Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening everybody. Welcome to the Boyisey City Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. Few thing to start a few things to start out with for tonight's proceedings. Everyone from the public entering the hearing virtually has been automatically muted and cannot speak. As the 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 hearings 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 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 up to 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.

All right. Thank you, Crystal. 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 on subdivisions, redesations 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 for you 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 a few minutes ago. Staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and then the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please call the role?

Danley. I here. Moore here. Schaefer here. Zahha. Torres here. Dome here. Stallings here. Stfans here. Seven present, one absent.

Okay, we'll jump into the consent agenda now. So item number one, first one, it's eligible. SCB25-82. This is Crona Town Home Subdivision. This is a preliminary and final plat located at 1504 South Manato Avenue. Uh, is the applicant present? Okay. And do you agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report? Okay. Let the record reflect the applicant is in attendance and does agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number one SUV 25-82? Okay. Seeing none, go ahead and place item number one on the consent agenda. Next up, item number two, C25-25. This is Rudine Architects, I think it is. Uh, an annexation request of approximately 089 acres. This is located at 9145 South Federal Way. Is the applicant present? And do you agree with the terms and condition of staff report? Okay. Let the record reflect the applicant is in attendance and does agree with the terms and condition of staff report. Is there anybody here in chambers or online who wish to testify in opposition to item number two, C25-24? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and place item number two on the consent agenda. Next up is going to actually be item number four, SUB2-47. This is division subdivision located at 2233 South Division Avenue. This is the preliminary and final plat for residential subdivision. Is the applicant present? Okay. And do you agree with the terms condition staff report? Okay. Let the record reflect that the applicant is in chambers and does uh agree with the terms and condition staff report. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition of item number four SUB25-47? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and place

item number four on the consent agenda. And that is it for the consent agenda for tonight. Is there a motion? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore, I move that we approve the consent agenda as constructed. Okay, I've got a motion by Commissioner Moore to approve the consent agenda as constructed. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Stallings has a second. Thank you very much. Any discussion? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the role? Danley. I. Moore. I. Schaefer. I. Torres. I. Don. I Stallings I Defonic I. All in favor? Motion carries.

Very good. Thank you very much. This takes us to our one and only item of the night. Uh number three, CPA 25-5 and C25-15, a reszone uh request and a comprehensive plan amendment located at 3412 and 3414 South Lindsay Avenue. Mr. Moser, take it away.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation from industrial to compact on approximately 4.8 acres and a reason on approximately 3.1 acres from I1 industrial light to R2 residential compact. The subject property is located approximately a/4 mile south of Victory Road and is part of a small industrial enclave located at the south side of an established residential neighborhood. The residential neighborhood adjacent to the north and west is comprised of single family homes, duplexes, and multif family developments. Abiding the property to the south is a large self-s storage facility, and adjacent to the east is the Union Pacific Railroad track, which is located on elevated BM. As such, it creates a barrier separating the site from the larger commercial neighborhood to the east. The overall area of the of the subject property is approximately 4.8 acres. The subject property is currently zoned R2 on the west side and I1 on the east side of the site with a land use designation of industrial over the entire subject property. changing the entire subject property to compact land use designation and reszoning the site to reszoning the approximate 3.1 acre parcel located on the east side of the site from I1 to R2 is compatible with the comprehensive plan since it will reduce the impacts associated with the current and potential industrial uses on the adjacent residential neighborhood. In addition, reszoning the east half of the site to R2 is compatible with the adjacent single family homes to the north across Wright Street, which is also zoned R2. The adjacent railroad track restricts how the development can be developed and limit by limiting the vehicle access to the site through the neighborhood to the north. Reszoning the area to residential will promote a safe and efficient network that minimizes vehicle conflicts between industrial and residential traffic. In summary, the comprehensive plan amendment and the reszone will protect the adjacent residential neighborhood to the north and west from existing and potential industrial development on the subject property.

The applicant propos or intends to construct a multifamily development on the site and this slide shows the conceptual plan for the multif family project. However, this will this will require designer review approval and is not part of the applications before you tonight. In addition, there is a limited uh driveway connection under the railroad track through a tunnel from the subject property to the east, but the tunnel is small and cannot support a large amount of traffic. I've included a SL or a photo of it of the tunnel on the right hand side or corner of the of the slide here. It's about where the tunnel will be located or actually is located, but um and with the conceptual plan that's being proposed with the multif family be converted to uh pedestrian and bike only. The planning team did receive a letter of opposition from the public expressing concerns with the potential of increased traffic through the neighborhood and a lack of pedestrian bike infrastructure throughout the neighborhood. To address these concerns, I would note the comprehensive plan amendment and the reszone would facilitate residential infill development on site, which is more compatible in terms of use and traffic with the adjacent residential neighborhood than the industrial uses that are anticipated with the current industrial zoning. In summary, the planning team recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and reszone. Thank you.

Thank you, M. Moser. Is the applicant present? Tammy Crawford. Oh, cool. It's just an application. All right. So, our Q&A is going to be short unless Mr. Moser's got all the answers. I don't see anybody online either. I think this might be a first. I don't recall that happening before. Okay. Well, um, is there anybody from the neighborhood association? This is the Vista Neighborhood Association. Mia Russell. Is the name on here not expected though? Okay. Well, this will be interesting. All right. Well, let's open it up to uh questions of staff. Sorry, Mr. Moser. You're going to be the recipient of all of them.

Mr. Chair, do you mind if we just take a quick moment so I can confer uh look look into something? Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Take five. Okay, Mr. Chair. Yeah, we we are back. We are quick and efficient. Um, so yes, we can proceed um if everyone feels comfortable here. This is a recommendation to council. Um, but should you find feel if you don't have any information enough information obviously you can always ask for this to defer.

Are you going to cringe if we defer this? I just have to ask that question. There is a reminder they have signed that all of the information is correct and that they are submitting it on behalf of their clients. And so we do have all of the headroom we need to move forward. But again, if there is critical information that you don't have, then that is up to you all. Okay, sounds good. Well, let's take this unusual one on and see where it takes us. Huh? Questions.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore. So, for this um I think this is a question that Mr. Moser uh kind of alluded to. This weird tunnel under the railroad tracks. You said it's going to be converted to pedestrian and bike only. Does it just is it intended to connect at the development of this property to connect underneath the railroad and then is there like an easement in the adjacent property that gets it to Denver Way or it'll be blocked off?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the uh the railroad the tunnel under it is existing um and it provides I think current access for the layown yard which is um currently being used by a drilling company. So they don't have to necessarily cut through the neighborhood that much. Um it's only like single wide and I'm not even sure that it's wide or it's even tall enough to um to heightwise it could take a a fulls size truck or heavy truck. Um but I believe um it's with the conceptual plan that the applicant is putting out which is um with the apartments they want to basically they don't need it for their access. So they just want to convert it to to a pedestrian bike connection so people don't have to go all the way up Lindsay to hit Victory and then over to Federal where the bikeway is. They can come out of the railroad track and then through that um sort of commercial industrial area a little bit quicker for them to get to the the bike way along Federal.

Sure. And Mr. Sure. More to follow. So that connection the point from the railroad track to like the reddish area on the overall or on the um satellite view. It's kind of hard to tell what exactly is going on there. There's like some sort of rightway that connects the two points. Mr. Chair, members of commission, that is correct. It it actually the railroad itself is in a rightway. Um so it extends through the rightway that the railroad track is on and and provides a connection through that through that and then um basically provides the connection between the site and right street on the other side of the railroad track. Okay.

Spanning that right away. Sure. Okay. I see the rightway now. Thank you. Okay. Other questions? Mr. Schaefer think. Yeah. I got a similar right of way question for uh Mr. Moer. Um, so Bennett, it's I think it's called South Bennett Street, which is in the gravel street. Now, that's not technically a right of way. Then the right of way is on right street. Correct. So, is there any I guess what I'm asking you, Dave, is there is everybody clear about where the boundaries are and is there any issues with the right of way there?

Mr. Chair, members of uh commission, Benon Street's not a rightaway. It's I don't know. It's it's a named path or road that actually cuts across the subject property itself. It's um I don't with the subdivision or I guess or not the subdivision. Um you know I guess with this development if there's any easements as they move forward they'll have to they'll have to vacate them. But I it is not rightway the rightway here is Lindsay Wright and Wright Street. I don't know what Bennett it actually is. It's or how it shows up as a named thing but it's on the subject property itself. Gotcha. Yeah. Okay. Okay, other questions. Mr. Chair, my question is for staff, Mr.

Um, some of the feedback we got was concern about the notification only being visible to the the 10 homes or so in the neighborhood. Can you explain what the notice requirements are um on an item like this?

Mr. Chair, members of commission, they did post the site. Uh they post the the co requirement is to post one sign per street frontage and that did occur. Um the sign along right street was down by the culde-sac. Um and the other one was closer to the entrance to the it was on the south side of right of Lindsay Street closer to the entrance of where it enters into the self storage facility. Um they're actually if you look the the the diagram that we send out for corner uh for site posting off our website tells you to basically put them on on corner lots on the far end assuming that it that they're not dead end on either side but they actually followed that and it it meets the coding of the section of the code which is one per street frontage. I did ask them if they could put one up by the corner, but there's um it I think there's a bit of narrow rideway there between the fence and the curb um that they could actually place the sign. Um but at least that was the uh what they told me at that point. But what they did actually met code and and our and our standards.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Um, back to the tunnel with the the agency that's or the you know organization that's using it as a lay down lot. Has that been resolved or are they were going to now be redirected through the neighborhood? Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the uh the property owner is is leasing the property to the uh to the to the drilling company that's currently using it as storage. So the the the current company that's that's leasing it will ultimately have to they won't their lease won't be renewed and they'll have to find a new place

opportunity for the city of Boise in my opinion if you look at the ACD letter I'm looking at for reference is the bottom of their letter page six. So it talks about right street on street I'm quot I'm reading this. So on street parking cannot be defined or designated for a specific user. The applicant's proposal to define on street parking would not be approved as part of future development application as the use of bulls is not common in the area etc. And then additionally, on street parking should not count towards city of Boise parking requirements as on street parking can be removed at any time as conditions warrant as determined by ACD. So this is their big, you know, warning shot across the bow kind of a statement that if you count the on street parking, someday we might widen a road and therefore take it away. Any chance of this being widened? This is in the middle of a spot between a canal and a railroad track, right? There is no threat of that. And yet there are policy manuals being updated as we speak. So my question to you is has there been any conversation because this is rubber stamp, right? This is just one of their template types of things that they say,

but has there been any dialogue with ACD about getting more specific with our applications as opposed to just casting everything with this one approach?

Mr. Chair, members of commission, I agree that we definitely more have need to have better dialogue with them in particular on this. And you're right that the chance that Wright Street or Lindsay is ever going to be expanded, I mean, it kind of dead ends down here. it doesn't really go anywhere is next to nil. Um, that being said, I think in this case, they probably did a um a a fairly simple project report because they're probably going to save the detailed one when the design review comes in. And that's not be that will require its own application before a design interview because at this point, we don't even we're not talking about street improvements with a comp plan and reszone. There's no conditions attached to this. Um so so that will be I guess you know these things will be looked at a lot closer with those further applications but I agree with you we do need to work with them um and try to update

well it's a bigger picture issue because we're trying in the world of housing we we've had that discussion inside and out right but if there's a trade-off between on street parking counting towards parking requirements and the number of units within the parcel it's like there's a opportunity right so that's where I'm good with that, of course. But okay. Any other questions of staff and the applicant? Just kidding. That's quite good. I bring empty mic. Mr. Chair, Mr. Schaefer, I have another question for staff.

Okay. So, Dave, we're uh we're going for the application before us is a comp plan amendment and a reszone going to R2. It's a total of 4.8 acres. Um, and they're proposing 119 units with this with this conceptual plan. Yeah. At R2, what's the maximum number of units the R2 allow on 4.8 4.8 acres?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, um, our R2 doesn't have a density um, doesn't have a maximum density limit attached to it. So, it's more of trying to figure figure out how to fit the development on there with the correct amount of parking with the bike parking and the amenities. Um, so in theory, they could probably get more um because I think they're a little overparked um with with their current conceptual plan, but um I I got to I I I wouldn't know, you know, what what they could get at this point, but there's nothing set in code for the R2 zone. Great for density. Okay. And they're meeting with this conceptual plan. and they're meeting all the setbacks parking requirements as it's laid out currently.

That is correct. Great. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Mr. Moore, um for this little piece, I see it looks like there's some self storage to the south. That's, you know, the pretty standard overhead door kind of unit style self storage. And then there's something else that looks like maybe vehicle storage or maybe that is that RV storage right there that I'm seeing. Mr. Chair, members of commission, I think that is correct. I think they're self storage and then they have outdoor RV and car bike store or boat storage um kind of on the east side.

Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Any final questions? Nope. Okay. Okay. Well, with that, we'll go ahead and you and I have the signup sheep. I know nobody's signed up, but I'm sure there's going to be some people who want to testify, right? Okay.

I was going to just take notes on it, but no big deal. Okay. All right. If that's the case, then we'll go ahead and close um questions and then we'll open this up to the public. So, we don't have anybody who is signed up on the actual sheet. That's okay. If you'd like to come up and testify, now's the time. And if you'd like to do that, we ask that you just come up, state your name, your address for the record, and then you'll have three minutes, and we'll go from there. You don't have to, though. And no one is running to the microphone, so nobody wants to testify. Okay, let me just double check. Give you a second to think about it. Come on up. Only Commissioner Moore bites. She's kind of mean. Otherwise, the rest of us are nice.

Yeah, that's right. All right. Just throw her cookie or something. She'll be all right. All right. How you doing? Excellent. If you wouldn't mind, say your name and address for the record. You have three minutes. 1356. I think uh some of the traffic observations I've heard seen uh like they don't necessarily coales in my mind. For example, they said that they put a sign in the street.

He just randomly shows up. We don't know who he is. Should I start over or You're okay. Uh, so, so I just think it's interesting that the streets are too narrow to put a sign in, but not too narrow to put in a huge multistructure in. So, that just seems like their reasoning there doesn't match up in my head. So, I'm confused about about that.

I think they're also saying that the traffic from an industrial zoning area is has a potential to be big, and that is true. there is a potential for that to be big, but I live there and it's not big. So, I think that saying this is actually better for traffic is a weak argument in my mind. Uh, and that's all.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming out. Anybody else want to come on up? All right. Well, there's nobody signed up or there's nobody uh on the Zoom, so last chance. Okay, rebuttal. So weird. Um, normally this time for anybody who comes here knows, but the applicant would have a chance to rebut what they just heard, but they aren't here, so they don't have that chance. And with that that would close the hearing. So the item is now in front of the commission for this in this case a recommendation. We are not a deciding body for a comprehensive plan amendment nor a reszone. So we would be making a recommendation to council and this item either way would move forward to council at a later date. There we go. Mr. Schaefer.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to move that we recommend CPA25-5 and C25-15 uh for approval by city council uh with all the terms and conditions of their various staff reports. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer. I have a motion to recommend approval uh to council for both of these items. Is there a second? Mr. Chair, I'll second. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Stallings. Mr. Chair,

discussion. Commissioner Sh. Yeah. Uh you know, in my mind, this is a pretty uh clean application, pretty direct. Uh we got an old industrial use. Uh I think it's a prime infill candidate for more housing here within the city limits. Um we've got we're matching the zone adjacent. There's R2 adjacent R1 C a little bit beyond that. So uh certainly a a situation where we're matching the zone. We're adding more housing within the city limits. Uh and we're cleaning up some unusual conditions I think regarding some of the rightways, some of the access points. Um, as we all know up here at least that these developments like this bring along with them improvements to public infrastructure as well. So, we'll see some improvements to sidewalks as this site develops. Um, and obviously again cleaning up some of those other rightway issues and whatnot. So, uh, again, I think the density is appropriate for the neighborhood. I think the conceptual site plan actually looks real good to sort of blend in this new development with the adjacent existing neighborhood. uh they've gone with a pretty um realistic approach I think as far as number of units at least for the conceptual plan. Now we have to be uh real that that could change you know it's a conceptual plan before us tonight is just the comp plan amendment and the reszone but again I think because of the adjacent R2 zoning and the infill activity here I think this is a a very good application.

Okay, thank you Commissioner Schaefer. Any other discussion? Commissioner Sings. Uh, I don't have much to add on to that. I want to second almost everything Fisher Schaefer said, especially that I think this does um fit in really well with the city's goals of infill and appropriate infill and how this aligns with that neighborhood and, you know, um, downgrading the amount of industrial right there at a perfect little spot, especially with the burm. There's a lot I like about it. I think the city gets a little bit out of it like Commissioner Schaefer said, with infrastructure. Um yeah, feel it's pretty straightforward for me. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Stling. Any other comments, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Moore,

uh agree with agree with the motion. I think, you know, the the site plan, I think the zone itself makes sense. It's adjacent to R2 existing. It kind of makes this funny little pocket of industrial a little bit more cohesive with the rest of that area. um cleans up that kind of split lot between the R2 and the industrial zoning. Um and then just it kind of helps with the future of this property. Just because you know the traffic for the industrial use isn't too bad right now doesn't mean that it will stay not too bad. Um it could be a different industrial use that may have higher traffic. they may not be using the tunnel quite as much um or may not be able to and so they would start to go through the neighborhood. So, it kind of helps to maybe align this property better for the future. And then I think these rightaway improvements, as Commissioner Schaefer kind of alluded to, you know, would help with some of that space at the street level. I think what's likely happened is the fence might be right up against the street and they can't put that sign there, but that fence would likely go away. They'd have, you know, some amount of landscape buffers, sidewalk, all that good stuff. So, you'd have a lot more space and a lot more availability at that street that's not there right now.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Any other discussion? Okay. I'm going to add one thing. Um, and Mr. Moser, I hope you can take some notes and pass this on, man. And here's why. I I think this application demonstrates how we have a broken system to be honest with you. And I'll I'll read at the top of the ACD report. There are no roadways, bridges, or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that are in the 5-year work plan or the district's capital improvement plan. So, for the next 20 years, there ain't nothing near this site that they're going to fund in their CIP. And yet they're going to be charged 119 units at about 7K a unit, $800 and something,000 for what? Right. And yet there's an alternative method that they have in their policy manual that allows them to make improvements that we've discussed on this dis recently like in the downtown one we had a couple months ago where you know the some of these other streets that might be missing pieces like pieces of sidewalk or whatever could be funded right but they're not being funded because instead we're going with an impact fee approach instead. In addition to that, as we just mentioned, this whole on street parking discussion where we could have gotten maybe even a couple more units. Instead, we're being told, don't count these because someday we're going to widen this road even though these roads go nowhere. And so in two instances, in my opinion, you know, we're we're we're missing out on what could have been a better application for especially for the vicinity of the neighborhood, but unfortunately those mechanisms uh don't exist or we're not choosing to use them and I would love it if we did. So, but I will be in approval of the application for all the reasons I was stated. All right. Any other final discussions? All

right. Hearing none. Would the clerk please call the role? Danley. I. Moore. I. Schaefer. I. Torres. I. Stone. Hi. Darlings. Hi. Stons. I. All in favor? Motion carries. All right. Thank you all. This concludes this night tonight's proceedings.