Findings - CC - 2003 - FPUD-8-03/FP-10-03 - Brookwood 10/22 Lot/15.82 Acre/
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR
A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINAL PLAT
FOR BROOKWOOD PUD SUBDIVISION NO. 10
FOR ARIES DEVELOPMENT LLC
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER FPUD-S-03 & FP-10-03
The above-entitled final development plan and final plat applications came before the Eagle City Council
for their action on November 18, 2003. 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:
Aries Development, LLC, represented by Mike Hormaechea, is requesting final development plan and
final plat approval for Brookwood PUD Subdivision Phase 10, a 22-lot (l8-buildable, 4-common)
residential subdivision. This 15.82-acre (approx.) phase of Brookwood PUD is located on the north
side of Floating Feather Road and west of Feather Nest Estates Subdivision. The site is within the
Eagle City Limits.
B. HISTORY:
The City Council approved the PUD for Brookwood Subdivision on March 16, 1999. The Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for the annexation, rezone, preliminary plat and preliminary development
plan are incorporated herein by reference.
On December 14, 1999, the City Council approved a change to site specific condition #29 (regarding
setbacks) for the Brookwood PUD. The approved setbacks for the Type A, A-!, B, E, lots within this
phase (the R-2-DA-P zoned area) are as follows:
.
Type A and A-I estate lot setbacks
Front 30' (3D-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Rear 30' (3D-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Interior Side 10' (lO-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Additional Interior Side Setback for multi-story structures - 5' per story
(5-feet required for non-PUD sub)
20' (20-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Street Side
.
Type B Luxury lot setbacks
Front 25' (3D-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Rear 25' (3D-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Interior Side 7.5' (lO-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Additional Interior Side Setback for multi-story structures - 2.5' per story
(5-feet required for non-PUD sub)
20' (20-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Street Side
Page 1 of 8
K\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2003\Brookwood No.IO fpod ccf.doc
.
Type E Streamside lot setbacks
Front 20' (30-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Rear 25' (30-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Interior Side 7.5'(1O-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Additional Interior Side Setback for multi-story structures - 2.5' per story
(5-feet required for non-PUD sub)
20' (20-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Street Side
C. PRELIMINARY PUD/PLAT FINDINGS:
Council Findings and Conclusions dated March 16, 1999, are incorporated herein by reference.
Site specific condition of approval no. 24 of the Brookwood PUD Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law allows Cul-de-sac lengths to exceed 500-feet if approved by the Eagle Fire Department.
D. FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED BY EAGLE CITY CODE SECTION 8-6-6-3 (B):
The Commission shall find that the facts submitted with the application and presented to them
establish that:
1. The proposed development can be initiated within one year of the date of approval;
2. Each individual unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an
independent unit capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or
that adequate assurance will be provided that such objective will be attained and the uses
proposed will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but will have a
beneficial effect which would not be achieved under standard district regulations;
3. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic,
and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street
network outside the PUD;
4. Any proposed commercial development can be justified at the locations proposed;
5. Any exception from standard district requirements is warranted by the design and other
amenities incorporated in the final development plan, in accordance with the PUD and the
adopted policy of the Council;
6. The area surrounding said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and
substantial compatibility with the proposed development;
7. The PUD is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
8. The existing and proposed utility services are adequate for the population densities and
nonresidential uses proposed.
E.
FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED BY EAGLE CITY CODE SECTION 8-6-6-3 (C):
Upon granting or denying the application, the Council shall specify:
1. The ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application;
2. The reasons for approval or denial; and
3. The actions, if any, that the applicant could take to obtain a permit.
ST AFF ANALYSIS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT:
. The Commission previously reviewed this phase 10 initially as phase 7, which the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted 3 to 1 (Cadwell against, Bloom absent) to forward phase 7 (FPUD-5-02
& FP-15-02) to the City Council with no recommendation due to a stalemate regarding the
recommendation to approve or deny the application. At issue among the Commission was an
increase in the number of dwelling units from that shown within the approved preliminary
Page 2 of 8
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2003\Brookwood No.1 0 fpod ccf.doc
development plan, and the effects of this increase on the floodplain.
Subsequently, the applicant revised the proposed final development plan and final plat to remove
the easterly portion of phase 7 (now phase 10) due to that portion being located within the
flood way. Recognizing this as a potential inaccuracy in the FEMA map, the applicant submitted a
Letter of Map Revision to FEMA to correct the error, with the intent to submit a new final
development plan and final plat application at a future date. The Council approved the revised
phase 7 and determined the final plat was in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat.
.
The City Engineer and Planning staff have reviewed the final development plan and final plat for
this phase 10 of Brookwood PUD. This phase differs slightly from the original preliminary
development plan in both lot quantity as well as street configuration. The cul-de-sac has been
extended longer than from that initially proposed, and a second cul-de-sac branching from the
roadway has been added. With these changes, the amount of lots to be constructed has been
increased by four (4) from the original proposal. Previously, the majority of the lots were
proposed to be approximately 34 of an acre in size while the newly designed phase proposes to add
a greater mix of 14 acre lots and Y2 acre lots. These smaller size lots appear to appeal to a greater
number of homebuyers as opposed to the larger lots. While the density will be higher for this
phase, upon the completion of this phase and phase 9, the overall density for the development will
be seventeen (17) lots less than the approved amount of three-hundred eighty-seven (387). In
addition, the total open space for the entire development will equal approximately 57 -acres
(originally approved with 47.5-acres). Considering the proposed lot configuration and street
layout, it is staff s opinion that this tenth phase of the final development can meet the Findings of
Fact required in Eagle City Code Section 8-6-6-3 Band C (as noted herein) with the conditions
recommended herein.
In the applicant's justification letter date stamped by the City on July 9, 2003, the applicant
requests that the setbacks for Lots 20-22, and 3-12, Block 2, be permitted to comply with setbacks
which are identical to the Type "E" lots as listed above under Section B. The lot sizes approved
for Type "E" lots range from a minimum of 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet; the minimum
lot size proposed for this phase is 11,664 square feet (Lot 3, Block 2), which is commensurate to
the Type "B" lots, not Type "E" lots. With regard to Lots 20-22, Block 2, the requirement for the
50-foot setback from the flood way line (as delineated on the final plat) reduces the amount of
buildable space on said lots and it may be considered appropriate to allow only these lots the
flexibility to utilize the type HE" setbacks for greater building envelope flexibility. Because this
requested change deviates from the approved Brookwood PUD, staff will defer to the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the City Council for discussion regarding this matter.
With regard to Lots 3-12, Block 2, the maximum amount of lot coverage (that is, the total square
footage of the dwelling footprint in relation to the square footage of the lot) in the R-2 zone is
forty-percent (40%). Considering Lot 3, Block 2, which is 11,664 square feet in size, the
maximum lot coverage allowed would be 4,666 square feet (11,664 x .4 = 4,666). If a building
envelope were drawn on the lot to meet the setbacks of the type "E", the footprint would equal
approximately 6,800 square feet, which exceeds the maximum allowed. Staff believes that the
type "B" set backs for Lots 3-12, Block 2, are adequate to meet the needs to place a dwelling unit
on the aforementioned lots.
.
Lots 10-12, Block 2, are considered through lots since they have frontage on more than one street,
other than a comer lot (North Groveland Court and North Covey Run Court). While through lots
are not prohibited by Eagle City Code, common practice is to dissuade the design of lots in this
Page 3 of 8
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2003\Brookwood No. 10 fpod ccf.doc
manner. The applicant should place a note on the final plat stating that access from Lots 10-12,
Block 2, shall be limited to North Groveland Court only.
.
Site specific condition #8 within the Council's Findings of Fact for the Brookwood PUD
application (March 16, 1999) states, "Comply with ACHD "Special Recommendations to the City
of Eagle" noted in the ACHD report dated August 5,1998. The pedestrian bridge shall be a
minimum of lO-feet wide. A letter of credit or certificate of deposit shall be provided to the City
prior to approval of the fmal plat phase that abuts the pedestrian bridge to insure installation of the
bridge." This Phase 10 of the Brookwood PUD abuts the area for the proposed pedestrian bridge.
The requirement for the bridge was intended to provide a connection between this subdivision and
an undeveloped parcel to the north of this site, separated by the Dry Creek. Because of the
restrictions placed on the installation of fill and construction of structures within the Dry Creek
floodway, a roadway and bridge system (most likely consisting of several bridge spans) over the
Dry Creek would be very expensive. In lieu of a roadway, the Ada County Highway District
recommended that a pedestrian bridge be installed to provide intra-neighborhood connectivity,
which the City Council adopted as a condition of approval (as stated in the previous paragraph) for
the Brookwood PUD.
At this point in time, the applicant has requested that this requirement be waived, due to the
uncertainty and questionable feasibility of the construction of a pedestrian bridge. In the
applicant's letter date stamped by the City on January 9,2003, it is stated that Ada County
Highway District staff have previously requested of the ACHD Commission to refund monies
placed in a road trust for two projects which had similar conditions of approval for the
construction of pedestrian bridges (Eagle City staff has spoken to ACHD staff regarding this
matter). Due to cost overruns and the uncertainty as to the responsibility of managing the
construction of the bridges, the projects have become to be thought of as less than feasible.
In discussions with staff at Holladay Engineering, City staff has been made aware that a pedestrian
bridge, while not wholly unachievable, would cost in excess of $500,000 to construct. In addition,
right-of-way to accommodate the bridge would need to be acquired from adjacent landowners,
which would incur both time and monetary expenditures.
The question then arises as to if a bridge were not required to be constructed, in what location
would a pathway be constructed in order to provide pedestrian connectivity to the north? The
Farmer's Union Canal traverses along the eastern boundary of the Brookwood PUD and crosses
the Dry Creek to extend north to Beacon Light Road. The City of Eagle 2000 Comprehensive
Plan Transportation / Pathway Network Map #1 of 2 shows a pathway to be constructed along and
between the Dry Creek (through this development) and the Farmer's Union Canal, which would
provide a northerly connection.
On August 14, 2003, the Design Review Board approved the landscape plan for phase 10 (DR-36-
03) with the recommended site specific condition of approval that required the pathway along to
the Dry Creek to extend to the northeast comer of phase 10, generally where this phase's northern
boundary and the toe of the slope of the Farmer's Union Canal intersect. The Board also
recommended that the pedestrian bridge (as discussed above) to also be installed, with the caveat
that the Council, upon a report by the City Engineer, may determine the pedestrian bridge is not
feasible at this point in time.
Considering the aforementioned items, staff recommends that the pathway along the Dry Creek be
Page 4 of 8
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2003\Brookwood No. 10 fpod ccf.doc
extended to the northeast comer of phase 10, generally where this phase 10' s northern boundary
and the toe of the slope of the Farmer's Union Canal intersect. As delineated on the sketch date
stamped the City on August 25, 2003, (see attached) one option for the pathway includes the
extension of the pathway from the northeast comer of the development to the eastern terminus of
the cul-de-sac of North Covey Run Court and further west within Lot 13, Block 44, to connect to
East Brookwood Drive. Staff will defer to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council regarding the extension of the pathway beyond the Dry Creek pathway.
Further, in lieu of constructing a bridge over the Dry Creek floodway, consideration may be given
to request the applicant to install materials (such as a compacted small angular chip material)
within the entire Dry Creek pathway (extending from Eagle Road to the northeast comer of the
development). While the City realizes that a "natural" pathway may be appropriate under certain
situations, a more defined walkway, constructed with measures to keep weeds to a minimum, is
desirable. Recognizing the savings in cost resulting from not constructing the bridge,
consideration should be given to improvements being made to the Dry Creek pathway within this
development.
REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION:
A review by the Planning and Zoning Commission was completed on September 8, 2003. The
Commission made their recommendation at that time. The minutes are incorporated herein by
reference.
COMMISSION DECISION:
The Commission voted 3 to 1 (Deckers against, Glavach absent) to recommend approval of
FPUD-8-03 & FP-I0-03 for a final development plan and final plat approval for Brookwood PUD
Subdivision No. 10 with the site specific conditions of approval shown within their Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law document, dated September 29,2003.
REVIEW BY THE COUNCIL:
A review by the City Council was completed on November 18, 2003. The Council made their
decision at that time. The minutes are incorporated herein by reference.
COUNCIL DECISION:
The Council voted 3 to 1 (Sedlacek against) to approve FPUD-8-03 & FP-1O-03 for a final
development plan and final plat for Brookwood Subdivision No. 10 with the following Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended site specific conditions of approval, with underlined text to
be added by the Council and strike through text to be deleted by the Council:
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Comply with the conditions noted in the letter from the City Engineer dated August 27, 2003.
2. Comply with all applicable conditions of the Development Agreement and RZ-8-97/CU-6-
97 /PPUD-I-97 /PP-2-97.
3. Comply with the conditions ofDR-36-03 and FPDP-O6-02.
4. The applicant shall submit payment to the City for all Engineering fees incurred for reviewing
this project, prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
5. Change the endorsement blocks of the City Council and the City Engineer on page 4 of the
final plat to reference Brookwood No. 10, not No.7.
6. Provide a letter from the Eagle Fire Department approving the 1, 150 feet (approximate) cul-
de-sac length for North Covey Run Place, prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat.
7. Place a note on the final plat stating that access to the public streets from Lots 10-12, Block 2,
Page 5 of 8
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2003\Brookwood No. 10 fpod ccf.doc
shall be limited to North Groveland Court only.
8. The setbacks shall comply with the following:
. Lots 14-18, Block 2 (Type A and A-I)
Front 30' (30-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Rear 30' (30-feet required for non-POD sub)
Interior Side 10' (IO-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Additional Interior Side Setback for multi-story structures - 5' per story
(5-feet required for non-PUD sub)
20' (20-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Street Side
.
Lots 3 12, Block 2 (TYfle B)
FroRt 25' (39 feet r-eqHireà for ROR POD sl:ib)
Rear 25' (30 feet reql:iiI:ød fer ROR PUD sub)
IRterior Side 7.5' (10 feet r-equÌf€là for ROR PUD sub)
AdditioRallRteriør Siàe Setl3aek for IBHlti story stmcRires 2.5' fler story
(5 feet requir-ed for ROR PUD süb)
29' (29 f.eet reqüired for ROR POD süb)
Str-eet Side
.
Lots 3-12 and 20-22, Block 2 (Type E)
Front 20' (30-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Rear 25' (30-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Interior Side 7.5'(1O-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Additional Interior Side Setback for multi-story structures - 2.5' per story
(5-feet required for non-PUD sub)
20' (20-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Street Side
9. All development within the area of the Property which is within the 100-year floodplain shall
have finished floor level of all buildings which are at least two (2) feet above the Federal
Emergency Management Association Base Flood Elevation (BFE).
10. The applicant shall construct a ten-foot wide (10') pathway along the Dry Creek (northern
property boundary of this site) from its current eastern terminus to a floiRt geReFally at the
intersootioR øfthis phase's Rorthern Bol:iRàary aDd the toe of the slo~e of the Farmer's ORioN
Gaßal. North Covey Run Court and then easterly along the southern boundary of this phase to
terminate in the northeast corner of the subdivision. The portion of the pathway located
generally alongside North Covey Run Court (to duallv function as a sidewalk) shall be
constructed 6-feet (6') in width in a meandering configuration. A construction plan of the
pathway shall be submitted for review and approval by staff and one member of the Design
Review Board prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat.
11. If the Ada County Highway District releases the "Special Recommendation to the City of
Eagle", then the City of Eagle shall concur with releasing the requirement for a pedestrian
bridge due to the lack of feasibility to construct said bridge. IN lieH of the Bridge, the aflfllieaRt
shall ilistall materials (sHeh as a eølÐf)aeted small aDgHlar cHip material) withiR the elitÏfe Dry
Cr-eek flathway (eKtelidiRg from Eagle Roaè to tlle Rortheast earner of the EleveløflmeRt) to
provide for a mor-e defilied walkway as well as to aiEl iR the lBaiRteRaDee aRE! Hflkeefl øf the
pathway. The material Hsed f{)r this ilÐf)rovemelit shall Be af'flfÐved BY the City CeHReil prior
to the City Clerk sigøiRg the filial plat.
13. Prior to the City Clerk signing the final plat. the well purchase agreement dated September 26,
2000, shall be amended by the City and Developer to reflect the agreement of the Developer to
donate to the City a well site valued at approximately $25,000.00. The site shall be located at
Page 6 of 8
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2003\Brookwood No.1 0 fpod ccf.doc
the current point of diversion being sought by the Citv and currently under the review of the
Idaho Department of Water Resources. An alternate point of diversion shall be identified by
mutual agreement of the City and the Developer (subject to Department of Environmental
Ouality approval). with the understanding that only one (1 ) well would be built pursuant to the
amendment. The well purchase a~eement amendment shall provide that the Developer shall
construct the potable water well for inclusion in the City's water system as set forth in the well
purchase agreement. as amended.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. The application for this item was received by the City of Eagle on July 9,2003.
B. In accordance Eagle City Code Section 8-6-6-3 B the Commission finds that the facts submitted with
the application and presented to the Commission, with the conditions herein, establish that:
1. The proposed development can be initiated within one year of the date of approval based upon
the testimony and documentation presented by the developer;
2. Each individual unit of the development, as well as the total development, can exist as an
independent unit capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or
that adequate assurance will be provided that such objective will be attained and the uses
proposed will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but will have a
beneficial effect which would not be achieved under standard district regulations because of
the conditions placed on this development;
3. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic.
and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street
network outside the PUD based upon written responses received from the highway districts
having jurisdiction;
4. No commercial development is proposed;
5. Any exception from standard district requirements is warranted by the design and other
amenities incorporated in the final development plan, in accordance with the PUD and the
adopted policy of the Council because the varied lot sizes and setbacks as specifically
approved by the City and noted below will allow for a mix of housing types in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan;
Setbacks for the lots located within phase ten:
.
Lots 14-18, Block 2 (Type A and A-I)
Front
Rear
Interior Side
Additional Interior Side Setback
for multi-story structures
30' (30-feet required for non-PUD sub)
30' (30-feet required for non-PUD sub)
10' (lO-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Street Side
5' per story (5-feet required for non-
PUD sub)
20' (20-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Page 7 of 8
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2003\Brookwood No. 10 fpud ccf.doc
.
Lots 3-12 and 20-22, Block 2 (Type E)
Front
Rear
Interior Side
Additional Interior Side Setback
for multi-story structures
20' (30-feet required for non-PUD sub)
25' (30-feet required for non-PUD sub)
7.5'(10-feet required for non-PUD sub)
Street Side
2.5' per story (5-feet required for non-
PUD sub)
20' (20-feet required for non-PUD sub)
6. The area surrounding said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and
substantial compatibility with the proposed development since no intensive uses, that might
impact the planned residential areas surrounding the development, are proposed;
7. The PUD is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
8. The existing and proposed utility services are adequate for the population densities as noted by
the agencies which will serve the development.
DATED this 9th day of December 2003.
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ada County, Idaho
ATTEST:
t..."""""I#
~...., OF E"", II,,"
I~. ~~ ..'..... O<; ##'"
,.. ..~~
It v... ~YOR....l'... ~
: I (.;° ~ \ :.
! . .*:
=*' _.- ~ :
.. AL;:::."
, .~ S E " . :
\ ...('0 " ',l 0 ¡
~ 1P~ ..!Pn:{ "~~~. ~ ,:
##, .,~ ....... - """ ...."
#'" 'l'E; OF \V ......"
""'"""""""
.~~~~
Šharon K. Moore, Eagle City Cle
Page 8 of 8
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\SUBS\2003\Brookwood No.1 0 fpod ccf.doc