HomeMy WebLinkAbout002 03 94LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING
Eebruary 3, 1994
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use anti Development
Commission held in the city ~nunicipa. 1 building.
Present: Chairman Kent Kearns, Commission Members: Pete Anderson,
T. Kent Hill, Mary Harker, Richard Pearson, Gayle Anderson; Council
representative Steve England, Attorney Tom holmes, Project Engineer
Gerd Dixon, Public Works Director Steve Smart and Secretary Myrna
Crapo.
Chairman Kent Kearns called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.
Chairman Kearns asked for approval of the minutes of Jam~az'.y 6,
1994 as mailed. Mary Harker moved to approve the mim~tes with
Richard Pearson seconding. All voted in favor.
PUBLIC HEARING:
f~hairman Kearns asked if any of the commission members had a
conflict of interest. There was none.
AN APPLICATION BY JOE OSIER, 11010 WEST HICKORY, BOISE, ID FOR
A REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MISTI MANOR FIRST ADDITION
located near SE corner of Hawthorne 4700 block) and W.
Chubbuck Road 400 Road).
Tim Shurtliff, 4943 Redfish representine Mr. Osier explained
to the commission that they would be plating five additional
lots.
The commission discussed the park or cash in lieu of.
The meeting was opened to public testimony, there being none
the public hearing was closed and opened to the commission for
discussion.
Pete Anderson moved that we recommend to the city that they
accept the preliminary plat for Misti Manor 1st Addition.
Gayle Anderson seconded the motion.
R.o]l call vote: Richard Pearson, yes; Pete Anderson, yes;
Steve England, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; (;ale
Anderson, yes; T. Kent Hill, yes.
A PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF CHUBBUCK TO MODIFY THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE PROPOSED PLANNED LOCAL
STREET EAST ,~F RAILROAD, running parallel to railroad tracks
and Whitaker Road north from East chubbuck to 'the Extension of
Highway Aver~ue.
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 2
February 3, ]994
Chairman Kearns informed those present that, we had received a
letter from Melvin Jackson, 5101 Whitaker Road.
The public hearing was opened by Chairman Kearns:
Melvin Jackson, 5101 Whitaker Road told -the commission that he
deserved an access road. It would damage his property if the
road didn't go in.
Ralph Henderson asked when the road was put in the
comprehensive plan and was informed that it was in
Franklin Briscoe, 5058 Whitaker this would make a hardship on
him. When he subdivide his ground he will have a problem with
the sewer line if this road did not go in. He wanted to put in
a sewer line down his property but it is to costly.
Wayne Hale, 4825 Whitaker, would like the road to continue
through 'to Siphon Road.
William Brown, 5351 Whitaker would perhaps deny him access in
the future for' development of his property. He would like it.
disapproved. '
2ick Ke].ler, 5215 Whitaker could cause potential problems for
development of their property. He might want to use the back
piece of their property for light industrial.
Attorney Holmes asked Mr. Keller if he would be willing to
dedicate an easement. What extent should the city go to buy
these easement if the area residents won't give them.
Tim Shurtliff, 4943 Redfish, It is hard to get easement from
everyone and one person could kill the project.
Dean Harding, 5131 Whitaker, would like to see the road go
through to benefit his neighbors. He might give an easement
if the neighbors wanted it.
Paul Jensen, 280 S. Arthur, pointed out another option of
having shorter roads, having several of them on in the area.
Each road could then be developed independently.
Dean Harding, 5131 Whita. ker - smaller roads as proposed by Mr.
Jensen would cut his property up.
Public testimony was closed and the discussion was opened to
the commission.
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 3
February 3, 1994
The commission then discussed:
1. The need to wait until the comprehensive plan is finished,
and the need to have more input from the neighbors in the
rewriting of the comprehensive plan.
2. The road would be nice to have if we could get the
easements now.
3. It is hard to pursue the road as it only takes one to say
no and someone already has said no.
4. Intersection from the freeway coming down Siphon Road.
Melvin Jackson, 5101 Whitaker the city shot~ld wait for' the
comprehensive plan, that. is why the city put a moratorium on
the development.
Paul Jensen, 1458 Lakeview, The road will change the character
of the neighborhood. He might want to have industrial uses
instead of housing between the road and the Rai]read tracks.
He would need to rethink the land use.
Pete Anderson moved to recommend to the city council that the
comprehensive plan not be revised at this time. Richard
Pearson seconded it. Roll call vote: Richard Pearson, yes;
Pete Anderson, yes; Steve England, yes; Kent. Kearns, yes; Mary
Harker, yes; Gale Anderson, yes; T. Kent Hill., yes.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
I. AN APPLICATION BY WHITAKER FARM ASSOC., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
S. ARTHUR, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR WHITAKER FARM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT at 4915 Whitaker
Road. The property is presently zoned Industrial II), and
Limited Residential (R-21.
Mr. Paul Jensen, explained to the commission that Fred Lewis
the attorney representing the area residents had contacted him
on a compromise about just having town houses, so he had done
a modification to his plan and call. ed it modification ~1.
There would now be 98 units and they would be sold to
individual owners. The storage units would still be on the
west side. The units would be one and two bedrooms with a
common area in the middle.
klr. Jensen read a letter by John Merzlock concerning the
property valise.
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 4
February 3, 1994
Paul Smith, 1175 Cactus was an appraiser. He had ifirst been
approached by Bob Dalpino and then later by Mr. Jensen. If
the project was developed as proposed no decrease in value of
the neighboring property should occur. The development would
likely enhance the area. The density in the project is
comparable with others in the Pocatello-Chubbuck area.
Paul Jensen, had gotten an easement from Ms. Hutchinson.
According to the provisions he would:
1. Install landscaping, sprinklers and she would maintain
them.
2. Three curb cuts.
3. Where the property joins to build dividing fencing or
separation.
4. Designing survey, engineering, etc. would be his
responsibility.
Mr. Jensen's told the commission the phasing proposal was to:
1. property purchase from Hutchinson must be executed
within the one year option period or prior to building
permit issuance for 18th unit.
2. Total loop road improvements must be installed by or
prior to 50% completion of the project.
He would like the city to consider a narrower road section to
30'
The development would start in the NE corner.
The fencing would be solid in character with a height of 5' to
6'. There would be dividing elements at each intersection
property line to receive owners fences.
Chairman Kearns explained how the rest of this item would be
handled and asked for staff comments.
Gerd Dixon, project engineer reviewed his comments sheet. The
sewer capacity is no problem. It is at present 3.37% of
capacity. The smell comes from sewage setting in the wet well
at Ellis School.
Don Galligan, Bannock Planning Organization, addressed the
problem of traffic. Mr. Galligan explained how the traffic
impact assessment was arrived at and the model that was used.
There will be a traffic impact It is not perceived as
congestive with the addition of this development. He would
recommend a transit stop for the PUD.
A second road from the development onto Chubbuck Road was not
addressed in this study.
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 5
February 3, 1994
Gerd Dixon then addressed the allowable densJ, ty. Mr. Jensen
is asking for a ?% increase in the density out of a possible
25% allowed by the city come.
Fred Lewis, 61i Vern an attorney representing the area
residents. Reviewed his letter that was previously delivered
to the city.
They would like to see a less units preferably 60 to 70. The
fence should be solid masonry fence. They would also like the
access road to East Chubbuck Road to be finished at the front
of the development. The irrigation head gates needs to be
brought to Mr. Jensen's attention.
He had talked with appraisers and they told him it would take
150 to 200 hours to determine the effect of this type of
development on surrounding properties.
William Brown, 5351Whitaker feels that the traffic flow would
be too much. He doesn't want conditions changed.
Paul Jensen, they would be trying to market to the young
people. The average lot size would probably be 18 x 80' lot.
If the city wants to have the road through from chubbuck to
Siphon then he would replan his project for a different use.
The storage units will probably be for people who live 'there.
The project could take from 2 1/2 years to 5 years to finish.
Chairman Kearns closed the public comment and turned it back
to the commission for discussion.
The following was discussed:
1. The density of the project
2. PUD ordinance override other ordinances as .long as they are
mentioned in the ordinance.
3. Acreage's on Whitaker road could cause weeds, and problem
lots.
4. Density issues allows for town houses, no more than 8 units
in a group.
S. Narrow road to Chubbuck being good as it would slow cars,
6. Establishing procedures as we ~o for future ~'UD's.
?. Buffering on the accesses.
8. Need of a road to Chubbuck Road
9. Conditional use permit requirements being outlined In the
ordinances.
].0.10% of duplexes could be allowed here without a public
hearing.
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 6
February 3, 1994
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Town houses are allowed there.
Reviewed calculations on density and numbers allowed
Park and play area for kids to use
Development down railroad track.
30' road to East Chubbuck Road.
6'high fence being needed
Common area roughly 200 X 100
Stubbing road left to developer
19 Need to let people develop their ground as they would like
too as much as the city can.
20. The extra cost to the city for large lots vs. smaller lots
for city services.
21. Whitaker Road is designated as a collector road.
Pete Anderson moved that we grant a conditional use for the
Whitaker Farms PUD based upon the following conditions:
1. A solid 6' high fence be put around the perimeter on the NE
and South, that the design of the fence be such that it ties
in with the character of the PUD.
2. Also that the access to Chubbuck Road be developed prior to
the completion of 50% of the project.
3. Property be purchased for access to Chubbuck Road within
the one year option and that proof of that purchase be
presented to the city; if the 50% development has not been
attained at that time.
4. Require that a stub be provided for the continuance of the
road called for in the comprehensive plan to the north be
provided. The commission would be open to a proposal from the
developer as far as its location.
5. The proposed reduced street width for the road as per Mr.
Jensen's sketch. The 30' pavement section with the 20'
landscaped area to the west and the landscaped area to the
east with the curb, gutter and sidewalks on the west side also
the parking on the west side.
4. The density of the development not be more than 98 units.
5. The 25% increase has been met by allowances given in the
PUD.
Richard Pearson seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Richard
Pearson, yes; Pete Anderson, yes; Steve England, yes; Kent
Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gale Anderson, no; T. Kent
Hill, yes.
Pete Anderson move that we recommend to the city council
adoption of the development plan that is presented; with the
conditions as outlined in the conditional use permit. Richard
Pearson seconded.
Land Use and Development Commission
Page 7
February 3, 1994
Roll call vote: Richard Pearson, yes; Pete Anderson, yes;
Steve England, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gale
Anderson, no; T. Kent Hill, yes.
Pete Anderson moved that we recommend to the city council 'that
they adopt the preliminary plat as presented in accordance
with the development plans and the conditional use. Richard
Pearson seconded.
Roll call vote: Richard Pearson, yes; Pete Anderson, yes;
Steve England, yes; Kent Kearns, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Gale
Anderson, no; T. Kent Hill, yes.
Discussion on a proposed ordinance to enlarge the required
radius of the circular turn around in a cul-de-sac street to
55 feet.
Steve England moved to table this item until the next month.
Pete Anderson seconded, all voted in favor.
Discussion on a proposed ordinance to delete the prov'ision for
interest being charged on reserve strips.
Steve England moved to table this item until the next month.
Mary Harker seconded, all voted in favor.
Discussion on zero lot lines·
Steve England moved to table this item until tile next month.
T. Kent Hii1 seconded. Ail voted in favor.
Steve England moved to adjourn at 11:40 p.m.
~eent K~.~arns, Chairman
LOUIS F. RACINE, Jr.
WIllIAM D. OLSON
W. MARCUS W. NYE
GArY L. COOPER
RANDALL C. BUDGE
JOHN A. bAILEY, Jr.
JOHN r. GOODELL*
JOhn b. InGEISTROM
DANIEL C. GREEN
REED W. LARSEN
BREnt O. ROCHE
FRED J, LEWIS
KIrK B. HADLEY
MITCHELL W. Brown
ErIC S. hUNN
DAVID E. ALEXANDER
*ALSO ME/~BER fl & WY ~AR,~
LAW OFFICES OF
RACINE, OLSON, NYE, COOPER & BUDGE
CHARTERED
CENTER PLAZA-CORNER FIRST & CENTER
POSt OFFICE BOX I391
POCAtELIO, iDAHO 83204- 1391
January 31, 1994
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 208
232-6101
Fax
208-232-6109
VIA HAND DELIVERY:
Mayor John O. Cotant
CITY OFFICES
Chubbuck, ID 83202
Chubbuck City Council
CITY OFFICES
Chubbuck, ID 83202
Chubbuck City Land Use
& Development Commission
CITY OFFICES
Chubbuck, ID 83202
Re:
Request by Paul Jensen for Conditional Use Permit/
Whitaker Farms Development
Dear Commission:
This office represents the members of the Whitaker Road Preservation
Association ("Association") which includes, but is not limited to, approximately
70 Chubbuck City residents that reside on Whitaker Road, Marie Street, Vern
Road and numerous residents along East Chubbuck Road, which adjoin the
proposed development. These residents object to the Whitaker Farms planned
unit development for the reasons set forth below.
It is not our intent to question the power or authority of the City to grant
a conditional use permit. However, it is our intent to see that the applicable
standards for conditional use permit are addressed and complied with and that
the density requirements set out in Chubbuck City Ordinance Section 18.08.040
are followed. Furthermore, in reviewing the particular facts and circumstances
of this case, it is our position that approval of a conditional use permit in this
situation would constitute a rezoning of the property, which has not been applied
for, nor have the requirements been met for such a rezoning request.
Page 2
January 31, 1994
In assessing the standards imposed as a basis for granting a conditional use
permit, it should be emphasized that all such standards are based on the objective
of effective and desirable land use planning that will enhance the future
development of the City of Chubbuck, while at the same time recognizing the
compelling need to preserve and protect the interests of the City's residents.
The concept behind the development and use of a comprehensive plan, as
has been adopted by the City of Chubbuck, is to establish goals and objectives for
the development of the City in an orderly manner. We direct the Council's and
Commission's attention to the following goals identified in the existing
comprehensive plan. We also emphasize that these goals and objectives are
consistent with the standards that must be met as a basis for the granting of a
conditional use permit. See City of Chubbuck Ordinance Section 18.28.050.
Specific goals that are relevant to this case are as follows:
Socioeconomic Structure Goal 10' In order to protect the quality of
life in Chubbuck through proper land use planning, the City will find
it necessary to place increased emphasis upon property engineering
and community design, including the creation and enforcement of
standards governing development of land and construction of
buildings or other improvements (page B-104).
Housing Goal 3: Utilize adequate buffers or other devices to insure
the compatibility of differing levels of density in residential areas as
well as in areas where residential and non-residential uses adjoin
each other (page B-202).
Housing Goal 4: Encourage greater provision of open space in and
around multiple family dwelling structures, in order to lessen the
congestion of traffic and population, and in order to provide greater
outdoor recreational opportunities for residents of such areas (page
B-202).
Page 3
January 31, 1994
Land Use and Development Goal 6: Provide for aesthetics to be
considered in future land use decisions, with respect to landscaping
and buffering, provision and use of open space, terms on which
conditional use permits are issued, and circumstances under which
variances may be granted. In this regard, aesthetics should not
become an exclusive determinant of a particular land use decision,
but should be given weight insofar as it is consistent with other valid
land use considerations (page E-102).
Land Use and Development Goal 8' Minimize "strip" and "spot"
zoning except to the extent that such zoning helps to implement the
"spectrum" concept enunciated above and would not be inconsistent
with the goals set forth in this section and other sections of the plan
(page E-102).
Land Use and Development Goal 9: Provide tighter procedures and
more explicit substantive criteria for the issuance of conditional use
permits as land use regulating devices, and for the granting of
variances to deal with those parcels of property characterized by
features making strict application of land use regulations
impracticable (page E-102).
The Association urges the Council and Commission to have these goals and
objectives in mind while deliberating this matter.
I. APARTMENT AND TOWNHOUSE SCHEME
At the hearing held on January 6, 1994, Mr. Jensen proposed a
development that included approximately seventy (70) apartment units and forty-
nine (49) townhouse units. It is the Association's position that this scheme is
completely disallowed by the land use ordinances. Specifically, Chubbuck City
Ordinance Section 18.20.040 reads as follows:
Uses. All uses that may be allowed within the land use district are
permitted within a PUD. In addition, up to 10% of the gross land
area may be directed to other uses that are not allowed within the
land use district,... (emphasis added)
Page 4
January 31, 1994
The apartment building and townhouse scheme now before the Commission
consists of approximately 8.41 acres. Approximately 5.14 acres of the 8.41 acre
development is zoned R-2. In Chubbuck City Ordinance Section 18.08.040, the
schedule of general controls clearly sets out that "apartment buildings" are not an
allowed use in an R-2 zoning district. Most of the apartment buildings proposed
in Mr. Jensen's plan are to be built in the R-2 zoned section. These apartment
buildings simply cannot be built in the R-2 zoned section, because they are not
an allowed use under Chubbuck City ordinance Section 18.08.040. Therefore, the
Association respectfully submits that the Commission should not recommend nor
should the Council approve Mr. Jensen's current planned unit development
application.
II. EXCLUSIVE TOWNHOUSE SCHEME
In conversations with Mr. Jensen over the past four (4) days, he has
intimated that he may be amenable to modify his application for the conditional
use permit for Whitaker Farms planned unit development to a scheme where he
will seek approval for a planned unit development consisting exclusively of
townhouses.
First, the Association points out to the Commission that townhouses are not
defined anywhere in the Chubbuck City Ordinances. Chubbuck City Ordinance
18.04.040(q)(5) defines an apartment building as follows:
"apartment building" means a structure or complex of structures
containing five (5) or more households or living units.
Most, if not all of Mr. Jensen's proposed townhouse clusters contain five (5) or
more living units. Therefore, it is the Association's position that these townhouse
complexes are apartment buildings, which once again are not an allowed use in
an R-2 zoned area. Under the R-2 zoning classification, a developer may only
build 10% duplexes and all other portions of the development need to consist of
single family dwellings. Chubbuck City Ordinance Section 18.20.040 cited above
only allows 10% of the gross land to be directed to other uses not allowed within
the land use district. Therefore, Mr. Jensen will need to submit a scheme or plan
to the Commission which consists of 80% single family dwellings, 10% duplexes
and 10% townhouses or small apartment buildings. Therefore, the Association
requests that the Commission deny approval of a planned unit development that
would consist entirely of townhouses.
Page 5
January 31, 1994
If the Commission is not inclined to interpret the Chubbuck City
Ordinances as set forth above, the Association respectfully requests that the
Commission deny Mr. Jensen's request for a total townhouse development and/or
townhouse and apartment development for the reasons set forth below.
Chubbuck City Ordinance Section 18.20.110(I) requires that the planned
unit development obtain a conditional use permit. Chubbuck City Ordinance
Section 18.28.050 requires that a conditional use permit be granted only if it is
consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. The criteria and standards for
conditional use permit are set forth in Chubbuck City Ordinance Section
18.28.040. I have attached a copy for the Council's and Commission's review.
First, the affected area has many large families and small children. The
added traffic that the planned unit development will bring out on to Whitaker
Road (the Whitaker Road exit is the only planned exit and entrance to the
Whitaker Farms planned unit development) will be detrimental to the children's
safety and welfare because it will increase their chances of being struck while
attempting to cross the road either as a pedestrian or riding a bicycle.
Second, the owners of properties along the north side of East Chubbuck
Road and along Whitaker Road from Chubbuck Road to Siphon Road and in the
Marie Street and Vern Road area will have an adverse impact on the values of
their properties since the planned unit development is completely different than
these surrounding properties. The townhouses and apartments are simply smaller
and of less value than most of the homes that surround the proposed planned unit
development. Furthermore, the sewer smell problem that now exists will only
become worse and negatively impact the surrounding properties.
Third, the planned unit development will have a negative impact on Ellis
School, which is already overcrowded, and the introduction of 98 to 119 new
households will only serve to exacerbate this problem.
Fourth, the noise and traffic brought about by the planned unit
development, with only one entrance and exit, will have a negative impact on this
area which currently enjoys a relatively low amount of traffic.
Page 6
January 31, 1994
Fifth, the planned unit development will injure the neighborhood because
it is simply not consistent with how all of the properties which surround the
proposed development have developed. Specifically, most of the homes located
on the North side of East Chubbuck Road, which are affected by the development
and the homes along Whitaker Road from Chubbuck Road to Siphon Road are
single family dwellings with very large lots. The proposed planned unit
development simply is not the same type of development and would impose an
unreasonable hardship on the surrounding property owners by virtue of its
physical nature.
Sixth, the Commission should take into account that there were
approximately 120 people at the January 6, 1994 hearing which all expressed their
opposition to the conditional use permit being granted.
The Association also points out that the Commission be mindful of
Chubbuck City Ordinance Section 18.20.110(E) which requires the Commission
to determine whether "the proposed development advances the general welfare
of the community and neighborhood and whether the benefits, combination of
various land uses and interrelations with the land uses in the surrounding area
justify the deviation from the standard district regulations." The Associations
submits that after the Commission takes into consideration the facts as set forth
above, that it will determine that the planned unit development in either the
townhouse/apartment scheme or townhouse only scheme simply do not justify a
deviation from the standard district regulations.
III. MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED PLANS
If the planned unit development is allowed, the Association requests that
a solid masonry fence be built around the planned unit development pursuant to
Chubbuck City Ordinance Section 18.12.030(k)(8) and that any and all other
provisions be imposed that are set forth in the criteria and standards section of
the conditional use permit procedure.
Page 7
January 31, 1994
If the Commission determines that it should approve some type of scheme
for the Whitaker Farms planned unit development, the Commission should take
a very hard look at the density of the planned unit development. Chubbuck City
Ordinance Section 18.08.040 requires that there be 6,000 square feet for each
household in an R-2 zoned area. This would restrict Mr. Jensen to proposing a
townhouse only scheme that included 30 units since approximately 95,900 square
feet will be used for roads, 36,000 square feet will be used for open space, and
approximately 51,625 will be used for the storage area facility, leaving
approximately 179,940 square feet for the townhouse units at 6,000 square feet
per unit.
If the Council and Commission interprets the density restrictions to require
6,000 square feet for the first living unit and 2,500 square foot allowance for each
additional unit in each townhouse cluster, this would allow Mr. Jensen to submit
a townhouse and apartment scheme with 49 townhouses and one 8-plex apartment
based on the square foot calculations set forth above for roads, storage facility
and open space.
In a townhouse-only scheme, Mr. Jensen could submit a 56 unit townhouse
development consisting of two 3-unit townhouse clusters, four 6-unit townhouse
clusters, four 5-unit townhouse clusters, and three 2-unit townhouse clusters.
These calculations would be based upon storage units taking up 45,625 square
feet of open space of approximately 36,000 square feet and streets and roads
consisting of approximately 95,900 square feet, leaving a balance of 185,930
square feet for the townhouses to be built on.
The Association submits that Mr. Jensen has simply not shown the basis to
increase the density by 25% as allowed in Chubbuck City Ordinance Section
18.20.080. This section of the Chubbuck City Ordinances reads as follows:
18.20.080 Density. To provide for an incentive for quality PUD, the
city council may authorize an increased density of up to twenty-five
percent of the allowable number of structures or inhabitants, as
appropriate. Character, identity and architectural and siting
variation incorporated into a development shall be considered cause
for density increases, provided that these factors make a substantial
contribution to the following objectives of the PUD:
Page 8
January 31, 1994
existing
areas--a
B.
such as
pattern,
building
percent.
Landscaping, streetscape, open spaces and plazas, use of
landscaping, pedestrian way treatment and recreational
maximum increase of ten percent.
Siting, visual focal points, use of existing physical features
topography, view, sum and wind orientation, circulation
physical environment, variation in building setbacks and
grouping (such as clustering)--a maximum increase of five
C. Design features, street sections, architectural styles,
harmonious use of materials, parking areas broken by landscaping
features and varied use of housing types--a maximum increase of ten
percent. (Emphasis added)
Mr. jensen simply has not provided the Commission with any of the necessary
evidence required by Chubbuck City Ordinance Section 18.20.080 to justify an
increase in density. He has proposed a plan that has very little open space and
no plazas. He has not identified with any specificity the variation in the building
setbacks and the views of the various townhouses and apartment buildings.
Furthermore, he has not enlightened the Commission as to the architectural
styles, harmonious use of materials, landscaping features and housing types in any
significant detail.
Finally, the Association specifically requests that any conditional use permit
granted for Mr. Jensen's planned unit development require that there be an
access to Chubbuck Road so that necessary fire and police vehicles can enter and
so that it does not create traffic congestion on Whitaker Road as prohibited by
Chubbuck City Ordinance Section 18.20.040(D). This road needs to be built at
the beginning phase of the development so that residents learn to use it from the
very beginning which will in turn alleviate the traffic noise and congestion from
Whitaker Road. The building of the road to Chubbuck road at the beginning of
the development will also ensure that the road is built and not forgotten years
later if this planned unit development is not fully completed.
Page 9
January 31, 1994
The Association specifically reserves the right to submit other evidence as
it deems appropriate at the meeting now scheduled for February 3, 1994. Your
careful consideration of the above is greatly appreciated by the Association.
FJLcm
· Ve ragu ~,1 y o.3~,,
c: Mr. & Mrs. Wayne Hale