Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

for me at this point in time. The applicant is here tonight, do you have any questions for him as well? Okay, good, thank you.

Does the applicant have anything they want to add? Just come forward and state your name, thank you.

My name is Roger Duke. I just wanted to say thank you to the city, to Michael Malloy in particular, for working with me, working through this project. It's been about a two-year-long project working to get it done. So just hope that you guys will approve it and we can move forward. So thank you. I don't have any questions.

Okay, so we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Okay. And seeing none, do we have a motion to close?

So moved. Second.

Either one, you call it. All right, we'll do Adam and Brody. Let's do a roll call. Brody? Yes. Forrest? Yes. Preston?

Or do we just do all of them? Oh, sorry. That wasn't a motion. Excuse me. Go ahead. Keep going. You can do a roll call. Okay.

Brody? Yes. Forrest? Yes. Preston? Yes. Adam? Yes. Daryl? Yes. And Andy? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Then a discussion or a motion.

This one's very straightforward. Everything makes sense to me from what we've done before.

Can we go to the recommendation slide? The next slide, thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve item 4.1 with staff's two recommendations. I'll second.

Okay, motion by Brody, second by, a motion by Adam, a second by Brody. Brody? Yes. Forrest? Yes. Preston? Yes. Adam? Yes. Daryl? Yes. And Andy? Yes. Okay, thank you. All right, 4.2, review and consider approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 1.5 million gallon water tank for the city of Harriman.

Now, as we mentioned in the work meeting, this is a large engineering exercise. And where we have a few engineers on the commission, you guys are not afraid of that. But I am more than willing to let our staff engineer, Josh Peterson, who's here tonight, answer any of your particular questions about this proposal. And then of course, the applicant, Travis Taylor, who was visited with us in the work meeting, he's here to answer your questions on behalf of the applicant. I'll just quickly just give a quick overview. This is the location of this proposed water tank. Again, this is something that the city has anticipated for a number of years relative to the development of the Cove at Harriman Springs. This is an early planned unit development project that the city has approved. It contains, has vested development rights for additional units to the south edge of this neighborhood, moving up further into the south hills. And the water tank, of course, is essential for the water infrastructure that's needed. That's been the reason why this has not been developed over the last 10 years or so. I just included a few slides from the deck of images that were attached to your staff report. You can see this conceptual outline of the forthcoming subdivision. We will be presenting to you in our meeting in two weeks the PUD amendment that we have also previously reviewed in previous work meetings. It's been a little while. We've been waiting for this water tank to be fully designed, but that PUD amendment will be coming back to you as well. Couple of images. We do have a plan for access, of course, for maintenance. Once this is constructed, this will be dedicated to the city. It is currently on private property, It is near property that is owned by the city and as you heard during the work meeting, this property will be dedicated to the city as open space along with this public infrastructure for the water. We included these conditions in the staff report. We did want to draw attention to the fact that this is in an FR1 zone. And as the building permit comes through for approval, there are certain inventories that need to be done and also reclamation requirements for the FR1 zone. It's pretty typical for doing development within the foothills. We just want to make sure that when we're all done that we minimize its impact on the site. We wanna draw a limit of disturbance as exactly how much of the property will be disturbed, try to contain that construction, and ensure that we are complying with our development restrictions in that area, in that more sensitive area. So those are the recommendations. Any questions for me at this point in time? Again, if they're more technical, engineering-wise, you'll wanna probably ask our applicant or our engineer. I'll just throw this back up just for reference. Thanks.

Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add?

Travis Taylor, I'm just happy to answer any questions you might have.

Hey Travis, how many lots does it serve-ish?

The total was 645. I think there's about 220 left, and the tank is big enough to serve all those, but we're not going to make it.

Due to the grades and stuff?

Well, what you'll see in a couple of weeks is an adjustment in the lot widths. Where it's on the hillside and I've got to do those S-turn driveways, I wasn't able to... use up all the lots. So this take is adequate for the build out of the original plan and certainly with the reduced number of lots.

Thank you. I remember when we approved this years ago and it makes sense, the idea.

Okay, discussion or motion?

Can we go to the recommendations? I can't remember if there's two or three of them. I move to make her approval of item 4.2 with staff's three recommendations. I'll second that.

A motion by Adam, a second by Andy. Andy? Yes. Darrell? Yes. Adam? Yes. Preston?

Yes. Forrest? Yes.

And Brody?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 5.1, review and consider a request to recommend an amendment to the Harriman City zoning map.

Okay, I would like to begin by just letting you all know that the applicant, Quinn, is here for questions, if you'll have them. Okay, so on your screen is just a general location within the city boundary to help identify the site within our community. So the current zoning is A143 along with most of the surrounding area. However, there are adjacent parcels on A121 as well as A110 within 325 feet of the subject property. Okay, and then just to kinda highlight some of the existing conditions on the site, the subject property does have a legal non-conforming commercial business license. That's for a trucking company, the operations of which actually started before this property was annexed into the city. As residential development has continued throughout this area, we have had community members raise questions of concern about that compatibility with that use. And this is just a quick clip of our general plan just to highlight that this entire area is actually within the neighborhood residential one. And so that does support the request for an A110 rezone. So staff found the proposed rezone was compatible with the future land use map in the general plan as well as our zoning code. Our engineering department also had no concerns, however they do want to just bring up the fact that the subdivision development will be restricted pending the provision of additional culinary water supply. They do anticipate that infrastructure to be in place by about the middle of next year. Okay, and staff does recommend that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council to amend the Harriman City Official Zoning Map for this plus or minus five acres located at 7232 West Gina Road from the existing A143 single family agricultural zoning to an A110 single family agricultural zone as proposed by the applicant. Are there any questions that you will have for me at this time?

I don't have any.

Does the applicant have anything they want to add?

Hello. I don't have anything to add, but I'm glad to answer.

Can you state your name? Sorry.

My name's Quinn Millett. Thank you. I'm not the owner, but I am representing the seller for the entitlement, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Do you know, is this part of the road paved on Sheena?

Is that portion of the road paved?

Yes. Half of it. Only half of it? Well, I mean, I know some of it's paved.

So this?

Well, I know a portion is. I don't know if the portion that is fronting your property is. I could be wrong. It's not right there. Half of it's paved?

So it is half paved. It is within the improvement project for Gina Road. So there is an active project, a capital project here with the city that does actually go along the front of that property that will bring it up to city standards.

You know if that's going to happen before these go in?

So the timing's gonna actually be quite close. They will actually be able to coordinate utility connections. Part of the reason that the applicant did wanna bring forward this rezoning opportunity was to ensure that they had the opportunity to make sure that those connections were sleeved and available so that it does not affect that moratorium that we see when we have new infrastructure put in. So.

Okay, thank you. Yep, that's right. Yep, thank you.

Okay. Do you have any questions for the applicant or a discussion?

So I have a question for the applicant. So is the non-conforming business going to remain there if two homes are built on the two additional lots?

There'd be more than two lots. There's five acres here. Oh, sorry.

Yeah. So there's, right? It's gonna look like the light purplish stuff, right? I assume you're gonna come in with a cul-de-sac. It's a cyan. It's an A110. It'll look like this. Are you coming in with a cul-de-sac? Is that your plan?

Yeah, yeah. We anticipate 13 to 14 units.

So it is not staying. No, no, I think with a reason it wouldn't be legal So as soon as did you catch that as soon as this is rezoned that use would be gone But the rezone will be make it non it will no longer be a non-conforming it will not be allowed with this reason I

Assuming we.

Assuming it's approved. As soon as this rezone is approved, that is no longer.

That's not true though, right? That's the size of the parcel. Trucking. That's scary. Trucking. Trucking company.

So it would, like it is right now, it's a legal non-conforming land use. Right. The rezone would actually still be a legal non-conforming land use. However. Right.

Could we add that as a condition?

As there is a subdivision proposal, we'll have to research what is the timing for when that legal non-conforming land use would expire in the sunset. Right. We'll have to work with the property owner on that transition.

We can put a condition on it.

We're obviously changing the conditions. The acreage that it was operating under is... no longer there, right, as they start selling off and subdividing the property. So we'll have to work on a transition.

And again, this is a recommendation of city council, so we can make whatever we want as part of our recommendation.

I just want to be clear that we didn't leave that not said or within a condition because...

I'm wondering if we should move forward with the hearing first, and then we can have more discussion on this.

And then, yeah, anyhow.

Madam Chair, so I want you to make that call.

Okay. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing at this time.

My name's Jared Kelch. I live just west on that first green parcel there. So I mentioned the water infrastructure. Did you say you wouldn't be building that out until the water was upgraded? Or would it affect my water? Whoever.

I don't know that we can.

Yeah, so just go ahead and make your comments and then.

What's that? This is where you state your concerns about the development.

It's not a Q&A, unfortunately. You're here to make a comment. Right, about the water.

So my concern would be. So go ahead and make the comment about your concern and then we'll try and answer it after the hearing.

Oh, okay, sorry.

Yeah. So, yeah, the concern would be about the water infrastructure, would it affect me? And that's it, other than I wish that they were still my neighbors, because I like having the trucking company there, so. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, well, motion to close the public hearing?

So moved. Second.

Adam and Forrest, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

So we could probably have the applicant come up and answer that question about the water.

Quinn, if you wanted to come back up.

Well, the engineers could probably answer this better than me, but my understanding is there's not enough water storage capacity currently in Zone 3, and that by mid-next year there will be. So a subdivision could be approved, but could not move forward until the water were in place.

So our engineering team relevant. Josh, I don't know if you would prefer to speak to it up to you. Yeah.

Yeah, what Quinn said is essentially correct. We've got the two tanks under construction in Olympia. Those are going to give us way more storage out there for this zone. So this development couldn't move forward until that's complete. There's plenty of water. It's just a matter of having a good safety factor of storage that we're kind of getting to that limit where we don't want to allow any more connections. It is a 12 inch line that runs along Gina Road, so as far as capacity for that area, we've got plenty of water over there. And they would have to do a hydraulic report before any new units would be approved over there as well, so.

Great.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay, discussion or motion?

I have a question for the applicant. So if an added condition was put on there to sunset the legal non-conforming use of the trucking company, is there a timeline that you'd anticipate that company stopping its use there?

I would have to talk to the land owner, but my understanding is he's ready to. Barely immediate. Yeah, he's ready to move forward. He approached, he's the one who initiated this process.

I have a question. Why did you go to 110 versus 121?

As far as the units go? Yep. More units make it worthwhile for the seller. I mean, he has the option of keeping it in place and leasing it with its current use. And in order to make an offer that is that or more, we went to the A110. All right. Thank you.

Was there a recommendations tab on this one? Thank you. There we go. Okay.

On the 110s around there, I did have a question. Are there zoning conditions on the 110s around there? On the total number of units?

Your question was if there were any zoning conditions?

You go back to the overall map, there's a bunch of little 110s around there, like Is there? It's a south, southeast.

To the north, it's just off this slide, and I don't recall seeing zoning conditions on those. Okay. I was just curious.

I just worry it's going to keep being 110 everywhere. That's the only reason I'm bringing that up.

In this area. Yeah.

Well, yeah, especially if you look at those other lots that are adjacent to it to the right. They're all ready to, you know, if everything comes A110 there.

I'm just more making sure we're ready for that.

Right, right.

So it was mentioned that the legal non-conforming current use, there's been some issues with some neighbors. I mean, we had one neighbor comment saying he actually likes it, but obviously that was in the original presentation. What are some of those issues that have been brought up?

So I've been with the city for eight years, and prior to my time, there were, with the previous property owner, there were conflicts that ended up in district court over what exactly which rights did they have under this legal non-conforming land use. So we had concerns with the material that was being stored, the type of activity that was happening on the property, dust, weeds, just maintenance. There were just a variety of issues. Noise, trucks starting too early in the morning, tracking dirt out on the roads. So there have been a lot of issues. The current property owner has worked a lot with the city to try to mitigate and bring the property more into compliance. In fact, for a lot of years, the city was not willing to renew the business license, but they still maintain their grandfathered claim. We finally got them to a point, working with our attorney's office and our code enforcement team, where we issued that license. They cleaned up a lot on the property. We very clearly established what their limits were. And I'm not sure, I don't think we've had more recent issues with the property. So, I mean, we had talked with the property owner about in the future, might this be an opportunity to redevelop the property? And of course they said yes, but they didn't give us a timeline. So when this came in, probably a little sooner than I was actually expecting. But in general, my impression from working with the community is I think they would be glad to see this non-conforming use go away, yeah.

And I get that, I just worry it's gonna.

It's setting a precedence of the area.

That's more my thought. The precedence has been set already. I agree.

And it does look like it's all gonna be 110 eventually. My main input then is just that we include a condition that it sunsets that non-conforming legal use. I don't think we need to.

I understand that they're not planning on it, but that it will... Well, you could probably do... They could remove their application and poof, it's still there. So I'm saying what you're... Yeah, if they move forward with the development, then it will kill it.

And if they don't move forward with the development, they'll just withdraw their application.

Correct, yeah. I hear what you're trying to say, but I just don't think it's going to... Maybe it makes a difference.

Uh-huh.

We can put it in there if you want. I hear what you're saying.

Seeing no other discussion, I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve, or recommend approval of item 5.1.

I'll second it. A motion by Andy, a second by Daryl. Andy? Yes. Daryl? Yes. Adam? Yes. Preston?

Yes.

Forrest?

Yes.

And Brody?

Yes.

Okay. All right, chair and commission comments?

I have one.

I really think we should think about where we really want A143, because we're pretty much gonna get rid of it all. So I would like the staff to really zero in on where it makes sense to keep it. You know, like we have a really cool, expensive rodeo grounds that the city paid a heck of a lot of money for. We should decide where we want it and preserve it specifically. And other areas, I think, and I'm not, I'm just worried we're just going to react to get rid of that use, get rid of this use. But I do think we need to come up with where do we want to truly keep that use. Otherwise, we should just get rid of it. If at all, right?

If at all. And I think that kind of a comment is exactly what we want to do when we get this existing land use inventory. Looking forward to what are some of those general plan and zoning changes that we you know, as the commission can identify.

Because I do want to keep it, but I want to keep it where we want to keep it and not just react to this blight or that blight kind of issue. That's all I have.

Okay, future meetings. The next City Council meeting will be May 27th, and the next Planning Commission meeting will be June 3rd. Motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second. Andy and Adam, all in favor? Aye.