Findings - PZ - 2001 - FPUD-3-01 & FP-6-01 - Fpud/Fp For Picadilly Village Pud/19 Lot/6.87 Acre/
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
FOR A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
FINAL PLAT FOR PICADILL Y VILLAGE
PUD SUBDIVISION FOR PO VENTURES
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER FPUD-3-01 & FP-6-01
The above-entitled final development plan and final plat applications came before the Eagle Planning and
Zoning Commission for their recommendation on December 17, 2001. The 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:
PO Ventures, represented by Robert C. Unger with Hubble Engineering, is requesting final
development plan and final plat approval for Picadilly Village PUD, a 19-1ot (16-residential, 2-
commercial, and I-common) subdivision. The 6.87-acre site is located on the southwest comer of
State Highway 55 and Hill Road.
B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on February 16, 2001. Revised
final plat and final development plan applications were received by the City on November 14,
2001.
c. illSTORY:
The City Council approved the rezone with development agreement and PUD for Picadilly Village
Subdivision at their October 24, 2000, meeting. The Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law
document were presented to the Council for their approval on December 19, 2000. The Council
remanded the findings back to staff for review and clarification of conditions #2 and # 17. The
reviewed findings were presented to the Council for their approval on January 9, 2001, at which
time the findings were approved with a motion by the Council clarifying the content of the
conditions of approval. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the rezone with
development agreement, conditional use permit, preliminary plat and preliminary development
plan are attached.
Note: The City Council Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law document for this
proposal are dated December 19,2000. A review of the minutes will show that no action
was taken on this date (other than to continue the item to January 9,2001). The Council's
first motion to approve this proposal occurred on October 24, 2000. For clarification, the
findings would have been more appropriately dated October 24, 2000. This information
has been included herein for clarification purposes only. The only impact this change
presented was that the appeal period for the application ran 28-days from December 19,
2000, instead of October 24, 2000.
This final development plan and final plat application was submitted to the City on February 16,
2001. Since that time numerous engineering related changes have occurred to the application and
vast amounts of correspondence between the City and the applicant has transpired. Typically, all
Page 1 of 7
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001 \Picadilly Village fpud pzf.doc
correspondence relating to an application is included within the staff report for the Commission's
and Council's review. In this instance, however, most of the correspondence was related to
changes within engineering-related documents and the construction drawings. Staff believes that
this last nine months of correspondence is not relevant and is not part of the typical and necessary
information needed by the Commission and Council for their recommendation and subsequent
decision and is not included as part of this packet. As indicated under the "Staff Analysis" section
below, the City Engineer and Planning staff have received all information necessary to be able to
provide a recommendation on the applications. All correspondence is on file in the Planning
Department for review.
A. PRELIMINARY PUD/PLAT FINDINGS:
City Council Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated December 12, 2000, are
incorporated herein by reference.
B. FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED BY EAGLE CITY CODE SECTION 8-6-6-3 B:
The Commission shall find that the facts submitted with the application and presented to them
establish that:
I. The proposed development can be initiated within one year of the date of approval;
2. Each individual unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an
independent unit capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability
or that adequate assurance will be provided that such objective will be attained and the
uses proposed will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but will
have a beneficial effect which would not be achieved under standard district regulations;
3. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated
traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the
street network outside the PUD;
4. Any proposed commercial development can be justified at the locations proposed;
5. Any exception from standard district requirements is warranted by the design and other
amenities incorporated in the final development plan, in accordance with the PUD and the
adopted policy of the Council;
6. The area surrounding said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and
substantial compatibility with the proposed development;
7. The PUD is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
8. The existing and proposed utility services are adequate for the population densities and
nonresidential uses proposed.
C. FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED BY EAGLE CITY CODE SECTION 8-6-6-3 (C):
Upon granting or denying the application, the Council shall specify:
1. The ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application;
2. The reasons for approval or denial; and
3. The actions, if any, that the applicant could take to obtain a permit.
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
The City Engineer and Planning staff have reviewed the final development plan and final plat. It
is staff s opinion that this final development plan can meet the Findings of Fact required in Eagle
City Code Section 8-6-6-3 B and C (as noted herein) with the conditions recommended herein and
that the final plat will be in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat with the conditions
herein.
Page 2 of 7
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001\Picadilly Village fpud pzf.doc
DISCUSSION:
.
Site specific condition of approval #13 for the PUD states, "Minimum building setbacks, lot sizes and
lot widths shall be as stated within the "Site Data" section "H" within the City Council's Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law with the following condition: The additional 5-foot setback required for
two story structures shall be waived for the front, back and street sides of all units within the
subdivision.
The approved residential setbacks are noted on the plat.
Front (living area) lO-feet
Front (garage) 20-feet
Street side 20-feet
Rear 20-feet
Interior Side 5-feet
They are as follows:
For Clarification, the additional 5-foot set back for two story structures is required from all
interior side property lines.
.
Site specific condition #9 for the PUD states, "The commercial building located along the western
boundary of the site shall be setback from the property line a minimum of 40-feet (or otherwise shall
comply with ECC Section 8-3-3 (D».
The note on the final plat calls out a 20-foot setback in this location. This note should be
changed to 40-feet.
.
Over the course of the last year the owner of the property (Picadilly Village) added significant amounts
of fill material to the site. By adding this material the site's overall elevation has increased by
approximately 4 Y2-feet (from the grade elevation existing at the time of preliminary plat approval).
Due to this filling, several new concerns relating to this final development plan and final plat need to
be addressed. First, the internal street that was required to be stubbed to the western property line
(East Picadilly Court), is no longer proposed to be stubbed. The original final development plan
submitted to the City in February showed the street as being stubbed to the western boundary.
However, the elevation difference that now exists between this site and the site to the west (4 Y2-foot
difference) will not accommodate an intersection that is designed to public standards. ACHD
requirements for public street intersections state that a roadway entering an intersection (ie the stub
street) must have a maximum slope of 2%. A stub street with a 2% slope intersection cannot be
designed in this location due to the existing elevation difference between the two sites. Within the
October 11, 2001, letter from the City Engineer, it is stated that MTC Engineers are working out
mutually acceptable roadway connection between Picadilly Village and Great Sky Estates No.7. As
evidenced within his November 2,2001, letter (attached) Mr. Evans (developer of Great Sky Estates
No.7) indicates that the potential for a mutually acceptable roadway connection is minimal. He also
states that he would not oppose the elimination of the connection. Further, on November 11, 2001, the
City received a letter from ACHD stating that they do not support this connection due to the fact that
this private "loop" street will connect two public streets (Hill Road and the new public street within
Great Sky Estates No.7) (letter attached). Staff will provide a detailed presentation to the Commission
and Council addressing this issue during the meetings for the final development plan and final plat.
Second, the applicant is now proposing a 4 Y2-foot high keystone block wall along the western and
southern boundaries of this site to mitigate the effects of the fill material on the adjacent properties.
The details of this wall are required to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to
Page 3 of 7
K:\PJanning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001\Picadilly Village fpud pzf.doc
City Council approval of this final development plan and [mal plat. These applications will not be
scheduled for a hearing before the City Council until the wall has received approval from the Design
Review Board.
.
The concrete wall referenced in the City Engineer's letter dated November 1, 2001, is now proposed
by the applicant to be a keystone wall. Revised plans (indicating the change from concrete to keystone
block, and any other related changes) should be provided to the City Engineer for review and approval
prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
.
On April 11, 2001, the City Council approved the design review application for Picadilly Village PUD
with four site specific condition of approval. Site specific condition of approval #3 stated, "The
applicant shall be required to provide details of the covered patio area with regards to design, building
materials, and size. The details of the covered patio shall be reviewed and approved by the Design
Review Board prior to City approval of the final plat and final development plan for Picadilly Village
Subdivision." The details of the covered patio have not been submitted to date. These details are
tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the Design Review Board at their December meeting. The
covered patio details should be required to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board
prior to City Council approval of this final development plan and final plat. These applications will
not be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council until the covered patio details have received
approval from the Design Review Board.
.
Site specific condition of approval #14 for the PUD states, "Subdivision signage, common area,
recreation center, street trees, existing trees, pathways, buffer areas, perimeter fendne, and etc. shall
be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to approval of final development plan."
Perimeter fencing is proposed along the southern and western boundaries, however, fencing details
have not been reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board to date. All fencing details should
be required to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to City Council approval
of this final development plan and final plat. These applications will not be scheduled for a hearing
before the City Council until the fencing details have received approval from the Design Review
Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
Staff recommends approval with the site specific conditions of approval and the standard
conditions of approval provided within the staff report.
REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION:
A review by the Planning and Zoning Commission was completed on December 17, 2001. The
Commission made their recommendation at that time. The minutes are incorporated herein by
reference.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted 2 to 0 (Bloom abstained, Deckers and Cadwell absent) to recommend
approval of FPUD-3-01 & FP-6-01 for a final development plan and final plat for Picadilly Village
PUD Subdivision with the following staff recommended site specific conditions of approval with
text shown with underline to added by the Commission.
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL:
1. Comply with the all conditions of the City Engineer.
Page 4 of 7
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\200I\Picadilly Village fpud pzf.doc
2. Comply with all applicable conditions of the Development Agreement and RZ-9-00/CU-9-
00/PPUD-6-00/PP-9-00.
3. The applicant shall submit payment to the City for all Engineering fees incurred for reviewing
this project, prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
4. A private street certification letter (from a registered professional engineer) shall be provided
to the City Engineer stating that the private street has been constructed in substantial
compliance with the approved plans prior to issuance of any building permits for the site.
5. The covered picnic area, the proposed 4.5-foot high keystone block wall proposed along the
southern and western boundaries of the site, all perimeter fencing, and any proposed private
street gate shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to City Council
approval of this final plat and [mal development plan. Note: this application will not be
scheduled for a hearing before the City Council until these items have received approval from
the Design Review Board.
6. Revised engineering plans (indicating the change from concrete to keystone block, and any
other related changes) shall be provided to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to
the City Clerk signing the final plat.
7. The keystone wall shall be installed prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
8. The wavier requested regarding the installation of a pressurized irrigation system (using
irrigation water) is approved.
9. If East Picadilly Court is required to be stubbed to the western boundary of this site, then
roadway construction drawings, acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat. Construction
of this roadway is not permitted until the roadway construction drawings are approved by the
City Engineer and a subsequent approval letter has been issued to the applicant.
10. The approved residential setbacks are noted on the plat. They are as follows:
Front (living area) lO-feet
Front (garage) 20-feet
Street side 20-feet
Rear 20-feet
Interior Side 5-feet
The additional 5-foot setback required for two story structures shall be waived for the front,
back and street sides of all units within the subdivision.
The additional 5-foot set back for two story structures is required from all interior side
property lines.
11. Change the setback note on the final plat which references the setback for the commercial
building adjacent to the western boundary line to 40-feet.
12. Commercial building setbacks shall be as noted on the final plat.
13. Comply with the conditions ofDR-54-00.
14. The applicant shall install a minimum of two 4' x 4' plywood or other hard surface signs
(mounted on two 4"x 4" posts with the bottom of the sign being a minimum of 3-feet above
the ground) noticing the contractors to clean up daily, no loud music, and no dogs off leash.
Page 5 of 7
K:\Planning Dept\Eagie Applications\SUBS\2001\Picadilly Village fpud pzf.doc
Signs shall be placed at all entrances to the subdivision.
15. Construct a 6-foot wide asphalt pathway extending from the west end ofE. Picadilly Court to
the western boundary of the site connecting to the public right-of-way within Great Sky
Estates No.7. The pathway shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board
prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
16. The landscaping strip located along the western boundary of this site (including landscaping
located within the right-of-way along the east side of Great Sky Estates No.7) shall be
maintained in perpetuitv by the Picadillv Property Owners Association.
17. The applicant shall construct the following along the western boundary of this site: a 4 Y2-foot
high keystone block wall with a 5-foot high vinvl fence (placed near the top of the wall) and a
5-foot wide landscape striP. The landscape strip and the base of the keystone block wall shall
be constructed at the same grade adjacent to the public roadway within Great Sky Estates No.
7 to the west. These improvements shall be installed as generallv depicted on ~lan sheets date
stamped bv the Citv on December 11. 2001 (subject to the approval of the Design Review
Board) and shall be installed prior to the Citv Clerk signing the final plat.
18. The applicant shall construct the following along the southern boundary of this site: a 4 Y2-foot
high kevstone block wall with a 5-foot high vinvl fence (placed near the top of the wall).
These improvements shall be installed as generally depicted on plan sheets date stamped by
the Citv on December 1 L 2001 (subject to the approval of the Design Review Board) and
shall be installed prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
19. Provide a license agreement from ACHD approving the landscaping located within the public
right-of-way abutting the western boundary of the site (public road proposed within Great Sky
Estates No.7) prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on February 16,2001. Revised final
plat and final development plan applications were received by the City on November 14, 2001.
B. In accordance with Eagle City Code Section 8-6-6-3 B the Commission finds that the facts submitted
with the application and presented to the Commission, with the conditions herein, establish that:
1. The proposed development can be initiated within one year of the date of approval based upon
the testimony and documentation presented by the developer;
2. Each individual unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an
independent unit capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or
that adequate assurance will be provided that such objective will be attained and the uses
proposed will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but will have a
beneficial effect which would not be achieved under standard district regulations because of
the conditions placed on this development;
3. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic,
and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street
network outside the PUD based upon written responses received from the highway districts
having jurisdiction;
4. The commercial development can be justified at the location proposed (northern portion of the
site) since adequate buffers will be provided between the commercial and residential portions
of the development, since adequate public roadway access and public services will be
provided, and since the commercial uses approved for the site have been previously
Page 6 of 7
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001\Picadilly Village fpud pzf.doc
determined by the City (through the rezone and development agreement process) to
complement the Central Business District and complement Eagle's rural residential identity;
5. Any exception from standard district requirements is warranted by the design and other
amenities incorporated in the final development plan, in accordance with the PUD and the
adopted policy of the Council because the varied lot sizes and setbacks as specifically
approved by the City, will allow for a mix of housing types in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan;
6. The area surrounding said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and
substantial compatibility with the proposed development since no intensive uses, that might
impact the planned residential areas surrounding the development, are proposed;
7. The PUD is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan because the zoning
designation ofMU-DA-P is in accordance with the Mixed Use designation on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and that with the use of a development agreement, the
commercial uses will be limited and the overall density for the site will be limited to 3.7
dwelling units per acre (16-units total); and
8. The existing and proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed commercial uses and
population densities as noted by the agencies which will serve the development.
DATED this 14th day of January 2002.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
t Á. £Ia;~
John Franden, Chairman
ATTEST:
Page 7 of 7
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001\Picadilly Village fpud pzf.doc