Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay

All right, we're going to go ahead and get started. And Corrine Nelson has offered to lead us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. All right, we have a full quorum. Are there any conflicts of interest?

All right, seeing none, approval of the minutes for the May 20th Planning Commission meeting. I'll make a motion to approve item 3.4.

I'll second.

Motion by Heather, second by Andy. All in favor?

Aye.

All right, item 4.1, review and consider a conditional use permit amendment to add one additional commercial building in the Copperview Plaza.

All right, perfect. Like you said, we'll be talking about the lot eight structure. A couple weeks ago, this was in front of you. This is up in the northeast corner of our city. A couple weeks ago, this was brought to you to amend the plot to add lot eight. As was discussed then, this is intended for a swim school to have their own building. They're interested in that because of the chemicals and smells and everything. It'll be easier to contain and mitigate within its own building versus if it's sharing walls and vents with other people. So this is the proposed landscape plan. You can see the site in general here, that parking lot remaining between the station bar and this new location. You can see a lot of the landscaping will remain the same. This area is currently majority rock with live plantings as well. And then we are exceeding that 50% requirement for live growth coverage, which we do really appreciate. This is nice that we are getting rid of some of the parking and adding in some more landscaping in the area. We will be asking the applicant for a landscaping table that dictates the materials on the ground, the type of plants, and the number of plants. These are the proposed elevations. As you can see, they're pretty similar to what else you would find in the Copperview Plaza. The maximum height shown on these drawings, including the parapets, is roughly two and a half feet. All of the materials mentioned are permitted to use within that MDA. Additionally, we will be asking the applicant for the final percentages. that was hard to say for some reason, the percentages, removing the glazing and doors to make sure that they are meeting the 70-30 percentage that is mentioned within that MDA. staff findings. The design looks great. The materials are great. We just need to make sure that 70-30 ratio is being met. The use itself is permitted within C2. And it's conditional use because it's over an acre. The parking for the area, that ratio was approved when the plot was amended as well as the MDA. There was a parking study done with that initial MDA. As this is still sort of that general retail recreation kind of area, it will require the same number of parking. So we are doing well there, and we're happy to see that there is a good amount of landscaping. Finally, there are seven conditions of approval. Please let me know if you have any questions about them.

Thank you. The applicant's not here, right? Okay. Do you have any questions for staff or a motion?

No, this makes sense. It's what we expected. I'm ready to make a motion.

Okay.

I move to approve item 4.1 with staff seven requirements.

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

Yes.

Adam? Yes. Heather? Yes. And Preston?

Yes.

All right, that's approved. 4.2, review and consider a request to extend Planning Commission approval of the preliminary subdivision plot amendment known as Autumn Sky Townhomes.

Good evening, so item 4.2, subdivision extension request for the approval of Autumn Sky Townhomes, phase 2b, amended subdivision plot. So the subject property is indicated here on the vicinity map. So this is a residential subdivision located in the R2-10 zone. Please note the kind of navy dashed outline on the northern end of the property. This indicates and identifies building 26. And please also note that there are four units shown in this area. So the Platt Amendment previously approved reduces the units in building 26 from four units to three units, as shown. The original amended plat approval was actually given on June 6, 2024, with the following conditions of approval. That included receiving and agreeing to remaining corrections from city departments and to comply with all of the original conditions of preliminary subdivision approval, as well as to comply with all fire land requirements per the UFA. Okay, and then just to keep in mind, a consideration of approval does come from Section 10-5-15J and our adopted municipal code addressing that with written request and good cause, the Planning Commission may grant up to a one-year extension. Staff recommends approval with the following condition, that all the existing conditions of approval for the original application request are completed, that they receive and agree to the remaining corrections from all of our city departments, including removing the abandoning drive approach from Half Dome Way, to also comply with all the fire land requirements per the UFA. And if the subdivision plat is not recorded by June 6th of 2027, the preliminary approval will be deemed withdrawn and shall expire with no further force or effect. Let me know if you all have any questions. I believe they are online and we're hoping to watch. So they are available online.

Okay. Does anybody have any questions?

Nope, makes sense.

Is there anything the applicant wants to add? I don't think so. Okay, motion.

I'll make a motion to approve item 4.2 with staff's four recommendations.

I'll second it.

Okay, a motion by Andy, a second by Adam. Andy? Yes. Daryl?

Yes.

Adam?

Yes.

Heather? Yes. And Preston?

Yes.

All right, that passes. 4.3, review and consider approval of a conditional use permit amendment request for the cove at Harriman Springs.

Thank you, commissioners. Before we start here, the applicant is here too, so if we have questions, feel free to ask questions to him as well. So Cove of Harriman Springs, this is one of many amendments on the PUD. Location of the Cove, in case anyone doesn't know or for general public knowledge, is south end of town, kind of disconnected from most everything. This is the upper end of the Cove. And it's currently undeveloped on the far south end. So this PUD was approved in 2004. There were 423 total units approved at the time. Since 2004, they've built 201 units. And so the math leaves 222 left. We'll talk about that number again in a minute. The key requirements were the approval granted by the Planning Commission at that time, granted preliminary subdivision approval. All subdivisions since then have submitted an application. They don't come to the Planning Commission. They're approved by staff. unless the average grade of the site is over 20%. That was part of the original approval condition. So you'll see them if they're over 20%. It also approved a concept plan and a design booklet, which I attached in the packet. And as you can imagine, in 2004, some of the requirements were quite a bit different for some of the items. So we'll go through that. What's being proposed is shown here. This is the new site plan for the upper area of the cove, or the undeveloped area. The key requests are a modified cross section for the roadway, some different lot configurations for the lot lines, Some updated landscaping requirements, as I talked about in that design booklet, it required lush lawn and kind of extravagant landscaping. And we've kind of moved away from that with the drought and water-wise landscaping requirements. And then they're proposing some parking stalls near the open space to access the trails on the far south end of the project. I've also shown on this map the water tanks. They're kind of a key component. In the original PUD approval, there was a requirement to have the water available before any plats were approved. And so the existing water tank services the area that's built, but this new water tank on the far right is required before any of these lots can move forward. Side-by-side comparison of what's approved and what's being requested is shown here. You can see there's fewer lots. Like I said earlier, there's 222 remaining lots. They're proposing, I think, 185 here. So fewer lots, fewer cul-de-sacs, so it's a little bit better connected. You can see that all the roads basically tied in above the circle near the church. Let's see. You can kind of see the reference point here. This is where the two maps line up. So the old plan, all the roads would tie in above the church property. On the new plan, some of the roads tie in and come out below the church. So it kind of disperses the traffic a bit more. They all still get on Spring Canyon to leave the cove, but where they tie into Spring Canyon is a little bit different. There's a little bit more access to open space. There's some more open areas, which allows for the parking that's being proposed. And then the original plan required an equestrian trailhead at the far south end. Since 2004, the city has built the wide hollow trailhead, and we've learned from some other projects, Blackridge specifically, that putting major trailheads or recreational features at the end of a Residential development isn't always the best thing. It puts a lot of traffic and a lot of use right into the residential area. And so it's being proposed to remove that equestrian trailhead and it's been supported by staff to remove that requirement from here. A little bit more detail on the road cross section. So in 2006, there was an amendment to the PUD that approved the use of a 50-foot wide road cross section in the cove, for all of the cove. No roads have been built to 50 feet in the cove. The narrowest up there is 53, which is the city standard. The purpose for going to a narrower cross section would be to minimize grading. You can save a few feet on each road and then as I show the next plan on the next sheet, you'll be able to see you can save several feet in elevation and grading and so you minimize that impact on the landscape grading the road. So some of the major differences between what would be a typical 50 foot wide road cross section and what's being proposed here is the mountable curb, the park strips are taken away. That's because if the sidewalk was running with a high back curb and it was right along it, you'd have to kick the sidewalk back at every driveway to meet ADA requirements, otherwise it'd be too steep on the slopes to do the driveway cut in a high back. There's a little bit wider travel lanes in the narrower cross section, surprisingly. It goes to a 14 foot travel lane instead of a 12 and a half. And then the sidewalks are being proposed to be six feet instead of five, so a little bit wider sidewalk. In the proposed cross section, there's a two foot easement for Harriman City specifically. That'd be our street lights, our traffic signs, and our water meters. fire hydrants, things of that nature. And so we were asking for a three-foot easement on the back. And with that three-foot easement on each side with the 44-foot right-of-way, that would essentially be the same right-of-way width as a 50-foot right-of-way, but it'd be an easement behind the sidewalk. And then one concern the engineering group brought up was stormwater capacity with the low back curb and gutter. So where these roads would be utilized, if the Planning Commission chooses to move forward with that, there'd be a requirement to do a stormwater calculation to make sure the spread and capture in the storm drain system, it might require inlets closer spaced. Our standard's 300 feet, they might have to go to 200 feet for inlets to make sure the stormwater isn't spread across the road or jumping into the back, into the private yards. This map shows where the engineering department recommends using this cross section. There's a couple little segments of road where they didn't feel like it was necessary and that would be just to continue the existing cross section of Spring Canyon as you go up to the first intersection and just trying to keep the cross sections where it would benefit the site grading the most, utilizing them in the steepest areas of this plan. So with that, staff recommendation is to approve the PUD amendment with the following conditions that all the existing requirements remain in effect from the original PUD approval. Update the booklet specifically for the sections of landscaping so that the landscaping follows our water-wise requirements and code. And then approve the modified road cross section in the areas designated by on the map. And then to do that, do a deviation to the standard application which is reviewed by the public works director, community development director, myself, and the city engineer. All three review it and make sure that it is maintainable and that it works for all the engineering standards and that the public works group can maintain it going on into the future. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions and remember the applicants here to answer any questions as well.

Thank you. Do I have any questions for Blake?

No. I don't.

Okay, does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? Thank you. Okay, discussion or a motion?

I feel like we've seen this many times in the past and I'm okay, I'm ready to make a motion. I'll make a motion that item 4.3 gain approval together with staff's one, two, three, four, five recommendations and the project move forward.

I'll second that.

So we have a motion by Daryl, a second by Adam. Andy? Yes. Daryl? Yes. Adam?

Yes.

Heather? Yes. And Preston?

Yes.

All right, so that passes. Thank you. Do we have the public hearing statement? Sorry, I don't have it memorized.

It's right at the back.

Is it in there?

It's not in red, but it's the very last part of the packet. The last paragraph there.

I might have it in another. Okay. Public comment policy and procedure. The purpose of a public comment is to allow citizens to address items on the agenda. Citizens requesting to address the commission will be asked to complete a written comment form and present it to the city recorder. In general, the chair will allow an individual three minutes and a spokesperson recognized as representing a group may be allowed up to five minutes. This policy also applies to all public hearings. All right, 5.1, review and consider a request to recommend an amendment to the Harriman City zoning map from C1 to CF.

Item 5.1, review and consider a request to recommend an amendment to the Harriman City Zoning Map from C1 Neighborhood Commercial to CF Commercial Flex. So on your screen is just the general location of the subject property, almost directly north of us. So the current zoning of the subject property is C1 commercial. Surrounding parcels vary from R121 to R110 to C2 found in adjacent parcels to the east. So the property is approximately 2.6 acres and is considered an unusual shaped lot. It is also located within the environmental contamination overlay zone. So cleanup does impose limitations on the subject property site development feasibility. The use of the property may also impact the management practice required for site development. The developer will be required to complete an environmental site assessment, an ESA. The ESA will be used to develop a soil management plan. The soil management plan is a requirement for a land disturbance permit. The applicant has requested to rezone the property from C1 to CF in order to develop the site with smaller commercial flex and assembly spaces that align with market needs. I would also like to highlight that both the C1 and CF have a 35 foot height a limitation for the primary structure. So I did want to briefly discuss the intention of the C1 and the CF zones. The purpose of the C1 zone is to provide areas in the city for neighborhood commercial development. The CF zone, however, is intended to provide areas in the city with a variety of commercial uses, including warehousing, light manufacturing, entrepreneurship, reselling, and retail. The zone is intended to encourage commercial development in areas that may have limitations, such as topography, access, irregular shapes, and visibility from major corridors. This zone is intended to create areas in the city where home occupation businesses can transition into small commercial spaces. It's also intended to be an option for existing small businesses to expand in the city. It can also create marker spaces where businesses can collaborate with one another. So the city's future land use map does identify the subject property as a neighborhood commercial node, which does support the requested CF rezone. Planning and zoning have no significant concerns with the rezone that would not be addressed during the required conditional use approval process for the subject property. The proposed rezone is compatible with the future land use map and the general plan and zoning code. Engineering noted no concerns with facility or service deficiencies that would not be addressed during the typical conditional use approval process as well. Concerns with the soil contamination will also be addressed through the ESA and soil management plan that will be a required step in the process to even begin a land disturbance permit. Okay, so considering these findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Harriman City Official Zoning Map for approximately 2.6 acres of property located at 5222 West Harriman Boulevard from C1 Commercial to the CF Commercial Flex as proposed by the applicant. Are there any questions that I can answer? So I had a question on that soil management plan. What does that entail? The soil management plan? It depends on that ESA. So the ESA that is first required, that's conducted, and then Blake, correct me if you have some additional information from engineering. My understanding is that they will conduct the ESA a certified an engineer, I believe that has the specialty environmental engineer, will actually then tell us what the soil management plan needs to be based on that ESA. So because we don't fully know the level of contamination on the site specifically, other than that it was identified in that overlay, in order to address it as it was site specific, that ESA will then be conducted and then they'll make the soil management plan and they will collaborate with the city.

It's something we do on many areas right around here.

We basically say it's a three-step process. You assess it to figure out the level and extent of contamination. Then an engineer puts together a plan on how to clean it up. So some levels have to be hauled off. Others can be mixed in, tilled in. There's some cleanup processes to go through. And then... That plan also includes how to monitor while it's happening because there has to be like dust monitoring, water, cleaning the vehicles entering and leaving the site. And then there's another step in the process at the very end. It's a here's what we did plan. So they basically verify that the work plan was executed and that everything was done that was said was going to be done. So that's the three-step process in the soil contamination cleanup.

Okay. And is that monitored by the city and the EPA or?

We have a consultant we hire. It's Earth Touch is the consultant we use. They're under contract with us. So they have staff that comes out and monitors and reviews all the plans. It's a little bit outside of our wheelhouse. We don't have anyone certified in that to do that. So we contract with a consultant to do that. The applicant will have their own environmental consultant, and we have our own.

Blake, we've done this on many projects, correct?

Yep. So Olympia is doing it. Yeah, Auto Mall, Miller Crossing, part of Anthem. Yeah, Hidden Oaks, we've done it on a handful. Anything that goes along Butterfield Creek has done that.

And does that stay with the property that it's been remediated? Does that information stay with it?

Once this cleanup is done, that property is cleared. And so there's no restrictions on it after that.

OK. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other questions for Amanda?

No. Thanks, Amanda.

OK. Is the applicant here?

I believe they should be online as well.

Also online? Do they have anything they want to add?

We're not hearing you.

We can't hear you yet. Sorry. We see you, but we can't hear you. Do you want to try it? Should we have him try again? No.

No.

Oh, I think we got him.

I think something changed right there.

If you wouldn't mind stating your name.

Yes, it's Peter Redd.

Do you have anything you want to add?

Oh, no, just I wish I could be there in person tonight. And I really appreciate the time from the planning staff and the planning commission. And I just want to thank the staff for their thorough report on this. And I'm very excited about this project. I think it would be a great addition to the area. And I would love to be a partner with Harriman in this. So let me know if you have any questions or any concerns about the project. Thank you.

Thank you, and if you'll stand, we'll have a public hearing, and there might be some questions after for you.

Okay.

Thank you. Okay, let's go ahead and open the public hearing at this time. Okay, and then seeing none, is there a motion to close? I'll make a motion to close.

I'll second.

A motion by Heather, a second by Andy. All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Okay, and then if we have any questions for staff or the applicant for a motion.

I think my only concern was noise to the houses behind. And that was always kind of my concern with this zone is if it's going to impact any of the houses behind it with the noise. So one of the things was car detailing. I'm just curious about the noise that that would create to those back neighbors and if there's anything. I don't know if this is something we would address in this meeting or

I'm sure there's a noise ordinance or something would have to be required, but maybe Amanda could help us with that.

We do have blanket language and ordinances as far as noise goes and nuisance goes. And you're referring, I'm assuming, kind of to that south side with those adjacent properties. So they do currently have the existing six-foot precast wall that is in place there. And then there is, of course, a setback and a buffering and a landscaping requirement in addition to that to help mitigate the noise. same level of compatibility and quite similar to the C1 in the existing zoning. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.

And Amanda, could I add to that real quick? I think that wall might actually be an eight foot precast wall and there would be a 30 foot setback for the landscaping requirement between the buildings and the property line. And I'm also planning on dark sky compliant lighting. So, you know, the neighbors wouldn't be getting any, you know, lighting past the wall. And then I'm also anticipating just relatively normal business hours from the tenants in this project.

Thanks.

When we approved this originally, that was one of the challenges, is with all those anyway, it made the commercial very tight back then. That's why the retaining wall's in there, or the wall's in there already.

I'm ready to make a motion. OK. Did we have any?

RICK MACLENNAN. Recommendations.

RICK MACLENNAN. Recommendations. No. OK. I'll make a motion to.

Any other recommendations from staff about the motion?

OK. I'll make a motion to recommend to this approval to the city council for item 5.1.

I'll second that.

OK. So motion by Heather, second by Adam. Andy?

Yes.

Daryl?

Yes.

Adam?

Yes.

Heather? Yes. And Preston?

Yes.

OK. So that is approved. Thank you, Peter. All right, any chair and commission comments? All right, future meetings. The next city council meeting will be July 8th, and the next planning commission meeting will be July 15th. Motion to adjourn.

So moved. I'll second.

Adam, Andy, all in favor?

Aye. All done.