HomeMy WebLinkAboutSunset TownhomesBEFORE THE CITY OF CHUBBUCK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2019
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Planned United Development (PUD) approval and rezone;
Preliminary Plat
SUBJECT: Application for a Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat containing 88
units- Sunset Townhomes
APPLICANT: Cal Kunkel
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION'
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Commission makes the following Findings of Fact:
1. The Commission takes notice of the information contained within the files of the Public
Works Department on this matter.
2. In accordance with § 18.20.110, Applicant applied for a Preliminary Planned Unit
Development.
3. All legal requirements for the notices of Public Hearing before the Land Use & Development
Commission and City Council have been met.
4. The property in question is zoned Limited Residential (R-2) and Industrial (I) pursuant to the
Land Use Ordinance.
5. The proposed use is permitted in any land use district within the city provided that procedures
of § 18.20.110 are followed and that approval is given by the City Council having taken into
account the criteria and standards set forth in § 18.28.040C.
6. As to the project description, the Commission finds the following:
A. PROPOSAL SUMMARY: For a planned unit development on approximately 9.4 acres of
land and for 88 residential units; units proposed to be in three-plexes, four-plexes, and
apartments.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes PUD Application — February 2019 Page 1 of 11
B. PARTIES:
LAND OWNER:
Whitaker Farm Associates, LLC
940 Cahina Way
Pocatello, ID
APPLICANT:
Cal Kunkel
6238 Golden Eagle Way
Billings, MT 59106
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES:
Connect Engineering
1150 Hollipark Dr.
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
C. LOCATION: Location is 4933 Whitaker Road, Chubbuck, ID 83202, within SE '/ of
Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 34, of the Boise Meridian, Bannock County.
D. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
PROJECT SIZE: — 9.4 acres EXISTING STRUCTURES: Site is
VIEWS: Limited visibility from all directions predominately bare ground; one small
TOPOGRAPHY: Generally flat outbuilding is located on site.
CURRENT USE: Vacant
E. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING
NORTH: Large lot residential uses with livestock; Limited Residential (R-2) & Industrial
(I)
EAST: Limited Residential (R-2)
SOUTH: Large lot residential uses with livestock, contractor yard, self-service storage
units; Limited Residential (R-2), Industrial (I), & Limited Commercial (C-1)
WEST: Self -serve storage unit and commercial space; Industrial (I)
F. SERVICES
ACCESS STREET: Two proposed accesses to the property from public streets;
Whitaker Road (Minor Arterial) and Chubbuck Road (Principal Arterial).
INTERNAL STREETS: Applicant proposes private ownership and maintenance of
interior streets and parking areas.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes Prelim. PUD and Prelim. PUD Application — February 2019 Page 2 of 11
SANITARY SEWER: Connection to City sewer is proposed with individual unit
connections; an easement is proposed from lip -of -curb to lip -of -curb for public and
private utilities.
CULINARY WATER: Connection to City water is proposed with individual unit
meters; an easement is proposed from lip -of -curb to lip -of -curb for public and private
utilities.
EMS: The property is, and will be, served by the City's EMS services.
IRRIGATION: Property has Fort Hall Irrigation Project water rights; a pressurized
irrigation system will be required to be installed and dedicated per City code and
specifications.
POLICE: The property is, and will be, served by the City's police department.
SCHOOL DISTRICT: The property is, and will be, within the boundaries of School
District #25.
UTILITIES: Underground utilities proposed, including telephone and electrical
systems, as required within all PUDs.
7. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
A. Pursuant to § 18.28 of municipal code, an application for a PUD was submitted.
B. Notice of a hearing was provided pursuant to and in accordance with § 18.28.020 of
municipal code and § 67-6515 of Idaho Code.
C. No comments were received from political subdivisions or utilities prior to, or at the
hearing.
D. Written comments were received in accordance with § 18.28.020.D at least 7 days prior to
the hearing from:
1. Wayne and Alane Hale (4825 Whitaker Rd) in opposition.
2. Verle and Patricia Yensen (4940 Whitaker Rd) in opposition.
E. A hearing by the Land Use and Development Commission was held on November 13,
2018; the Commission recommended denial of the application.
F. The hearing was conducted in accordance with § 18.28.020.D of municipal code.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes PUD Application — February 2019 Page 3 of 11
G. Following the Land Use and Development Commission meeting, the applicant modified
the PUD proposal based on public feedback and the Commission's concerns. Those
changes included:
1. Increasing periphery setbacks to 20 feet, adding a 6' perimeter vinyl fence, and
making the Chubbuck Road access a primary, paved access.
8. CITY COUNCIL
A. A hearing was scheduled with City Council for February 6, 2019.
B. Notice of a hearing was provided pursuant to and in accordance with § 18.28.020 of
municipal code and § 67-6515 of Idaho Code.
C. No comments were received from political subdivisions or utilities prior to, or at the
hearing.
D. Written comments were received in accordance with § 18.28.020.1) at least 7 days prior to
the hearing from:
1. Paul Jensen, owner of subject property, in favor of the project.
2. Jill Turner, 5297 Whitaker Rd., in opposition.
3. Craig Parrish representing some surrounding residents, in opposition.
E. A hearing by the City Council was held on February 6, 2019.
F. The hearing was conducted in accordance with § 18.28.020.1) of municipal code.
1. Blake Jolley, Connect Engineering, represented the applicant and summarized the
proposal.
2. Devin Hillam, City of Chubbuck, reviewed the application against approval criteria
found in § 18.2 1.110 of municipal code.
3. Craig Parrish, legal counsel representing the Hillmans, testified in opposition, citing
concerns with density, land locking the land to the north, and section 22-4501 of Idaho
Code.
4. TJ Budge, legal counsel representing Terry Briscoe, Vern Briscoe, Michael and
Rebecca Crockett, Verlyn and Jodi DaBell, Jim and Katie Forsythe, Boyd and Kim
Hardy, Rick and Linda Hillman, Dana Hillman Stone, Dee and Janae Greene,Wayne
and Elaine Hale, Mike and Claudette Jones, Brandon and LuJean Holst, Arley Lish,
Kimberly Watt, Fred and Kathleen Wooden, and Verle and Patricia Yensen, testified
in opposition. Budge testified that his clients were not opposed to development that
meets R-2 requirements and discussed why the project did not satisfy requirements of
city code. Budge testified that apartments are not permitted in the current zone, that
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes Prelim. PUD and Prelim. PUD Application — February 2019 Page 4 of 11
the project would be single use on a single parcel of land, that the project did not
qualify as a planned unit development, that the project did not comply with the
comprehensive plan, and that the project would be detrimental to the present
surrounding uses.
5. Jodi DaBell, 4895 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating that she wanted long-
term tenants in single-family homes or townhomes and that she was concerns about
the project's impacts on traffic on Whitaker and Chubbuck roads.
6. Arley Lish, 4913 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, citing concerns with traffic
impacts, that the project did not meet city code requirements, and that the project did
not fit the neighborhood.
7. Dee Greene, 410 E Chubbuck Road, testified in opposition, stating concerns with
traffic impacts and on how irrigation/water rights would be maintained by the project.
8. Verle Yensen, 4940 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating concerns with
increased traffic, that the project was not consistent with the surrounding area, and that
the project would have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
9. Jim Forsythe, 4839 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating concerns relating to
the R-2 zoning and with the fact that the project proposed one single use.
10. Vern Briscoe, 5112 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating that he was
concerns with irrigation rights and water runoff.
11. Patricia Yensen, 4940 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating that she was
concerns about traffic headlights, and that the project was not consistent with
surrounding neighborhoods and that it would have a negative impact on the
neighborhood.
12. Brandon Holst, 4941 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating that the zone was
R-2 and should remain as such and be developed under R-2 standards.
13. LuJean Holst, 4941 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating that she was
concerns with the effect of the project on the Holst property and its landscaping.
14. Kimberly Watt, 4924 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating that she was
concerned about the increased traffic that would likely use the LDS church parking lot
to get from Hiline Road to Whitaker Road.
15. Niki Tayson, Super 8 Motel, testified in opposition, stating that she was concerned
about the density and increased traffic.
16. Dana Hillman, 4967 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating that the project
would negatively impact their cattle operation, facilities, and irrigation rights and that
she was concerned about the density and increased traffic.
17. Kim Hardy, 426 E Chubbuck Road, testified in opposition, stating that she was
concerned about traffic and irrigation and that there was already too much high density
development along the Chubbuck Road corridor.
18. Mike Crockett, 5111 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating that he agreed
with previous testimony and that the property should remain as R-2 and be developed
as such.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes PUD Application — February 2019 Page 5 of 11
19. Arley Lish, 4913 Whitaker Road, testified in opposition, stating that the developer
could develop 16 half acre lots in a cul-de-sac on the property.
20. Paul Jensen, 125 N Garfield, testified in favor, stating that the developer would take
care of the property.
21. Niki Tayson, Super 8 Motel, testified in opposition, stating that she felt that the project
was too close to the train tracks to keep children safe.
22. Upon rebuttal, BJ Driscoll stated that the Council had previously approved similar
projects as PUDs and that the project was petitioning for a PUD rezone, which allows
residential apartments to be built. Driscoll cited a portion from chapter 10 of the
Comprehensive Plan which defines "medium density" as being 8-12 units per acre and
stated that the project would be 9 units per acre. Driscoll stated that the project would
provide a buffer between the railroad tracks and the existing single-family units. Blake
Jolley stated that the project would allow for housing options and that the project
would have over 4 acres of landscaping. Jolley stated that they would maintain
irrigation rights to surrounding properties as required by Idaho code and that the
proposed fence would be placed inside the project's peripheral property lines.
9. As to applicable law, the Council finds the following:
A. This section details the comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies; the land use
ordinance regulations, and other applicable standards regarding development of the
subject property:
The Council finds that § 18.08.040 is applicable because the site is located within the
Limited Residential and Industrial zoning district boundaries.
The Council finds that the proposed development does not comply with the schedule of
general controls; land uses by districts whereas the development proposes threeplexes,
fourplexes, and apartments. These uses are not permitted within Limited Residential
zoning districts.
2. The Council finds that § 18.08.042.A is applicable because the site is located within the
Limited Residential and Industrial zoning district boundaries.
The Council finds that the proposed development does not comply with the schedule of
general controls; height and area regulations because the proposal does not satisfy the
minimum lot area per household dwelling for Limited Residential (R-2) requirements.
18.20.0 76 states that:
"Density shall be based upon the density required by this code for the area with
the most restricted zoning that lies within the boundaries of the proposed PUD. For
residential density, the number of dwelling units allowed in a PUD shall be
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes Prelim. PUD and Prelim. PUD Application — February 2019 Page 6 of 11
calculated by dividing the gross area, less that area set aside for residential uses
(that is, office, commercial or industrial, as well as the area for streets, curb, gutter
and sidewalk), by the minimum lot area per dwelling unit required by the zone in
which the site is located. "
Under R-2 requirements, 8,500 square feet are required every 2 units (6, 000 square
feet for the first unit and 2,500 square feet for each additional unit). Within the R-2
district, only single-family and duplex units are permitted and thus the density
calculation is required to commence anew every 2 units; the project proposes 19
buildings with 88 units total, having completed a density calculation that does not
commence anew every 2 units. This project does not comply with this density
requirement.
3. The Council finds that § 18.20.030A is applicable because the project proposes a
residential PUD.
The Council finds that this satisfies this standard as it contains an area larger than the
minimum required.
4. The Council finds that § 18.20.040 is applicable because the project proposes a
residential PUD.
The Council finds that the project proposes uses that are not allowed in the Limited
Residential (R-2) zoning district (threeplexes, fourplexes, and apartments) and thus,
that they are not permitted with the project. The Council finds that the project proposes
more than 10% of the gross land area being used for uses that are not allowed within
the Limited Residential (R-2) zoning district and are therefore not allowed. Moreover,
the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed uses are appropriate with the
primary use (§ 18.20.040A) nor are they located and designed to provide direct access
to arterial streets (Chubbuck and Whitaker) without creating congestion or traffic
hazards (§ 18.20.040D).
5.The Council finds that § 18.20.050 is applicable because the project proposes a PUD.
The Council finds that the project would be held in common ownership and that this
requirement is satisfied.
6. The Council finds that § 18.20.060 is applicable because the project proposes a PUD.
The Council finds that the project provides a minimum of 10% common open space and
that the required open space would be held in corporate ownership by the
developer/owner of the project.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes PUD Application — February 2019 Page 7 of 11
7. The Council finds that § 18.20.065 is applicable because the project proposes a PUD.
The Council finds that the project proposes 2 or more amenities which satisfy the
requirements of this section.
8. The Council finds that § 18.20.070 is applicable because the project proposes a PUD.
The Council finds that the project proposes underground utilities, which satisfies the
requirements of this section.
9. The Council finds that § 18.20.075 is applicable because the project proposes a PUD.
The Council finds that the project does not satisfy this section because the initial
calculations of density exceed those allowed in the zoning district for the property in
which the PUD is proposed.
10. The Council finds that § 18.20.076 is applicable because the project proposes a PUD.
The Council finds that the project does not satisfy this section because the initial
calculations of density exceed those allowed in the zoning district for the property in
which the PUD is proposed.
11. The Council finds that § 18.20.080 is applicable because the project proposes a PUD.
The Council finds that the applicant did not request a density bonus.
12.The Council finds that § 18.20.085 is not applicable because the project exceeds five
acres.
13.The Council finds that § 18.20.090 is not applicable because the project does not
propose commercial uses.
14.The Council finds that § 18.20. 100 is not applicable because the project does not
propose industrial uses.
15.The Council finds that § 18.20.110 is applicable because the project proposes a PUD.
The Council finds that project is not consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 18
as found in § 18.04.020 as it does not provide for compatible and harmonious uses of
land, and it does not organize uses to encourage growth consistent with the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes Prelim. PUD and Prelim. PUD Application — February 2019 Page 8 of 11
comprehensive plan as evidenced by the project's failure to comply with § 18.08.042.A
and § 18.20.40.
16.The Council finds that § 18.20.110 is applicable because the project proposes a PUD.
The Council finds that project is not consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 18
as found in § 18.04.020 as it does not provide for compatible and harmonious uses of
land, and it does not organize uses to encourage growth consistent with the
comprehensive plan as evidenced by the project's failure to comply with § 18.08.042.A
and § 18.20.40.
The Council finds that the project does not advance the general welfare of the
community and neighborhood as evidenced by the project's failure to comply with §
18.08.042.A and § 18.20.40.
The Council finds that the combination of land uses and interrelationship with the land
uses does not justify a deviation from standard district regulations.
The Council finds that the project does not satisfy the criteria and standards found in §
18.28.040C, specifically § 18.28.040C subsections 3, 4, and 7. The applicant did not
demonstrate that the existing, built transportation facilities of Chubbuck Road and
Whitaker Road could absorb the traffic generated by the project without producing a
negative impact any greater than had the strict terms of Title 18 been satisfied. The
applicant did not demonstrate that the project had taken account of the noise and
traffic conditions in the vicinity. Overwhelming opposition was expressed by persons
entitled to receive notice of the permit, and the opposition's concerns addressed valid
deficiencies of theproject against requirements of municipal code § 18.20.110.
17. The Council finds that § 17.12. 100 is applicable because the applicant applied for a
preliminary plat associated with the PUD proposal.
The Council finds that because the PUD proposal did not meet requirements for
approval, the preliminary plat petition do not satisfy review criteria § 17.12.100.B.2
and § 17.12.1OO.B.3 and that the preliminary plat cannot be approved.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes PUD Application — February 2019 Page 9 of 11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Council hereby enters the following Conclusions of
Law:
1. The Council concludes that the project does not comply with § 18.08.040 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
2. The Council concludes that the project does not comply with § 18.08.042.A of Chubbuck
municipal code.
3. The Council concludes that the project does comply with § 18.20.030.A of Chubbuck
municipal code.
4. The Council concludes that the project does not comply with § 18.20.040 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
5. The Council concludes that the project does comply with § 18.20.050 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
6. The Council concludes that the project does comply with § 18.20.060 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
7. The Council concludes that the project does comply with § 18.20.065 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
8. The Council concludes that the project does comply with § 18.20.070 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
9. The Council concludes that the project does not comply with § 18.20.075 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
10. The Council concludes that the project does not comply with § 18.20.076 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
11. The Council concludes that the project does not comply with § 18.20.080 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
12. The Council concludes that the project does not comply with § 18.20.110 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
13. The Council concludes that the project does not comply with § 17.12. 100 of Chubbuck
municipal code.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes Prelim. PUD and Prelim. PUD Application — February 2019
Page 10 of 11
DECISION
1. The City Council, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the requests of the Applicant
should be denied.
2. Takings. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8001 et seq., the Council makes the following
findings with respect to the decision in this action:
A. This Action does not deprive the owner of the property of all viable uses of the
property.
B. This Action does not have a significant impact on the landowner's economic interest
because owner has other viable uses.
C. This Action does not deny a fundamental attribute of ownership.
Dated this day of
PUN'- C—y1 2019.
City of Chubbuck
By:
Kevin England, Mayor
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Sunset Townhomes PUD Application — February 2019 Page 11 of 11