Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody. Welcome to the Boisee City Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. Few things to start out with uh for tonight's proceedings. Everyone from the public entering the hearing virtually has been automatically muted and cannot speak. This item you're interested in comes up for discussion. You'll be called upon and unmuted. There is a chat function in Zoom. However, this is not part of the record and should only be used if technical difficulties arise. Our procedures for public hearing begins with a presentation from the planning team. Then we'll go to the applicant and then the representative of the registered neighborhood association followed by questions from the commission. After that, we proceed to public testimony starting with those who are in person, then who signed up on the signup sheet in advance, and then anyone else who raises their hand virtually. If you're attending through your telephone, you can type in star 9 star9 to raise your hand. Each member of the public is allowed up to three minutes for testimony. We are strict at this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal after which the hearing will be closed and the commission will deliberate and render a decision. Mr. Chair, you have the floor.

Thank you, Crystal. Good evening, everybody. We are citizen volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. We make final decisions on conditional use permits, variances, and appeals and recommendations to city council and subdivisions, reszones, annexations, and code or comprehensive plan amendments. Any decision made tonight may be appealed to the city council provided that the appeal is filed within 10 days of this hearing. In order to file an appeal, you must have given written or oral testimony at tonight's meeting. So that's why it's important to give your name and address when you testify tonight. We utilize a consent agenda. This means that if the applicant agrees with the staff report and if there is no public opposition, the item will be placed on the consent agenda. All items that are placed on the consent agenda are approved with one motion without further public comment. For items not on the consent agenda, we will hold a full public hearing in the order just detailed few minutes ago with staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and then the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight with the clerk. Please call a role.

Danley here. Moore here. Schaefer here. Deha here. Torres here. Don here. Darlings here. Deons here. All present. Very good. Now that the public hearing is open here and official note has been taken. Just to say one quick thing. Go Rams. That is not up for debate. Is not up for discussion. Mr. Chair. Out of order. I know. That's all right. I'll take it. Go Seahawks.

All right. We're going to go ahead and create the uh consent agenda and we'll start we'll try here um I think for item number one and that is SUB25-65. This is Ziggy subdivision located at 1462 South uh Wedderman Avenue. I believe it's a preliminary plat for a residential subdivision comprised of two buildable lots on 32 acres in an MX2 zone. Is the applicant present? Okay. And do you agree with the conditions and terms in the uh staff report? Okay, great. Let the record reflect that the applicant is present and does agree with the terms and conditions in the staff report. Is there anybody here in the chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number one? This is SUB25-65. Sorry, I'm just getting my Anybody in chambers? I'm sorry. Nope. Anybody online that wishes to testify in opposition? Looks like there is none. Okay, with that, we'll go ahead, unless there's any objection, to go ahead and place item number one on the consent agenda. Okay, moving on to item number three. This is SUB25-23 uh Hip Row Town Home Subdivision located at 1229 South Lincoln Avenue. This is a preliminary plat for residential subdivision comprised of eight buildable lots and on two common lots uh on 28 acres and an MX1 zone. Is the applicant present? Okay. And do you agree the terms and conditions of the staff report? Great. Let the record reflect that the applicant is present and does agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report. Is anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify against item number three SCB25-23?

Okay, seeing none and without objection, I'll go ahead and place item number three on the consent agenda. Takes us to item number four. This is CUP25-20. This is ALC architecture located at 11101 West Overland Road. This is a modification to a conditional use permit to allow the minor vehicle repair and restaurant uses in an existing plan unit development on 1.53 acres in an MX1 uh/ FFF FPO uh zone. Is the applicant present? Okay. And do you agree with the terms and condition of the staff report? Great. Let the record reflect that the applicant is present and does agree with the terms and condition of the staff report. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number four, CUP25-20 located at 11101 West Overland Road. Okay. Nobody in chambers and nobody online. Without objection, I'll go ahead and place item number four on the consent agenda. Okay, this takes us to item number five. This is just to make sure. Okay. Uh CUP 2524 29 and C2-20 both are Thornton Byron LLP. Both located at 10990 West Fairview Avenue. We have a conditional use permit to expand a legal non-conforming use and a modification to a development agreement on 3.29 acres in an MX 3A or I'm sorry, MX3 with a development agreement zone. Is the applicant present? No.

Okay. Is the applicant online? Oh, is Tom Everson the applicant? Yes. Okay. And Mr. Everson, I'm going to have to have you just make sure to unmute yourself and make sure that you agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report.

Mr. Chair, I'm having a technical difficulty. I'm unable to let him unmute. Just one moment, please. Can we take a different emoji? I don't know what would be the emoji. Thumbs up. That's easy. Come on. Get more creative than that. How about a Seahawks logo? Clearly, that'd be a denial. I don't know what we're thinking. I think they got me unmuted. There we go. Okay. Hi, Mr. Everson. Do you agree the terms and conditions of the staff report, sir? Yes.

Excellent. Okay. All right. All right. Let the record reflect the applicant is online and does agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report. Is there anybody in chambers or online that wishes to testify in opposition to item number five? This is CU25-29 or C25-20. Nobody in chambers and nobody online. Okay. Without objection, I'll go ahead and place item number five on the consent agenda and that will do it. With that, I'd entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore, I move that we approve the consent agenda as constructed.

Wonderful. Commissioner Moore with the motion to approve the consent agenda as as created. Is there a second? Second. Cole Ro Shambo, what do you got? I think it was Commissioner Dome. Okay. Uh, unless there's any discussion, um, or I should ask, is there any discussion? Any opposition? All right. Will the clerk please call the role? Stanley. Hi Moore. Hi Schaefer. Hi Deha. Hi Torres. I Don. I Dawings. I De Stonic. I. All in favor? Motion carries.

Very good. Okay. Thank you everybody who was part of the consent agenda. Let's move on to our one item only item. Item number two. This is SUB25-85. This is Overland Storage Subdivision located at 12535 West Overland Road which is a preliminary plot for a commercial commercial subdivision. Mr. Moser. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. First, it just a correction. It's a Clover Cloverland Place subdivision. Uh the Overland I think was an old name. Oh, okay.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary platform for commercial subdivision comprised of four buildable lots on 6.15 acres located at 12535 West Overland Road in an MX2 FPOD DA zone. That's a mixeduse general within a flood plane protection overlay and there's a development agreement. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Cloverdale and Overland Road. The ride and ball canal extends along the east side of the property and the north and the northeast portion of the site is located within the flood plane of five mile creek. The existing neighborhood is a mixture of multifamily residential uses and commercial uses along Overland with single family residential to the north and south. Boss Route 42 is located within Overland Road adjacent to the site with a bus stop at located at the intersection of Cloverdale and Overland roads and the city of Meridian abuts the site on the west. This slide shows the site plan and the preliminary plat for for the preliminary plat for the project. In summary, the applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat for the Clover Cloverland Place subdivision, which is a four lot commercial subdivision comprised of commercial developments along Overland Road and residential use on the south parcel lot. As proposed, all lots will meet the dimensional standards of the MX2 zone and there is a record of SER or a recorded cross-axis agreement over the adjacent property to the west that provides access to lot one. The proposed preliminary plan is consistent with the conceptual plan of the DA and also the proposed self- storage facility on lot 2 was approved in 20ou 2018 with a conditional use and this conditional use was specifically called out in the DA itself. The area of the self storage is marked in green on this slide. In addition the in addition the applicants proposing a service drive will provide access to lots 2, three, and four along Overland. A condition approval requires installation of a 10- foot wide detached sidewalk, 10- foot wide landscape buffer along the street frontages, and also a 10- foot wide pathway will be installed along the

Rydenbach Canal abutdding the subject property. The the required 10 the required detached sidewalks and the lands and the pathway along Rydenbalk canal are specified in the DA itself. The planning team did receive a letter of opposition from the public expressing concerns with traffic and the building height of the potential future development on lot one. The ACD stated that they will grant temporary full access to Overland Road from the site, but it will be restricted in the future. And as for the concern regarding the building height and lot one, that is not part of the subdivision application that's before you tonight, and it will be reviewed separately with a different planning application in the future. Um, I believe the TA DA specifically requires that any any uh future development of the site requires a conditional use and of course also require design review for that. As such, the planning team recommends approval of the subdivision plan. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moser. Is the applicant present? Okay, sir. Um, if you would just state your name and address for the record. I'm guessing 10 minutes would do it for you. Okay, great. Thank you. Mr. Chair, um I think you need to turn on your mic. Yep.

There it is. Test. And I've got I've got Jay Walker from my office as well. Um he's backing me up. And then I've got the the owner developer, Jess Osa, as well. And born and raised Idahoan, fun fact. And then uh uh born and raised myself and so are you. So, thought that was a good opener. Commissioners, thanks for having us. This has been this project was designed by my predecessor. It was easy to resurrect the old approved design by my office because we had all the drawings and uh but it's a stark comparison of the way things used to be on a minor land division compared to what today's subdivision requirements are. That process is it's not a fun one. So, we're we're we're humbled and uh again, it's just a direct comparison. We've had we've had really old stuff. They resurrect and you expect a lot of changes, but this is kind of like, well, my goodness, this expired in 2023 and here we are and there's just some different requirements. Um, we do have a development agreement that was recorded in 2019. Um, things like I digress just a little bit. You know, Violia used to be United Water. They made us extend water all the way to the city limits of Boisee, which we didn't have to do that before. And then it's now ductile iron instead of C900 PVC. and it's 12 in instead of 8 in cuz water models change and they and uh it's it's just unfortunate for us. We were like, well, we can't argue with that. We need so much fire flow, so we got to do it. So, the cost just kind of increase like that. Um uh and so there's two things that we wanted to ask you about and and David, I'd love it if you pulled up that PowerPoint that we made and uh it's the pathway and the the 10- foot detached sidewalk, which is a new city code requirement. and uh and talk about those and everybody knows where this is nestled. We're right on the city limits of Meridian and Boisey. Um a little bit of the Ryenbball canal or city of Boisey has a little bit of land on the west side of the Ridenbach canal. So immediately south of this project site, thank you. Is the city meridian

and then immediately west of the project site, city meridian. So just different different jurisdiction, different requirements but right up against us. Uh so the first topic is uh the pathway. Next slide please. You do have a clicker up there. You can do click through. Thank you. It's worn out the right button. No one ever figures that thing out, by the way. So, good luck.

I got it. So, um this was a a fully approved construction plan set. So, this project went dormant right in COVID. It was construction prices were really, really high and it scared it scared some developers. So, that's why this thing went dormant. We got back in it. We were like, "Well, golly." I mean, look at the we had approved plans. We have all these approval letters. Let's just resurrect the thing. Again, back to my opening statement. It's been humbling to kind of take that old minor land division and go to a subdivision because all the agencies top to bottom, they get another bite at the apple and it's it's u um it's eye opening. So, the pathway, the DA does say that the pathway goes the whole distance. It kind of just opening up old decisions. The approved plans did not have the pathway. This laser pointer wouldn't work for anybody, but the pathway ended on the approved plans right where it entered the the lot number one, which is reserved for multif family. Our team, the previous ownership team didn't want that to be multifamily. It was just part of, you know, the mixeduse um DA how had to be there. So, we reserved that because why would people are driving through a storage complex to get to that? But we have a cross access with the city of Meridian actual vehicular access that would uh in a in a future phase when that's becomes multif family that's that would make sense. So we're preserving it now. Our interest is the storage unit, right? Um the pathway stopped right when it got there. Uh uh David's bringing up he's like, "Well, when I read this old DA, it says you got to bring it the whole distance." And we're like, "Yeah, you're right. I uh anyway, we had approved plans. They didn't go the whole distance. If I can show you the next slide, we'll kind of uh and this is just us stating that there's two of them that we want to talk about, but uh there's a good exhibit. Sorry guys. So, this is it's hard to see, but that the you have a a future eightplex, a forplex on the left and a forplex on the right, which would be sitting in that lot one residential, and

there's no room to put the the 10 foot. It would wipe out a forplex. So, it's like that's problem number one. But then it also doesn't doesn't go anywhere. So it the city of Meridian that project to the south that's a duplex. It was built in 2020. So when the original DA was made and maybe if there's a consensus we need to just do a DA mod to make this happen and change that language because it's problematic now. Um or is it it would just be hard for us to make that happen? It is a pathway. It's a dead-end pathway. Uh it was before, but we had this you see that gap um below or south of the storage unit buildings and north of the residential areas. That's an area where the pathway could go out and connect to lands beyond due to our western property line and the uh the subdivision that they're in Meridian because eventually this this pathway if you wanted to continue at all it would definitely be going through Meridian. Uh the subdivision to the south did not put any kind of pathway there. They're really built up right against the um the canal easement, the Ryenbball Canal easement. Our pathway has to be outside of the Neridian Irrigation District easement. We were planning to do that. So, it's basically the immediate 10 ft outside of their easement and we would be building a fence on the easement line and the pathway would encumber our property inside of that. And I don't uh the original plan what didn't contemplate accepting or taking taking that uh that hit of that the footprint of that 10-ft pathway. So we could turn it 90° and just go do west with it or eliminate the whole thing because it's a dead end. Maybe it's still a good idea to build what portion we're being asked to build from the DA in 2019. But uh just for your consideration, we'd love to uh find some compromise there instead of just being forced as the DA is

written the entire distance along the Ryenbach canal going right through what would be a future forplex and then stubbing it to a dead end because that dup it's just going right to the back corner of that duplex. Um that common lot there has no width in the in the terms of it's right on the edge of the of the Bridenba canal ement. So that is item number one. And then our suggested language could read revised condition number three because there's five uh a 10- foot public pathway be installed along the entire length of the ride canal abooding the subject property except along lot one. So that would be a suggestion of ours to you guys. Um and then condition number four talks about a 10-ft detached sidewalk. And then we have an exhibit here. the the old DA said and and and David helped clarify the how the DA is is written. It was kind of confusing because it's like, well, it says what ultimate buildout is. It says 5 foot detached with an 8ft planner, but it doesn't necessarily say the developers required to build that. It's just kind of like stating a a future buildout. And and David kind of explained, well, if it's in this format, that's kind of that's meant for you to to build it that way. But the sidewalk was already existing. It's it exists against our on our along all all along our front edge is a 5-ft attached and it's well it's a 7 foot attached some of it is full 7 ft some these are pictures from the front edge some of it has that twoft stamped colored concrete in front and then the back and then you can kind of see the power poles behind so when an engineer is faced with you want a detached sidewalk it's like well you got you got the power poles to deal with you probably got to go on the far side of it the other problem with there's a lot of utilities underneath that sidewalk. So, this is a pretty major corridor. You got the communications and the fiber optic underneath there. The obvious thing is like, well, right now our trees are appropriately spaced in a in a planter width, which we could we could definitely say that that meets Well, we

could definitely give more than 8 ft, right? To say there's an 8ft buffer there, but it just happens behind the sidewalk. We can put all of our trees and those tree roots wouldn't uh conflict with anything. But if we had to move the sidewalk and make it detached, it's very hard to plant the tree root ball on top of the the fiber optic and everything that's in underneath that sidewalk now. And you can see the uh in those pictures there's lots of communication boxes right behind that that sidewalk. So, a lot of stuff going on. It's Overland Road. Um there was even an idea like well who's to say in the future that that curb doesn't come inward and eliminate that little uh that bike lane because a future 10 you know when ACD comes through and wants to do a corridor plan that the 10-ft detached sidewalk doesn't account for that. This next slide is just kind of showing you broad uh all up and down because this is the last piece really that isn't developed. You've got a lot of mix of five and seven foot sidewalks most of them attached. I'm gonna pause you. And the reason I'm going to pause you is because the item that's mostly before us tonight was is this SU the sub itself or the subdivision um as opposed to some of the details that you're describing. And so I want to make sure that you just hit on anything that you need to get out for the actual sub part of this before I mean you have up to 10 20 minutes. I don't think you need that, but I just want to make sure you're aware of that.

Very good. Thank you, sir. Um, again, this this exhibit was just showing up and down what the existing uh sidewalks were. I'm wrapping this up. More utility conflicts with that question. So, the two the two items, there's five conditions of approval on the pre on the uh subdivision. items three and four, we would propose a an added language that says if you guys were agreeable to our logic, we would then be have to do a uh a DA mod to clean up some of this language from the 2019 development agreement. Uh if you guys weren't and say no, I like it. I like it as written, then then that's that's the way that is too. And um and those those would remain unchanged, right? I do think that if uh one lesser evil would be to meander around all these utilities, a five- foot meandering sidewalk is definitely more doable to an engineer than the 10-foot having to miss these large power poles and and uh still get trees in there and such like that. So the 10 foot is quite the it's a it's a big burden. That's all I've got. My mic isn't on. Um, thank you. We'll have questions in just a second. So, want to make sure the neighborhood association I don't see Marissa Keith with us. So, is she online? I don't think so. No. Okay. In that case, we'll go ahead and open it up to questions from the commission.

Mr. Chair, I just do want to make a a point that right before you today is the subdivision application. you do not have a development agreement modification before you. So, we cannot change items in the development agreement and it's not really in front of you at this moment. Just a reminder. Okay. Thank you, Crystal.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Moore, just a clarification on that point. So, the the conditions in question are part of the DA But there also conditions on this sub. So those conditions modifying those conditions would be a modification of the DA. No. Okay. Those conditions are okay.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I mean connectivity and sidewalk and street improvements are part of subdivisions, but they're in this case are also dictated in the DA that they shall install a 5- foot wide detached sidewalk, 8ft landscape or as a minimum along the street frontes. I'm requiring a 10-ft uh detached sidewalk and 10-ft landscape buffer cuz it is an arterial and that's what our code currently requires. It's at a minimum in the DA and there is a a large as you can see there were power lines. So, um you we can't put the class two trees under the power lines. So, we need the wider, but if but if they if they're asking to keep the the the attached, that would require a DA modification because it's it's in that section two of the DA. And I think I did include the the recorded DA in the packet so you can see it

and and the and also I believe the pathway to the 10- foot pathway. Um, I think under the exhibits they attached into the DA the uh the conditions of approval from that CUP invariance back in 2018 and there was a condition that they install the 10-ft pathway along the along the entire stretch of Ryenbball. Um, that's the way I'm reading that. So to to modify these, they would have to come back and and change those change the DA. So Mr. Chair, Mr. Just so I understand correctly, really the only piece of either of these conditions that we could modify under this current application is the width of the sidewalk.

Actually, that that would be correct. Um, you could you could change that because our code requires 10. The DA specifies there could be a minimum of five and 8 foot landscape buffer. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, just Yep. Go ahead. Completely different from those conditions. Um, city of Meridian submitted some comments about the adjacency of storage buildings to the rest of, you know, to the residential adjacent. This is going through design review. So that adjacency and that buffer will be assessed at that time. Is that correct?

Mr. Chair, members of commission, the the conditional use for the self storage was approved and runs with the DA. So that's already been done. I think there was a development agreement in 20. Um although the DA does not specifically call that out. So they given that I I believe then at least is my interpretation then that the DA might have expired for or the development agreement might have expired sorry um for that self storage. So they would have to come back with a new development agree or not or new sorry too many D's uh new design review sorry understood. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions of the commission?

Start at the beginning as they say. Mr. Chair, Mr. Torres, my question is for the applicant. Um, so based on what we just heard from staff about not being able to um stick with the attached sidewalk that's already there, would the 5-ft meandering sidewalk be something that would be doable with with your design? Do they need does he need to say that into the microphone for the record? Just question. We need to make sure that anything is answer to a question on the record.

German commissioners and uh the answer is yes to that. Y

Mr. Chair, I'm checking with uh legal on just one thing about the sidewalk. If you guys could maybe just take a quick pause just so we can figure this out. You want us to take an official five? Okay, we'll take five minutes.

Good. All right, we're going to go ahead and reconvene. All right, I have a question because I want to make sure we are on the the right page [laughter] because even I'm a little bit confused. All right, I'm going to read straight from our staff report and I'm going to read right off of section seven analysis and it says it, which is referring to the DA also requires the construction of screening walls, a public pathway along the Rydenbball Canal and a minimum of a 5- foot wide detached sidewalk and an 8 foot wide landscape buffer along the street frontages abudding the subject property. All right. The DA was a was uh an agreement from 2018. Correct,

Mr. Members. Commissioner, that's correct.

Okay. And so the DA still has life, but what we're hearing in front of us today is a subdivision application for the commercial property that that is at hand. The DA requirements are moving forward with the overall parcel which includes these two things, the Rydenbach canal pathway and the five foot sidewalk and an 8-foot landscape buffer. However, in our um requirements, we show Let me skip ahead. I mean, I know you wrote it, so you know what it says, but we have a 10 foot. We we specifically give definition to the Rydenbach Canal width of being 10 feet. Here it is. Um, okay. So, number three, a 10- foot wide public pathway. So, we're putting an actual width to it. And a now 10- foot wide detached sidewalk. and a 10- foot wide landscape buffer with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Okay. So, number three in our findings and and uh requirements sort of codifies what was in the DA, but puts a metric to it, unless the DA had that metric in it before, which I don't recall us talking about. Did the DA previously have a width associated with that pathway? Mr. Chair, members of commission, I think it did. I'd have to double check or it was in the project report for the from the CUP from 2018, but I think it did call out a 10- foot wide pathway along Ryenbach Canal and I don't and that's what they're proposing. They're just stopping it short and doesn't extend through lot two,

right? Okay. So, the applicant is requesting make sure I got this straight. You're saying that this pathway goes all the way to the terminus of lot one and therefore that doesn't make sense and your your request as I understand it is either to jog it to the west so that it does connect with the neighborhood or doesn't continue into lot one and terminate uh because of the potential impacts which is a whole other discussion and not in front of us tonight but of of the forplex I think is what you said. That's point number one. Clear. Clear.

Okay. All right. So, on point number two, the DA, which still has a pulse, still alive, requires a five-foot sidewalk and an 8- foot landscape buffer according to 2018 document. Five foot minimum. Minimum. Minimum. Yeah.

Okay. Good. Good word. Thank you. We are now requiring as per item number four, point number four, a 10- foot wide detached sidewalk and a 10- foot wide landscape buffer because since 2008 to now, we have a new code. And our new code and what you're putting in here is now jing and it's it's reflective of our modern version because y'all waited. The world set on fire and everything in 2020. We know that. But this is the process of events that unfolded.

Mr. Chair, members of commission, that is correct. You know, the PA acquired a minimum and we're requiring it to comply with our current beyond the minimum. So the request for the pathway to change directions or to stop short would be subject to the DA. Mr. Chair, as commission, that is correct. I think the DA has a condition that the pathway extend along the entire number three probably shouldn't be in our staff report as a recommendation of approval because it's with the DA not with the subdivision. Mr. Chair, members of commission, I can still condition it. It's just it's also called out in the DA itself.

Okay. But if they want to change that and change the direction or stop it short, they'd have to come back in front of us and have an official ask. They we can't do that tonight because that's not what's in front of us because it's a modification to the DA, not the subdivision. Mr. German Commission, that is correct to modify the DA as a resounding the C application.

All right, so we got that straight. So technically, as of tonight, item number three is off the table for us to consider. So what is in front of us is item number four, which is a 5-ft minimum sidewalk as per the DA and the 8oot landscape buffer and the and the term condition in the staff report of it being 10 and 10 and then the applicant's request. Mr. Chair, on this one, I would like to clarify. So uh because it does say minimum uh the current standards that this application has been applied for do stand and so to deviate from the current standard which is a requirement of 10 ft would require a variance application.

Oh heavens. Yes. [laughter] Okay. So then a DA doesn't enshrine a right in perpetuity to to do less than what the code at time at the time of application is. Is that can you come up to the microphone who whoever you want to have representing your team? I just want to make sure so are you clear on what staff is saying that these two items can be amended but cannot be addressed by us tonight? I do and I'm thinking that we would like to request a continuation so that we can apply for them and then it's on the docket next time you see it. [laughter] I go ahead staff.

Mr. Chair, members of commission. I mean they they could do but they would have to have another neighborhood meeting and kind of like go back through it and then and then reapply for um a a reszone and a variance to do that. And then at some point in the future then we could have a subdivision of the reszone and the variance all before you. But it's going to take a little bit of time. So, could we not make a determination tonight on the subdivision and then they come back at a different date whenever as opposed to the def a deferral which is what's being requested. Would the timing not kind of sync up to just basically come back and have a DA modification and a and a variance request? Mr. Chair, members, you could actually hear the subdivision tonight because you're just making recommendation to city council,

right? So, the preliminary plat still has to go on to council. So they could def they could wait to hear that at council to adjust everything else um through the reszone and and the variance. Um and then I think at that point theoretically the if the if the reason if the DA get modified and the variance occurred then some of these conditions could be adjusted um before it goes to council because you're just making a recommendation. They make final decision.

So what would be your recommendation here? Mr. Chair, I would say that the cleanest thing would be to defer this and have all of the requests be seen and reviewed all at the same time so that the decision makers can have the full picture. Okay. So, in that instance, you you are requesting a deferral. You're obviously open to a deferral. Staff is recommending that it your request we take that action. We still have p members of the public who are here tonight. So now I have to ask I guess this the appropriate time. Are any of you Well, we don't even have a date.

We have no idea what the date would even be. So this would be I think it seems like this is open. The applicant is open and it's it's going to be at least 60 days. I would imagine. Okay. I would I would say that' be a at least. I have never had this happen in all the years I've been doing this. Have you? Commissioners, I think, Mr. Chair, hold on. Let me make sure.

We could move forward with public testimony, get that on the record, and then when this does come back through, this would all still be included as part of the record. However, you know, the just for folks here in the public who wish to testify, this is not going to be the final product because they're coming forward with other modifications. So, it just might be worth weighing if you want to testify on this proposal or wait until the full proposal is there.

Okay. What did you want to add, Mr. Chair? I think it's the variance that's sketching us here. Otherwise, we could just tie all the requirements to the DA in case we were successful later of changing the DA. But it's the variance, which I I don't see a way through that. Um, it would be that's not in front of you. It would need to be in front of you if you were to deviate from current code of 10 feet. I don't know if you guys can't just say, "Oh, it's eight." without a variance application in front of you. So, that's where we're tripped up. We've got to Yeah. Y

I I I don't disagree. I think it's just a procedural issue. Okay. So, then you can have a seat real quick. Um I have some folks who are here, members of the public. Can you just raise your hands? So, I have a show of hands. How many? We have four. Four folks. Okay. So, what we're talking about is we're trying to respect your time and we want to make sure that when this comes back in front of us because of now this request to defer to get a couple of other things on the docket for us to decide which is a procedural issue. We typically when we have a deferral and we have a hard date, we know when that's going to occur and then we ask the members of the public if they are unable to attend on the date that is into the future. We don't have a date now. It's probably going to be a couple of months. So, you can either come back and talk about whatever you were going to bring up and potentially these other couple of items that have to do with the sidewalk, the landscape buffer, and the pathway. or we can have you testify tonight, get it on the record, and then we will revisit that record when they come back up. And if you want to attend and testify again, I think you you could because there's new items to consider, but you don't have to because it would be on the record. So, is that clear? This is bureaucracy in real time. Okay. Yes, sir. Come on up. And just so we make sure your question isn't Well, it [laughter] I'm not at public testimony, so there

yet. Yeah. Okay. Hold on just a second. Let me make Let me get my head head straight here. Okay. Are there any other questions of the commission respecting respectful of the subdivision itself? Mr. Chair, of course. I'll jump in just a bit. Take off. Take the weight off your shoulders. Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm gonna have some flavor. You are a Rams fan. I'll do that for you. We only can think of one thing at a time.

Yeah. So, excuse me. Um, so staff, I just want to make sure the variance application would be to retain the existing sidewalks. That's right. Because the condition now would be we don't have an issue if we proceed with the condition as it's written. Mr. Mr. Chair, members of commission, if their request is to modify the DA to to strike the detached sidewalks entirely and retain it, and then there would be a variance to not install the detached sidewalk, right? Just want to make sure I understood that. I was just worried I was getting things confused. So, okay, that makes sense to me. So, you'd have a DA modification plus the variance. Okay. Thank you. Okay, one more question, one more chance. Any questions on the subdivision? I also would have a follow-up, but don't mind.

I could have just asked. Well, you jumped back in, man. You're excited. You're excited. So, David, um my other question the pathway, um I think their testimony makes a lot of sense about terminating at the north edge of lot one. Um how does staff feel about that? Mr. Chair, members of commission, we do always want to get try to get pathways along canals where possible. I would really need to talk to our pathway manager and figure out what their thoughts are in this particular situation.

Okay. All right. Just just for the record where I sit right now, just terminating there, there is the access out to right ofway, the north edge of lot one. So it seems to make sense to me where I sit today. But I understand what you're saying since it's essentially landlocked in the south. So okay, I'll stop now. Chair. Okay. All right. Um Okay. So with that, since there are no more questions of the commission, we will go ahead and now bring that portion of the proceedings to a close and now we can open it up to public testimony. So now, sir, if you would like to come up, let me just have you state your name and your address at least for the record. And I'm guessing you might have a question because we'll probably have lots of them, but go ahead. I'm Gald Maxfield, 1920 South Mayflower Way in Boisey. I'm directly across the canal from lot one.

Okay.

Um, and I have a Well, I didn't realize until tonight that lot one is not a part of the subdivision request. So, I may be a bit premature, but having heard all this discussion, I think it makes sense to get rid of this postage stamp lot. It's over a sixacre property and you got this little dinky halfacre lot for residential. Doesn't make any sense to me. It's going to look odd. To me, it would be I would request the developer to modify. I don't know whether it's modification of the DA or part of the variance request, but just extend the storage another few feet. That residential lot serves no purpose that I can see other than I guess it's the mixed use, but you got a postage stamp to qualify for a mixed use. So, I I don't think any of us are strongly opposed to the project. We have a few concerns. I had concerns about lot one. my concerns would go away with this change. So I believe that's pretty much my comment.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry for all the confusion this evening. Do any of the three of you wish to test? Okay, great. So um then we'll go ahead. Let me make sure there's anybody online. Um Tom Everson's still with us. He can go home now. He doesn't have to hang out. All right. Uh with that, so there's nobody else who wishes to testify. So we'll go ahead and bring the public testimony portion to an end. Typically, we would offer you five minutes of rebuttal, but I know that you are you don't want that. So then we're now I think we can make a motion to defer. I think we're finally at the end zone. Okay. So, with that, um, make sure P's and Q's are I think it's an open-ended deferral and the the applicant understands that we are required to make a decision within 60 days. I'm trying to remember the language we talked about last week, but that it might go past that based on schedules because of other applications, but the intent is to get you back here within that period of time.

Mr. Chair, I I'm not sure if that 60-day would even um count right now because technically based on what their request is, this is an incomplete application. So, I think that the 60-day time limit outlined in code that we discussed last week is a moot point. So, we can just defer. Okay. So with that, I would entertain a motion uh for the request of the applicant to defer this item. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaefer, I move to defer item number two, SUB25-85, to a later date. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer. Do I have a second? Second. Oh, I think I heard it this way. Commissioner Stalling, is that you?

All right. Yeah. Second by Commissioner Stalling. Is there any discussion, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Shaver, not necessarily. I think that it would be a good opportunity though if there's other folks on the up here on the dis that have comments on the application, this would be a good opportunity to share those comments so that they applicant team and staff understand our concerns. Yeah. Or are we find you know what's great about the application,

right? So just a little reminder to everybody up here. Um I tend there is comp there is complexity on the sidewalk issue. There is complexity there. Absolutely. We run into complexity on sidewalks all the time. So um my where I stand is that um my recommendation would be to hold on the the standard code conditions and do what we can for the detached sidewalk and the planter strip. Um I am uh open to the suggestions that step uh the applicant made regarding the pathway. Um it clearly we are clearly landlocked to the south with new development um along the canal and in Meridian. So if there's a method to get that pathway out to the west I would be amendable to that idea as well. Um from a bigger um bigger picture I think the use is fine in this uh situation. Um, it's an unusual parcel and, um, I can see the challenges to developing, you know, a parcel in this configuration. So, I think the use is fine. Um, I have no concerns in that regard. Um, but there definitely are some complexities with the perimeter, right, sidewalk, pathway, those things.

I said, thank you, Commissioner Schaefer. And if there are any other comments of the the commission specific to directions on a couple of the things that we discussed, you don't have to say anything. You can say something if you'd like. Um up to you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Stallings,

I'll just add, yeah, not um completely in agreeance with Commissioner uh Schaefer's comments. Same as a dead-end pathway along the canal. Um, we like to see those kind of be a part of a bigger plan. And I see I I'm in aligned with having that a butt more towards the neighborhood instead of a dead end past a multif family home or multif family um complex with the sidewalks and the streetscapes along Overland. Same thing. I think we keep running into these. Um, it looks like ACD may have plans to widen this road as well. there's something to consider there on how we protect this roadway long term and um those um stamped curd cup we talk about it a lot but that's not ours that's a to plan for growth so um I don't generally consider that as part of a long-term it's always going to be there guarantee when I look at these applications um that's all I'll add

okay thank you Mr. Stallings Mr. Chair

Mr. I have heartburn um with the sidewalk and potentially reducing that 10-ft um pathway and setback. As uh Commissioner Schaefer noted, you know, we deal with this often on State Street last week. We dealt with it on um Maple Grove. Um, if you spend any time on a busy roadway where you have cars going anywhere between 35 to 45 miles an hour and you're a pedestrian or a bicyclist, it's very uncomfortable, especially when the sidewalk is right next to the roadway. Um, we have that whole corridor is being redeveloped, right? We've got um we've got all kinds of residential development along that corridor that is being developed. folks need to be able to get out of their cars in some cases uh and walk to commercial development in the area. Um and that means we need more comfortable safe sidewalks and accessibility. So, so to the ride and bot pathway, people are more apt to take a pathway away from roads um instead of staying on Overland and then cutting back down into say that subdivision to the west in Meridian. So, you know, I'm amendable to connecting not, you know, deadending it, but connecting it, but but definitely on the sidewalk. If that was if this was before us today, I I I couldn't support it. I mean, I would support it, but

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Seahhar. Mr. Chair, Mr. Torres.

Um, I want to echo most of what Commissioner Sea and Commissioner Schaefer said. Um, I also tend to be inclined to want us to stick want to see us stick with um our requirements in the code and the 10-ft um detached sidewalk. Um, and also have the multi-use pathway be away from from, you know, away from the busy arterial. Um, having said that, I'm always open to hearing suggestions to the opposite. You know, I'm not going to make up my mind. We're not we're not voting to make a decision on this today. So, I I'm always open to hearing what the applicant has to say and and consider the arguments, you know, on each individual um application. But I I do I do want to just say up here that generally the for us to waiver from those requirements, it it has to be a pretty convincing case, I think, in mo in most cases. Um and that's all I have.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Torres. Mr. Chair,

Commissioner Moore. uh agreed on the 10-ft pathway. I think Boisey in their landscape ordinance has you know avenues to help with plantings in those areas where you've got a lot of utilities you know geared more towards infill development when you've got things in the right of way um some alternate complian alternative compliance methods. So [clears throat] not not particularly inclined at this time uh towards the 10 foot if that was presented for us right now. um or towards varying from that 10 foot. I understand that those are really big power lines, but there is a a good amount of of right of way there and it appears to work with the with the site plan kind of as presented on the pathway along Ryenb. the same sentiments. I think you know agree with not terminating into the backyard but would be supportive of it kind of connecting towards that that western neighborhood uh because that that feels like it meets the intent of the pathways more than terminating somebody's backyard.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Don, I'll just weigh in. Um I agree with all the things that have been brought up. I do think the 10-ft sidewalks and the 10- foot uh landscape buffer again like Commissioner Torres said interested in seeing what alternatives could be brought but again that's not our decision today and if we're we need to stick with what the code outlines which is the tenant

Mr. Uh I guess I'll weigh in and echo sentiments of the rest of my commission or the commissioners up here. U how important the connectivity is in the sidewalks um to uh these neighborhoods. Um just looking at the surrounding neighborhoods and some of the businesses nearby that someone could walk to or get to by alternative forms of transportation. Uh that being pretty important. Um and the ability to avoid overland if uh if interested. Uh the Rybach Canal really provides that. Um, I would also support that uh terminating it early to connect to that exit street um there. Thank you. What the heck?

U I'm just going to add one something real quick and that is Overland's a mobility corridor. This is more of a pathway. It's not a sidewalk. It is intended for multi-purpose use and so it does need to be closer to 10 feet. My advice to you, I understand those power poles, moving that power pole. You're talking probably 100, 200, $300,000, something like that. So, creative solutions would be, I think, welcomed. Uh, a a meander and potentially taper within reason because of some of that stuff, I think, would be uh a wise thing to do. I don't think anybody wants to see um sticking to a standard in a certain situation that might warrant otherwise. So, I would just say creative thinking. Um, let's take role because we've all had our our opinion known. Uh, the clerk, please call the role.

Danley, yes. Moore, yes. Schaefer, yes. Deha, yes. Torres, yes. Don, yes. Stallings, yes. Spons, yes. All in favor? Motion carries. Okay. Go Rams. Consider this evening. What? I'm sorry. Your microphone was off. Hearing is over.