Findings - PZ - 2000 - CU-5-00 - Place 24- 42' Wood Poles/Safety Netting On North/East Of Driving Range
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWENTY
FOUR (24) 42-FOOT HIGH WOODEN POLES
FOR SAFETY NETTING AT THE BANBURY
MEADOWS GOLF COURSE DRIVING RANGE
FOR BANBURY MEADOWS LLC
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER CU-5-00
The above-entitled conditional use application came before the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission
for their recommendation on May 15, 2000. The Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission 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:
Banbury Meadows, LLC, represented by Cornel Larson, is requesting conditional use
approval for the addition of twenty four (24) 42-foot high wooden poles and safety netting
along the north and east sides of the driving range at the Banbury Meadows Golf Course.
The site is located on the west side of Eagle Road approximately V2-mile north of Chinden
Boulevard at 3023 S. Eagle Road.
B.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 21, 2000.
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 April 27, 2000. 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 April 28, 2000. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on April 24,
2000, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code.
D.
HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
The City Council approved the PUD for Banbury Meadows Subdivision on May 23, 1995.
The Design Review Board approved the landscape plan for the golf course and phase one
of Banbury Meadows Subdivision on June 9,1998.
E.
COMPANION APPLICATIONS: DR-1l-98 MOD
Page 1 of 6
\\EAGLENT1ICOMMON\P1anning DeptlEagle ApplicationslCU\2000ICU-O5-00 pzf.doc
F.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNA TION
Existing Residential Two (2-units R-2-P (Residential PUD) Golf course and residences
per acre maximum)
Proposed No Change No Change No Change (addition of
poles and safety netting)
North of site Residential Two (2-units A-R (Agricultural Residences and vacant
per acre maximum) Residential) and R-2-P
(Residential PUD)
South of site Residential One (1-unit per R-I-P (Residential PUD) Residences
acre maximum)
East of site Residential Two (2-units R-2 (Residential) Agriculture
per acre maximum)
West of site Residential Two (2-units A-R (Agricultural Agriculture
per acre maximum) Residential) and R-E
(Residential)
Note: The above noted designations are determined from the external boundaries of the entire
Banbury Meadows Subdivision PUD site.
G.
DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, IDA or CEDA.
H.
EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
To date the site is improved with streets, landscaping, a golf course and driving range,
club house, maintenance building, cart storage building, and new residential houses.
I.
SITE DESIGN INFORMA nON:
Site Data Proposed Required
Total Acreage of Site 291.5-acres (entire PUD site) N/a
8.5-acres (driving range only)
J.
GENERAL SITE DESIGN FEATURES: N/a
K.
PUBLIC SERVICES A V AILABLE:
The existing public services were approved with the design review and final plat
applications for the site.
L.
PUBLIC USES PROPOSED: The golf course and driving range are open to the public.
Page 2 of 6
\\EAGLENTI ICOMMON\P1anlling DeptlEagle ApplicationsICU\2000ICU-O5-00 pzf.doc
M.
PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists
N.
SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES (for driving range area only) :
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - no
Evidence of Erosion - no
Fish Habitat - no
Floodplain - no
Mature Trees - yes
Riparian Vegetation - unknown
Steep Slopes - no
Stream/Creek - no
Unique Animal Life - no
Unique Plant Life - no
Unstable Soils - unknown
Wildlife Habitat - no
O.
SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLAN (IF REQUIRED):
Not required.
P.
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 Department
Eagle Fire Department
Eagle Sewer District
Q.
LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: None received to date.
R.
EAGLE CITY CODE 8-7-3-2 GENERAL STANDARDS FOR CONDmONAL USES:
The CommissionlCouncil shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed
Conditional Use in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence showing that
such use at the proposed location:
A.
Will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as established in Section 8-2-3 of this title (Eagle
City Code Title 8) for the zoning district involved;
B.
Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with any
specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan and/or this title (Eagle City Code Title 8);
c.
Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate
in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such
use will not change the essential character of the same area;
D.
Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses;
Page 3 of 6
\IEAGLENT1\COMMON\Planning DeptlEag1e Applications\CU\2()()()\CU-O5-00 pzf.doc
E.
Will be served adequately by essential public facilities such as highways, streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer and schools; or
that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be
able to provide adequately any such services.
F.
Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community;
G.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason
of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
H.
Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are designed as not to create an
interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares; and
I.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of
major importance.
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A.
B.
E.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: (None)
ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
THIS PROPOSAL:
.
Section 8-2A-6 (A)(7)(a)
Additional Height Restrictions: All spires, poles, antennas, steeples, towers, and any other
such structures shall be limited to a maximum of thirty five feet (35'). Additional height
may be permitted if a conditional use permit is approved by the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
.
Per ECC, the maximum height allowed for spires, poles, antennas, steeples, towers, etc. is 35-
feet unless a conditional use permit is approved by the City Council. The 24-wooden poles
used to hold the safety netting for Banbury Meadows driving range are proposed to be 42-feet
high (7-feet higher than the maximum allowed by code). The height of the poles are
determined by measuring from the finished grade of the adjacent roadway to the top of the
poles.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
If the City approves the requested height exception then staff recommends the site specific
conditions of approval and the standard conditions of approval provided within the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 15,
2000, at which time testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed. The Commission made
their recommendation at that time.
Page 4 of 6
\\EAGLENT1ICOMMONIPlanning Dept\Eag1e App1icationsICU\2OOO1CU-O5-OO pzf.doc
B. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission
by eight (8) individuals. The concerns addressed were generally as follows: This proposal is not
consistent with the agreement titled "Dillard Agreement" that was entered into by the developers of
this site and the City of Eagle; the poles are unsightly, and possibly hazardous due to the creosote poles
being installed; local drinking water and wells could be in danger due to the creosote; the poles and
netting may create a possible disruption of the wildlife in the area; the original PUD should be
complied with in so far that the number of poles, the distance between each pole and type of golf ball
usage is all specified in the original PUD (as noted within the Dillard Agreement; low flight golf balls
should be used instead of poles and netting; landscaping should be used on both the north and south
sides of the driving range to prevent errant golf balls from leaving the driving range instead of the
poles and netting; driving range tees should be isolated to synthetic mats to be located near the rear
(western-most portion of the driving range) to prevent golf balls from going over the end of the range
onto the property to the east; steel poles should be used instead of wood poles;
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by
three (3) individuals (including the managers of the golf course) who generally felt that changing the
type of balls used on the range to low-flight balls is not the best solution for the errant golf ball
problem; the poles and netting as proposed will enhance the safety of the areas surrounding the driving
range by containing errant golf balls;
D. Written testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by four (4) individuals with the same concerns generally as noted under the oral
testimony section "B" above. The letters are incorporated into these findings by reference.
E. Written testimony in favor to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by
one (1) individual who felt that the existing berm and landscaping located along the north side of the
driving range did not protect the properties to the north from errant golf balls and that the poles and
netting as proposed were necessary to protect surrounding properties.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted 4 to 0 (Bloom Absent) to recommend denial of the conditional use permit
for the addition of twenty four (24) 42-foot high wooden poles and safety netting along the north
and east sides of the driving range at the Banbury Meadows Golf Course for Banbury Meadows
LLc.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 21, 2000.
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 April 27, 2000. 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 April 28, 2000. Requests for agencies' reviews were
transmitted on April 24, 2000, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code.
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this
proposed conditional use and has determined that the poles and netting as proposed should not be
approved since the existing plan approved by the City in conjunction with Banbury Meadows PUD
subdivision application titled the "Dillard Agreement" already addresses ball containment for the driving
Page 5 of 6
\IEAGLENTIICOMMON\P1anning DeptlEagle ApplicationslCU\2000\CU-O5-00 pzf.doc
range. To date, this plan has not been implemented in its entirety, therefore, City approval of a height
exception for higher poles is not warranted.
DATED this 5th day of June, 2000.
~IIV'~
~..". i Of E.t1 ~~,
, A~ .~eÐf}Oø. G; itl'4I'
<01 ~.... 08 °.. "'-~l" ....
.;: CJ'ì' I "", ';: ""
::: I ~~OP.Jt»,~ ~:.
I>(¡O <?'t,~
',' .Jo...!i _0 €'> 1 "t~- ;;
:: '"' II .. r'\ :~
ij, <>"",-;",.-,¡,.".~,I)o"
., ". "",'" i'-' ~ ," !"
\~~:;CC'>l
ATTEST:
Page 6 of 6
K:\Planning DeptlEagLe ApplicationslCU\2000\CU-OS-oo pzf.doc