Loading...
Findings - PZ - 2002 - CPA-03-02 & RZ-04-02 - Cpa/Change Land Use Designations From R4 To Mu/R4 To Muda/135 Ffr. ORIGINAL BEFORE THE EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR) A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ) FROM RESIDENTIAL FOUR TO MIXED USE) AND REZONE FROM R-4 (RESIDENTIAL) TO ) MU-DA (MIXED USE WITH A DEVELOPMENT) AGREEMENT) FOR JA VO CONSTRUCTION INc. ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER CPA-O3-02 & RZ-O4-02 The above-entitled comprehensive plan amendment and rezone with development agreement applications came before the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation on November 18, 2002. The Commission continued the public hearing to December 2, 2002, and again to December 16, 2002, and made their decision at that time; to be forwarded to the Council in combination with the additional comprehensive plan amendment applications currently under review with the City. The Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; FINDINGS OF FACT: A. PROJECT SUMMARY: Jayo Construction Inc., represented by Doug Jayo, 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 a rezone from R-4 (Residential - up to four dwelling units per acre) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with Development Agreement). The site is located on the south side of Floating Feather Road approximately 250-feet west of Eagle Road, at 135 Floating Feather Road. B. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on September 9, 2002. 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 October 15,22, and 29, 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 October 31, 2002. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on September 19, 2002, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. D. HISTORY OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS ACTIONS: On May 8, 2001, the Eagle City Council approved a rezone from R-4 (Residential up to four dwelling units per acre) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with Development Agreement) for a Dentist Office located on the adjacent parcel to the east of this site. E. COMPANION APPLICATIONS: none Page 1 of 8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 pzf.doc L. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS: COMP PLAN ZONING LAND USE DESIGNA nON DESIGNA nON Existing Residential Four (up to R-4 (Residential) Single-family dwelling four dwelling units per acre maXImum Proposed Mixed Use MU-DA Two Office Buildings North of site Residential Estates (up RUT (Residential- Ada County Dairy Farm to one dwelling unit per designation) two acres maximum) & Floodway South of site Residential Four (up to R-4 (Residential) Clear Creek Crossing four dwelling units per Subdivision acre maximum) & Mixed Use East of site Mixed Use MU-DA (Mixed Use with Dental Office Development Agreement) West of site Residential Four (up to R-4 (Residential) Clear Creek Crossing four dwelling units per Subdivision acre maximum) G. DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT: Not in the DDA, TDA or CEDA. H. TOTAL ACREAGE OF SITE: .88-acres 1. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONE: See the attached letter date stamped by the City on September 12, 2002, submitted by the applicant. J. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The applicant has not provided details for a development agreement. Eagle City Code Section 8-2-1 states that a Mixed Use District is intended to ensure compatibility of new development with existing and future development. With this consideration in mind, staff has recommended conditions to be placed within a development agreement, as provided below under Staff Analysis Section "C". K. A V AILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES: The City has received a letter from the Eagle Fire Department stating the District has no opposition to the project. The Eagle Sewer District states that the property will need to be annexed into the District's service area and construction drawings reviewed prior to connection to sewer service. United Water states this site is not within its service area. A service approval letter from Eagle Water is required prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site. PUBLIC USES SHOWN ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS MAP: No map currently exists. Page 2 of 8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 pzf.doc ----------- ------------- ----- -- 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. N. AGENCY RESPONSES: The following agencies have responded and their correspondence is attached. Comments which appear to be of special concern are noted below: Central District Health Department 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 date stamped by the City on September 9, 2002, submitted by the applicant addressing justification for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 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 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; f. an economically strong city, that fosters local businesses and clean industry. 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 Page 3 of 8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 pzf.doc 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. 5.5 Implementation Strategies f. New commercial development outside of the Central Business District should complement the Central Business District and Eagle's rural residential identity. 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. 6.2 Land Use Designations Mixed Use Suitable primarily for a variety of uses such as limited office, limited commercial, and residential developments. Uses should complement uses within the Central Business District (CBD). Development within this land use designation should be required to proceed through the PUD and/or Development Agreement process. Residential density of up to twenty dwelling units per gross acre may be considered by the City for this area. 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. Chapter 12 - Community Design 12.3 Implementation Strategies g. New residential, commercial, and industrial development shall be required to meet minimum design standards as specified by City Ordinances. Page 4 of 8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 pzf.doc 1. Buffer and transition zones should be developed between conflicting types of land use. q. Maintain the rural residential character and open space environment in and around the City. Chapter 13 - Implementation 13.5 Comprehensive Plan Amendments From time to time, changing conditions will result in a need for comprehensive plan amendments. The Land Use Planning Act provides for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The City Councilor any group or person may petition the City Planning and Zoning Commission for a plan amendment at any time. On its own initiative, the City Planning and Zoning Commission may also originate an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. However, the City Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council not more frequently than every six (6) months; however text amendments may be recommended at any time. 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 8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 pzf.doc B. c. 8. Any other data and information required by the City for their evaluation of the request. ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OF SPECIAL CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL: . Section 8-3-3 D Side And Rear Yards For Nonresidential Uses Abutting Residential Districts: Nonresidential buildings or uses shall not be located nor conducted closer than forty feet (40') to any lot line of a residential district; except that the minimum yard requirements may be reduced to fifty percent (50%) of the requirement if acceptable landscaping or screening approved by the council is provided. Such screening shall be a masonry or solid fence between four (4) and eight feet (8') in height, maintained in good condition and free of all advertising or other signs. Landscaping provided in lieu of such wall or fence shall consist of a strip of land not less than twenty feet (20') in width planted with an evergreen hedge or dense planting of evergreen shrubs not less than four feet (4') in height at the time of planting. DISCUSSION: . The subject property is currently zoned R-4 with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Four (up to four units per acre). The subject site currently has an older single-family dwelling unit with a detached garage/shop building; a newly installed fence is located on the southern and western property lines with a landscaped berm located on the northern and eastern boundaries. Floating Feather Road abutting the north side of this site is improved with curb, gutter and a five-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk. . . The applicant has submitted a conceptual drawing of the parcel showing two buildings for light office uses. The site is proposed to be accessed through the existing thirty-foot (30') driveway on Floating Feather Road, located approximately 450-feet west of Eagle Road. 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 the properties located on Eagle Road near this site have been designated as Mixed Use in the Comprehensive Plan, this subject parcel would provide a "nice transition" to the new residential subdivision (Clear Creek Crossing) surrounding the site to the north and west. With the recent construction of a dental office to the east of this site and because the subject parcel does not have direct access to the residential subdivision to the north and west, the parcel may be considered as more appropriate for the development of offices rather than a dwelling (s). A parcel with a front yard consisting of a large berm and adjacent to an urban collector, and with the lack of direct access to amenities that a residential subdivision may provide, the parcel is not the model location to support a single-family home. However, these attributes (or lack thereof) may be considered ideal for an office development since it has no direct access to a residential subdivision and has frontage on an urban collector. . 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 there is an "increasing need in that area (subject site) for more such uses with all the new development". While the applicant has not provided any objective material to support this statement, this does not mean that an office would not be welcome to the residents in the vicinity of the site. The Comprehensive Plan lists goals to "Establish land Page 6 of 8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 pzf.doc . use patterns and zoning districts that do not exhaust available services such as sewer, water, .,. and transportation systems" as well as promote "a high quality of life and livability in the community." It may be considered a public benefit to locate an office at this site to promote pedestrian access to business rather than automobile travel which requires more roadways and maintenance of those roadways, and because sewer and water are immediately available to the site, there will be no requirement to extend these services and no additional costs. In addition, businesses located in close proximity to residences may lend to a greater sense of community since residents will have the opportunity to visit local business owners rather than leave the area obtain to goods and services. 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 chanf;!e in the Plan are possible or reasonable under the current policies of the Plan". The applicant's reply in the justification letter states, "The home and out building currently on the site does not meet the floodplain requirements and is subject to flooding. The only way to remedy this is to raise the elevations to meet the floodplain requirements and rebuild." While this may be good justification to remove the existing house since it does not comply with Title 10 of the City's Flood Control ordinance, it does not provide a reason to place a commercial structure in its stead (a single-family residence may possibly be constructed to meet the ordinance). However, given the opportunity to develop a non-conforming parcel to comply with current Eagle City Code, and taking into account the previous discussion topics, it may be considered that an office development may be better suited for the subject property. ST AFF RECOMMENDA nON PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT: Based upon the information provided to staff to date, staff recommends approval of the requested comprehensive plan amendment from Residential Four to Mixed Use and a rezone from R-4 (Residential) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with development agreement), with the staff recommended conditions to be placed within a development agreement as noted 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 November 18, 2002, at which time testimony was taken. The item was continued to December 2, 2002, and again to December 16,2002, at which time 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 no one. C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by no one (other than the applicant). D. Oral testimony neither in favor of nor in opposition to this proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission by one (1) individual who felt that careful consideration should be given to building height and size, site lighting and strict signage requirements, and that the requirements of the City's floodway ordinances be adhered to. COMMISSION DECISION: The Commission voted 4 to 0 (Cadwell absent) to recommend denial of CPA-3-02 & RZ-04-02 for a comprehensive plan amendment from Residential Four to Mixed Use and a Rezone from R-4 to MU-DA (Mixed Use with Development Agreement) Page 7 of 8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CP A\2002\CP A-3-02 & RZ-4-02 pzf.doc CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on September 9, 2002. 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 October 15, 22, and 29, 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 October 31, 2002. Requests for agencies' reviews were transmitted on September 19, 2002, in accordance with the requirements of the Eagle City Code. 3. The Commission reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezone with development agreement (CPA-3-02 & RZ-04-02) and based upon the information provided concludes that the proposal is not in accordance with the City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan and established goals and objectives because: The applicant has not provided substantial evidence to show that a situation exists that warrants a change to the Comprehensive Plan. A change would result in merely providing for individual benefit with no association to a public benefit having been offered. The current conditions existing on the parcel (separated from the abutting residential development, diminished capability to adhere to the City's Title 10 Flood Control Ordinance, and access limited to a collector roadway only) were created as a result of the applicant's actions and therefore not subject to a deviation from the City's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, evidence has not been shown to indicate that a Comprehensive Plan designation of Mixed Use for commercial purposes is the only option available for the development of the site and that a residential use is not capable of being constructed upon the site. Further consideration was given to the existing fill in the form of the berm surrounding the property and whether the fill was added by permit and if the floodplain was adversely affected. DA TED this 6th day of January 2003. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EAGLE Ada County, Idaho ~~>f.&~ Cheryl Bloom, Vice Chairman """""""~ "~I -c E A ~.~ ...." o~ ~()þ ~.~ .." 4. .."..... ~~ , ,/ ~ .. ..." :: t;.. ~ORA.l'~... " : . o~ . ~ .. . Ie,; ."70: :. -:: . . -. -.. : ir . "( "'. . : ~~ C'£~....~:O: ":. ..1-0;:) <> '.~ . . . ('0 -<,<t>.. ..... .: ~ ..p ...l?POR".. ~.:' #,#» ....... \'> ...." ""'-1. 'l'E of ",.." ""u....,'" lÂT: ~--k~~ J .. Sharon K. Moore, Eagle City C erk Page 8 of 8 K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 pzf.doc