HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021.04.08 Public Comments - Public Hearing for PUD-20-01 Preliminary Plan, SUB-20-04 Preliminary PlatID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Start time
3/22/2021 4:05:07 PM
3/25/2021 2:46:25 PM
4/6/2021 3:45:37 PM
4/6/2021 3:55:34 PM
4/6/2021 3:56:44 PM
4/6/2021 3:57:36 PM
4/8/2021 9:10:16 AM
4/8/2021 9:12:48 AM
4/8/2021 9:14:55 AM
4/8/2021 2:27:58 PM
Completion time
3/22/2021 4:26:43 PM
3/25/2021 3:18:04 PM
4/6/2021 3:55:31 PM
4/6/2021 3:56:42 PM
4/6/2021 3:57:35 PM
4/6/2021 3:58:51 PM
4/8/2021 9:12:43 AM
4/8/2021 9:14:52 AM
4/8/2021 9:15:50 AM
4/8/2021 2:35:13 PM
Email
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
Name
Enter First and Last Name
Michael G Follett & Thera Follett
Margaret and George Durller
Matthew Parks
Matthew Parks
Matthew Parks
Matthew Parks
Larry Shake
Larry Shake
Larry Shake
Bryant Forrester
Enter Complete Address
307/307 W. Forest St, McCall, ID
8991 W Duck Lake Drive, Garden City ID 83714
802 W. Bannock Street, Suite LP 110, Boise, Idaho 83702
802 W. Bannock Street, Suite LP 110, Boise, Idaho, 83702
802 W. Bannock Street, Suite LP 110, Boise, Idaho 83702
802 W. Bannock Street, Suite LP 110, Boise, Idaho 83702
1612 S Samson Trail McCall Idaho
1612 South Samson Trail McCall Id
1612 South Samson Trail McCall Id
325 Forest St McCall, ID 83638
Please include your position on the public hearing item
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
For
Enter Public Comment
1. The single entrance and exit from the subdivision will be from W. Forest Street. Forest St. was not designed for high density housing and is already in very poor condition. The
Running Horse PUD is expected to double the current traffic on Forest. Who will pay for the road improvement after heavy construction vehicles and tractors have degraded the road?
2. Forest street is designated as a bike and walking path. Despite having not sidewalks nor marked paths for bikes or pedestrians it is busy with traffic from both pedestrians and
bikers. Using Lake street is not a viable option for pedestrians or bikers because it is a very high car/truck traffic road with no sidewalks nor a safe shoulder for walking. We are
very concerned about safety for the families, kids, pedestrians, and bikers using Forest with increased traffic.
3. Forest street already experiences traffic issues with speeding from people trying to bypass traffic from downtown McCall. (Mather to Forest to Mission) This is also a very concerning
safety issue for pedestrians and bikers.
4. Running Horse PUD currently has no restrictions for short term rentals. Short term vacation rentals see an increase in number of cars and traffic.
5. Crossing Lake Street just east of bridge beside Ruby's Kitchen is already difficult at best. It isn't safe and it backs up traffic in both directions. Having Running Horse PUD
will vastly increase the use of Rotary park.. The parking lot for Rotary park is limited and summertime brings a huge increase in people parking along Mather and Forest St. Neighbors
have complained about not being able to park in front of their own homes. An increase in Rotary Park usage due to the close proximity of Running Horse PUD will cause more parking and
traffic issues. Again, neither Mather St. nor Forest was designed for high density homes and or traffic.
Please carefully weigh the safety and cost issues and deny the Running Horse PUD plan.
Michael and Thera Follett
307/309 W. Forest St.
McCall, ID
3820 Country Club Drive
Lewiston, ID
3/25/2021
We, Margaret and George Durller, are the owners of the property located at 354 Mather Street, and are the principals of Durller Family Trust in which the deed to this property resides.
We have owned this home for 21 years.
We are against the development of the Running Horse PUD as presently written
• We believe that the historical nature of this land parcel was wetlands, and that has been changed during the
ownership of Gabriella Hess.
• Off street parking is underrepresented for this many housing units.
• Mather and Forest street are in poor repair, and are crowned meaning water runs to the sides into poorly maintained culverts or ditches.
• Forest is not wide enough for parking plus walkers or bicyclists.
• Plans regarding snow storage for the PUD are inadequate because there is nowhere to put it.
• Safety of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the street after utilizing the bicycle path is not addressed,
TRAFFIC SIGNALS ARE NEEDED and without them there will be city liability because the city now knows this
problem exists.
First of all, it needs to be determined if an application has ever been filed with Idaho Fish and Game about draining the ever present water from the site.
During the first years we owned our house in McCall there was Skunk Cabbage growing on the now “Running Horse Parcel”. Skunk Cabbage grows in wet mucky soil, along streams or springs,
in woods, thickets, and bogs.
We were aware of all the patches near our house because our lab liked to roll in Skunk Cabbage, and also dead fish down on the banks of the Payette River. We couldn’t always predict
the fish, but the plant areas we knew.
During the last several years, trees have been thinned, brush scraped off, hoses, pipes and a ditch along with rocks and gravel have been installed to this wetlands area. It seems to
have been done under the guise of checking for petroleum, but we think more was done than that. we believe drainage was done quietly over time to create a dryer parcel that was more
desirable as housing sites. Looking at the property now, you would never know what it looked like 15 years ago when it was owned by someone else.
A second concern is the usage of Forest and Mather Street for the comings and goings of the vehicles that will be associated with developing the parcel and the inadequate off street
parking. Forest Street at present is used by countless pedestrians and bicyclists and becomes very unsafe if anyone parks along the edge of the street. Essentially Forest becomes virtually
a one lane road. There is not enough room for off street PUD parking.
Finally, The proposed bicycle path along the edge of the Highway in front of Running Horse and Rotary Park brings all the walkers and riders out to a crosswalk that drivers often
do not stop for. Pedestrians and bicyclists have a right to cross roads safely and, therefore, planners and engineers have a professional responsibility to plan, design, and install
safe crossing facilities. It is the City of McCall’s responsibility to make certain that this is accomplished. Approving the new proposed bicycle and pedestrian path gives users the
feeling that it was approved and therefor safe. This is simply not so. A flashing light, additional signage, markings or all of these are needed. The City has the right to ask the PUD
to provide them.
The City of McCall at present with the PUD plan as written bears all of the expense for infrastructure, and is getting nothing in return. The neighborhood will bear the brunt of this
project. In our opinion this project will not improve the neighborhood, but will only overload an environmentally sensitive area already under siege.
Dear Council Members:
I am writing to object to the planned unit development application PUD-20-01 and subdivision application SUB-20-04 (the “Application”) for the proposed Running Horse Subdivision. The
Application should be denied because the requested development does not comply with McCall City Code. The City of McCall should hold the developer to the applicable code-based requirements
and assess the impact of the development on traffic, parking in the surrounding area, and safety of pedestrians and cyclists along Lake Street and Forest Street.
While the developer should be applauded for creativity, the Application simply does not meet the City of McCall code requirements for a subdivision – or a planned unit development.
The Application even attempts to borrow from standards governing a condominium project – but in the end fails to meet the code requirements and the Application must be denied. The main
problem with the proposed development is a lack of useable open space and amenities required for a planned use development.
The proposed Running Horse Subdivision will consist of 13 building lots. The building lots are approximately 2000 sq/ft each. The proposed building footprints are essentially equal to
the proposed lot size, resulting in no setbacks for the building lots and close to 100 percent lot coverage. This violates McCall City Code § 3.3.04 regarding setback requirements and
§ 3.3.06 regarding maximum lot coverage limits.
Before the Planning & Zoning Commission, the staff report erroneously applied an administrative determination to conclude that the maximum lot coverage requirements for the lots should
be applied not on a lot-by-lot basis – but on the development as a whole. See https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/141/media/109146.pdf (copy of March 3, 2008 Administrative Directive concerning
condominium subdivision lot coverage requirements). The same error was made with the review of the proposed setbacks for the development. Setbacks were not evaluated with respect to
the individual subdivided lots, but on the set back of the development from the neighboring property.
The staff report should not have relied upon the 2008 administrative determination. First, the McCall City Code does not grant the power to the planning staff to adopt zoning regulations
– so the administrative determination informally adopted by the planning department in 2008 is void. Administrative determinations are code interpretations that are meant to be issued
on a case-by-case basis when requested by a property owner. Administrative determinations are not zoning ordinances and are not binding. More problematic is that the administrative
determination relied upon by planning staff is not an interpretation of a zoning ordinance, but an amendment and expansion of the language in the ordinance. An administrative determination
cannot be used in place of a zoning ordinance amendment. The administrative determination in this instance creates an exception to the maximum lot coverage requirements out of whole
cloth – which can only be done with an amendment to the zoning code.
Second, even if the administrative determination was properly adopted – it applies to condominium subdivisions. The developer did not apply for a condominium project. Pursuant to McCall
City Code § 9.2.08, every condominium project requires a conditional use permit application. No conditional use permit application was made concerning the Running Horse Subdivision.
If it had, that conditional use permit application for a condominium subdivision would have to be denied. Pursuant to McCall City Code § 9.2.085, a condominium project must provide
guest parking spaces and enclosed storage for the use of owners with snowmobile trailers and boat trailers. McCall City Code § 9.2.085. While the developer proposed 2 car garages for
each residence and nine (9) shared parking spaces, there is no enclosed storage for snowmobile or boat trailers.
Regardless, the developer did not apply for a conditional use permit for condominium and cannot rely on an administrative determination that by its terms only applies to condominium
subdivisions.
The developer should also not be permitted to deviate from the requirements to provide 100 sq/ft of private landscaped space for each lot. McCall City Code § 3.10.08(G). As proposed,
the developer is simply taking away the lot owners’ private open space and converting it into common open space. But, realistically, the lot owners will treat the areas around their
homes as their own property – so the developer should not be able to count this adjacent space as common open space.
The developer must revise the lot sizes of the subdivided lots to provide for a maximum of 50% lot coverage and provide for the required setbacks and private open space. In order to
accomplish this, the building lots will need to be doubled in size. This resizing of the building lots will shrink the open space in the development – likely to the point where there
is essentially no useable open space other than the proposed public walkway. In any event, as proposed, the development does not meet the code-based requirements for a subdivision or
a planned unit development and must be denied.
The proposed development also fails to provide adequate amenities as required by Chapter 10 of the McCall City Code dealing with planned unit developments. Per the code, a planned unit
development must provide a minimum of 2 amenities. The Applicant claims the following amenities are being provided:
1. Paved pathway
2. Open space in excess of the 10% required by code
3. Decorative fence panels
4. One deed restricted housing unit
The paved pathway, decorative panels, and open space should not be considered 3 separate amenities, as they are really just one amenity – a public path taking up most of the useable
open space which will be lined with four (4) decorative fence panels. The deed restricted housing unit is not an amenity – though it is commendable and will benefit the owner of the
housing unit. More importantly for purposes of the Application, the deed restricted unit cannot be considered an amenity of the development – which leaves the development with only
one amenity (the pathway) – which is one short of the required 2 amenities. The pathway should not even count as an amenity, since it is being used to replace the requirement for a
public park pursuant to McCall City Code § 9.3.102.
The lack of useable open space and boat and snowmobile storage are detrimental to the development and the adjacent property owners. As proposed, the single-family residence lots do not
even encompass the entire driveway of the lots – which will result in parking issues for owners and guests that will inevitably spill out onto the neighboring streets and leave Forest
Street and any available nearby public parking as an overflow parking area for the development. Considering the impact that snow has on parking availability in the winter, as snow storage
takes over parking spaces, the parking deficiencies will only be worse in the winter.
The developer’s proposed snow storage areas are not clear of trees and landscaping, which renders the storage space partially unusable for that purpose. Additional storage areas must
be identified – which will also significantly reduce the useable opens space.
The inadequate open space, parking, and storage will detrimentally impact the surrounding area, as residents of the development will cause traffic congestion and will necessarily need
to leave the subdivision to find useable recreational open space. Considering that Rotary Park is directly across Lake Street, there will be significant increased pedestrian traffic
trying to cross the street by the residents of the Running Horse Subdivision. In order to lessen the impact of the development and to provide additional safety to pedestrians, the developer,
as a condition of approval of any development should be required to pay the costs for the installation of a pedestrian crossing over Lake Street. This would qualify as an amenity for
the planned unit development.
Another important aspect of the development that has not been adequately address is the environmental impact of the development. In light of the location of the proposed development
and the proximity to Payette Lake and the North Fork Payette River, an environmental study should be required to assess soil stability and static water level on the property prior to
any development. The environmental assessment should also assess whether or not any prior landowners added fill materials to the property that have impacted wetlands or diverted subsurface
water flows. Based on personal observations of residents, the former owner of the property to be developed changed the watercourse of the property and without any permits changed the
grading and drainage patterns on the property. These drainage and grading changes impacted the adjacent property owners in the past – and the impact will only be amplified by the proposed
development. Any past unpermitted fill or draining of wetlands must be investigated and remediated.
In a similar vein, the lack of useable open space will impact the storm water retention on the property. Coupled with the likely high groundwater level, the development will suffer from
drainage issues that will in turn impact the landscaping and likely lead to tree loss. The grading, drainage, and stormwater retention challenges were identified by the planning and
zoning commission. The developer should be required to comply with all recommendations from the City Engineer with respect to drainage, snow storage, stormwater management, and grading.
The City’s record for the public hearing should include all such written comments by the City Engineer (and all City and governmental entities that commented on the Application) and
all recommendations should be included as conditions of approval. In light of the location of the property to Lake Street, the Idaho Transportation Department should also be given an
opportunity to comment on the proposed development and the grading, drainage, snow storage, and stormwater management plans – as these will all have an impact on Lake Street.
The proposed development must meet code requirements and should account for necessary open space, realistically deal with anticipated parking needs, and include additional public improvements
aimed at reducing traffic congestion and providing safe pedestrian crossings for the development’s residents (and the public generally) over Lake Street. At this time, the Application
must be denied and the proposal revised to account for the lot coverage issues and to include the required amenities – such as the pedestrian crossing, additional parking, and covered
storage for boats, snowmobiles, and trailers. I request the City deny the Application as proposed and require the developer to revise and resubmit the Application with directions on
how to alleviate the concerns. I request the following instructions be provided to the developer:
1. Increase the lot sizes of the residential lots to comply with McCall City Code § 3-3.06.
2. Comply with requirement that each lot have a 100 sq/ft private yard
3. Comply with individual lot setback requirements
4. Require an environmental assessment on the impact on wetlands, assessment of any prior wetlands fill, and assessment of the impact of the development on the subsurface water flow.
5. Provide the revised application to ITD for review and approval with respect to any impact on Lake Street
6. Require additional storage areas if the parking requirements are being met through the unit garages – or that the unit garages are sufficiently oversized to accommodate both parking
and storage
7. Provide at least one additional amenity to comply with the planned unit development requirements. Strongly suggest the amenity deal with the pedestrian and bike traffic crossing Lake
Street.
8. All conditions of approval identified by the Planning and Zoning Commission should be continued conditions of any approved development on the property
9. All written communications between the developer and all City personnel concerning the Application should be included in the record
10. All interdepartmental communications concerning recommended conditions and review of the Application among City staff should be included in the record.
Dear City Council, April 7, 2021
City Manager,
McCall City Planners
Robert (Bob) Giles, Colby Nielsen, Melanie Holmes, Thomas Sowers, Mike Maciaszek , Anette Spickard, Morgan Bessaw, Michelle Groenevelt, Delta James, Rachel Santiago-Govier,
RE: Running Horse Debacle
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Running Horse Project. In general, I oppose any consideration of this approval of the project as currently proposed. I am not opposed
to development, but this plan is poorly presented and seems to be “an attempt expose” how much the City of McCall will give away or change zoning ordinances for out of town developers.
First, the proposed location of this property is well known to be extremely wet most of the year. Nowhere in the application is there proper documentation of wet land/ water level analysis,
soils study and compaction calculations to prove the ability to actually construct any structure on this property. There needs to be such a study. The expert that will evaluate this
condition will need to assume complete tree removal from 90% of the property. This removal of the trees will increase the amount of ground water that will have to be considered.
In all likely hood the water issue can be solved, but may require extensive drainage, including footing drains, subsurface drains around roadways, driveways, and parking areas, along
with the grassy swales mentioned in the analysis. If it is determined that the water issue is solved, the soils makeup will still need solved. Areas of driveways, roadways, cul-de-sac
and structure sites may need several feet of material excavated and engineered material imported for proper support for construction of buildings, roads and pathway.
Now considering the fact that this earthwork will need to be done, the idea of saving any of the existing vegetation is gone. The construction of the 15 foot wide pathway, the grading
of the roadway, driveways, building pads, foundations, backfill on foundations, waste water, water lines, irrigation system downspout drains, grading of grassy swales, and complete
landscape will disturb as much as 90% of the entire surface area.
In Addition, approval of this application would compromise the long term plans for Lake Street. It is my opinion that it is real short sighted for the City. The study completed for
the task of exchanging Lake Street for Boydstun, identifies some of the issues to be solved on Lake Street, but the city planning is inadequate not to have a detailed plan? What will
be required in the future, will the deep ditch on the south side of Lake Street remain?.. will shoulders be required on the south-side, will there be curbs ?... storm water filter
structures, sidewalks? How does the long term Lake Street alignment fit this plan?
Has the City determined that it will never be required to shift the alignment of Lake Street in areas where the properties won’t allow, lane width, sidewalks, curbs, necessary drainage
structures on both sides of the road?
If anyone cares, Lake Street is/has the most viewed environment of any- where in our town. It will need to be fixed.
Our City has to “come to terms” with the fact and deal Lake Street !! Stop this project and make a plan.. before its too late !
The path way plan will not work. If you can get an honest opinion from any policeman, road, park and even planning staff, I think you would hear, “there is no way to stop or markedly
reduce the bike and pedestrian traffic on Lake Street between Warren Wagon Road and Albertsons… no way” ! Remove the pathway from consideration, nix it as an amenity. Get dollars
that the city can spend for things you need !
Next: The “CODE” states each(single family) dwelling will only cover 50% of the lot size… there is no code language on how to “rig” this requirement any other way… 50% lot coverage…
50% open space… each home.. can‘t get around
… 50% lot coverage… 50% open space… each home.. can‘t get around that without applying for a Condominium Permit…, alas, condominium permits require inside parking for boats and
snowmobiles.. so that won’t work ! I ask you again… how may variants/alleviations are the Developers pressuring you to make for a project that is has too many houses for 2.3 acres.
.
The PUD application asked for SEVEN Alleviations ! These “favors” gut the major PUD requirements,… this project doesn’t qualify for a PUD !
“Code Alleviations: A. Lot coverage (for the individual Lots) (MCC 3.3.06); B. Setbacks within the individual Lots (MCC 3.3.03, 3.3.04 and 3.3.05); C. Minimum lot size (MCC 3.3.03);D.
Minimum Street Frontage (MCC 3.3.03); E. Prohibition on common parking or maneuvering area within 20 feet of the boundary of the PUD (MCC 3.10.08(C));F. Requirement that each dwelling
unit in a PUD be provided with at least 100 square feet of private open space (MCC 3.10.08(G)); and,G. Such other alleviations as are depicted on the Plats and Plans submitted herewith.ƒ
Ex: Garage Frontage) “
A PUD requires 10,000 sq ft per dwelling unit.. in this instance 130,000 sq. ft. for this project to be in compliance. PUD requirements : “R4 – Low Density Residential, which requires
10,000 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit.” “Code section 3.10.08.G, each dwelling unit should be provided with a minimum of one hundred (100) sq. ft. of private, landscaped, open space.”
The needed square ft. per dwelling for this project to qualify under a PUD, is four times what P&Z has approved.
Just stop making “new rules” for the Developers and tell them to reduce the number of homes to meet the regulations. Slow this approval down, get the facts, solve the problems, (LAKE
STREET) and then make the approval, if it makes sense.
In an email, dated Jan 4th, 2021 from John Powell to Morgan Bessaw and Kurt Wolf indicate a concern of how many trees could be left after construction of roads, building pads, grading
plan, erosion and water swales, septic and water lines, pathways etc: the discussion is a indication that most of the existing trees will be lost.
“I’d recommend being very specific about any/all requirements, and especially what happens with the trees when they get cut down during construction.”
“Also curious about the type of bike path and if it can be built in and around the trees along Lake St.”
“They say this: “(the developer) “Over 15% Open Space: The location of Running Horse Subdivision is particularly beautiful. Large trees and foliage are a significant part of the appeal
to this location. The design of the subdivision uses smaller lots and residences to ensure at least 50% open space and preserve as many trees and natural landscape as possible. “
• JP: “But, I have a feeling that this project will end up just like most other developments where it is basically a clear cut.” “ This is major scenic route stuff, and iconic, nice
forest. I’d love to see it partially remain.”
Let’s talk Snow Storage/plowing.. The Snow Storage Plan/Areas shown on drawings indicate limited knowledge of the issue. The areas between driveways are only 10 feet wide and will
become overwhelmed in the first snows, beside being compromised with landscaping, trees and bushes. The additional storage on road edges and cul-de-sac also contain landscaping and
trees.
Storm water treatment structure. The City of McCall to their credit has installed water treatment structures at other locations in the city, and should require the water flowing off
this project also be treated in the same manner.
What Happened to Development Agreements ?... did changes of our City Manager, our Planning Staff or our City Council…. Cancel the idea that development needs to help pay for impacts
(needs) the City has (citizens)to pay for to meet the needs of the growth these new residents will generate ! D E V E L O P M E N T A G R E E M E N T …really? t
In Closing, Councilmen and women, you are our leaders ! this project should be put on hold until such time it can be implemented with the needed modifications and considerations … If
not it should be denied until such time it meets all the required city codes..
Sincerely Larry Shake
This proposed project is adjacent to two sides of my residence. I have been watching and listenting to potential developers since the seller began marketing the property. My family and
I feel this application is well designed and has the least impact of any possible development. We are excited to have them as neighbors. Much better than fenced off homes trying to
exit onto the State Hwy. We agree Rotary Park is an incredible asset to the City. I don't see how a few homes, mostly occupied seasonally, will destroy or overcrowd anything nearby.
The Park already attracts hundreds on its own. The Running Horse team has indicated they will not allow short term rentals which is a key concession and we are gracious fo their understanding