Findings - CC - 2002 - CPA-03-01/RZ-14-01 - Comp Plan Amend/Change From R2 To Mu/Ar To Mu-Da-P
OR\G\NAL
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION)
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN )
AMENDMENT AND REZONE WITH )
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR)
PETER J. CINTORINO )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER CPA-O3-01 & RZ-14-01
The above-entitled comprehensive plan amendment and rezone applications came before the Eagle City
Council for their action on March 26, 2002. 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:
Peter J. Cintorino, represented by Land Consultants, Inc., is requesting a Comprehensive
Plan amendment to change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map from Residential Two (up to two dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use, and rezone
from A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to MU-DA-P (Mixed Use with Development
Agreement - PUD). The site is located on the west side of Eagle Road approximately 3/4
miles north of Chinden Boulevard, at 2421 N. Eagle Road.
B.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL:
The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on December 13, 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 January 19, 2002. 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 January 16,2002. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on December
14, 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 March 9, 2002. 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 March 6, 2002.
D.
HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: None
E.
COMPANION APPLICATIONS: None
Page 1 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200l\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccfdoc
F.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS:
COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE
DESIGNA TION DESIGNA TION
Existing Residential Two (up to A-R (Agricultural-Residential) Vacant
two dwelling units per
acre maXImum
Proposed Mixed Use MU-DA-P Two-family & Multi-
family dwelling units /
Office
North of site Residential Two (up to A-R (Agricultural-Residential) Residence/ Pasture
two dwelling units per
acre maXImum
South of site Residential Two (up to R-2-P (Residential-Planned Unit Banbury Meadows
two dwelling units per Development) Subdivision
acre maximum
East of site Residential Two (up to A-R (Agricultural-Residential) Residence/ Pasture
two dwelling units per
acre maXImum
West of site Residential Two (up to R-2-P (Residential-Planned Unit Banbury Meadows
two dwelling units per Development) Subdivision
acre maXImum
G.
DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA or CEDA.
H.
TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: 13.7-acres
I.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONE:
See the attached letter dated December 13, 2001, submitted by the applicant.
J.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
"To limit the uses that would otherwise be permitted under a comp plan designation of
mixed use and to require a PUD prior to development"
K.
AVAILABILITY 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 that it appears it may be served through the
Streamside Subdivision (if annexed). United Water states this site is within its service
area.
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
Page 2 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc
rezone will not create any noncompliance with any 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:
Ada County Highway District
Central District Health Department
Department of Environmental Quality
Eagle Fire Department
Eagle Sewer District
United Water
O.
LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: None received to date.
P.
APPLICANT REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT:
See the attached letter dated December 13, 2001, submitted by the applicant addressing
justification for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
STAFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
A.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS
REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL:
WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN
.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map currently designates this site as Residential Two (up
to two dwelling units per acre).
Chapter 1 - Overview
1.3 The City of Eagle Vision Statement
In 1999, City of Eagle citizens envision their future town as a well-planned
community that encourages diversified living and housing opportunities,
economic vitality that offers jobs for residents, and places for people to recreate
and enjoy Eagle's natural beauty.
b. known as a highly livable town that successfully balances many of the rural
elements of its heritage with growth;
c. economically strong with a distinct downtown economic center;
f.
a unique community that maintains its rural residential feel in the midst of the
Treasure Valley.
Chapter 2 - Property Rights
2.4
Implementation Strategies
c. The Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances should strive for
stable and consistent policies regarding development densities and
requirements.
Page 3 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200l\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc
Chapter 3 - Population
3.3
Goal
To promote a high quality of life and livability in the community.
Chapter 5 - Economic Development
5.1
Background
The economic development component of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the
economics and employment in Eagle. The city encourages appropriate economic
development while retaining those attributes that give Eagle its special living and
working environment.
5.4
Objective
To preserve the economic integrity of the Central Business District (CBD) and to
encourage business and industry that have minimal environmental impact.
5.5
Implementation Strategies
f. New commercial development outside of the Central Business District should
complement the Central Business District and Eagle's rural residential
identity.
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.
Page 4 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc
6.2
Land Use Issues
Residents of Eagle and its Impact Area have a strong desire to maintain the rural
"feel" of the community.
6.5
Goal
To preserve the rural transitional identity.
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.
f.
Higher density residential development should be located closest to the
Central Business District (CBD) as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map.
p. Encourage a verity of housing through such mechanisms as PUD's in
subdivisions including large lot subdivisions.
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.
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.
8.2.1
Principal Arterial
Mobility Function:
The primary function of a principal arterial is to provide major circulation
and movement through urban areas and to connect with major activity
Page 5 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200l\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc
centers and freeways. A principal arterial may serve motorized and non-
motorized transportation needs and may include up to seven vehicular
traffic lanes.
Access Function:
Access from other roadways is controlled and subordinate to traffic on the
principal arterial street. Direct lot access is typically prohibited or
severely restricted.
8.6
Implementation Strategies
f.
Evaluate the impact to the City of all roadway improvements and roadway
extensions.
1.
If the Highway District or ITD do not require traffic impact studies for new
development, the City of Eagle may require a traffic impact study to include,
but not limited to, potential impacts to existing traffic patterns, suggested
roadway widths, access to existing and proposed roadways, signalization,
location and need for intersections, turn lanes, and bus stops. In addition, the
traffic impact study should address parking and pedestrian traffic.
Chapter 12 - Community Design
12.3
Entry Corridors
Entryway corridors are arterial roadways that introduce both visitors and residents
to Eagle. City entryways include State Highways 44 (State Street and Alternate
Route) and 55 (Eagle Road). These entrances with their landscaping (or lack
thereof), commercial signage and building character provide the first, and
oftentimes the most lasting impressions of the entire community. The City of
Eagle has the responsibility to guide development and redevelopment that occurs
along these entryway corridors.
12.4
Implementation Strategies
e.
Developments that would establish or tend to establish another City center
outside of the Central Business District should not be approved.
m.
Encourage the development of a strong community identity through urban
design standards, downtown revitalization, cultural activities, and visual
gateways to the City.
q.
Maintain the rural residential character and open space environment in
and around the City.
Page 6 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc
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.
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:
.
Section 8-2A-7 (J)(4)(c)
Major Roadways: New residential developments, including, but not limited to,
subdivisions and multi-family developments, shall be buffered from streets classified as
collectors, arterials, freeways, or expressways, to protect residential communities from
noisy, potentially dangerous, high-speed roads. The buffer area shall be defined as the
distance from the outside wall of the lowest story of any single-family attached or
detached dwelling and the right-of-way line of the roadway. The lowest story must be
screened from the view of any street classified as a collector, arterial, freeway, or
expressway. This buffer is required either on individual lots or as an easement, or as part
of the common open space owned and maintained by a homeowners' association. Any
landscaping proposed to be within the public right of way shall not be included as a part of
the buffer area required below. The height for berming/fencing, as noted below, shall be
measured from the elevation of the final grade of the adjacent roadway (measured at the
centerline) to the top of the proposed berming/fencing. The required buffer area width,
plantings, and fencing are as follows:
Page 7 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc
c.
c. Any road designated as a principal arterial on the APA Functional Street Classification
Map and/or any freeway or expressway:
A minimum of seventy five feet (75') wide buffer area (not including right of way)
shall be provided with the following plants per one hundred 000) linear feet of
right of way: six (6) shade trees, ten 00) evergreen trees, four (4)
flowering/ornamental 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 ten foot 00') high, maximum twelve foot 02') 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 (1 ') 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'). Chain link, cedar,
and similar high maintenance and/or unsightly fencing shall not be permitted.
The ten foot 00') minimum height requirement for the berming/fencing shall be
permitted to be decreased one foot for every thirteen feet 03') of additional buffer
area added to the seventy five foot (75') wide buffer noted above. (Ord. 328, 8-11-
1998).
DISCUSSION:
.
The subject property is currently zoned A-R with a Comprehensive Plan designation of
Residential Two (up to two units per acre).
The applicant has submitted a conceptual drawing of the parcel delineating a residential
section with apartments and two-family dwellings, and a commercial section for light office
uses. The commercial portion of the site is proposed to consist of five (5) office buildings
totaling 25,000 square feet. The residential portion proposes fourteen 04) duplexes located
on the western portion of the site and seven (7) fourplex units to be located in the mid-portion
of the site. The residential density for the site is approximately 5.65-units per acre (56-units
located within 9.9-acres of residential area). Banbury Meadows Subdivision No.1 located
immediately south of this site has a density of approximately 3.05-units per acre (this figure
does not include the entire Banbury Meadows Subdivision). Streamside Subdivision to the
west has a density of approximately 1.12-units per acre and Two Rivers (Quarter Circle
Ranch) to the north has a density of 1.56-units per acre at full buildout. The density
comparison made here is to point out that this application may be considerably different from
the existing residential environment.
.
.
While the densities of surrounding developments are lower than this proposal, the lot sizes and
characteristics of the lots are comparable to Banbury Meadows No.1 and the proposed
"cottage" lots within Two Rivers Subdivision. The two-family home portion of this proposal
includes lots ranging in approximate size from 11,000 to 20,000 square feet (5,500 to 10,000
square feet on either side of the "zero lot line" bisecting each lot). The lots within Banbury
Meadows No.1 range in size from approximately 6,000 to 8,000 square feet and the "cottage"
lots within Two Rivers are proposed to be approximately 5,000 square feet in size. The point
to be made here is that the City has in the past approved smaller lot sizes in this area (through
Page 8 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc
.
the PUD process) to incorporate a variety of housing types, with the smaller lots located
adjacent to Eagle Road (State Highway 55) and larger lots located farther west. Staff believes
that the property may be developed with a comparable density and similar design
characteristics to that of Banbury Meadows Subdivision No.1 to the south of this site. A
Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be utilized in the design of this site as a tool to provide
a quality residential development that would comply with the current Comprehensive Plan
designation of Residential Two.
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 of the inability to provide an adequate buffer area abutting Eagle
Road to mitigate the effects of noise, light and car exhaust, single family residential uses are
inappropriate. Because a buffer area cannot be incorporated into a development does not
necessarily warrant a change to the Comprehensive Plan. Eagle City Code Section 8-2A-7 (0)
allows for a developer to utilize an alternative method of compliance for a required buffer area
(if approved by the Council) upon sites with space limitations. Since a relief option is already
provided for in the City's ordinance, it appears that the justification provided by the applicant
does not warrant changing the Comprehensive Plan in lieu of providing an adequate buffer.
The mitigation of differing uses is essential to quality planning. To indicate that a commercial
development would act as a buffer to residential uses in lieu of a landscape buffer is not
justified. It would seem that if a landscape buffer cannot be provided due to space limitations,
then a commercial development would also be hindered due to space limitations.
.
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 "benefit of the change would be that the mixed use
designation would allow for a development consisting of offices near the highway which
would not only enhance the City's tax base on an ongoing basis, but would provide a bit of a
sound barrier between our currently planned residential area and the highway." It is certainly
the goal of the City to review and approve development that would supplement the tax base of
the City. However, property developments other than office or commercial use contribute to
the tax base; a single-family dwelling is required to pay annual taxes. Also, the applicant has
not shown that there is a lack of office space in the community that would warrant a change to
the Comprehensive Plan. With numerous sites within the Central Business District as well as
the Mixed Use zones along the State Highway 44 corridor having yet to be developed, and
with previously approved commercial projects currently being constructed, it may be
considered too soon to determine a shortage of office space.
The applicant's justification letter also states that (paraphrased) that there will be no benefit to
having houses sitting vacant or subject to multiple reselling due to the close proximity to Eagle
Road (SH 55). To date, no information has been provided that connects vacancy rates with
proximity to a principal arterial.
The "Comprehensive Plan Amendment" section (Chapter 13, Section 13.7 (c) (5» 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, "There is no way to reasonably remove or
mitigate the traffic impact of noise on a majority of the land area at this site." No information
has been provided that demonstrates a development on this site is incapable of alleviating
traffic concerns. Most importantly, staff believes that adequate space is available to provide a
75-foot wide landscape buffer (as required by Eagle city Code) along Highway 55 abutting the
Page 9 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc
eastern edge of this site. If the construction of the buffer area is determined to be hindered due
to space limitations, alternative methods of compliance may be applied for, subject to approval
of the Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDA nON PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
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
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMISSION:
A. A public hearing on the applications was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on
February 4, 2002, at which time testimony was taken and the public hearing remained open. The items
were continued to February 19,2002, at which 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 nine (9) individuals with concerns regarding increased traffic and concerns for safety of drivers and
pedestrians, commercial uses and higher density residential would decrease property values,
commercial uses would create more noise and light pollution, the stature of the golf course would be
decreased due to nearby commercial and high density, and the negative effect on the existing wildlife
in the area.
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by five
(5) individuals (other than the applicant/representative) who felt that surrounding property values
would not decrease because of the proposed development, berms are not attractive amenities,
commercial development is more appropriate for the area and would provide a sound barrier.
D. Written testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by
the Eagle Chamber of Commerce that felt the amendment to the comprehensive plan was appropriate
due to the high volume of traffic on Eagle Road.
E. Written testimony in opposition to this proposal (in the form of a petition) was submitted to the
Planning and Zoning Commission which was signed by twenty-two (22) individuals with concerns
regarding the existing and potential increase in traffic on Eagle Road, the possibility of rental property
devaluing existing properties, impact on wildlife in the area, and expectations of the land to de
developed with less density as already indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted 4 to 0 (Cadwell absent) to recommend approval ofCPA-3-0l & RZ-14-0l
for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone with development agreement for Peter 1.
Cintorino with conditions to be included within a development agreement as shown in their
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law document dated March 4, 2002.
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the City Council on March 26, 2002, at which
time testimony was taken and the public hearing was closed. The Council made their decision at that
time.
Page 10 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc
B. Oral testimony in opposition to this proposal was presented to the City Council by no one.
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by four (4) individuals (not
including the applicant/representatives) who felt that the benns on both sides of Eagle Road (between
the two channels of the Boise River) create an undesirable tunnel effect and that this development
could provide a buffer with a "park feel" that is different from the nonn, single-family dwelling closer
to Eagle Road do not sell well, the design of the development would be unique to the area with offices
designed with residential characteristics, and that a right-in/right-out type of entrance would not deter
customers from visiting businesses at the site.
D. Written testimony submitted to the City Council (date stamped by the City on March 20, 2002) by the
applicant's representative states a public road would be constructed if so desired by the Council. For
recording purposes of the public hearing, the Council detennined that a public road shall be
constructed in lieu of a private road to serve the development.
COUNCIL DECISION:
The Council voted 4 to 0 to approve CPA-3-0l & RZ-14-01 for a comprehensive plan amendment
from Residential Two to Mixed Use and a rezone with development agreement to change the
zoning designation from R-2 to L-O-DA-P (Limited Office with development agreement and
PUD) for Peter J. Cintorino with the following Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
conditions to be included within a development agreement with strikethrough text to be deleted by
the Council and underlined text to be added by the Council:
2.1 Concept Plan No.2 (Exhibit A !!) represents the owner's current concept for the development
of the Property. The intent of the Concept Plan is for the approval of the uses described in
Section 2.2 below. As the Concept Plan evolves, the City understands and agrees that changes
in that concept may occur as long as the conditions herein are complied with and the Owner
understands and agrees that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application shall be required
for any development of the Property.
A final development plan will only be required to be acted upon by the City Council,
subsequent to the review and approval of the preliminary development plan and preliminary
plat by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. The City and Owner
agree that if the City determines that any material change between the preliminary
development plan and final development plan needs additional public comment because of
possible impacts to surrounding property owners, to this development, or to the community, or
inconsistency with the conditions of the preliminary development plan, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall review the final development plan prior to the review by the City
Council.
2.2 The property is approximately 13.7 acres and shall be permitted to be developed with the
following uses:
a. A maximum of 32,000 square feet of Professional, Medical and or Dental Office space
(with no one building on the site to exceed 6,000 square feet) on the approximately six
(6)-gross acres of the site designated for commercial uses.
b. A maximum of fifteen (15) single-family homes on approximately 7.7- gross acres.
Buildimr envelopes designating the location of the single-family residences (to ensure
construction does not occur within any wetlands area) shall be shown on any preliminary
Page 11 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc
plat and PUD application submitted to the City.
2.3 The exterior of the office buildings shall include design elements and building materials to
portray an appearance that is residential in nature. The photographs received at the Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting on February 19, 2002, and labeled "Office Park Concept"
(Exhibit B g as well as the office building elevation presented to the City Council on March
26, 2002, (Exhibit D) are incorporated herein and shall be considered a part of the
development as a design guideline.
2.4 The Owner shall submit a design review application for the property (as required by Eagle
City Code).
2.5 The development shall comply with the Eagle City Code, as it exists in final form at the time
an application is made and the conditions within this agreement shall be satisfied.
2.6 The commercial portion of the Property shall be constructed with a minimum 20-foot wide
buffer area adjacent to the southern boundary of this site.
Further, the Council determined the following Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
conditions shall be included as conditions within any application for a planned unit development
(PUD) and/or preliminary plat submitted for the site, with underlined text to be added by the
Council:
1. If it is determined that wetlands areas exist on the site, a note on the plat as well as
within the CC&R's for any proposed subdivision shall state that all Federal, State
and Local regulations governing a designated wetlands area shall be adhered to.
2. If it is determined that a pathway is required within the site (as may be indicated
on the 2000 Eagle City Comprehensive Plan's Transportation/Pathway Network
Map #1 of 2 or if required for connectivity to any future pathway), the applicant
shall construct said pathway in a location and configuration to be determined at
the time of PUD review for the proposal.
3. All lighting within the commercial portion of the site shall include design
elements (to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board) to mitigate
the effects of light upon neighboring properties and the night sky.
4. A buffer area (to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board) shall be
constructed between the proposed office complex and the proposed single-family
residences to the west.
5. The single-family residential lots proposed for the western portion of the site shall
be no less than 10,000 square feet in size.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on December 13, 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
Page 12 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\200l\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccfdoc
-----~----~
ordinances on January 19, 2002. 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 January 16, 2002. Requests for agencies' reviews
were transmitted on December 14, 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 March 9, 2002.
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 March 6, 2002.
3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed comprehensive plan
amendment and rezone with development agreement (CPA-3-0l & RZ-14-01) and based upon the
information provided concludes that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezone with
development agreement is in accordance with the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and established
goals and objectives because:
The noise and air pollution created by the high volume of traffic on Eagle Road diminishes the
desirability for the subject property to be developed solely for residential use. The Council felt that
through conditions within a development agreement, the site may provide a well designed office
complex with park-like landscaping may aid in mitigating the traffic impacts on existing residential
development to the south and west as well as future residential uses to the north and east (as
anticipated within the City of Eagle's 2000 Comprehensive Plan) surrounding the subject property. In
addition, the rezone of the site to an L-O (Limited Office) zoning designation is merited due to the
unique characteristics of this site (located between existing development and a wetlands area) and does
not necessarily warrant properties in the proximate area to be zoned anything other than Residential.
DA TED this 9th day of April 2002.
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
RickY~
ATTEST:
~ ÚÁ-< >---c ¡¿.. ~,~
Sharon K. Moore, Eagle City lerk
Page 13 of 13
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2001\CPA-3-01 & RZ-14-01 ccf.doc