April 22, 2007
Craig Wolford
Planning and Zoning Commission Administrator
Craig,
I would like to appeal the April 5th, 2007 decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission) regarding Final Approval of the Planned Unit Development and Phase I Plat for Southfork Landing pursuant to the Boise County Zoning and Development Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance) Section 10-3. On that date the Commission decided to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to grant final approval of the abovementioned PUD. It is my contention that the Commission did not adequately ensure that requirements of the Zoning Ordinance were met by the Developers and that Southfork Landing is, as a result, not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
As you have mentioned Craig, the April 5th hearing was technical in nature in that final conditions of the development and the Southfork Landing Developer (Developer) were being reviewed for the context of determining appropriate recommendation to the Board on the Final PUD and Final Phase I Plat. As part of that review the Commission evaluated the Developer's responses to how they were going to comply with the Zoning Ordinance Section 13-17 subsection B. This subsection of the Ordinance refers to a set of conditions which the Commission must establish that Developer has met.
By this appeal I do not aim to stop development; rather it is my hope that the Board will establish additional conditions upon the Developer's PUD and Phase I Plat to ensure that the conditions stipulated in section 13-17 subsection B of the Zoning Ordinance are met. I brought this specific concern up during the aforementioned April 5th hearing which went largely unaddressed by the Developer and the Commission. In fact the Developer only indicated they were confident that surrounding properties won't experience a detrimental effect; that traffic impact will be minimal on the highway; and that they were confident that they met the Boise County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The Commission simply took these statements as truth.
To address the concerns for which I am appealing, I would like to see the Board and it's Commission address the below requirements of the Zoning Ordinance by applying additional conditions upon the Southfork Landing Developers and the Southfork Landing Development. These conditions are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance which specifies in Section 1-10 that conditions of approval may include (but are not limited to):
· hours of operation
· setbacks
· grading
· fencing
· landscaping
· signage
· screening
· road volumes, traffic control, maintenance
· natural resources impact mitigation including wildlife habitats, historic sites,
· shorelines, floodplains, fire hazards, etc.
· sight obstruction mitigation
· visibility from roads
· noise mitigation, etc.
As such, I request that the Developer and the Southfork Landing PUD be subjected to the following additional conditions and stipulations so that it may be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Regarding Zoning Ordinance Section 13-17 subsection B2 which reads:
Each individual unit of the development, as well as the total development, can
exist as an independent unit capable of creating an environment of sustained
desirability and stability or that adequate assurance will be provided that such
objective will be attained; the uses proposed will not be detrimental to present
or potential surrounding uses.
I do not believe that the Commission adequately evaluated that the uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses. In particular the Developer has proposed several aspects of Southfork Landing which will be detrimental to the residential use and enjoyment of my properties to the north of Southfork Landing.
These aspects include:
- A helipad
- An ampitheater
- A 60' high hotel (the Developer described this height measured at the midpoint of the gable) and convention center
- Strips of closely spaced homes (possibly with less than 10' side set backs)
Helipad
The helipad will create a significant additional amount of noise to the valley. I am fully supportive of being able to bring in emergency helicopter travel to support medical and fire emergencies but note that
To manage these concerns I ask for the following conditions on the Helipad:
- The Southfork Landing Helipad is primarily to be used for Emergency Services for medical or fire needs.
- Non-emergency use of the Southfork Landing Helipad is restricted to no more than one trip in and out of Southfork Landing per day.
- Non-emergency use of the Southfork Landing Helipad is restricted to daylight hours and further restricted to those hours of the day between 9 AM and 6 PM.
- The Southfork Landing Helipad is not to be used for recreational tours of the
Amphitheater
Like the Helipad, the Southfork Landing Amphitheater (Amphitheater) without having any conditions to restrict its operation and means of use will have a definite detrimental impact upon
To manage these concerns I ask for the following conditions on the Amphitheater:
- To avoid noise issues caused by the Amphitheater, the Amphitheater shall not create sounds greater than 65 dBA outside of the amphitheater. This is consistent with Federal Government recommendations (US Department of Housing and Urban Development regards 65-75 dBA generally unacceptable).
- To further avoid noise issues caused by the Amphitheater, the Amphitheater shall not be utilized for shows, concerts and similar events between the hours of 10 PM and 10 AM.
- To avoid light pollution issues caused by the Amphitheater, the Amphitheater (and I would recommend the entire Southfork Landing Development) shall not have lighting which creates a nuisance for any neighboring property. To avoid any doubt no high intensity lighting shall be permitted to be on when the Amphitheater is not in use, and all lighting shall be directed away from all other residences in
- To avoid traffic problems caused by the Amphitheater, a further condition should be placed upon the Developer stipulating that the Amphitheater is not primarily intended for destination events where a majority of event attendees would be anticipated to travel to the Amphitheater from other towns, cities and communities. The primary use is to be events intended for Southfork Landing residents. Any other use is required to be approved beforehand by the Board.
Hotel and Convention Center
Having a tall structure in a highly visible area of
I want to ensure that this visual impact is mitigated by either completely shielding the structure with trees taller than the structure, or, preferably, by restricting the height to a more reasonable 55' to the roof peak (this should comfortable allow a three story facility). I note that within residential areas
Strips of Closely Spaced Homes
Although the developer has made some changes to the plat since the Preliminary Approval, the fact remains that having highly visible rows (or strips) of closely spaced homes is very uncharacteristic of the
To maintain this rural character I ask that the Board ensure that setbacks and lot occupancies are sufficient to avoid the appearance of tract housing. For avoidance of doubt residences should be prohibited from being spaced less than 30' apart and lot occupancies shall not exceed 25%. This will facilitate occupancy of about 1750 square feet on the smallest lots. Furthermore front setbacks on lots smaller than 1/3 acre should be staggered to help break up the "strip" effect.
These conditions will provide a more spacious, less big city-like view to surrounding residences and land users as well as preserve their enjoyment of their properties.
2. Regarding Zoning Ordinance Section 13-17 subsection B3 which reads:
The streets proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and
increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the
street network outside the PUD;
It is clear that Southfork Landing will have a significant impact upon traffic on the
As a condition of granting the Final PUD to the Developer, I request that the Board and its Commission give further study to the impact that Southfork Landing will have upon traffic on the
It is in
To additionally manage traffic on the
3. Regarding Zoning Ordinance Section 13-17 subsection B5
The PUD is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
I have previously written to the Commission regarding lack of compliance of the Southfork Landing development with the Comp Plan. The Commission publicly taking the word of the Developer at face value as truth that they are confident that they will meet the Comp Plan is not sufficient to meet the Zoning Ordinance. The Board and its Commission must have conditions in place to ensure that the Comp Plan is adhered to. I believe the Commission has been dismissive of the Comp Plan and thus has not done their job in ensuring general conformance of the Developer and Southfork Landing with the Comp Plan.
I am attaching my letter (at the end of this appeal) to the Commission from March 2006 which further details the breadth of this lack of conformance with the Comp Plan as reference. In this appeal I focus on the key areas of non-conformance where the Board and its Commission will need to set conditions upon the Developer to ensure that Southfork Landing meets the Zoning Ordinance's stipulation of the Commission ensuring that that the PUD conform to the Comp Plan.
Southfork Landing, as proposed, does not conform with the Comprehensive Plan's goal for preserving the rural character of
GOAL:
To provide for the planned and orderly use of land within the county in a manner which recognizes and maintains natural resources uses and the rural lifestyle of
OBJECTIVES:
…
· To conserve and protect the quality of life, as defined by the residents, in
[From the
1) Quality of life issues were identified as including:
- Maintaining low population
- Creation of appropriate growth standards
- Maintaining open space
- Maintaining privacy
- Maintaining wildlife
- No excessive traffic
- Quiet environment
- Maintaining low taxes
- Accessibility to government officials
- Natural resources
- Recreation
- Opportunities to make a living
- Opportunities to retain individuality/independence
]
…
· To discourage development in proximity to water resources including streams, rivers, lakes, and floodplains.
Southfork Landing won't maintain the rural character of
Point 1 earlier in this appeal specifies conditions which should be placed upon spacing of residences arranged in strips (and lot occupancies) as well as the hotel and convention center height. The goal of having a minimum 30' foot separation between residences, and staggered front setbacks, is to space houses far enough apart to break up the strip home appearance.
Southfork Landing won't maintain wildlife in the area. Although the developers are making significant attempts to lessen their impact, the development will have significant adverse impact upon herds of Elk and other wildlife which currently rely upon the land upon which Southfork Landing is to be developed.
The US Department of Fish and Game has provided input to the Commission regarding wildlife which has been ignored. This advice needs to be incorporated into Southfork Landing to be in conformance with the Comp Plan.
Southfork Landing won't maintain "no excessive traffic". I have discussed this in point 2 above. Essentially well over 600 homes, a Hotel, Amphitheater, and other commercial facilities at build out will put a significant strain upon the
I request that the Board and its Commission perform further studies to understand the true impact to traffic on this highway during non-ideal conditions (dark, snow, rock, animals on highway, etc.) and impose appropriate conditions upon the Developers to ensure the problems are mitigated.
Southfork Landing won't maintain a quiet environment. The Heliport and the Amphitheater are highly incompatible with a quiet environment. The conditions pertaining to both, described in point 1 above, should be placed upon the Developer and Southfork Landing. I also note that there are both existing aviation and emergency helicopter services near Southfork Landing. So the need for the Helipad is questionable.
Southfork Landing won't maintain low taxes. The projected lot values for 1/3 acre and smaller lots in Southfork Landing will significantly increase property taxes for all residents in the surrounding area.
Southfork Landing is in conflict with discouraging development in proximity to water resources. The developers are developing directly on floodplain of the Southfork of the
Taken as a whole the additional conditions described in these three points do not significantly affect the Developer's private property rights as outlined in the March 2006 version of the Boise County Comprehensive Plan as they neither significantly impact the Developer's economic interest, nor do they deny the Developer a fundamental attribute of ownership.
As such, I request that the Board incorporate these conditions into those to be placed upon the Developer and Southfork Landing as a condition of granting the final approval on the PUD.
Please inform me at your earliest convenience about the next steps with regard to this appeal.
Best Regards,
Gary Zimmerman
Attachments: March 2006 letter to Planning and Zoning
No comments:
Post a Comment