Findings - CC - 2001 - CPA-01-01/RZ-11-01 - Comp Plan Amend/R4 To Mu/R4 To R12-Da/Loda/825 W S
ORIG\NAL
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION)
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN )
AMENDMENT AND REZONE WITH )
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR )
JAMES L. JEWETT )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER CPA-OI-O1 & RZ-ll-Ol
The above-entitled comprehensive plan amendment and rezone with development agreement application
came before the Eagle City Council for their action on December 11, 2001. The 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:
James L. Jewett, represented by Shawn Nickel with Land Consultants, Inc., is proposing a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential Four (up to four dwelling units per
acre) to Mixed Use, and rezone from R-4 (Residential up to four dwelling units per acre)
to R-12-DA (Residential twelve dwelling units per acre with Development Agreement)
and L-O-DA (Limited Office with Development Agreement). The site is located on the
south side of W. State Street approximately %-mi1es west of Eagle Road at 825 West State
Street.
B.
APPLICA nON SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on August 23,2001.
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 29,2001. 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 September 26, 2001. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on August
27, 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 November 24, 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 November 20.
2001.
D.
HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: None
Page 1 of 11
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-1-Ol & RZ-ll-Ol ccf.doc
E.
F.
COMPANION APPLICATIONS: none
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNATION DESIGNATION
Existing Residential Four (up to R-4 (Residential) Residence/Pasture
four dwelling units per
acre maximum
Proposed Mixed Use R-12-DA (Residential), & LO- Multi-family dwelling
DA (Limited Office District) units / Office
North of site Residential Four (up to R-4 (Residential) Residential Subdivision
four dwelling units per
acre maximum
South of site Public/Semi-Public R-4 (Residential) Residences/ Vacant
East of site Residential Four (up to R-4 (Residential) Residential Subdivision
four dwelling units per & Pasture
acre maximum
West of site Residential Four (up to R-4 (Residential) Residence/Pasture
four dwelling units per
acre maximum
G.
DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA or CEDA.
H.
TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 6.29-acres
I.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICA nON FOR THE REZONE:
See the attached letter submitted by the applicant.
J.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICA nON OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
"To limit the uses that would otherwise be permitted under a comp plan designation of
mixed use. The use will be limited to multi-family on approximately 5.7 acres and those
uses permitted in an L-O zone on approximately 0.5 acres".
K.
A V AILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES:
Preliminary approval letters from ACHD and the Eagle Fire Department have been
received by the City. The Eagle Sewer District states that the property has not been
annexed into the Eagle Sewer District and must do so prior to any connection to the
central sewer system service facilities.
L.
PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP:
No map currently exists.
M.
NON-CONFORMING USES:
Based upon the information available, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and
rezone will not create any noncompliance with any provisions of the Eagle City Code.
Page 2 of 11
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-1-Ol & RZ-Il-Ol ccf.doc
N.
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 Department
Eagle Fire Department
Eagle Sewer District
Idaho Transportation Department
O.
LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC:
Two letters from L. J. Fuller, date stamped by the City on October 9,2001, and on
December 6,2001.
Letter from Bob and Kellie Batista, 775 W. Aikens, Eagle, ID 83616 date stamped by the
City On November 1,2001.
Letter from Gary and Donna M. Althen, dated December 11, 2001
Letter from Steve and Deborah Coleman, date stamped by the City on December 11, 2001
Letter from Traci Moore, dated December 11,2001
Letter from Henry and Lindsey Clark, dated December 11, 2001
Letter from Stewart Jensen, date stamped by the City on December 11,2001
Letter from Steve and Janie Fuchs, date stamped by the City on December 11, 2001
P.
APPLICANT REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT:
See letter submitted by the applicant, dated August 21, 2001, addressing justification for
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (attached to the Staff Report). The letter is
incorporated herein by reference.
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 currently designates this site as Residential Four (up
to four dwelling units per acre).
Chapter 1 - Overview
1.1
City of Eagle Statement of Purpose
The purpose of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan is to promote the health, safety,
and general welfare of the people of the City of Eagle and its Impact Area as
follows:
b. To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the
people at reasonable cost.
f. To avoid undue concentration of population and overcrowding of land.
Chapter 2 - Property Rights
2.4
Implementation Strategies
Page 3 of 11
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-1-Ol & RZ-ll-Ol ccf.doc
c. The Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances should strive for
stable and consistent policies regarding development densities and
requirements.
Chapter 5 - Economic Development
5.5 - Implementation Strategies
g. Encourage commercial growth adjacent to the Central Business District and
discourage isolated commercial development in outlying areas.
Chapter 6 - Land Use
6.1
Background and Existing Conditions
Managing growth and channeling it into orderly community development is the
key element of land use planning. Unplanned growth results in undesirable land
use patterns. Areas within the City and within the Impact Area are given land use
designations which are depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map,
hereinafter referred to as the "Land Use Map".
The Land Use Map is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan. It serves as a
planning policy document and planning tool that will assist the City in sustaining
responsible growth and development to ensure that evolving land use patterns
remain consistent with goals, objectives and strategies of the Plan.
Land use designations as reflected on the Land Use Map are 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 of local citizens.
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.
f.
Higher density residential development should be located closest to the
Central Business District (CBD) as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map.
Chapter 8 - Transportation
8.1
Background
Transportation planning and land use planning should be compatible with Eagle's
transportation system and should take into account projected land use as depicted
on the Eagle Land Use Map.
Page 4 of 11
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-1-Ol & RZ-ll-01 ccf.doc
The City's existing network of roadways represents only a portion of the system
needed to serve future growth and development. As the City continues to
experience growth, population will increase and the number of vehicles using the
transportation system will increase. In addition to adding new streets and
roadways, modifications and extensions to the existing routes will be necessary in
order to create a fully integrated, modem, efficient transportation system that will
effectively serve the residents of the City, the business community and the
traveling public.
8.6
Implementation Strategies
f.
Evaluate the impact to the City of all roadway improvements and roadway
extensions.
r.
Encourage planning of local roadway systems which will provide for intra-
neighborhood connectivity. The connecting roadways should be designed to
not become collectors and to discourage traffic from cutting through
neighborhoods to go from a collector or arterial to another collector or arterial.
Such intra-neighborhood connectivity is for emergency and delivery vehicles
and for local intra-neighborhood access.
Chapter 13 - Implementation
13.7
Implementation Strategies
c. Any person applying for a Comprehensive Plan amendment shall submit a
justification letter for the amendment which shall include the following:
1. A specific description of the change being requested.
2. Specific information on any property involved.
3. A description of the condition or situation which warrants a change being
made in the Plan.
4. A description of the public benefit(s) that would occur from such a change in
the Plan and an explanation of why the public would need any such benefit(s).
5. An explanation of why no other solutions to the condition or situation which
warrants a change in the Plan are possible or reasonable under the current
policies of the Plan.
6. A proposed development plan for any land involved if a specific development
is planned at the time the request for the amendment is being made.
7. An analysis showing the estimated impact on infrastructure expected to occur
by any proposed change.
Page 5 of 11
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-l-Ol & RZ-ll-Ol ccf.doc
8. Any other data and information required by the City for their evaluation of the
request.
B.
ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING
THIS PROPOSAL: None
DISCUSSION:
C.
.
The subject property is currently zoned R-4 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of
Residential Four (up to four units per acre).
The applicant has submitted a conceptual drawing of the parcel delineating a residential
section, a commercial or light office section, and an open space area. The residential portion
proposes two (2) duplexes located on the northern portion of the site and nine (9) fourplex
units to be located on the southern portion of the site, with the open space area located further
south and across the Ballantyne Canal. The residential density for the site is approximately
7.l4-units per acre (11.4-units per acre excluding the open space area). Recent residential
subdivisions constructed in the area near this site include Rick's River Ridge Subdivision with
a density of approximately 3.4-units per acre and Van Englen Estates Subdivision with a
density of approximately 2.3-units per acre. The majority of the properties in the immediate
area near this site are five-acre plus parcels with rural residences and pasture land upon them.
The density comparison made here is to emphasize that this application may be considered a
dramatic change to the existing residential environment.
A change to higher density in this area will create a "density pocket" or spot zoning which
may provide land use privileges not available to surrounding properties. Spot zoning tends to
only focus on one parcel, while the "broader picture" or surrounding area fails to be fully
considered for the benefits or detriments that a development may bring. This may be
considered the reverse of appropriate planning since a City must be looked at as a whole with
an established goal rather than in individual pieces with differing purposes that do not seek
any general consensus.
In reviewing any request for a rezone, the [lIst consideration must be whether the request is
consistent with the City's land use policies and objectives, i.e. the Comprehensive plan.
Granted, it is understood that this application is a request for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan; therefore, the next factor that must be analyzed is how the surrounding
area will be directly affected by the rezone. The City has previously recognized that certain
applications are incompatible with the existing land use environment for which the
development is proposed. In recent decisions, the City Council has upheld the requests of
citizens to not increase densities and to maintain the established land use patterns that the
citizens have come to expect as vital to their enjoyment of their property. For example,
recently the City Council denied a rezone request and preliminary plat for Cedro Glen Estates
because the one-acre lots and higher density were not compatible with the surrounding five-
acre parcels and detrimental to the intended character of the established Baker's Acres
Subdivision. Similarly, in the past few months, a rezone request (RZ-04-0l) was denied by
the Council because the change in zoning may have allowed surrounding properties to change
to smaller lot sizes with increased densities and alter the rural nature of the area. With this last
point it is appropriate to note that if this site were allowed to increase in density, the
surrounding undeveloped parcels may be perceived to be allowed to develop at higher
densities as well. While it is certainly not suggested that one approval grants subsequential
approvals, it may lay a framework for justification of future similar developments which
slowly erodes the intended character currently planned for the City.
.
.
.
Page 6 of 11
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-l-Ol & RZ-11-01 ccf.doc
.
Under the "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (3))
within the 2000 Comprehensive Plan the applicant must show, "the condition or situation
which warrants a change being made in the plan." The justification letter submitted by the
applicant states that because two recent developments in mixed use designations (Spring
Creek and Picadilly) were developed with densities less than allowed for and planned for in
the 2000 Comprehensive Plan. While it may be true that these developments did have lower
densities (S.6 and 3.7-units per acre, respectively) than possibly allowed for in the
Comprehensive Plan, a Mixed Use designation allows for up to twenty units per acre, it is not
guaranteed. The Comprehensive Plan is not the only considering factor for density, the review
of the surrounding area is equally as important. The protection against overcrowding of land
and the mitigation of differing uses is essential to quality planning. Since a particular property
may not be physically able to support high densities either due to topography or lack of
sufficient services, the site must be built to a density that is not only viable but also appropriate
for the area. Further, to put a higher density development in another area of the City to make
up for "lost" density does not warrant a change in the Comprehensive Plan.
Further review of the "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7
(c) (4)) seeks to identify "the public benefit that would occur from such a change in the plan."
The applicant's justification letter states that the "provision for more of a variety of housing
types as encouraged in...the Comprehensive Plan". It is certainly the goal of the City to
review and approve development that would provide housing which is affordable and viable
for all categories of people. It may be considered that the City has gone through measured
review to provide various areas throughout the City through the 2000 Comprehensive Plan to
allow for the development of housing to accommodate people of varying tastes and
expectations. For example, in Section 6.7 (g) of the Comprehensive Plan, the area on both
sides of Eagle Road between Ranch Drive and Floating Feather Road specifically calls for
higher density residential dwellings. Further, much of this land zoned or anticipated to be
zoned for higher density housing has yet to be developed; certainly there is no shortage of
available land to provide a housing development similar to what the applicant is proposing
with this application.
The "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (S)) asks for
"An explanation of why no other solutions to the condition or situation which warrants a
change in the Plan are possible or reasonable under the current policies of the Plan". The
applicant's reply in the justification letter states "other solutions might be available in that
additional land may be modified for Mixed Use for apartments however, this is a prime site for
such a use and a developer is interested in providing this use at this site." As was mentioned
earlier, there are other parcels that may be currently zoned or designated in the Comprehensive
Plan to possibly allow the construction of a multi-family development. And, merely because a
developer is interested in providing an apartment complex is not necessarily a solution to any
certain existing condition. It must be shown that flISt, a situation needs to be changed and
second, a solution to remedy the situation has been provided. In staff s opinion, neither of
these elements is present. If information were provided that clearly demonstrated a need for
apartments, this subject property is not necessarily the appropriate place to satisfy that need.
Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of the Comprehensive Plan states in part: "In addition to adding new
streets and roadways, modifications and extensions to the existing routes will be necessary in
order to create a fully integrated, modem, efficient transportation system that will effectively
serve the residents of the City, the business community and the traveling public". The
applicant's concept plan shows a private road that would take access from State Street and
"loop" through the development. The applicant has proposed two stub streets that would
provide access to undeveloped properties to the east and the west. The property abutting the
.
.
.
Page 7 of 11
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-1-O1 & RZ-11-01 ccf.doc
eastern boundary of this site currently has public road access via West Cowman Court, which
is a part of Rick's River Ridge Subdivision. The property to the west is accessed through a
driveway with street frontage on State Street. Access is limited to these undeveloped sites
because of both topographical restraints and lack of developed land surrounding the parcels;
State Highway 44 and the Ballantyne Canal to the south provide no opportunity for viable
access and the undeveloped land currently does not provide alternatives for more access. It is
clearly evident that efficient and proper transportation routes are needed in this area, otherwise
multiple pockets of incongruous development may be built due to limited and poorly designed
access to major roadways. Further, existing intra-neighborhood connections (West Cowman
Court) must be utilized; the foresight existed to provide the stub streets and they should be
developed as they were intended, to provide "a fully integrated, modem, efficient
transportation system that will effectively serve the residents of the City".
A private road will not benefit nor serve the public needs of the City in this situation. For a
private road to be warranted, certain criteria must be met, one of which is that it not interfere
with the continuity of public streets. As stated previously, there are a lack of public streets and
access in the area surrounding the site, except for the stub street West Cowman Court abutting
the parcel to the east of this site. While this street does not immediately connect to this site,
the City will, upon future development of the parcel to the east, require the road to be brought
to the eastern boundary of this site. If a private road were constructed upon this site, a public
road connection would not be possible since a private road cannot connect two public roads.
Because of this lack of public road connection, properties further to the west of this site will be
subject to limited development due to limited access and the City may lose an opportune
chance to provide intra-neighborhood activity. In addition, the Eagle Fire Department, as
noted in their letter dated September 25, 2001 and attached to this report, is concerned with
the possibility of this development having only one access point. The safety of the citizens in
this area must be taken into account and the provision of adequate public services is integral to
approval of any proposed rezone.
.
To conclude, a community must set certain standards to achieve desired results and one of the
ways to accomplish this is through the use of the Comprehensive Plan. It may be considered
that if a community adheres to its requirements, development will eagerly attempt to meet the
standards of the community because of the economic and lifestyle benefits that are fostered
through the application of those standards.
In staff s opinion, the applicant has not shown that a situation exists that warrants a change to
the Comprehensive Plan, and no benefit resulting from the change has been presented. With
the elements of the above mentioned discussions in mind, the proposed amendment to the
comprehensive plan should be denied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
Based upon the information provided to staff to date staff recommends denial of the requested
comprehensive plan amendment and rezone.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on
November 5, 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
Page 8 of 11
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-1-O1 & RZ-I1-Ol ccf.doc
by fourteen (14) individuals with concerns regarding the "moral security" that home ownership
provides, degradation of single-family dwelling property values caused by multi-family and rental
properties, higher crime rates due to influx of lower income housing and citizens, lack of care for
community by renters, disapproval of a stub street accessing the subject site, increased traffic and
concerns for safety of children..
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by one
(1) individual (other than the applicant) who felt that opportunities should always be available for
people to be able to rent housing.
D. Oral testimony neither in favor of nor in opposition of this proposal was presented to the Planning and
Zoning Commission by two (2) individuals who felt that the cost of a parcel of land determines how a
parcel develops and what uses occur on said parcels.
E. Written testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by five (S) individuals with concerns regarding the negative impact the development will
have on the surrounding neighborhoods, impact on already overcrowded schools, lowering of property
values due to low income housing, increase in crime rates, property is not maintained by "potentially
non-reliable renters".
F. A petition in opposition to this proposal was previously submitted to the Planning and Zoning
Commission which was signed by forty-seven (47) individuals.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted S to 0 to recommend denial ofCPA-I-0l & RZ-ll-Ol for a comprehensive
plan amendment and rezone with development agreement for James L. Jewett.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the City Council on December 11, 200 I, 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 six (6) individuals
with concerns regarding the incompatibility of the proposed development with surrounding properties,
devaluation of property values in the area, negative impact on schools and traffic; "..other places in
Eagle are already zoned for this type of development - no need to change the zoning of this site; rental
units (as proposed with this development) are a negative influence on existing neighborhoods, in part,
because a bunch of young people will be living there; renters do not take care of the property like
homeowners do; there is less of a community type factor with this development; a patio home
development where the units are owner-occupied would be more appropriate for this site."
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by no one (not including the
applicant/representatives).
D. Oral testimony neither in favor nor in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by
one (1) individual who understands that this property will get developed; wants it developed in a nice
manner.
E. Written testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by seven (7)
Page 9 of 11
\\EAGLENT1\COMMON\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-I-01 & RZ-II-0l ccf.doc
individuals with concerns regarding the negative impact the development will have on the surrounding
neighborhoods, impact on already overcrowded schools, lowering of property values due to low
income housing, increase in crime rates, property is not maintained by "potentially non-reliable
renters" .
COUNCIL DECISION:
The Council voted 4 to 0 to deny CP A-I-Ol & RZ-ll-0l for a comprehensive plan amendment
and rezone with development agreement for James L. Jewett.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on August 23, 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 September 29, 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 September 26,2001. Requests for agencies'
reviews were transmitted on August 27, 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 November 24,
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 November 20,2001.
3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed comprehensive plan
amendment and rezone with development agreement (CPA-l-Ol & RZ-ll-Ol) and based upon the
information provided concludes that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezone with
development agreement is not in accordance with the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and
established goals and objectives because:
1. The applicant has not provided substantial evidence to show that a situation exists that warrants a
change to the Comprehensive Plan, and no benefit resulting from the change has been presented.
2. The proposed higher density of this development is not compatible with the established land uses
and zoning designations abutting this property.
3. The City recognizes the need for higher density residential housing, however, there are several
areas within the City that are already appropriately zoned for this type of housing (ie. apartments,
triplexes, fourplexes, duplexes, etc.) or are designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
as Mixed Use and may be considered for higher density residential. This site is designated on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as Residential Four (up to four dwelling units per acre
maximum).
The Council stated consideration may be given to conceptual ideas which utilize the R-4 zomng
designation to maintain a consistent density with the surrounding properties.
Page 10 of II
\\EAGLENT1\COMMON\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-1-OI & RZ-II-OI ccf.doc
DATED this 22nd day of January 2002.
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada Count Idaho
,
ø ""..,,
ATTEST: d.. . ~ O.f I!.ti. Ò~~
..~ .-.'--"s,. ';(; <t",
1 ~ (à." 0.. 8tø~. '\
L ~f '~41"" ~
(I~.J...-.- . ~o ~ . * í
'--s hamo K. Moore. Eagle City ~ 1< (. .c;tJ ::L J... . ,=
~;) £..["1. t"'"' It
..~ß -::,>::)Y
... .~~.".~~~..~
"t- -..,
"4HØ$"'"
Page 11 of 11
\\EAGLENT1\COMMON\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-1-Ol & RZ-I1-OI ccf.doc