Findings - CC - 2001 - PP-03-01 - Cedro Glen Estates/17 Lot/14.39 Acres
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR )
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CEDRO GLEN )
EST A TES SUBDIVISION FOR RCMPG INVESTMENTS)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER PP-O3-01
The above-entitled preliminary plat application came before the Eagle City Council for their action on
October 9, 2001. 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:
PROJECT SUMMARY:
RCMPG Investments, represented by Jean Cariaga with Development Services Inc., is
requesting preliminary plat approval for Cedro Glen Estates Subdivision a 17 -lot (14-
buildable) residential subdivision. The 14.39-acre site consists of Lots 1, 3 and 4 within
Baker's Acres Subdivision and is generally located on the southeast corner of Ballantyne
Lane and Hereford Drive.
A.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 19, 2001.
B.
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 June 2, 2001. 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 May 30, 2001. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on April 20,
2001 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 July 9, 2001. 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 July 5,2001.
c.
HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: None
D.
COMPANION APPLICATIONS: RZ-2-01 (Rezone from A-R (AgriculturaVResidential-
one unit per five acres) to R-l (Residential- up to one unit per acre maximum) &
V AC-I-0 1 (Vacation to existing public road rights-of way within Baker's Acres
Subdivision)
Page 1 of 9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\200 1 \Cedro Glen Estates ccf.doc
E.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNA TION
Existing Residential One (up to A-R (Agricultural- Vacant/Pasture
one-unit per acre max.) Residential)
Proposed No Change R-l (Residential) Residential Subdivision
North of site Residential One (up to A-R (Agricultural- Residential
one-unit per acre max.) Residential)
South of site Residential Two (up to A (Agricultural) Pasture/Residence
two-units per acre max.)
East of site Residential One (up to A-R (Agricultural- Residential
one-unit per acre max.) Residential)
West of site Residential One (up to R-2-DA-P (Residential - two Countryside Estates PUD
one-unit per acre max.) units per acre maximum with Subdivision
development agreement to
further limit residential
densities - PUD)
F.
DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: CEDA, DDA, TDA
G.
SITE DATA:
Total Acreage of Site - 14.39-acres
Total Number of Lots - 17
Residential- 14
Commercial - 0
Industrial - 0
Common - 3
Total Number of Units - 14
Single-family - 14
Duplex - 0
Multi-family - 0
Total Acreage of Any Out-Parcels - 0
Page 2 of 9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\200 1 \Cedro Glen Estates ccf.doc
ADDITIONAL SITE DATA PROPOSED REQUIRED
Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre .97-units I-unit (maximum)
Minimum Lot Size 37,002-square feet 37,000-square feet
Minimum Lot Width 118-feet 100-feet
Minimum Street Frontage U8-feet 35-feet
Total Acreage of Common Area 0.18-acres O-acres
Percent of Site as Common Area 1% 0%
H.
GENERAL SITE DESIGN FEATURES:
Greenbelt Areas and Landscape Screening:
A master landscape design plan (including open space areas) has not been submitted to
date.
Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7 (J)(4)(a) requires a minimum 35-foot wide landscape
buffer area between urban collectors and new residential developments.
Open Space:
The applicant proposed to provide a total of 1 % common area within the interior of the
subdivision. 0% common area is required for this zoning district.
Storm Drainage and Flood Control: (This section is only applicable for preliminary plats which
are approved).
The applicant as required by the Subdivision Ordinance shall submit street drainage plans.
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 12 feet wide.
Fire Hydrants and Water Mains:
Hydrants are to be located and installed as may be required by the Eagle Fire District.
On-site Septic System (yes or no) - no
Preservation of Existing Natural Features:
There is an existing grove of trees abutting Ballantyne Road on the western boundary of
this parcel which the applicant is proposing to preserve. The City is not aware of any
other existing natural features on the site which would be required to be preserved.
Page 3 of 9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001\Cedro Glen Estates ccf.doc
Preservation of Existing Historical Assets:
The City is not aware of any existing historical assets on the site which would be required
to be preserved. If any historical artifacts are discovered, state law requires immediate
notification to the state.
1.
STREET DESIGN:
Private or Public Streets: Public
Applicant's Justification for Private Streets (if proposed): None proposed
Blocks Less Than 500':
Block 3 on the preliminary plat measures on 300-feet long (north to south). Eagle City
Code section 9-3-4 requires that blocks shall not be less than 500-feet long.
Cul-de-sac Design: None proposed
Curbs, gutters and sidewalks:
The applicant proposed five-foot wide attached sidewalks adjacent to 3-inch rolled curbs
on both sides of each street, except for that portion which abuts the five-acre parcel to the
north.
Lighting:
Location and lighting specifications have not been provided.
Street Names:
Street name approval by the Ada County Street Names Committee has not been received
to date.
J.
ON AND OFF-SITE PEDESTRIANIBICYCLE CIRCULATION:
Pedestrian Walkways:
See Curbs, Gutters and sidewalks noted above.
Bike Paths:
Eagle City Code section 9-4-1-7 states that a bicycle pathway shall be provided in all
subdivisions as part of the public right-of-way or separate easement, as may be specified
by the City Council.
K.
PUBLIC USES PROPOSED: None
L.
PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists
M.
SPECIAL ON-SITE FEATURES:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern - none
Evidence of Erosion - no
Fish Habitat - no
Floodplain - no
Page 4 of 9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001 \Cedro Glen Estates ccf.doc
Mature Trees - Yes
Riparian Vegetation - no
Steep Slopes - no
Stream/Creek: no
Unique Animal Life - unknown
Unique Plant Life - unknown
Unstable Soils - unknown
Wildlife Habitat - unknown
N.
SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PLAN (IF REQUIRED):
Not required
O.
AGENCY RESPONSES:
The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached. Comments,
which appear to be of special concern, are noted below:
Ada County Highway District
Central District Health
Eagle Fire Department
Eagle Sewer District - service connection is possible near the southeast corner of this
parcel in Van Englen Estates Subdivision
New Union Ditch Company
Joint School District No.2
P.
LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: None received to date.
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this site as "Residential One"
one unit per acre maximum).
(up to
Chapter 6 - Land Use
6.6 -
Objectives
b.
To encourage development with decreasing density radiating out from the
CBD as shown on the Land Use Map.
6.7
Implementation Strategies
b.
Establish land use patterns and zoning districts that do not exhaust
available services such as sewer, water, police, fIre, recreational areas,
highways and transportation systems.
B.
ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
THIS PROPOSAL:
Page 5 of 9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001\Cedro Glen Estates ccf.doc
.
Section 8-2A-7 (J)(4)(a)
Any road designated as an urban or rural collector on the APA Functional Street
Classification Map:
A minimum of thirty five feet (35') wide buffer area (not including right of way) shall be
provided with the following plants per one hundred (100) linear feet of right of way: four
(4) shade trees, five (5) evergreen trees, and twenty four (24) shrubs. Each required shade
tree may be substituted with two (2) flowering/ornamental trees, provided that not more
than fifty percent (50%) of the shade trees are substituted.
A minimum five foot (5') high, maximum eight foot (8') high, berm, panelized vinyl fence,
decorative block wall, or cultured stone, decorative rock, or similarly designed concrete
wall, or combination thereof shall be provided within the buffer area. The maximum slope
for any berm shall be three feet (3') horizontal distance to one-foot (I') vertical distance. If
a panelized vinyl fence, decorative block wall, or cultured stone, decorative rock, or
similarly designed concrete wall is to be provided, in combination with the berm, a four
foot (4') wide flat area at the top of the berm shall be provided for the placement of the
fence or decorative block wall. Panelized vinyl fencing shall be no higher than four feet
(4'). Chainlink, cedar, and similar high maintenance and/or unsightly fencing shall not be
permitted.
The five foot (5') minimum height requirement for the berming/fencing shall be permitted
to be decreased one foot (1') for every thirteen feet (13') of additional buffer area added to
the thirty five foot (35') wide buffer noted above.
c.
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
THIS PROPOSAL:
.
ECC Section 9-3-4 BLOCKS, states in part:
Blocks shall not be less than five hundred feet (500") long in all cases.
.
ECC Section 9-3-6 (A) EASEMENTS, states in part:
Total easement width shall not be less than twelve feet (12').
D.
DISCUSSION:
.
This site is located within the R-l zoning district which allows residential densities up to 1-
unit per acre. The applicant is proposing .97-units per acre.
.
The applicant has proposed a 23-foot wide buffer area, presumably located within an
easement, abutting Ballantyne Road. Since Ballantyne is designated as a collector on the
COMPASS Functional Street Classification Map, Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7 (J)(4)(a)
requires the installation of a buffer that is a minimum of 35-foot wide abutting the road right-
of-way.
Additionally, the Ada County Highway District would normally require the dedication of
right-of-way for Ballantyne Road to satisfy future road widening (70-foot total width of right-
of-way for a collector road). Because there are trees abutting the current right-of-way and
Page 6 of 9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001\Cedro Glen Estates ccf.doc
additional right-of-way is being acquired from the development on the west side of Ballantyne
Road (Countryside Estates), the Highway District is deferring the dedication of additional
right-of-way until a future date. Because there is currently 32-feet of right-of-way (as
measured from the centerline of Ballantyne Road) an additional 3-feet of right-of-way would
be required upon acquisition in the future. The applicant should revise the plat to delineate a
minimum 35-foot wide buffer abutting Ballantyne Road, in addition to and including the
future right-of-way acquisition of 3-feet. This would place the total width of the buffer area at
38-feet as measured from the current right-of-way line. In previous action, the City Council
has required that buffer areas be located within a common lot to be owned and maintained by
the homeowner's association, and stated as such on the plat. If the buffer area is allowed to be
placed in an easement then the applicant should also place a note on the final plat stating the
easement is to be maintained by the homeowners association of this subdivision.
.
The preliminary plat shows that Block 3 is approximately 300-feet in length as measured from
north to south. Eagle City Code Section 9-3-4 requires that all blocks shall be a minimum of
500-feet in length. The applicant should revise the plat to delineate each Block to meet the
minimum 500-foot length requirement.
.
The City of Eagle staff acknowledges the submittal of an amendment to the Covenants and
Regulations of the Baker's Acres Subdivision, recorded on April 18, 2001, and received by
the City on April 24, 2001. A majority of the homeowner's signed the amendment in order to
limit the minimum lot sizes ofthe Baker's Acres Subdivision (which this site is a part of) to be
between 2.3-acres and 5-acres. The original plat of the Baker's Acres Subdivision (dated
1974) delineates 5-acre lots with a provision for the future re-subdivision into "urban size lots"
(approximately 12,1O0-square feet). Because the Baker's Acres plat does not prohibit the re-
subdivision of the plat and the regulation of the Covenants and Regulations is a civil matter,
staff believes the re-subdivision of these parcels does not conflict with the original recorded
plat of Baker's Acres Subdivision.
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.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 18,
2001, 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 ten (10) individuals with concerns regarding the higher density that would be created and that
Baker's Acres Subdivision was intended to have 5-acre minimum lot sizes; insufficient supply of water
for on-demand irrigation, liability of agricultural operations (specifically horses) between the existing
subdivision and this development, increased traffic in the area and the safety of children.
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by no
one (not including the applicant/representative).
D. Written testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Page 7 of 9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001\Cedro Glen Estates ccf.doc
Commission by two (2) individuals with concerns regarding incompatibility of one-acre lots with the
existing 5-acre lots on Hereford Way and the lack of transitioning the smaller lots into the existing
larger lots.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend denial of PP-03-0 1 for a Preliminary Plat for Cedro
Glen Estates Subdivision for RCMPG Investments.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the application was scheduled before the City Council on July 24,2001, and on
August 28, 2001. Testimony was not taken at those times. The item was continued to October 9,
2001, 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 ten (10) individuals
with concerns regarding the higher density that would be created and that Baker's Acres Subdivision
was intended to have 5-acre minimum lot sizes; insufficient supply of water for on-demand irrigation,
not compatible with the existing lot sizes and safety concerns for children and animals.
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by no one (not including the
applicant/representati ve).
D. Written testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by two (2)
individuals with concerns regarding incompatibility of one-acre lots with the existing 5-acre lots.
COUNCIL DECISION:
The Council voted 3 to 0 (Sedlacek abstained) to deny PP-03-01 for a preliminary plat for Cedro
Glen Estates Subdivision for RCMPG Investments.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on April 19, 2001.
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 June 2, 2001. 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 May 30, 2001. Requests for agencies' reviews were
transmitted on April 20, 2001 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 July 9,2001.
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 July 5, 2001.
3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed preliminary plat (PP-03-
01) and based upon the information provided concludes that the proposed preliminary plat application
is NOT in accordance with the City of Eagle Title 9 (Subdivisions) because:
Page 8 of 9
\\EAGLENT 1 \COMMON\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\200 1 \Cedro Glen Estates ccf.doc
The parcel proposed for development is not zoned appropriately to allow for the lot sizes and densities
depicted on the preliminary plat.
DATED this 27th day of November, 2001.
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
ATTEST:
l~M-<q _V--~
VSharon K. Moore, Eagle City Clerk
Page 9 of 9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2001\Cedro Glen Estates ccf.doc