, were heard on the following dates: October 16, 2006 October 30, 2006 November 13, 2006 December 12, 2006 February 12, 2007 April 9, 2007 April 19, 2007 April 23, 2007 May 14, 2007 May 17, 2007 June 6, 2007 June 25, 2007 July 9, 2007 Page 21 of 24 K:1Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc The public hearing was closed on July 9, 2007 with the Planning Zoning Commission holding a work session on July 23, 2007. The Commission made their recommendation on August 27, 2007. B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by six (6) individuals who indicated that the proposed development supports the growth in Eagle, preferences for Eagle to review/approve development in the Foothills, and felt it was a quality development. C. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by eighteen (18) individuals expressed concerns about transportation, water, schools, economic impacts and wildlife. D. Oral testimony neither in opposition nor in support to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by twelve (12) individuals who had concerns about transportation, water, schools, economic impacts and wildlife. COMMISSION DECISION: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: The Commission voted 5 to 0, to recommend denial of ZOA-3-06. With their concerns and reasons shown within their Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law document, dated November 5, 2007. ANNEXATION AND REZONE: The Commission voted 5 to 0, to recommend approval of A-14-06 & RZ-19-06 for an annexation and rezone with a development agreement from RR (Rural Preservation— Ada County designation) and RR (Rural Residential — Ada County Designation) to R -1 -DA (Residential One with Development Agreement) for M3 Eagle, with conditions to be place within a development agreement shown within their Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law document, dated November 5, 2007. PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL: A. A public hearing on the applications came before the Eagle City Council for their action on the following dates: November 20,2007 November 27, 2007 December 5, 2007 December 11, 2007 Public testimony was taken, and the public hearing was closed on December 5, 2007. The Council made their decision on December 11, 2007. B. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by eleven (11) (not including the applicant/representative) stating support for the City's proactive planning, efforts to control development to the north of the City, the integration of the Eagle Wine District Overlay in the plan and the applicant's support of the City's new comprehensive plan. Page 22 of 24 K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc C. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by ten (10), stating concerns that the densities and bonuses proposed were to high, to many or unclear impacts to infrastructure, the desire to see development wait until implementing ordinances are in place, that the City should not be planning for the foothills. D. Oral testimony neither in favor or opposed to the proposal was presented by nine (9), stating general concern about growth, the provision of water services, requesting further review of the economic and environmental impacts of the development. COUNCIL DECISION: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: The Council voted 4 to 0, to recommend denial of ZOA-3-06. They felt that the use of development agreements (ECC 8-10) was a sufficient regulatory tool to meet the needs of the City and developers and that additional code changes were not necessary at this time. ANNEXATION AND REZONE: On December 11, 2007, the Council voted 4 to 0, to recommend approval of A-14-06 & RZ-19- 06 for an annexation and rezone with a development agreement from RR (Rural Preservation— Ada County designation) and RR (Rural Residential — Ada County Designation) to R -1 -DA (Residential One with Development Agreement) for M3 Eagle, with the development agreement attached here to and incorporated by reference as "Exhibit A": CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 24, 2006, and deemed complete on August 23, 2006. 2. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission was published in the Valley Times in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City Code on September 11, 2006. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within three -hundred feet (300 -feet) of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and Eagle City Code on September 8, 2006. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on September 18, 2006, 2006. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on September 8, 2006, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. 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 October 22, 2007. 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 October 22, 2007. The site was posted in accordance with the Eagle City Code on October 22, 2007. ,40%, 3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed rezone (RZ-19-06) with regard to Eagle City Code Section 8-7-5 "Action by the Commission and Council", and based upon Page 23 of 24 K:1Planning DeptTagle ApplicationslRZ&A120061A-14-06-06 & RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc the information provided concludes that the proposed rezone is in accordance with the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and established goals and objectives. Further: a. The requested R -1 -DA (Residential with a development agreement) zoning designation is consistent with the land use designation contained in the Eagle Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Eagle City Council by Resolution 07-36 on November 27, 2007; b. The information provided from the agencies having jurisdiction over the public facilities needed for this site indicate that adequate public facilities exist, or are expected to be provided as conditioned within the development agreement, to serve any and all uses allowed on this property under the proposed zone; c. The proposed R -1 -DA zone (Residential with a development agreement) is compatible with the RR zone (Rural Residential -Ada County) and RP (Rural Preservation -Ada County) zones and land uses to the north, south, and east since these sites are designated as Foothills Residential with in the Eagle Comprehensive Plan and are anticipated to develop with similar uses; d. The proposed R -1 -DA zone (Residential with a development agreement) is compatible with the RR zone (Rural Residential -Ada County) and RP (Rural Preservation -Ada County) zones and land uses to the west of the site since these areas are currently dry land ranches and may be developed in Ada County with similar uses; e. The land proposed for rezone is located within a "Hazard Area" or "Special Area" as described within the Comprehensive Plan, however, protection, mitigation and/or removal from these areas is expected to be provided as conditioned within the development agreement, and; f. No non -conforming uses are expected to be created with this rezone. DATED this 18th day of December 2007. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE Ada County, Idaho Na y C. ATTEST: Sharon . Bergmann, Eagle City erk -f- Page 24 of 24 K.1Planning DeptlEaglc Applications\RZ&A\20061A-14-06-06 R: RZ-19-06-06 ccf final.doc t;