Findings - CC - 1999 - Comp plan amendment - Very Low Density To Med Low Density/75.2 Acres
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR ROGER
C. CRANDLEMIRE
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER CP A-2-98
The above-entitled comprehensive plan amendment application came before the Eagle City
Council for their action on August 21, 1999, at which time the public testimony was taken. The
public hearing was continued until August 28, 1999, and then to August 31, 1999, at which time
the public hearing was closed, however, written comments were accepted until 5:00 P.M.,
September 2, 1999. The Council began deliberations on September 2, 1999, and continued
deliberations until September 21, 1999, at which time they made their final decision. On
November 9, 1999, the Council held a second public hearing to take public testimony on changes
made to CP A-2-98. The public hearing was closed and the Council made their final decision at
that time.
The Eagle City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly
considered the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law;
FINDINGS OF FACT:
A.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
Roger C. Crandlemire, represented by Roylance & Associates, is requesting
approval of a comprehensive plan amendment from Very Low Density
Residential (one or fewer dwelling units per two acres) to Medium Density
Residential (four or fewer dwelling units per acre). The 95.2-acre site is located
on the north side of Floating Feather Road approximately %-mile west of Eagle
Road at 1400 W. Floating Feather Road.
B.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on August 31,
1998.
C.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning
Commission was published in accordance for requirements of Title 67, Chapter
65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City ordinances on September 30, 1998. 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 3, 1998. Requests for
agencies' reviews were transmitted on September 4, 1998 in accordance with the
Page 1 of 10
K:lPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPAI1998\CPA-2-98 ccfdoc
requirements of the Eagle City Code.
D.
HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: none
E.
COMPANION APPLICATIONS: Rezone (RZ-7-98)
F.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
Existing Very Low Density A-R (Agricultural- Agriculture/ Existing
Residential (1 unit per Residential) residence
two acres maximum)
Proposed Medium Density R - 3 (Residential) Residential
Residential (4 units per Subdivision
acre maximum)
North of site Very Low Density Rl & RT (Residential) Rural Residences
Residential (1 unit per
two acres maximum)
South of site Low Density A (Agricultural), PS Agriculture/ Eagle
Residential (2 units per (Public/Semi-Public), R-l Middle School/
acre maximum) & (Residential) Residences
Public/Semi-Public
East of site Very Low Density RT (Residential) & PS Agriculture
Residential (1 unit per (Public/Semi -Public)
two acres maximum) &
Public/Semi-Public
West of site Very Low Density RT, Rl, R8 (Residential) Residences
Residential (1 unit per
two acres maximum)
G.
DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: No Overlay District.
H.
TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 95.2-acres
I.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF mSTIFICATION FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT:
See attached narrative date stamped August 31, 1998.
J.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF mSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT: n/a
K.
AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
Preliminary approval letters ITom Eagle Fire Department and United Water Idaho
Page 2 of 10
K:lPlanning DeptlEagle ApplicationsICPAIJ998ICPA-2-98 ccfdoc
L.
M.
have been provided to the City.
The letter received from the Eagle Sewer District states that a sewer line is
existing near the site, however, the District has not guaranteed service to this site
to date.
PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP:
No map currently exists.
NON-CONFORMING USES:
Based upon the information available, the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment will not create any noncompliance with any provisions of the Eagle
City Code.
N.
AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached.
Comments which appear to be of special concern are noted below:
Central District Health
Eagle Fire Department
Eagle Sewer District
United WaterIdaho
O.
LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: See the 7-1etters (attached) and other applicable letters
in packet for CPA-6-97
P.
APPLICANT REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT:
Per Comprehensive Plan "Amendment Procedures" Item B:
Any person may petition the Planning and Zoning Commission for a plan
amendment at any time. The applicant shall submit a letter for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment which will contain the following:
1. Specific description of the change being requested.
2. Specific information on any property involved.
3. The condition or situation which warrants a change being made in the plan.
4. The public need for a benefit from such a change in the plan.
5. A statement that no other solutions to the problem presented by the current
policy of the Plan are possible or reasonable.
6. Proposed development for any land involved.
7. Any other data and information needed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission in evaluating the request.
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A.
OCTOBER 14, 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF
SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
Page 3 of 10
KIPlanning DeptIEagle ApplicationsICPAI1998ICPA-2-98 ccf.doc
.
SECTION: "PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACES"
Parks, recreation and open spaces deals with the places and facilities for the
enjoyable use of leisure time and provisions for attractive open spaces.
Open space is land which is not used for buildings or structures and offers
opportunities for parks, recreation, water amenities, greenbelt-river trails and
pathways, tourism, leisure pursuits and potential economic development. The
policies and goals relating to open space will greatly affect the character of
Eagle's area of influence and future developments.
.
SECTION: "TRANSPORTATION"
POLICIES AND GOALS
17. To require that new developments within the City or Impact Area provide a traffic
impact study to the City. These studies shall include, but not be limited to,
potential impacts to existing traffic patterns, suggested roadway widths, access to
existing & proposed roadways, signalization, location and need for intersections,
turn lanes, and bus stops. In addition the traffic impact study should address
parking and pedestrian traffic. Implementation of any traffic requirements by the
City shall be dependent upon approval from the Ada County Highway District
(ACHD) and/or the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). No developments
will be pennitted to start until all approvals have been obtained.
.
SECTION: "COMMUNITY DESIGN"
Community design is the organized fashion in which a community is developed in
order that a general mood or theme is established and maintained.
Elements of the Eagle community design include: (a) a rural transitional
community with a shopping district functioning as the hub of the community; (b)
the Boise River and its floodplain establishing a natural open space area complete
with wildlife, trees, and recreation opportunities; (c) the rolling hills north of the
river as an attractive terrace; and, (d) a network of canals which crisscross the
community.
Presently the dominant features within the Eagle Area, i.e., floodplain, canal
system, etc. are undeveloped and provide development potential. As Eagle grows,
it will be a challenge for the community to maintain its rural identity using these
elements as the basis for community design.
POLICIES AND GOALS
1. To establish and maintain a development pattern and design criteria in keeping
Page 4 of 10
KIPJanning Dept\Eagle ApplicationsICPAI1998ICPA-2-98 ccfdoc
with the rural transitional identity of Eagle.
.
SECTION: "LAND USE"
Land use designations as reflected on the Land Use Map shall be based on the
existing land use pattern, existing natural physical features such as the Boise
River, Dry Creek and the foothills, floodplain areas, capacity of existing
community facilities, projected population and economic growth, compatibility
with other uses of the land, transportation systems, and the needs oflocal citizens.
POLICIES AND GOALS
1. To preserve the rural transitional identity.
2. To preserve the natural features and resources of Eagle.
3. To establish land use patterns and zoning district's that do not exhaust available
services such as sewer, water, police, fire protection, recreational areas, highways
and transportation systems.
4. To promote compatibility between zoning districts.
5. To encourage pedestrian friendly development.
6. To encourage clustering and density transfer techniques to provide for recreational
opportunities and for the preservation and acquisition of open space as part of
Planned Unit Developments (PUD). Plats involving ten or more lots are
encouraged to file such requests as part of a (PUD).
Note: There is no language in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan that states that the City is intended
to develop into unifonn concentric circles of decreasing density radiating out from the
CBD.
B.
ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: (None at this time)
c.
DISCUSSION:
.
Floating Feather Road and Dry Creek provide a boundary line that buffers existing
higher densities to the south and east from the lower densities to the north and west.
If densities to the north and west of this boundary line are allowed to increase, then
the rural areas to the north become increasingly vulnerable to the spread of higher
densities and a further reduction of the rural character currently planned for the City
of Eagle.
Under the "Amendment Procedures" section within the 1997 Comprehensive Plan the
applicant must show, "the condition or situation which warrants a change being made
in the plan." In staffs opinion, the overall philosophy of the citizens (for the area
north of the Floating Feather Road and west of Dry Creek to remain rural as shown on
the current Comprehensive Plan) has not changed.
Page 5 of 10
KlPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\1998\CPA-2-98 ccfdoc
The changes the applicant addresses in his justification letter are that a sewer line is
now existing in Floating Feather Road, the road had been widened, and the school
has been constructed. These conditions and situations were in existence on October
14, 1997, when the 1997 Comprehensive Plan was approved by the City with very
low density residential planned for this area. As a matter of fact, the 1993
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map showed the school to be in this location with
very low density residential surrounding the school site. Based upon these facts, staff
does not see what conditions or situations have occurred to warrant a change to higher
density for this area.
Further, most of the properties surrounding the Crandlemire property (north of
Floating Feather Road) are zoned for much lower densities, mostly RT (one unit per
five acres) with a few properties zoned Rl. To comply with the Comprehensive Plan,
the few parcels zoned as Rl would not be pennitted to have densities of more than
one unit per two acres because the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates
these properties as Very Low Residential (one unit per two acres maximum). These
parcels would be zoned with a zoning designation of one unit per two acres if the
county had such a designation. As a matter of interest, Ada County is currently in the
process of revising their zoning code for a one unit per two acre zoning designation to
avoid conflicts between zoning designations and Comprehensive Plan designations as
has been requested by the Eagle City Council.
.
A change to higher density in this area will create a "density pocket" that is not
compatible with surrounding properties. In recent years the City has responded
favorably to the requests of the citizens to keep Eagle rural and maintain compatible
densities. For example, in 1996, the City denied Oxford Subdivision because the lots
that were proposed near Lexington Hills were too small and the people there felt that
that kind of development was not compatible with the larger lots that were existing
within Lexington Hills. Earlier this year, the City required the developers of Feather
Nest Estates Subdivision to remove one of the lots along the eastern edge of the
development so the rest of the lots along that edge could be made larger so as to be
more compatible with the larger lots within Lexington Hills.
In this case, the applicant states that he will place benns and large lots (I-acre) next to
abutting 5-acre lots so as to provide a transition area between differing densities.
Comparing this ratio (I-acre next to 5-acre) elsewhere, this would be like placing
6,000 sq. ft. lots next to the 30,000 sq. ft. lots along the entire western boundary of
Lexington Hills Subdivision.
Staff believes that people in rural areas have as much right to maintain a rural lifestyle
with similar lot sizes surrounding them the same as (for example) Lexington Hills
residents have to maintain their lifestyles with similar surrounding lot sizes.
Further, staff believes that 2-acres should be the absolute minimum lot size for
properties abutting 5-acre lots. Even though 2-acres is significantly smaller than 5-
acres, the 2-acre lots and 5-acre lots are generally developed in a similar fashion (i.e.:
equestrian amenities, large animals, rural fencing, rural outbuildings, etc.). If
Page 6 of 10
K:lPlanning Dept\Eagle ApplicationsICPAIJ998ICPA-2-98 ccfdoc
approved, the change proposed within this application may result in an inappropriate
transition from proposed lots to existing lots.
.
Under the "Community Design" section of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan it states,
"Community design is the organized fashion in which a community is developed in
order that a general mood or theme is established and maintained."
The general theme that has been established in Eagle is one that many citizens see as
being a rural theme. This theme cannot be carried out if higher density developments
are pennitted to encroach into the areas the City has already designated (per the 1997
Compo Plan) as rural. Staff believes that the City should maintain the rural theme and
not allow densities greater than one unit per two acres within this development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
Based upon the infonnation provided to staff to date staff recommends denial of the
requested comprehensive plan amendment.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on
November 9, 1998, at which time testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed.
The Commission continued deliberations on the item from November 9, 1998, until June 7,
1999, at which time they made their final recommendation on CPA-2-98. On July 19, 1999,
the Commission held a second public hearing to take public testimony on changes
recommended to CP A-2-98. The public hearing was closed and the Commission made their
final recommendation at that time.
B. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by thirty (30) individuals and is incorporated into these findings by reference.
The concerns addressed were generally as follows: The proposed change will have negative
affects on traffic congestion, density increases, air quality, water quality (potable and
irrigation), school overcrowding; will advance out of control growth due to the lack of land
and resources and infrastructure; will increase the potential for gang activity; will have a
negative impact on the rural atmosphere and conditions in the resources; will disrupt existing
lifestyles in the area near the proposal; the infrastructure in the area is deficient and cannot
support future growth! it is not prepared for this type of project; this property should not be
changed until the areas that are currently designated as higher density residential are
developed or some greater need arises for increased density in this area other than the desire
for increased profits for the developer; changes to the Comprehensive Plan should reflect the
desires of the whole community, not the interests of one individual.
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by one (1) individual (not including the applicant and their representatives) and
is incorporated into these findings by reference. The individual felt that property owners
have the right to develop their land and that if individuals do not want it developed and want
to keep it open for their own enjoyment and views then they should purchase it.
D. Oral testimony neither in favor nor against the proposal was presented to the Planning and
Page 7 of 10
K:lPlanning Dept\EagJe ApplicationsICPAI1998ICPA-2-98 ccfdoc
Zoning Commission by four (4) individuals and is incorporated into these findings by
reference. The concerns addressed were generally as follows: most of the public testifying is
selfish; development should be well planned; fanners should have the right to develop their
land; the proj ect needs to have central sewer service.
E. Written testimony in opposition to this proposal has been received by fifteen (15) individuals.
The letters are incorporated into these findings by reference.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted 4-0 (Farnworth absent) to recommend approval of the City
initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment (CPA-6-97) dated June 22, 1999, including the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map dated May 18, 1999. Since this map reflects the
Commission's decision regarding City wide Comprehensive Plan land uses designations
and since the site for CP A-2-98 for a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Very Low
Density Residential (one or fewer dwelling units per two acres) to Medium Density
Residential (four or fewer dwelling units per acre) is recommended to be designated by
the Commission as "Residential Two and Residential Three" then the Commission
decision on CP A-2-98 application is considered recommendation for denial.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Eagle City Council on August 21,
1999, at which time the public testimony was taken. The public hearing was continued until
August 28, 1999, and then to August 31, 1999, at which time the public hearing was closed,
however, written comments were accepted until 5:00 P.M., September 2, 1999. The Council
began deliberations on September 2, 1999, and continued deliberations until September 21,
1999, at which time they made their final decision. On November 9, 1999, the Council held
a second public hearing to take public testimony on changes made to CP A-3-98. The public
hearing was closed and the Council made their final decision at that time.
B. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by sixteen
(16) individuals who voiced concerns related to the negative impacts of increasing density,
school overcrowding, lack of necessary infrastructure, the future decreasing of property
values, hindrance of rural lifestyle, and property size incompatibility.
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by four (4)
individuals who generally felt that higher density should be on higher land and not within the
floodplain, that since other land within the City of Eagle was previously subdivided with
high density then this land should have the same rights, that people should be able to do
whatever they want with their own land and should be able to develop it to high density
residential if they so choose regardless of location, and that a higher density development
such as the one proposed for this property will be an asset to the community.
COUNCIL DECISION:
Regarding the City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CP A-6-97), the Council
voted to retain the density designation "one dwelling unit per two acres maximum" and
voted to label it "Residential Estates" for the area generally north of Floating Feather
Page 8 of 10
K:IPJanning Dept\Eagle ApplicationsICPAI1998ICPA-2-98 ccf.doc
Road, South of Beacon Light Road and west of Eagle Road. Since the site for CPA-2-98
for a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Very Low Density Residential (one or fewer
dwelling units per two acres) to Medium Density Residential (four or fewer dwelling
units per acre) is designated by the Council as "Residential Estates" then the Council
decision on CP A-2-98 application is for denial.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on August 31, 1998.
2. Notice of Public Hearing on the application for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission
was published in accordance for requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the
Eagle City ordinances on September 30, 1998, and again on June 23, 1999 (for second public
hearing). 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 3, 1998, and again on June 2, 1999
(for second public hearing). Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on September
4, 1998 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 for requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Eagle City
ordinances on August 4, 1999. 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 August 5, 1999.
3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment (CP A-2-98) in tenus of the Idaho State Local Planning Act and goals and
objectives of the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and has made the following conclusions
with regard to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment:
A. Floating Feather Road and Dry Creek provide a boundary line that buffers existing higher
densities to the south and east from the lower densities to the north and west. If densities
to the north and west of this boundary line are allowed to increase, then the rural areas to
the north become increasingly vulnerable to the spread of higher densities and a further
reduction of the rural character currently planned to be retained and promoted for the City
of Eagle.
B. The changes the applicant addresses in his justification letter for the proposed amendment
are that a sewer line is now existing in Floating Feather Road, the road had been widened,
and the school has been constructed. These conditions and situations were in existence
on October 14, 1997, when the 1997 Comprehensive Plan was approved by the City with
very low density residential planned for this area. As a matter of fact, the 1993
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map showed the school to be in this location with very
low density residential surrounding the school site. Based upon these facts, no new
conditions or situations have occurred to warrant a change to higher density for this area.
C. The infonnation provided from the agencies having jurisdiction over the public facilities
Page 9 of 10
K:lPlanning Dept\Eagle ApplicationsICPAIJ998ICPA-2-9B ccfdoc
needed for this site do not indicate that adequate public facilities exist at this time to serve
any and all uses allowed on this property under the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map designation;
D. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation (four or fewer dwelling
units per gross acre maximum) is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map designation to the north, east, and west (one or fewer dwelling unit per two gross
acres maximum) because the lot sizes that would be pennitted in zoning designations
allowed with such a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation are significantly
smaller than lots sizes in the one or fewer dwelling unit per two gross acres maximum
area and because the densities pennitted by the proposed land use designation are
significantly higher than densities pennitted in the one or fewer dwelling unit per two
gross acres maximum area; and
E. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation (four or fewer dwelling
units per gross acre maximum) is not compatible with residential land use to the south
since that area is developed with one acre lots and since the City Council detennined that
Floating Feather Road is the dividing line between one dwelling unit per acre and higher
residential densities to the south and acreage lot, rural, lower residential densities to the
north.
DATED this 23rd day of November, 1999.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada C ty, Idaho
,~"f.~!f~~~.~,~
~,;. (' G 'r', -",
~""'",,~':"^_Y:""<'~ .c.""
I~ V '~"",: /c'u, -,. ", '~.
,..; .1" e' '~"
... '-' l".'?; 0 "4 ^, '",
, ,,' C;' <> to
::: ~ y ". ..
~. 'h'1, .w~.~'~",~-, :.) ;,' ,~
~ J
~<{". - '- :}l
, ",.'
ATTEST:
Page 10 of 10
K:IPlanning DeptlEagle ApplicationslCPA II 998ICP A-2-98 ccf.doc