Findings - CC - 2003 - CPA-03-02/RZ-04-02 - Cpa R4 To Mu/R4 To Mu-Da/135 Ff Rd
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
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 YO CONSTRUCTION INC.
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CASE NUMBER CP A-O3-02 & RZ-O4-02
The above-entitled comprehensive plan amendment and rezone with development agreement applications
came before the Eagle City Council for their action on February 11, 2003. The Council continued the
public hearing to February 18, 2003, and made their decision at that time. 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:
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.
APPLICA nON 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.
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 January 21,2003. 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,
2003.
Page 1 of9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 ccf.doc
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.
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) 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
I.
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
Page 2 of9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 ccf.doc
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.
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.
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 I - 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
Page 3 of9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 ccf.doc
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.
5.5
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.
Page 4 of9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 ccf.doc
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.
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 Council or 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.
Page 5 of 9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 ccf.doc
B.
C.
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.
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
Page 6 of9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 ccf.doc
.
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
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
change 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 RECOMMENDATION 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
Page 7 of9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 ccf.doc
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 ofCPA-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).
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COUNCIL:
A. A public hearing on the application was held before the City Council on February 11, 2003. The
public hearing was continued to February 18, 2003, 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 no one.
C. Oral testimony in favor of this proposal was presented to the City Council by no one (not including the
applicant/representative).
D. Written testimony in opposition to this proposal was submitted to the City Council in the form of a
letter by two (2) individuals with concerns regarding the increase in traffic created by commercial uses,
the setting of a precedent which would allow other parcels in the vicinity to rezone for commercial
purposes, and the need to maintain a strong downtown core with lessening circles of residential uses
around that core.
COUNCIL DECISION:
The Council voted 3 to I (Bastian against) to deny 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).
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.
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 January 21,
2003. 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, 2003.
3. The Council reviewed the particular facts and circumstances of this proposed comprehensive plan
Page 8 of9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 ccf.doc
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 which warrants a
change to the Comprehensive Plan. Evidence has not been shown to indicate that a Comprehensive
Plan designation of Mixed Use for commercial purposes is the onlv option available for the
development of the site and, that a residential use is not capable of being constructed upon the site.
The Council determined that a continuation of the Comprehensive Plan designation of Mixed Use (and
proposed commercial uses) further to the west along Floating Feather Road from the intersection of
Eagle Road and Floating Feather Road is not compatible with the residential uses and character that is
predominate in the vicinity of this subject site.
DATED this 12th day of August 2003.
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
Ad County, Idaho
~~~"""""""
~~~ Of E A "
~.. .of <"\ 0 ~ "'"
~".It.~ ........ <-A ,
.. .~ . .~ v- ~
:; /-:- .. On '. ~
.. ~. ...v .-A"t" to
: : o~ ',.>'. ~
: :ù ':.*:
: . .". "c-> . :
:*~ -, :
to .,. ,.':
~ .;:..' 0 ~
to.. ". ..
~ -" c, " ." ..
"" v.,, .."
',.( , .."
##ç.. ..."
""" ",_.p'"
AT ST:
J. kr.A...' -1¿ ~i 'Y.>-K-
Sharon K. Moore, Eagle City lerk
Page 9 of9
K:\Planning Dept\Eagle Applications\CPA\2002\CPA-3-02 & RZ-4-02 ccf.doc