Dear John, Jeff, Kirk and Roy,
Our existing Planned District (Providence Ordinances 10-4-3) includes the Planned District which would satisfy all of the applicant’s wishes except for the inclusion of town homes, which is the only thing citizens have strongly opposed, It follows, therefore, that this is a zone proposal aimed specifically at the placement of town homes in a single family district.
The text of the Planned District emphasizes protection of adjacent or nearby zones as follows:
The Planned District’s minimum is 10 acres, not the 2 acres of the Life Cycle Residential zone. The Planned District requires “That each individual unit of 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; and that the uses proposed will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but will have a beneficial effect which could not be achieved under other zoning districts; that the streets and thoroughfares 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 Planned District; … that the area surrounding said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development; that any exception form standard ordinance requirements is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated into the general development plan …. , that the Planned District is in conformance with the Master Plan, and that existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the population and use densities proposed.”
Here is a partial list of negative aspects of Life Cycle Residential zone:
- increased density in single-family established vibrant neighborhoods
- potential for significant flooding of houses built in the very wet, unirrigated area identified–as per actual flooding in (Saddlerock) River Heights and In (Creekside) Providence developments on either side of Spring Creek right at the area in question (four crops of hay per years grown there with only rare irrigation in drought years)
- lack of a 404 Clean Water Act permit (is it really legal to pump stormwater into Spring Creek?)
- “No parks and trails” is specifically stated in the application
- shorter setbacks without convincing detail about increased open space on proposed plat on concept plan
- parking is estimated as 1 car per Town Home, which seems unrealistic
- increased traffic in all parts of town, gridlock at rush hours, decreased available street parking due to so many added vehicles
- decrease in property values associated with town homes as they tend to decreased in value over time
- increased noise and other nuisances (such as littering) in single family neighborhoods
- approval of very significant city-wide change right before the revised General Plan is approved (why the rush?)
- smaller minimum lot size than permitted in our existing zoning ordinance (5000 ft2 versus 6000 ft2 a big difference) with smaller setbacks
- smaller minimum house square footage, such that in LCR sone the house square footage is what mobile home minimum is in existing ordinance: tiny houses
- rumors that applicant’s willingness to pay for one of two bridges is now withdrawn (will taxpayers pay for his 300,000 bridge?)
- school crowding for sure as Providence Elementary students are already sent to River Heights Elementary, and River Heights Elementary Is already using temporary building on a permanent basis
- transient and even “Airbandb” residency in town homes
- blight
- use of the City newsletter to promote approval of this proposal rather than to present a fair and reasoned critique
- Mr. Randy Eck’s name appears on the geotechnical survey of the property, strongly suggesting that Mrs. Randy Eck should recuse
Laura Fisher and Bob Bissland