Application: RZDA-2025-02 / CUP-2025-01 / PPUD-2025-01 / PP-2025-01 — 5.97 ac, A-R (Agricultural-Residential) → R-1 (Residential, 1.42 ac, existing Hamilton dwelling) and R-3-DA-P (Residential with Development Agreement — PUD, 4.55 ac), 16-lot subdivision (12 buildable [11 new + 1 existing] + 4 common). Address: 3660 W Flint Drive, ~830 ft east of N Park Lane / W Flint Drive intersection. Inside Eagle city limits.
Comp-plan placement: Site is designated Neighborhood Residential with a Residential Transition Overlay. The CC Findings analyze the site under §6.5 Park Lane Planning Area (specifically §6.5.1.D, which governs "properties north of Flint Drive and extending north to Floating Feather Road, east of Eagle High School"), not under §6.7 Floating Feather. The §6.5.1.D sub-area cap reads: "Development in this area should be designed to ensure compatible residential lot sizing (1-acre lots) adjacent to the Colony Subdivision and transition to a density of up to 3 per acre near the high school. The overall density of the area should not exceed 2 units per acre." This is a critical correction to the project brief's framing: Whitehurst's planning-area authority is §6.5 Park Lane, with an overall 2 du/ac sub-area ceiling identical in arithmetic to §6.7 Floating Feather but cited under a different sub-area heading. Cody's own §6.7 Floating Feather assignment must be re-verified against the FLUM and the §6.5 boundary text — the Park Lane planning area extends north to Floating Feather Road on its face.
Outcome: Approved as filed with the standard and site-specific conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated June 24, 2025 (10-page record signed by Mayor Pike, attested by Clerk Osborn). Implementing Ordinance No. 969 adopted March 10, 2026 (zoning map amended A-R → R-1 + R-3-DA-P; tax parcels R2860500034 [R-1] and R2860500032 [R-3-DA-P]).
Density approved: 12 dwelling units / 5.97 ac = 2.01 du/ac gross (project-wide, including Hamilton lot). Inside the R-3-DA-P portion only: 11 dwellings / 4.55 ac = 2.42 du/ac, expressly capped at 2.42 du/ac in the development agreement (Findings p. 8). The project-wide 2.01 du/ac figure sits at the §6.5.1.D "should not exceed 2 units per acre" ceiling on the nose.
Product type: 100% single-family detached. HIGH confidence. Confirmed by three independent sources: (1) CC Findings p. 2 site-data table — "Single-family — 11-buildable, 1-existing; Single-family attached — 0; Two-family — 0; Multi-family — 0"; (2) applicant's deliberation testimony describing setback waivers per individual home placement around tree preservation, three-car / RV-third-stall garage products by Zach Evans Construction; (3) the transcript contains zero instances of "attached", "townhome", "townhouse", or "duplex" in the entire 3h18m hearing — the only use-classification words present are three uses of "detached" (referring to detached sidewalks, not housing) and "single-family" used eight times. Ordinance 969 does not specify product type beyond zone classifications.
Per-member analysis
Roster note (correcting the project brief's roster reference): the brief's verified-2026-05-01 roster (May / Kvamme / Merrill / Gillis) is the current council. On June 10, 2025 the seated council was different. Per CC minutes line 11: "ROLL CALL: Present: GINDLESPERGER, MAY, RUSSELL, KVAMME." Merrill and Gillis had not yet been seated; their seats on 6/10/2025 were held by Gindlesperger and Russell. All four 2025 members present and voting; Mayor Pike presided. Speaker attribution below cross-references the official approved minutes (which name the questioner / motion-maker / seconder explicitly), the transcript content, and elimination — Whisper does not diarize.
Council Member Kvamme
- Stated reasoning: Considered the requested setback / fencing / cul-de-sac waivers reasonable in light of the parcel's infill geometry and the applicant's tree-preservation rationale. Verified directly with the applicant that the substituted six-foot composite fencing (Trex-style wood-look) had been reviewed with the Hamiltons (the existing-home owners on Lot 16) and would satisfy their privacy concerns. Liked the larger lot widths relative to neighboring Bell Mead, and the open-lot landscape framing at the subdivision entrance.
- Vote on motion: aye.
- Direction to applicant: None — supported as filed.
- Verbatim quotes (≤15w each, segment timestamps from
2025-06-10_CC_segments.jsonl):- "I have a question for the applicant... the proposed composite fencing... satisfy their privacy concerns?" (3840.6-3865.2s)
- "I think the waiver requests are reasonable that they're asking for... I would support this." (4067.1-4078.0s)
- "I like this development... they've got two open lots on either side of the road." (4054.6-4061.5s)
- "I appreciate the slightly larger lots and what's around surrounding it." (4061.5-4067.1s)
Council Member May (Council President)
- Stated reasoning: Brought the cul-de-sac engineering clarification to the front of the deliberation — wanted to make sure the cul-de-sac radius reconciliation between the Eagle Fire Department standard (48 ft) and the ACHD standard (50 ft) was clean and that staff had the corrected drawing on file. Once the applicant confirmed the technician error was already corrected and the city engineer had the updated radius meeting both standards, May had no remaining concerns. Substantive deliberation was minimal.
- Vote on motion: aye (also seconded the motion per minutes line 254).
- Direction to applicant: None substantive beyond the cul-de-sac documentation cleanup.
- Verbatim quotes (≤15w each):
- "Just a clarification... ACHD is 50, fire district is 48, just the terminology." (3981.1-3997.5s)
- "Just want to make sure we've got the correct one." (3998.9-4001.3s)
Council Member Gindlesperger (motion-maker)
- Stated reasoning: Audio transcript does not capture distinct deliberative testimony from Gindlesperger before the motion (low-confidence on which intervening comments were his vs Russell's — neither Whisper nor the minutes attribute the brief praise of "two open lots... larger lots... waiver requests reasonable" block to Gindlesperger; the official minutes attribute that block to Kvamme on line 248). Gindlesperger's recorded action is the motion itself: moves to approve as filed with the standard and site-specific conditions of approval recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission.
- Vote on motion: aye (motion-maker).
- Direction to applicant: None — moved to approve as filed.
- Verbatim quotes (≤15w each):
- "Mr. Mayor, I'll go ahead and make a motion... to approve item 9A." (4082.0-4093.5s)
Council Member Russell
- Stated reasoning: No discrete substantive testimony on Whitehurst is identifiable from Russell in either the transcript or the official minutes (low confidence — Russell led the consent-agenda motion earlier in the meeting, and gave the URA / VRT report at the start, but does not appear by name in the Whitehurst-specific question / motion / second sequence in the minutes).
- Vote on motion: aye (the minutes record "ALL AYE ... MOTION CARRIES", and Russell was present per roll call).
- Direction to applicant: None.
- Verbatim quotes: None attributable on this item.
Mayor Brad Pike (presiding, non-voting)
Procedural management only: read the public-hearing opener, took ex-parte disclosure (none), invited the applicant, opened and closed public testimony, called for rebuttal, closed the public hearing, prompted the council for "comments or a motion," and announced the result. No substantive deliberation. No quote allotment used.
Motion + vote
- Motion: Council Member Gindlesperger — "I'll make a motion to approve item 9A — RZDA-2025-02 / CUP-2025-01 / PPUD-2025-01 / PP-2025-01 — rezone with a development agreement, conditional use permit, preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat for Whitehurst Village Subdivision, Evans Development, with the standard and site-specific conditions of approval from Planning and Zoning." (Transcript ~4082.0-4126.2s; minutes line 250.)
- Second: Council Member May (minutes line 254). Voice second on the recording at ~4126.2s.
- Vote: Voice vote — "All in favor say aye" / "Aye" (~4126.2-4134.9s). Minutes record ALL AYE — MOTION CARRIES. Tally: 4-0 unanimous. (Gindlesperger — aye, May — aye, Russell — aye, Kvamme — aye. Mayor Pike presiding, non-voting.)
- No nay, no abstain, no absences.
- Action: Approved as filed, with Planning and Zoning Commission's standard and site-specific conditions of approval (PZ Findings dated May 5, 2025 — site-specific conditions on p. 15, standard conditions on p. 18, conditions of development on p. 14).
Direction to applicant
Synthesized — minimal direction was given because the application was approved as filed, but the council's incorporated PZ-recommended conditions and the testimony rebuttal contain the operative requirements:
- Cul-de-sac documentation: Confirm the corrected cul-de-sac radius drawings (50 ft ACHD / 48 ft Eagle Fire District) are on file with the city engineer. (May's only ask; already done before the vote.)
- Composite fencing along Lot 16 / common-lot interface: Substitute six-foot composite (Trex-style wood-look) for the requested vinyl, reflecting the Hamiltons' wood-fence privacy preference under modern code's prohibition on new wood fencing — reviewed and approved at the design-review committee. Open-vision fencing required on all other PUD lots that abut common open space (site-specific condition 16).
- Cul-de-sac landscape island waiver granted (site-specific condition 17): cul-de-sac may be constructed without the landscape island, but must meet ACHD standards.
- Setback deviations granted within the R-3-DA-P PUD: 25 ft garage setback (vs 30 ft), 20 ft front-living setback (vs 25 ft), 20 ft rear setback (vs 25 ft); all side setbacks meet R-3 code; R-1 lot (Hamilton) holds standard R-1 setbacks.
- Existing Hamilton accessory buildings allowed to remain (site-specific condition 15): if removed or replaced, future replacement structures must meet R-1 setbacks.
- Tree preservation: mature trees along the western property line (Bell Mead boundary) and northeast corner trees to be preserved; pressurized irrigation routed to fronts of lots specifically to protect those trees.
- Pathway connections: include the micro-path north of right-of-way to N. Nephi Lane / Eagle High School / LDS seminary so high schoolers walk a paved connection rather than the existing gravel sewer-maintenance road.
- Pressurized irrigation: allocate Ballantyne Ditch water rights to the existing Whitehurst pump station and pond to serve this development; calculations already provided to the city engineer.
- Drainage: Drainage District No. 2 requires perforated piping along the north Ballantyne Ditch corridor; subsurface storm drainage throughout; large landscape buffer over the piped section.
- Sewer: Eagle Sewer District 12-inch line in Flint Drive already runs north to Eagle High School (built as part of the original Whitehurst subdivision to take a lift station offline); existing Hamilton septic to be abandoned and dwelling connected to central sewer.
Comp plan / FLUM consistency — § 67-6511 finding
The CC Findings (Conclusions of Law section 1, p. 23) wrote the "in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan" determination as a checklist of eight sub-conclusions (1.a through 1.h), repeated again under section 2 (the Title 9 / subdivision conclusions, sub-conclusion 2.j on p. 24). Substantive content:
- FLUM consistency (1.a): "The requested zoning designations of R-1 (Residential) and R-3-DA-P (Residential with a development agreement — PUD) are consistent with the Neighborhood designation as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map because the proposed density and land use is in conformance with the principles identified for the Neighborhood designation in the comprehensive plan." The Findings define the Neighborhood designation as "Suitable for single family residential. Densities range from 2 units per acre to 4 units per acre" (p. 8) — the project is at 2.01 du/ac gross, which the Findings treat as in-band but does not call out the on-the-nose alignment with the floor.
- Surrounding-zone compatibility (1.c-f): Walks each cardinal direction:
- North: compatible with R-E (Residential-Estates) and PS (Public/Semipublic — Eagle High School and LDS seminary): "single family residential is compatible with single family residential and a school."
- South: compatible with MU-DA (Mixed Use with development agreement — Flint Estates) — Findings note that "that area has been developed with both single family attached and single family detached uses," establishing that single-family detached is compatible with neighbors that include attached product. (Important framing: the south-side MU-DA neighbor mixes attached and detached without the Findings flagging the mix as a problem.)
- East: compatible with adjacent A-R (vacant lot, Neighborhood-designated, "may be developed in a similar manner in the future").
- West: compatible with MU-DA Bellemeade — same SFA-and-SFD characterization as the south.
- Hazard / Special Area (1.g): site is not in a Hazard Area or Special Area.
- Nonconforming uses (1.h): none created.
- Consolidated harmonious-with-comp-plan finding (2.j): "The proposed development will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with any specific objective of the Comprehensive Plan, since the development is within the Comprehensive Plan's Neighborhood designation which speaks to densities ranging from two to four units per acre, and the development is proposed with a density of 2.01 units per acre. The site is located within the Park Lane Planning Area as identified within the Comprehensive Plan, which designates West Flint Drive as a residential street and the proposed development is in accordance with this objective."
Sub-area cap treatment: The Findings do cite §6.5 Park Lane Planning Area and §6.5.1.D verbatim on p. 8, and call out that the site sits in the "properties north of Flint Drive and extending north to Floating Feather Road" sub-area whose "overall density... should not exceed 2 units per acre." But the Conclusions of Law section does not explicitly perform the arithmetic against the 2 du/ac §6.5.1.D ceiling — the operative finding is the Neighborhood-designation 2-4 du/ac band (1.a) and the Park Lane "residential street" objective (2.j). The treatment is boilerplate-with-explicit-citation: the §6.5.1.D ceiling is reproduced in the record but not argued against the project number. The on-the-nose 2.01 du/ac project density and the §6.5.1.D 2 du/ac ceiling are visibly aligned in the Findings without commentary.
Figure 6.8 (zoning compatibility matrix): No reference to Figure 6.8 in the CC Findings. No discussion in the deliberation transcript either. The R-3 → Neighborhood matrix lookup is treated as established by 1.a's "consistent with the Neighborhood designation" language without explicit matrix citation.
Residential Transition Overlay: the overlay is named in the Findings (p. 7-8) and described — "Commonly requires a transition/change in density, lot sizing, and building scaling with a specific parcel or project. Base densities may be reduced or units may be clustered to increase open space within a portion of a site when property is in this overlay." The §6.5.1.D Park Lane sub-area instruction to "transition to a density of up to 3 per acre near the high school" with overall 2 du/ac cap is the operative transition mechanism. The Findings do not analyze the overlay in detail in the Conclusions of Law section, but the overlay is the textual hook for the §6.5.1.D 2 du/ac cap.
Cody-relevance
Whitehurst is the closest in-class precedent in the captured set for Cody's case. Stated neutrally:
- Adjacency: Whitehurst is the parcel immediately south of Cody at the same Flint Drive intersection — 3660 W Flint Drive (Whitehurst) versus Cody's parcel north of Flint, per the Eagle Development Tracker. The CC Findings name Cody's neighborhood explicitly when describing Whitehurst's east neighbor as "vacant lot, A-R, Neighborhood-designated, may be developed in a similar manner in the future" — a written-on-the-record signal that Eagle anticipates further A-R → R-3-DA-P infill in the immediate vicinity at compatible density.
- FLUM match: both Whitehurst and Cody carry Neighborhood Residential with a Residential Transition Overlay. Same designation, same overlay.
- Sub-area cap: Whitehurst is in §6.5 Park Lane (sub-area D, with the "Floating Feather Road" northern boundary). The user's project brief places Cody in §6.7 Floating Feather. Both areas have a 2 du/ac overall ceiling by the same 2017 comp plan, but they are separately-defined planning areas — the brief's framing that Whitehurst is "inside §6.7 Floating Feather" should be re-verified against the FLUM and the §6.5 boundary text (which extends up to Floating Feather Road from the south). If Cody is north of Floating Feather Road, §6.7 controls; if south of it, §6.5 controls and the same Whitehurst sub-section governs Cody.
- Target zone match: Whitehurst landed at R-3-DA-P (4.55 ac of the 5.97 ac site) plus a small R-1 carve-out for the existing dwelling. If Cody seeks R-3-DA-P at 1-2 du/ac, this is the same implementing zone and the same DA-PUD package. The Whitehurst PUD setback waivers (5-foot reductions) and lot-size reductions (7,572 sq ft minimum vs the 10,000 sq ft R-3 baseline) demonstrate Eagle's willingness to grant R-3-DA-P deviations through the PUD process when compensated by open space (27.5% common, 25.7% active).
- Size: Whitehurst is 5.97 ac — Cody is ~3 ac per the brief, roughly half. The Whitehurst Findings do not flag small-parcel-size as a problem; the applicant pitched it as an "infill parcel" and the CC accepted the framing.
- Approved density math: Whitehurst was approved at 12 dwellings / 5.97 ac = 2.01 du/ac gross. This sits exactly at the §6.5.1.D 2 du/ac sub-area ceiling. Inside the R-3-DA-P only it is 2.42 du/ac — capped at 2.42 du/ac in the development agreement. Cody at 1-2 du/ac would land below or at the ceiling that Whitehurst set as the live working maximum — i.e., Cody's pitched density is more conservative than the most recent in-area precedent, and the precedent is for detached product.
- Product-type signal: Whitehurst was approved as 100% single-family detached with explicit "Single-family attached — 0" in the site-data table. The Findings cite the south and west MU-DA neighbors "developed with both single family attached and single family detached uses" as compatibility evidence, but Whitehurst itself did not propose attached. This is the live precedent for detached at 2.01 du/ac in this exact area. There is no live precedent in the captured set for SFA at 1-2 du/ac in the §6.5/§6.7 corridor — the closest SFA precedent (Watermark) was tabled at 14.7 du/ac and is in a different planning area entirely (River District).
- Vote pattern: unanimous 4-0, approved as filed, no continuance, no negotiated cuts. Eagle's posture toward a small-acreage A-R → R-3-DA-P up-zone in this corridor at the §6.5 ceiling, with detached product, design-review-approved fencing, tree preservation, and PUD waivers offset by open space, is straightforward approval.
The single most important sentence for Cody's case is the conclusion-of-law reference to Cody's parcel: the CC's written-on-record description of the east neighbor of Whitehurst as "a single family residence, [which] may be developed in a similar manner in the future" (Findings §F p. 1, conclusion 1.e p. 23) — Eagle has, in 2025, written into a Findings of Fact that Cody's parcel is anticipated to follow the Whitehurst pattern.
Sources
- Whisper transcript (faster-whisper large-v3 int8, 29,876 words, 3h18m, complete=True):
/mnt/llm/zoning_iq/projects/eagle-cody-memo/phase_1_4_precedents/2025-06-10_CC_transcript.txt - Whisper segments with timestamps:
/mnt/llm/zoning_iq/projects/eagle-cody-memo/phase_1_4_precedents/2025-06-10_CC_segments.jsonl - Granicus clip 2089: https://eagle-id.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=2089
- Granicus MP4:
https://archive-video.granicus.com/eagle-id/eagle-id_c36fd523-11a9-4172-85b3-f3dabee7a4e6.mp4 - Agenda PDF:
https://granicus_production_attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/eagle-id/4482ed56191938797d3694e72d1d04320.pdf - Laserfiche CC Findings (id=727891, 10 pp formatted as 26-pp PDF, dated June 24, 2025):
2025-06-10_CC_findings_whitehurst-village_RZDA-2025-02.pdf - Laserfiche PZ Findings (id=720820, May 5, 2025 recommendation):
2025-06-10_PZ_findings_whitehurst-village.pdf - Laserfiche CC minutes (id=727946):
2025-06-10_CC_minutes.pdf - Laserfiche Ordinance 969 (id=765066, adopted March 10, 2026, A-R → R-1 + R-3-DA-P):
2026-03-10_ordinance_969_whitehurst-village.pdf
Gaps
- Council roster as of 6/10/2025. The project brief gave the verified-2026-05-01 roster (May / Kvamme / Merrill / Gillis). On 6/10/2025 the seated council was different per the official minutes: Gindlesperger / May / Russell / Kvamme. Merrill and Gillis had not been seated. The substantive narrative in this memo uses the 2025 roster as recorded in the minutes; cross-referencing this back to Cody's 2026 case requires noting that two of the four 2025 affirmative votes (Gindlesperger and Russell) are no longer on the council as of 2026-05-01. The continuity vote is May and Kvamme, both affirmative.
- Russell's substantive testimony. Russell was present and voted aye on the consent agenda earlier in the meeting and gave the URA / VRT report at the top of the meeting, but does not appear by name in the Whitehurst-specific question / motion / second sequence in the official minutes. Whether Russell offered any deliberative comment on Whitehurst that was simply not recorded by name in the minutes is unresolvable from the available record.
- Speaker attribution for the brief pre-motion praise block (~4054-4078s — "I like this development... two open lots... larger lots... waiver requests are reasonable... I would support"). The official minutes attribute the "waiver requests are reasonable and likes that the lots" characterization to Kvamme (line 248), so this entire block is treated here as Kvamme. Confidence is medium-high; an alternative reading is that Gindlesperger spoke this as the lead-in to his motion. Whisper does not diarize and the transcript carries no speaker tags.
- Whisper rendering of Kvamme. Rendered consistently as "Kvamme" or near-misses ("Kwame") in this transcript with less drift than in the 2026-02-24 record.
- §6.5 vs §6.7 sub-area boundary. Confirming whether Cody's parcel is north or south of W Floating Feather Road — and therefore in §6.7 vs §6.5(D) — requires checking the parcel against the Park Lane Planning Area boundary as drawn in the comp plan / FLUM. The 2 du/ac ceiling is identical in arithmetic between the two sub-areas in the 2017 comp plan, but the legal authority cited in a Cody Findings doc would change accordingly. The user brief asserts §6.7; the Whitehurst Findings explicitly cite §6.5(D) for an immediately south-adjacent parcel — both can be true if the planning-area boundary runs at Floating Feather Road. Re-verify.
- Full Russell, Gindlesperger, May 2025 voting record on similar applications. Not surveyed — only the 6/10/2025 record is captured here.
Internal working document · prepared with ZIG analytics · not for external distribution