Findings - DR - 2026 - DR-2026-17 - Sintra Subdivison - Design Review for the common area landscapong within Sintra Sub.BEFORE THE EAGLE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A )
DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE COMMON AREA )
LANDSCAPING WITHIN SINTRA SUBDIVISION )
FOR QUALITY SAND AND GRAVEL, INC. )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER DR-2026-17
The above -entitled design review application came before the Eagle Design Review Board for their action
on March 26, 2026. The Eagle 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:
Quality Sand and Gravel, Inc., represented by Mary Wall with Professional Engineering Services, is
requesting design review approval for the common area landscaping within Sintra Subdivision. The
9.66-acre site is generally located on the west side of North Park Lane, approximately 1,730-feet south
of West Beacon Light Road at 2257 North Park Lane.
B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The City of Eagle received the application for this item on February 20, 2026. Revised plans (landscape
plan) were received on March 17, 2026.
C. NOTICE OF AGENCIES' REVIEW:
Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on February 17, 2026, in accordance with the
requirements of the Eagle City Code.
D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
On October 14, 2025, the Eagle City Council approved an annexation and rezone with a development
agreement and preliminary plat for Sintra Subdivision(A-2025-02/RZDA-2025-03/PP-2025-02).
E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS:
There is one companion application DR-2026-18 (signage application).
Page 1 of 23
KAPlanning DeptTagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMP PLAN
ZONING
LAND USE
DESIGNATION
DESIGNATION
Existing
Neighborhood
RUT (Rural -Urban Transition
Agricultural and
— Ada County designation)
Residential (1 single-
family dwelling)
Proposed
No Change
R-1-DA (Residential with a
Proposed Residential
development agreement)
Subdivision
North of site
Neighborhood
R1 (Residential - Ada County
Agricultural
Designation)
South of site
Neighborhood
R-2-DA (Residential with a
Residential Subdivision
development agreement)
(Henry's Fork)
East of site
Neighborhood
R-2-DA (Residential with a
Residential Subdivision
development agreement)
(Soaring Feather)
West of site
Neighborhood
R-2-DA-P (Residential with a
Agricultural and
development agreement —
Residential (1 single-
PUD) and RUT (Rural -Urban
family dwelling) and
Transition — Ada County
Residential Subdivision
designation)
(Soaring Feather)
G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT:
This site is located within the city-wide Design Review Overlay District.
H. URBAN RENEWAL AREA:
The site is not located within the Urban Renewal Area.
I. EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
There is an existing single family residential dwelling that is to remain. The residential dwelling is
surrounded by trees that are to remain. The residential dwelling is surrounded by fields that have been
used for agricultural purposes.
J. SITE DATA:
Total Acreage of Site — 9.66
Total Number of Lots —10
Residential — 8
Commercial — 0
Industrial — 0
Common — 2
Total Number of Units —
Single-family - 8
Single-family attached - 0
Two-family - 0
Multi -family - 0
Total Acreage of Any Out -Parcels — 0
Page 2 of 23
K:\Flanning Dept\Bagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
Additional Site Data
Proposed
Required
0.83-dwelling units per acre
Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre
0.83-dwelling units per acre
maximum (as limited by the
development agreement)
Minimum Lot Size
37,140-square feet
37,000-square feet
Minimum Lot Width
142-feet
100-feet
Minimum Street Frontage
36-feet
35-feet
Total Acreage of Common Area
0.88-acres
N/A
Open Space
Percent of Site as Common Area
9.1%
9.1% (required buffer area)
Open Space
K. PARKING ANALYSIS: N/A
L. GENERAL SITE DESIGN FEATURES:
Landscape Screening:
The preliminary plat landscape plan, date stamped by the City on June 25, 2025, shows a 50-foot wide
common lot (Lot 7, Block 1) along the frontage of the subject property on North Park Lane. The
common lot includes tree and shrub planting that provides a buffer from North Park Lane, which is
designated as a minor arterial.
Common Area Open Space:
Pursuant to the proposed preliminary landscape plan, date stamped by the City on June 25, 2025.9.1%
open space is proposed and is composed of the buffer area along North Park Lane and Dry Creek Canal.
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&R's 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 ten feet (10') wide.
Fire Hydrants and Water Mains:
Hydrants are to be located and installed as required by the Eagle Fire District.
On -site Septic System:
No septic systems are proposed within the subdivision.
Preservation of Existing Natural Features:
Staff is not aware of any existing natural features on the site which would be required to be preserved.
Preservation of Existing Historical Assets:
The Eagle Register of Historic Sites lists the existing house on the property as "N Park Lane house".
Page 3 of 23
KAPlanning DeptTagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DR13\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
This house is an 1891 Tudor Revival that was moved to the site from Boise and has a Boise
Architectural Landmark plaque labeling it as the "Wilson -Mott House". The house and surrounding
improvements will be retained on one of the residential lots so this historic building will be preserved.
If any historical artifacts are discovered during excavation or development of the site, state law requires
immediate notification to the state.
M. BUILDING DESIGN FEATURES: N/A
N. LANDSCAPING DESIGN:
Retention of Existing Trees and Preservation Methods:
There are 153 trees located around the existing residential dwelling and along the open ditch along the
east and north properties lines. The applicant is proposing to retain 18 of the existing trees, remove
135 trees, and mitigate for the removal of 5 of the trees.
Below is a complete list of the existing trees on the site that are proposed to be removed or retained.
Tree
Tree Specie
Caliper/
Condition30
Remove/
Replacement
#
Height
Retained
Inches/Feet per
ECC
1
Willow
30"
Poor
Remove
0"
2
Cypress
9.25'
Fair, crowded by surrounding
Remove
0'
trees, deadwood throughout
canopy, adjacent willow
growing over
3
Colorado Spruce
18'
Poor, sever tip dieback and
Remove
0'
deadwood throughout canopy
4
Colorado Spruce
22'
Good
Remove
22'
5
Bradford Pear
18"
Fair, large broken hanging
Remove
0"
branch and minor deadwood
in canopy
6
Apple
7"
Good
Remove
7"
7
Crabapple
9"
Fair
Remove
0"
8
Crabapple
9"
Fair
Remove
0"
9
Pear
9"
Good
Remove
9"
10
Sycamore
14"
Fair, shows signs of sycamore
Remove
0"
anthracnose, tip dieback,
deadwood throughout canopy
11
Juniper
18'
Fair, codominant tree,
Remove
0'
growing at an angle
12
Juniper
18'
Fair, codominant tree,
Remove
0'
crowded by surrounding trees
13
Juniper
18'
Fair, codominant tree,
Remove
0'
crowded by surrounding trees
14
Spruce
12'
Fair, crowded by surrounding
Remove
0'
trees
Page 4 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
15
Plum
15"
Fair, multi stem, growing
Remove
0"
over a gazebo, minor
deadwood
16
Willow
64"
Poor
Remove
0"
17
Colorado Blue
18'
Fair, growing at an angle,
Remove
0'
Spruce
heavy on one side due to lack
of growth due to
overcrowding of surrounding
trees
18
Big Leaf Linden
11"
Good
Remove
11"
19
Norway Spruce
15'
Fair, damage to main top
Remove
0'
because of over crowding
from surrounding trees
20
Honey Locust
8"
Fair, deadwood throughout
Retain
0"
canopy
21
Juniper
12'
Fair, top is damaged from
Remove
0'
surrounding trees growing
into it, deadwood throughout
canopy
22
Willow
28"
Fair
Remove
0"
23
Juniper
10,
Fair, minor deadwood
Remove
0'
throughout canopy
24
Juniper
10,
Fair, damaged main stem
Remove
0'
from surrounding trees
rubbing
25
Juniper
12'
Fair, surrounding trees
Remove
0'
growing through canopy, top
of tree is damaged, deadwood
throughout canopy
26
Honey Locust
19"
Fair, leaning, impacting
Remove
0"
surrounding trees
27
Willow
22"
Poor
Remove
0"
28
Green Ash
16"
Fair, deadwood throughout,
Remove
0"
signs of boring insect damage
29
Willow
39"
Poor
Remove
0"
30
Crabapple
6"
Fair, rubbing and crossing
Remove
0"
steams and branches, crown
is extremely crowded
31
Scotch Pine
35'
Good
Retain
0'
32
Colorado Spruce
18,
Fair, crowded by Scotch Pine,
Remove
18,
deadwood throughout canopy
33
Crabapple
8"
Fair, sucker growth in canopy
Retain
0"
34
Colorado Blue
20'
Fair, tree is chlorotic,
Remove
0'
Page 5 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
Spruce
deadwood throughout canopy
35
Crabapple
8"
Fair, sucker growth in canopy
Remove
0"
36
Cypress
17'
Fair, damaged branches,
deadwood throughout canopy
Remove
0'
37
Colorado Blue
Spruce
12'
Fair, crowded by surrounding
trees, minor deadwood
throughout canopy
Remove
0'
38
Juniper
12'
Fair, codominant stems,
minor deadwood in canopy
Remove
0'
39
Apple
14"
Fair
Retain
0"
40
English Oak
22"
Fair
Retain
0"
41
Bradford Pear
11"
Fair, combined bark between
stems, large heavy tops
Remove
0"
42
Sycamore
20"
Fair
Retain
0"
43
Austrian Pine
10,
Poor, half of the canopy has
been removed, has dieback
Remove
0'
44
Crabapple
7"
Fair
Retain
0"
45
Austrian Pine
20'
Fair
Retain
0'
46
English Oak
15"
Fair
Retain
0"
47
Austrian Pine
18'
Fair
Retain
0'
48
Austrian Pine
17'
Fair
Retain
0'
49
Colorado Spruce
22'
Fair
Retain
0'
50
Oak
16"
Fair
Retain
0"
51
Crabapple
8"
Poor, codominant stems with
excessive deadwood
throughout canopy
Remove
0"
52
Plum
15.5"
Fair
Retain
0"
53
Crabapple
14.5"
Fair
Retain
0"
54
Plum
12.25"
Poor, almost completely dead
Remove
0"
55
Crabapple
10"
Fair
Retain
0"
56
Bradford Pear
13"
Fair
Retain
0"
57
Apricot
I1"
Fair
Retain
0"
58
Green Ash
20"
Poor, severe tip dieback, large
dead branches throughout
canopy, signs of boring insect
damage
Remove
0"
59
Pear
7"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
District
Remove
0"
60
1 Silver Maple
36"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
Page 6 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
District
61
Bradford Pear
10.25"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
62
Bradford Pear
16"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
63
Cottonwood
33"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
64
Willow
63"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
65
Pear
10"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
66
Willow
34"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
67
Pear
9"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
68
Black Locust
27"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
69
Black Locust
19"
Dead
Remove
0"
70
Black Locust
17"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
71
Black Locust
7"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
72
Black Locust
35"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
73
Willow
35"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
74
Willow
16"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
75
Willow
28"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
76
Pear
8.5"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
77
Willow
9"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
78
Willow
52"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
79
Willow
37"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
80
Willow
42"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
81
Willow
55"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
Page 7 of 23
KAPtanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
District
82
Oak
11"
Fair, tree has been topped,
Remove
0"
crowded by surrounding
trees, deadwood in
crown/Removal by Irrigation
District
83
Willow
50"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
84
Willow
34"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
85
Willow
55"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
86
Plum
7.5"
Poor, severely pruned,
Remove
0"
excessive sucker growth,
included bark, and
leaning/Removal by Irrigation
District
87
Willow
47"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
88
Cottonwood
29"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
89
Willow
38"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
90
Plum
7"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
91
Willow
51"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
92
Ponderosa Pine
16'
Good/ Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0'
District
93
Juniper
10,
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0'
District
94
Cottonwood
34"
Dead
Remove
0"
95
Apricot
6"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
96
Juniper
13'
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0'
District
97
Austrian Pine
16'
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0'
District
98
Juniper
14'
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0'
District
99
Willow
43"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
100
Hawthorn
8"
Poor, large broken, hanging
Remove
0"
Page 8 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra landscaping Findings DR.docx
branches, and deadwood
throughout/Removal by
Irrigation District
101
Scotch Pine
14'
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0'
District
102
Willow
50"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
103
Willow
55"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
104
Juniper
12'
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0'
District
105
Oak
14"
Good/ Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
106
Colorado Blue
21'
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0'
Spruce
District
107
Willow
13.75"
Poor/ Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
108
Willow
48"
Poor/ Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
109
Cypress
12'
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0'
District
110
Austrian Pine
18'
Fair, growing at an angle, has
Remove
0'
stunted growth due to
crowding over surrounding
trees, deadwood throughout
canopy/Removal by Irrigation
District
lit
Cottonwood
32"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
112
Juniper
11'
Good/ Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0'
District
113
Willow
40"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
114
Colorado Blue
10,
Poor, damaged top, is
Remove
0'
Spruce
chlorotic, excessive
deadwood throughout
canopy/Removal by Irrigation
District
115
Bradford Pear
7"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
116
Hawthorn
9"
Fair/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
117
Juniper
12'
Fair, crowded by surrounding
Remove
0'
trees, deadwood throughout
Page 9 of 23
K1Flanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisioos\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
canopy, included bark
between stems/Removal by
Irrigation District
118
Cottonwood
25"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
119
Willow
52"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
120
Scotch Pine
30'
Fair, shows signs of pitch
Remove
0'
moth infestation, leaning,
minor deadwood
throughout/Removal by
Irrigation District
121
Bradford Pear
11"
Fair, crowded by surround
Remove
0"
trees, has included bark
between stems/Removal by
Irrigation District
122
Bradford Pear
16"
Fair, included bark between
Remove
0"
stems with minor deadwood
throughout canopy/Removal
by Irrigation District
123
Scotch Pine
18,
Fair, codominant stems,
Remove
0'
shows signs of pitch moth
infestation/Removal by
Irrigation District
124
Bradford Pear
19"
Fair, leaning due to crowding
Remove
0"
of surrounding trees/Removal
by Irrigation District
125
Bradford Pear
19"
Fair, growing at an angle due
Remove
0"
to crowding of surrounding
trees/Removal by Irrigation
District
126
Willow
61"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
127
Norway Maple
11"
Poor, broken tops, and
Remove
0"
hanging branches. Shows
signs of anthracnose
throughout the
canopy/Removal by Irrigation
District
128
Willow
55"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
129
Willow
33"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
130
Willow
38"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
Page 10 of 23
KAPlanning DeptTagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
131
Willow
64"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
132
Willow
50"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
133
Willow
25"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
134
Willow
50"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
135
Willow
37"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
136
Willow
8"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
137
Willow
46"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
138
Willow
41"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
139
Willow
42"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
140
Willow
22"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
141
Willow
48.75"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
142
Willow
46"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
143
Willow
43"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
144
Willow
36.5"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
145
Willow
36"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
146
Willow
50"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
147
Willow
22"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
148
Willow
41"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
149
Willow
72"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
150
Willow
40"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
151
Willow
44"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
Page 11 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
152
Willow
67"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
153
Willow
19"
Poor/Removal by Irrigation
Remove
0"
District
Total caliper inches/feet of trees required to be replaced on site
TBD by the Design
Review Board and
City Council
Total caliper inches of tree removed from the site
3115.25" total
166" (retain)
27" (healthy)
656.25" (poor/fair/dead)
2,285.25" (irrigation)
Total height of tree removed from the site
620.5'
112' (retain)
18' (healthy)
263.5' (poor/fair)
227' (irrigation)
Total caliper inches proposed for mitigation
23"
Total height proposed for mitigation
40'
Tree Replacement Calculations:
The applicant is proposing to mitigate for two Colorado Spruces, one Apple, one Crabapple, and one
Big Leaf Linden trees. The applicant is proposing to increase the height of all the proposed evergreen
trees from 6-feet to 7-feet (required pursuant to Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7(E)(4 & 5)) to 7-feet
to 8-feet in height and to increase the caliper of the Silver Linden trees to 3-inch caliper. The increase
in height of the 40 evergreen trees totals 40 additional feet of evergreen and the increase of the Silver
Linden trees to 3-caliper inch trees totals 23-caliper inches of additional deciduous trees within the
development. See discussion on page 17 for more information.
Proposed Tree Mix (Species & Number): To be reviewed by the Design Review Board.
Street Trees: Street trees are proposed along the frontage of all the lots within the development.
Maintenance Provisions and Proposed Irrigation Methods: Automatic irrigation required.
Transition Zones: N/A
Parking Lot Landscaping: N/A
O. TRASH ENCLOSURES: N/A
P. MECHANICAL UNITS: N/A
Q. OUTDOOR LIGHTING:
A streetlight plan showing the location, height, style, illumination type, and wattage was received and
complies with Eagle City Code Section 84-4-2.
Page 12 of 23
KAPlanning DeptTagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Fi1es\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
R. SIGNAGE:
No signs are proposed with this application. A separate design review application (DR-2026-18) has
been submitted for the approval of a monument sign for this development.
S. PUBLIC SERVICES AVAILABLE:
A preliminary approval letter from Eagle Fire Department has been received by the City. The site is
located within Veolia Water service area and within the boundaries of the Eagle Sewer District.
T. PUBLIC USES PROPOSED:
No public uses are proposed.
U. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP:
No future acquisition map currently exists.
V. SPECIAL ON -SITE FEATURES:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - none
Evidence of Erosion - no
Fish Habitat - no
Floodplain - no
Mature Trees - yes
Riparian Vegetation - no
Steep Slopes - no
Stream/Creek - no
Unique Animal Life - no
Unique Plant Life - no
Unstable Soils - unknown
Wildlife Habitat - no
W. SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLAN (IF REQUIRED):
An environmental assessment is not required for this application.
X. AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached to the staff report.
Department of Environmental Quality
Eagle Fire Department
Eagle Sewer District
Idaho Department of Transportation
Idaho Power
Meridian Fire Department
Y. LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC:
No letters from the public have been received to date.
Z. EAGLE CITY CODE 8-2A-13(B)(1)&(2): Required Findings for Design Review:
1. City Findings: The City shall make findings which address the following:
a. The ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application;
b. The reasons for the approval or denial;
Page 13 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Wonting Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
c. The actions, if any, that the applicant could take to obtain approval.
2. General Standards For Design Review: The Zoning Administrator, Design Review Board, or City
Council, whichever is applicable, shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed design review in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence
showing that such design review at the proposed location:
a. Will function in conformance with the applicable strategies of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan
and is in accordance with the regulations of this Code;
b. Is of a scale, intensity, and character that is in harmony with existing conforming and planned
development in the vicinity of the site;
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
the 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 commercial center in the area;
and
i. Will have signs, if proposed, that are harmonious with the architectural design of the building
and the adjacent buildings, and will not cover or detract from desirable architectural features.
THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING STAFF
ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AND ADOPTS THE STAFF REPORT
AS PART OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
THIS PROPOSAL:
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (adopted November 15, 2017), designates this site as the
following:
Neighborhood
Suitable for single family residential. Densities range from 2 units per acre to 4 units per acre.
Residential Transition Overlay
Residential development that provides for a transition between land use categories and uses.
Commonly requires a transition/change in density, lot sizing, and building scaling with a specific parcel
or project. Base densities may be reduced or units may be clustered to increase open space within a
portion of a site when property is in this overlay. Neighborhood design will be paramount in this overlay
to ensure appropriate transition between uses. See specific planning areas for further description.
Page 14 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
3.2 Owner will develop the Property subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in this
Development Agreement. Further, Owner will submit such applications regarding floodplain
development permit review, design review, preliminary and final plat reviews, and/or any
conditional use permits, if applicable, and any other applicable applications as may be required by
the Eagle City Code, which shall comply with the Eagle City Code, as it exists at the time such
applications are made except as otherwise provided within this Agreement.
C. PRELIMINARY PLAT PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS
PROPOSAL:
4. The developer shall provide shade -class trees (landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Design Review Board) along both sides of all streets within this development. Trees shall be placed
at the front of each lot generally at each side property line, or as approved by the Design Review
Board. The trees shall be located within an eight foot (8') wide landscape strip between the five
foot (5') wide concrete sidewalk and the curb. Any and all drainage swales and/or seepage beds
shall be placed so as to not interfere with the required placement of street trees. Prior to the City
Clerk signing the final plat the applicant shall either install the required trees, sod, and irrigation or
provide the City with a letter of credit for 150% of the cost of the installation of all landscape and
irrigation improvements. 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, including street
trees that have been installed. On -going surety for street trees for all undeveloped portions of the
development will be required through project completion.
5. The developer shall provide a detailed arborist report and an existing tree inventory map identifying
all existing trees located on site. The report shall identify, at a minimum, species, size, and health
of the trees. The arborist report and map shall be provided with the submittal of a design review
application. The developer shall provide a narrative indicating which trees will be incorporated into
the design of the subdivision and which trees will be removed prior to removal of the trees. No
trees shall be removed from the site prior to city approval of a tree removal plan.
6. The developer shall submit a design review application showing at a minimum: 1) proposed
development signage, 2) planting details within the proposed and required landscape islands and
all common areas throughout the development, 3) elevation plans for all proposed common area
structures and irrigation pump house (if proposed), 4) landscape screening details of the irrigation
pump house (if proposed), 5) useable amenities such as picnic tables, covered shelters, benches,
gazebos, and/or similar amenities, 6) all proposed fencing throughout the development, and 7)
street lights. The design review application shall be reviewed and approved by the Eagle Design
Review Board prior to the submittal of a final plat application.
7. Any fencing located adjacent to common area open spaces and on the street side of all corner lots
shall be an open fencing style such as wrought iron or other similar decorative style, durable fencing
material. Specific buffer area fences and decorative walls may be allowed as otherwise required in
ECC Section 8-2A-7 (J).
Page 15 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
D. ZONING CODE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS
PROPOSAL:
• Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-1: GENERAL APPLICABILITY:
This article applies to all proposed development located within the design review overlay district
which shall include the entire city limits, and any land annexed into the city after the date of
adoption hereof. Such development includes, but is not limited to, new commercial, industrial,
institutional, office, multi -family residential projects, signs, common areas, subdivision signage,
proposed conversions, proposed changes in land use and/or building use, exterior remodeling or
repainting with a color different than what is existing, exterior restoration, and enlargement or
expansion of existing buildings, signs or sites, and requires the submittal of a design review
application pursuant to this article and fee as prescribed from time to time by the city council.
• Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7(C) Retention, Removal, and Replacement of Trees:
1. Retention Of Existing Trees:
a. Existing trees shall be retained unless removal is approved in writing by the city.
2. Removal And Replacement Of Existing Trees:
a. Where trees are approved by the city to be removed, replacement with a species identified
in section 8-2A-7Q of this article is required. For each caliper inch of deciduous tree
removed, an equivalent amount of caliper inches shall be replanted. For each vertical foot
of coniferous tree removed, an equivalent amount of vertical feet shall be replanted.
Example: An eight inch (8") caliper deciduous tree is removed, an acceptable replacement
would be four (4) two inch (2") caliper deciduous trees. A twelve foot (12') tall coniferous
tree is removed, an acceptable replacement would be two (2) six feet (6') tall coniferous
trees.
c. Unless it is determined by the city that replacement is necessary to preserve and/or restore
riparian and wildlife habitat, removal of the following trees shall not otherwise 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.
• Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7(0)(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 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.
Page 16 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
E. DISCUSSION:
The applicant is requesting design review approval of the common area landscaping within Sintra
Subdivision, a 10-lot (8-buildable, 2-common) residential subdivision. There is an existing home
located on the site that is to be retained and incorporated into the development on one of the building
lots. The home is listed in the Eagle Register of Historic Sites and has a Boise Historic Landmark
Plaque highlighting its historic significance. Street trees are proposed along the lot frontages within
the landscape strip. A 10-foot wide regional pathway is located within a 25-foot wide easement
along the New Dry Creek Canal at the northeast corner of the site.
The applicant is proposing to remove 135 of the 153 trees from the site. Ninety-five (95) of the
trees being removed are at the request of the New Dry Creek Ditch Company while improvements
are being made to the gravity irrigation system along the east and north property lines. The
applicant is proposing to retain 18 of the trees and to mitigate for five of the trees being removed
from the site (2 Colorado Spruce, Apple, Crabapple, and Big Leaf Linden) (40-feet and 23-caliper
inches). Pursuant to Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7(C)(1)(a), existing trees are required to be
retained on site unless removal is approved in writing by the City. Pursuant to Eagle City Code
Section 8-2A-7(C)(2)(c), unless it is determined by the City that replacement is necessary to
preserve and/or restore riparian and wildlife habitat, removal of Black Locust, Silver Maple, and
Cottonwood trees do not require replacement. Pursuant to Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-
7(C)(2)(a), for each caliper inch of deciduous tree removed, an equivalent amount of caliper inches
is required to be replanted and for each vertical foot of coniferous tree removed, an equivalent
amount of vertical feet is required to be replanted.
Staff defers comment regarding the removal of the 139 trees to the Design Review Board.
If the City approves the removal of the trees and accepts the proposed mitigation, no additional
trees are required.
-OR-
If the City approves the removal of the trees, accept the proposed mitigation, and only requires
mitigation for the trees being removed from the site (not including those located within the Dry
Creek Ditch Company), the applicant should provide a revised landscape plan showing the addition
of 43, 6-7-foot tall trees and 341, 2-inch caliper trees. The revised landscape plan should be
reviewed and approved by staff and one member of the Design Review Board prior to submittal of
the final plat application.
-OR-
If the City approves the removal of the trees and does not accept the proposed mitigation, the
applicant may elect to make a financial contribution to the tree fund in the amount of $62,255.00
(281-feet X $60/foot and 341-caliper inches X $175.00/inch) in lieu of retaining all trees on the
site. The financial contribution should be received prior to approval of the final plat application.
-OR-
Any other combination of planting additional trees on site and/or a contribution to the tree fund as
may be approved by the City. A revised landscape plan and/or contribution to the tree fund should
be reviewed and approved and/or submitted to the City prior to the submittal of a final plat
application or commencement of any construction/demolition on the site, whichever occurs first.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
Based upon the information provided to staff to date, if the requested design review application is approved,
staff recommends the site specific conditions of approval and standard conditions of approval provided
within the staff report.
Page 17 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Fi1es\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD:
A. A meeting to consider the application was held before the Design Review Board on March 26, 2026, at
which time the Board made their decision.
BOARD DELIBERATION:
Upon completion of the applicant's and staff s presentations, the Board discussed during deliberation that:
• The Board is in favor of the development as proposed with the addition of the mailbox cluster being
constructed with a stone surround to complement the existing stone on the historic home, the decorative
wall proposed on Lot 4, Block 1, and the monument sign as required within site specific condition no.
5.
• The Board is in favor of the proposed tree mitigation the applicant has submitted.
BOARD DECISION:
The Board voted 5 to 0 (Mihan and Asher absent) to recommend approval of DR-2026-17 for a design
review application for the common area landscaping within Sintra Subdivision, with the following staff
recommended site specific conditions of approval and standard conditions of approval with text shown with
underline to be added by the Board and text shown with strikethrough to be deleted by the Board.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Comply with all applicable conditions of A-2025-02/RZDA-2025-03/PP-2025-02.
2. If Tthe City approves the removal of the trees and accepts the proposed mitigation, no additional trees
are required.
-OR-
NO 1101
- ..
Now WWWWW1111, A*
s ■_ ._
"Allm
Any other- eembinatien of planting additional tfees on site anEVer- a eentfibt#ien te the tree fund as may
be appFeved by the City. A ftvised landseape plan anEVef eentr-ibtAien te the Ifee fund shall be r-evi
and approved aREYOF submi4ed to the City prior- to the stibmit4al of a final plm appheatien e-r
eefumeneement of any eeastfuetiefb4efaelitiea on the site, whiehever- eeeuFs first.
3. All ground mounted transformers, cable, and phone boxes shall be screened by landscaping per Eagle
City Code.
4. No signs are proposed with this application and none are approved.
5. Provide detailed elevation plans showing an architectural element around the mailbox cluster. The
architectural element shall incorporate the use of stone that matches the existing stone on the historic
home and the decorative wall proposed to be located on Lot 4, Block 1. The detailed elevation plans
shall be reviewed and approved by staff and one member of the Design Review Board prior to the
Page 18 of 23
KAPlanning DeptTagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DRdocx
submittal of a final plat application.
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
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.
Page 19 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DRdocx
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
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
Page 20 of 23
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
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. Use, or each use for multi-use/multi-tenant projects, shall be as defined within Eagle City Code 8-2-3,
"Schedule of District Use Regulations", and any use and subsequent change by the applicant in the
planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to submit
a Zoning Permit application to the City and 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 changes 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
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-2026-17) with regard to the Eagle City Code Title 8, Chapter 2, Article A, DR Design Review
Page 21 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02.DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
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 subdivision landscaping is permitted with the approval of a design review
application within the R-1-DA (Residential 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 common area landscaping is 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 — Not applicable for a landscape plan;
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 — Not applicable for
a landscape plan;
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 — Not applicable for a
landscape plan;
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 in the area; and
I. No signs are proposed with this application. All signs, if proposed, will be required to be
harmonious with the architectural design of the subdivision, and will not cover nor detract from
desirable architectural features.
Regulatory Takings Analysis Notice: Applicant has a right to request a regulatory takings analysis
pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-8003.
Page 22 of 23
KAPlanning DeptTagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Fi1es\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx
DATED this 9l' day of April 2026.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
)AWIter jWdgren, Chairman
ATTEST: 1ottln,etr,,m.
�-LE
s
Tracy E. o , Eagle City Clerk
5
rrrrrn, n,�°�1'
Page 23 of 23
KAPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\Subdivisions\Sintra\Sintra Subdivision Landscaping - DR-2026-17\03-Working Files\02-DRB\Sintra Landscaping Findings DR.docx