Findings - CC - 1999 - A-3-99/RZ-5-99 - Annex/Zone From Rt To R2
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY CO1J~C1L
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR
ANNEXATION AND A REZONE FROM RT
(RESIDENTIAL) TO R-2 (RESIDENTIAL) FOR
CRAIG AND KRISTEN V AN ENGELEN
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER A-3-99 & RZ-5-99
The above-entitled annexation and rezone applications came before the Eagle City Council for their
action on December 7, 1999. 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:
Craig and Kristen Van Engelen are requesting annexation and a rezone from RT (one
unit per five acres) to R-2 (two units per acre). The site is located on the south side of
Floating Feather Road approximately Y2-mile west of Ballantyne Road.
B.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item were received by the City of Eagle on August 20,1999.
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 29, 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 October 1, 1999. Requests for agencies' reviews were
transmitted on August 23, 1999 in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City
Code.
D.
HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: None
E.
COMPANION APPLICATIONS: PP-2-99 (Colony II Subdivision)
Page 1 of 7
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle App1ications\RZ&A\1999\A-O3-99 & RZ-O5-99 ccf.doc
F.
G.
H.
1.
J.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
Existing Low Density Residential (2- RT (Rural Transition) Agriculture
units per acre maximum)
Proposed Low Density Residential (2- R-2 (Residential) Residences
units per acre maximum)
North of site Very Low Density Residential RT (Rural Transition) Floating Feather Road
(I-unit per 2-acres maximum) !Residences
South of site Low Density Residential (2- R-1 (Residential) Residences
units per acre maximum)
East of site Low Density Residential (2- RT (Rural Transition) Residences
units per acre maximum)
West of site Very Low Density Residential RT (Rural Transition) Agriculture
DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA or CEDA.
TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 50.277-acres
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONE:
See attached letter from Craig and Kristen Van Engelen date stamped, August 20, 1999.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(if applicable): None provided
K.
AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
Preliminary approval letters have been received by Central District Health and Eagle
Fire Department.
The letter received from the Eagle Sewer District states that the site is within the
District's boundaries, however, it has not been annexed into the District to date.
L.
PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists.
M.
NON-CONFORMING USES:
Based upon the information available, the proposed rezone is in conformance with
applicable 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:
City Engineer: All comments within the engineer's letter dated September 3, 1999 are of special
concern (see attached).
Page 2 of 7
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\1999\A-O3-99 & RZ-O5-99 ccf.doc
O.
Ada County Highway District
Central District Health
Eagle Fire Department
Eagle Sewer District
Joint School District No.2
LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: None received to date
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WlTIDN THE STAFF REPORT:
A.
B.
SPECIAL CONCERN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
.
HOUSING
The dominant characteristics of the City and the Impact Area are those related to rural
transitional and residential use. The balance between those two characteristics is an
important goal.
POLICIES AND GOALS (#'s 1, 2 and 3)
1. A wide diversity of housing types and choice between ownership and rental dwelling
units shall be encouraged for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for
residential development.
2. The location of all housing shall be coordinated with provisions for adequate public
facilities and services.
3. Development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping
centers shall be encouraged.
IMPLEMENTATION
4. The City's "Land Use Designation Map" shall reflect opportunity for a diversity of
housing types and residential densities in a variety of locations suitable for residential
development.
Staff Comment - The applicant states that the variety of lot sizes proposed and the lots being
smaller than those in the abutting Redwood Creek to the south and the 5-acre lots to the east will
provide a diversity of housing as called out for within this section of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan does encourage housing diversity, however such diversity should occur (and is
occurring) in areas that are planned and designed for mixed residential uses that incorporate
transition areas between differing land uses and lot sizes. It is not the intent of the Plan to
encourage housing diversification without considering existing land use patterns and promoting
compatibility between existing and proposed residential developments.
.
LAND USE CATEGORIES
POLICIES AND GOALS (#'5 1, 2, 3, 4, & 20)
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 zoninl! districts.
ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
Page 3 of 7
K:\P1anning Dept\Eagle App1ications\RZ&A \1 999\A-O3-99 & RZ-O5-99 ccf.doc
c.
THIS PROPOSAL: (None)
DISCUSSION:
.
Based upon the information provided to staff to date, staff believes that the proposed rezone
is not in accordance with the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and established goals and
objectives. An R-2 zoning designation in this area will allow lots that are 17,000 square feet
in size (OA-acre) to be placed next to existing lots that range from I-acre to 5-acres in size.
As noted under "Comprehensive Plan Provisions..." above, placing significantly smaller lots
(thus more lots, respectively) next to existing larger lots does not take into consideration
existing land use patterns, does not promote compatibility between existing and proposed
residential developments, and therefore does not promote compatibility between zoning
districts.
The proposed R-2 zoning designation for this site is not compatible with the R-l zoning
designation and land use to the south and the RT zoning designation and land use to the east
and north since those properties are already developed and since the lot sizes within the R-2
zone are not compatible with the existing lots to the south and east (as stated above). Even
though the properties to the north are separated from this site by Floating Feather Road the
proposed R-2 zoning designation is not compatible with the land use to the north because the
parcels (ranging in size from 2-acres to 10-acres approx.) are already developed with homes
and the area is unlikely to redevelop into small lots (ie 17,000 square feet) because the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map currently designates this area as "Very Low Density
Residential" (one unit per 2-acres maximum).
The proposed R-2 zoning designation for this site is not compatible with the RT zoning
designation to the west, however, since the land use is agriculture the City has previously
determined that most residential zoning districts are compatible with agriculture land uses
since agriculture land uses within the Impact Area are likely to change to residential uses in
the future (as planned for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map). Since the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the property to the west is "Very Low
Density Residential" (one unit per two acres maximum), the proposed R-2 zoning
designation would not be compatible with the land use to the west since that area is planned
for two acre lots (which is consistent with the land use pattern in the area).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation, however, staff recommends approval of
a rezone to R-l, not R-2. If the City determines that an R-2 zone is appropriate for this area, then
staff recommends that a development agreement be attached to the rezone requiring the
subdivision application to be submitted as a planned unit development (PUD). The PUD
application for a subdivision at this site should, at a minimum, incorporate the following design
feature changes:
a.
Provide a more appropriate transition of lot sizes from the existing lots to the south to
Lots 18-24, Block 3 within this development;
Provide a more appropriate transition of lot sizes from the existing lots to the south to
Lots 26-30, Block 3, Q! provide building envelopes on Lots 26-30, Block 3, that
guarantee that the houses will be located next to the roadway (as stated in the
application) and not within the hillside area so as to keep the houses farther away from
the existing lots to the south. By locating the houses away from the hillside, rather than
locating them in the hillside (by means of excavation for daylight basements) should
provide enough distance from the lots to the south so as to ensure land use compatibility
and to preserve the hillside area;
b.
Page 4 of 7
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle App1ications\RZ&A\1999\A-O3-99 & RZ-O5-99 ccf.doc
e.
Provide a more appropriate transition of lot sizes from the existing lots to the east to Lots
15-17, Block 3 within this development;
Provide additional design enhancements within the PUD if lots smaller than that allowed
by the zoning designation are requested (and if lesser setbacks are requested) so that the
design of the PUD exceeds that of a standard non-PUD subdivision within the City of
Eagle;
Provide more special features (i.e.: parks, ponds, open areas, areas of special interest,
and/or other features) than would typically be provided in a non-PUD proposal within
the City of Eagle;
c.
d.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on
October 18, 1999, at which time testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed. The
Commission made their recommendation at that time.
B. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission
by four (4) individuals, including a petition signed by approximately 100 individuals, who voiced
concerns related to the proposed increase in density for the area, increased traffic, and school
overcrowding. The petition is incorporated into these findings by reference.
c. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by
one (1) individual (not including the owner/applicant or the representatives) who generally felt that
the property owner had a right to develop their property as proposed since farming the property is not
as profitable as developing the property.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of A-3-99 & RZ-5-99 for annexation and
rezone from RT (one unit per five acres) to R-2 (two units per acre) for Craig and Kristen Van
Engelen.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Eagle City Council on December 7, 1999, at
which time testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed. The Council made their decision
at that time.
B. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by eight (8)
individuals who voiced concerns related to the proposed increase in density for the area, lot
incompatibility, increased traffic, and school overcrowding.
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by one (1) individual (not
including the applicant or the representatives) who felt that the plan for the subdivision was a good
one.
COUNCIL DECISION:
The Council voted 4 to 0 to approve A-3-99 & RZ-5-99 for annexation and rezone from RT (one
unit per five acres) to R-l (one unit per acre) for Craig and Kristen Van Engelen.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The applications for this item were received by the City of Eagle on August 20, 1999.
Page 5 of 7
K:\P1anning Dept\Eagle App1ications\RZ&A \1999\A-O3-99 & RZ-O5-99 ccf.doc
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 29, 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 October 1, 1999. Requests for agencies'
reviews were transmitted on August 23, 1999 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 November 20,
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 November 19, 1999.
3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed annexation and rezone
(A-3-99 & RZ-5-99) with regard to Eagle City Code Section 8-7-5 "Action by the Commission and
Council", and based upon the information provided concludes that the proposed rezone is in
accordance with the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and established goals and objectives because:
a. The requested zoning designation of R-1 (one unit per gross acre maximum) is equal to or
less than the two unit per gross acre maximum shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map;
b. The information provided from the agencies having jurisdiction over the public facilities
needed for this site indicate that adequate public facilities including adequate road facilities
exist, or are expected to be provided, to serve any and all uses allowed on this property under
the proposed zone;
c. The proposed R-1 zone (one unit per gross acre maximum) is compatible with the R-1
zoning designation (one unit per gross acre maximum) and existing lots to the south since
the minimum lot size allowed within the proposed R-1 zone is the same as the size of the
existing lots to the south;
d. The proposed R-1 zone (one unit per gross acre maximum) is compatible with the RT zone
and existing lots to the north since the minimum lot size allowed within the proposed R-1
zone provides for a rural residential setting similar to the lots to the north;
e. The proposed R-1 zone (one unit per gross acre maximum) is compatible with the RT zoning
designation (one unit per five gross acres maximum) and land use to the west since the site is
currently farm land and is planned for residential use at one or fewer dwelling units per acre
per the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map;
f. The proposed R-1 zone (one unit per gross acre maximum) is compatible with the RT zone
and existing lots to the east since the minimum lot size allowed within the proposed R-1
zone provides for a rural residential setting similar to the lots to the east;
g. The land proposed for rezone is not located within a "Hazard Area" or "Special Area" as
described within the Comprehensive Plan;
Page 6 of 7
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A\1999\A-O3-99 & RZ-O5-99 ccf.doc
DATED this 14th day of December, 1999.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada Co , Ida 0
..
.~\'!'~~-,.,-'"
.;" (","
",,""...~,\. '" '~"';'-"
,:. ,. .
..~ (.: . ~. G r. " " ,
,. - . ",
::: ç' , . >., ,0 '"
(,¡. «,..,~«"" ~'~ ",
~ J' ,'"'\ ~ ìr ....:~ §
,!,,', :P'..,'. I, "~ ,"
\ "....... ~,:;"4¡:>"J , ,,'
.. "'..",)~:;"'o f'" ¡S'
~, ð. " " '.'O\"'~,""","J.$
"'~:~1j"..~:'~',:.,"> J,'~~
~"'<Jo 01'" 1':"0""-
~~.,~~;".;~"
Page 7 of 7
K:\P1anning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A \1 999\A-O3-99 & RZ-O5-99 ccf.doc