Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening everybody and welcome to the Boisee City Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. 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 repres excuse me 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 with this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed five 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. Oh, good evening everyone. 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 the city council on subdivisions, reszones, annexations, and code or comprehensive plan amendments. Any decision made tonight may be appealed uh 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 given written or oral testimony at tonight's meeting, which is 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 to 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 with staff, applicant, neighborhoods association, and the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight with the clerk. Please call the role.

Danley here. Moore here. Schaefer here. Zha here. Torres here. Dome here. Dawings here. Deons here. All present.

Okay. Thank you very much. Let's go ahead and move forward to the consent agenda. The one and only item I think that might be up for the consent agenda. And maybe not. Let's see. Um item number one, CUP26-02. This is Shopworks Architecture. This is a conditional use permit application located at 860 West Sherwood Street. Is the applicant in attendance? Okay. Are you Marshall Gray by chance? You are Marshall Gray. And do you wish to testify in opposition to this item? Okay. Questions that you want staff or the applicant to answer? I'm assuming or hoping. Okay. Um well, so then if that's the case, then we're going to have to have that hearing and then we will have no items um that are up for the consent agenda. Let me just make sure if your questions are questions that um if they're answered a certain way, would that mean opposition from you? potentially. Okay, fair enough. That's all you got to say. In that case, let's move forward. We'll go to the staff or the applicant or staff and applicant. Um, it looks like Mr. Moser, I think. Yep. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for an allowed use of alternative zones with alternative zone specific standards associated with the mixeduse project comprised of multifamily development, a childcare facility and retail uses. The subject property is located between Island Avenue, Lust Street, and Sherwin Avenue and Capitol Boulevard is located about 200 feet to the east. It is

located within the Lust Street area master plan which is comprised of a mix of commercial and residential uses and situated within the downtown regional activity center and the University Drive and Capital Boulevard neighborhood activity center. The subject property is approximately 1.32 acres in size. A new four-story mixeduse building will be constructed on the west side of the property along Lust Street between Island and Sherwood Avenue. And these this site shows the site plan and the landscape plan and the phasing. The project is a mixeduse development that will contain multifamily development with a large child care and retail uses. The multif family portion includes 90 dwelling units which at total build eye which are intended for permanent supportive housing. The applicant is requesting an allowed use with alternative zone specific standards. The specifically includes the deviation from the MX5 zone specific building design requirements to incorporate a minimum of 80% of its ground floor street frontage for uses that are active by occupants in the general public. This requirement cannot be met because the proposed ground floor parking areas and vehicle access points. The subject property has three street furnishes and does not border an alley because it was vacated previously and cannot meet the 80% threshold while still providing the essential services such as parking and solid waste site service. In addition, the site borders the Lust Street to the west which is an important storefront commercial corridor within the Lust Street master plan. As such, vehicle and parking areas along L Street are greatly discouraged by the master plan. And as a result, Island Avenue and Sherwood Avenue frontages are the only viable points for ingress and egress for gas resident services as it will not interfere with the anticipated storefront commercial character of Lust Street. Therefore, the Sherwood Sherwood Avenue street facing elevation of the building will accommodate the structured parking and vehicle entrances which results in the building not providing the required ground floor active uses.

This slide shows the building elevations along Lust Street and Island Street. And you can note there are windows and active uses and doors visible from these street frontages. However, the along Sherwood since it is adjacent to um the the structured parking is does not provide this and as such does not meet project does not meet the 80%. Um active use standard. The planning team did receive a letter of support in regards to the proposed per in regard to proposed permanent supporting housing from catch and we also received another one that came in too late on Friday to support onto the commission from uh Terry Riley Health Services. In summary, the planning team recommends approval. Thank you.

Okay, we'll next hear from the applicant. [clears throat]

Mr. Chair, commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to present uh on the Sherwood and thank you Mr. Moser for the uh summation of our project. Um, we are in agreement with the uh staff recommendations. My name is John Vance. I'm with Northwest Real Estate Capital Corp. Um, we are the developer of the Sherwood. Can we go to the next? Which one? Sir, point it at the large screen, I think. Oh, is it the arrow button? This one right here.

Mr. Moer will scroll through. Just tell them when. Okay, go ahead.

Uh, thank you. Uh, so Northwest is a 501c3 developer, owner, and manager of affordable housing in eight western states. We're based here in Boisee, Idaho. Oh, sorry, my address, right? 210 West Malard Street. Uh 83706 is our office. Um we're a 501c3 developer, owner, and manager of affordable housing. Uh we work in eight western states. Uh the Sherwood will be our 42nd affordable housing project developed since 2015, and it will be our second permanent supportive housing uh project that um the other one being Valor Point out on State Street. Uh Shop Works Architecture is the architect. Um, Sharp Works is a nationally recognized leader in trauma-informed design. Uh, they promote healing and dignity through their uh, and safety through a user uh, design framework for all their spaces. Shopworks uh, go back one. Sorry, that's okay. Uh, ShopWorks has published several articles um, and research papers on the benefits of trauma-informed design on tenant outcomes and property performance. Next slide, please. As was mentioned, this is a 90-unit mixeduse development in the Lester Street District. Uh, this will be built in two phases. The ground floor of phase one will feature resident amenities and entryway. It'll also feature office space for our supportive um service providers, Catch and Terry Riley, as well as a daycare center. Uh, phase one will also include some outdoor play space for the children, as well as surface parking for tenants. Our anticipated construction is 2026 for phase 1. Phase two, ground floor will feature uh retail space along Lust Street as well as podium parking along Sherwood Street. Uh it will have 42 units of affordable housing for families uh exiting homelessness. Next slide, please. Oh, and uh anticipated constructions 2028. So, this

just gives us a a reference of where we are in Lust Street. Um, as you'll note, our uh, as was said earlier too, our site is bound by Island, Lusk, and Sherwood. However, there is no alley, and so the only access points are on currently on Lusk, Island, and Sherwood to allow uh, parking and uh, solid way services on our site. Next slide, please. [snorts] So, how did we get here? Uh the design challenges for this site uh are primarily that we're in a flood plane which is why we're doing a new construction instead of using the existing buildings that are there. Uh we do not have an alley for access as was noted earlier. And then the less street design criteria uh which prohibits us from having um vehicle access onto um less street and also requires active uses to try and create a main street feel. Um at the neighborhood meeting we had a couple of requests which was to improve the Lust Street presentation as well as include uh retail options for Lust Street. Uh our first iteration um which was changed before it was presented to planning and zoning and to design review had basically only elevated areas uh where the doorways are. Because we're in a flood plane, our building is raised between two and four feet depending on where you are on the site. Uh our initial design had the building going straight down to street level which left about 2 to 3 feet of just plain uh concrete um as the presentation which was uh not uh not loved by the neighborhood. So we made some changes. Uh next slide to accommodate that we changed and added kind of a front porch for our uh Lust Street to match what we had on Island Street. Uh this is elevated to get outside the flood plane and also added

some railings along both of those uh to give it more of a a front porch look for our development. We also added a more uh defined entryway for the residents uh to enter. It's a larger awning now and it has uh additional signage which kind of directs everyone to that being the front door for our project. Um we also added three retail spaces along Lux Street. Um our first iteration had uh podium parking from the front to the back of phase two. Um they asked us to increase or to add retail and decrease the parking which we did. Um and so all of that was done in response to the neighborhood meeting that we had uh earlier this year. Next slide please. And so, um, this is, uh, the Sherwood elevation. Uh, this is the one where we have the podium parking up above the 42 units of residential space. Again, this primary corner is the retail space that faces out onto Lust Street. Uh, but because we don't have an access or an alley access, basically our parking lot, which goes from Island to Sherwood becomes the alley. That's how all the residents and solid waste will access our site. Um, and then the podium parking will add about another 27 parking spaces to our overall count. Uh, by having all of that, we have about 54 parking spaces in total when the building is uh completed. Um, one of the things that we also got from recommended uh from the neighborhood was to have our screening have some sort of uh frame process. The uh trademark creative is located in Lust Street and they were at our neighborhood uh meetings and what they asked for was to have somehow get

all this screening to change every once in a while with different art. So they wanted to propose a different framing system that allowed us to quickly interchange uh the screening uh the screens that are presented. So it's not necessarily active, but we kind of get that activation feel by having different um artwork presented. The other thing uh that happened is currently the parking lot is along Island. We moved that over to Sherwood Street that matches the existing podium parking on the Osprey on the south end of Sherwood. and we provided our active space along Island which will match uh the JFiser uh development which will happen on the other side of island. So we put the active uses together and the less active uses together to kind of create more of a a main street feel for Island as well. Um and with that um I'll take any questions. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present tonight.

Okay, thank you much. Just give us a quick second. Need to make sure uh neighborhood association. So, this would be the Lusk District Neighborhood Association. Is there anybody in chambers or online who is from and is a spokesperson for the Lusk Street neighborhood? I have Kylie Bolan listed, but no. Okay. Okay. With that, then we'll go ahead and open it up to any questions from the commission. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore.

So, this application, if I understand correctly, is just about the amount of activated street frontage. It's not about like the use or the density, anything like that. It's just the activated street frontage amount. Mr. Chair, members of commission, that is correct. It's a it's a it's a waiver from that zone specific requirement of the MX5 for the active use that requires 80%. And Mr. Chair,

quick I think that the main facade that we're really looking at is that you know that facade with the artwork screening, right? The rest of them are kind of generally meeting that 80% but that artwork screening kind of tips it into the tips it over the edge of the, you know, into 60% range. Right. Mr. Chair, members of commission, that is correct. Okay. And then, Mr. Chair, one more. So, the way that it sounds like the the applicant has worked with the neighborhood and the city to mitigate that is to add kind of some screening in the style of artwork that can be interchanged from time to time.

Mr. Chair, that um and members of commission, that is correct. And they have also I think uh since the original added at that additional res or retail space there at the corner that fronts onto Lusk. Thank you. That's all I got. Okay. Any other questions on what's that? Okay. In that case, uh we'll go ahead and open this up to public testimony. So, Mr. Gray, if you would mind, come on up. Say your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

Yeah, my [clears throat] name is Marshall Gray. I'm uh currently res reside in the north end uh 4284 North Blue Place, Boisey. Um I work at Jim's Appliance, which is right across the street. Um I have a couple of concerns. Number one, u this facility is put together mainly for um lowincome housing. I would assume not necessarily for um college kids. Well, I'm not sure. Uh I'm concerned about parking. um if they have 90 units and 72 parking spots, uh that would anticipate that most of these um lowinccomes don't have cars when [snorts] I would assume in a two or threebedroom unit they're going to have one to two at least. Um there's pretty poor parking down there right now and uh I'm a little concerned about that. in in its entirety. Um, the other is culture mix. I would have to say without being rude or ungrateful or anything, uh, low income and college students, college students and their drive to make their life better and move different directions in life, make money. And I'm concerned about that mix. Um, I'm also concerned about u parking and the overall lusk development as the city's anticipated that to be somewhat of a future boto or 8th street or something like that. There was rumor of discontinuing

lusk and having it a walk only and so I just didn't know how that was going to work in the overall plan and what that does to our community down there. It's a wonderful spot. There is uh some really great restaurants and stuff back on the point. They barely have enough parking for for what they're doing. Um so I'm I'm really concerned about that. What's going to happen and the arguments and fights that we've already seen over parking and will that increase that problem? Those are my concerns. Those are my questions. Um, I haven't heard anything yet that sounds like any of that has been answered.

Okay. Thank you, sir. The applicant will have an opportunity for rebuttal um just in a moment and may be able to address some of those as well. Okay. Is there anybody else either in chambers or online who did not sign up tonight but who wishes to testify on this item? Okay, nobody on in chambers and it looks like nobody online. So, with that, we'll go ahead and close the um public testimony portion and bring the applicant back up. You'll have five minutes for any rebuttal and then the decision will be before the commission.

Uh thank you, chair. Uh members of the commission, uh this is low-income housing. Uh so um as far as college students, they're not allowed without uh particular um allowances. Uh so for the most part, it is going to be families that are living there. Um there are some allowances, like I said, uh that are provided in the low-income housing uh tax credit, but it's uh they're very few. So it won't be student housing uh by any means. As far as the car um requirements, the MX5 uh zoning does not require any parking uh at all. So, the fact that we're providing um the parking that we are is above and beyond what is required in that zoning. Um I understand the concern as far as the parking is is there because there's a lot of great restaurants as was mentioned. Madre Tacos is delicious. Um but the um the onus isn't just on us. There's a lot of other projects going on that have uh the similar requirements. Um based on the demographic that we will most likely serve, we are probably going to be serving quite a few families that only have one adult member. Uh so the likelihood of having two cars is is going to be uh rare in in those instances. So, um I think those are the the main concerns as far as what's being planned on the Lust Street development itself, the actual Lust Street. Um that's more in line with ACD and CCDC. Um and so it's kind of out of our purview. We do adhere to the design criteria and the rideway that does abut our U project, but it's mostly just street trees um and sidewalk areas. I think that addresses all the concerns.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And uh with that, the item is before the commission. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore, I move that we approve C26-2 for the reason stated in the staff report. Okay. I've got a com I've got a motion by Commissioner Moore. Is there a second? Second. I've got a second by Commissioner Stalling. Is there discussion? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Mort.

Um, certainly appreciate the the concerns. Um, unfortunately, the the particular scope that's in front of us today is just that activated street frontage piece. Um, so the use, the parking counts, things like that aren't in front of us. It's really just, you know, the deviation from 80% activated use along the street front to I think it's like 66 or something like that. % activated use and and how they're kind of mitigating that with those screens um and with the artwork and and the additional kind of 400 square foot retail uses. Um and so for those reasons and the reasons stated in the staff report, I'm in support of the project. Um but certainly appreciate the concerns and time coming out.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Is there any more discussion? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stalin, just want to second everything. Bisher Moore said and then just complement the pairing of uses of active uses and non-active uses with the adjacent developments. I think that was really thoughtful in the that main street feel um ideology that we're angling towards. I thought that was a fantastic solution. And then yeah to second the the artwork feels um thoughtful and incorporating of the culture of that neighborhood. Yeah. Nothing else. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Stings. Any other discussions? [sighs and gasps] Mr. Chair,

Commissioner St. um I will be supporting the motion. Um I agree with Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Stallings and I want to thank the um developer for working with the city on bringing some affordable housing um to our city.

I was waiting for Commissioner Torres, Mr. chair, [laughter] I'll jump in as well. Um, I echo my fellow commissioners and what they've already stated. I also just want to uh thank the developer for bringing in more affordable housing. There's a really great need in the city of Boisee for housing at the particularly the 30% the 30% to 60% AMI range. Um, so every little bit moves the needle and so I appreciate the project for for addressing that. Thank you. Okay, unless there's any other discussion, go ahead and take clerk, please call the role. I've got a mo I'm sorry, I've got a motion by Commissioner Moore and a second by Commissioner Stallings to uh approve the conditional use permit. And with that, clerk, please call the RO.

Stanley, I Moore, yes. Schaefer, yes. Sta, yes. Horris, yes. Dome, yes. Stalling, yes. Stfons, yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Let's move on to item number two. This is three different applications. I've got uh CVA25-76, CV C25-28, and SUB25-100. All located at 9501 West Bernett Drive. a variance annexation and preliminary and final plot uh request and this is also Mr. Moser.

Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the commission. The applicant requests an annexation of approximately 1.65 acre parcel with an R1B AIO zone which is residential suburban within the airport influence overlay zone. A variance is also included not to install the 10- foot wide, the required 10 foot wide detach sidewalk along Victory and a three lot preliminary and final plat subdivision is included with this application. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Victory and Bernett Drive. The surrounding areas comprised of residential neighborhoods with lots ranging in size from about 0.2 to 2 acres. The adjacent properties to the north, south, and west are located within the city of Boise. in the adjacent residential properties to the east and southeast are located within Ada County. The surrounding area of the subject property being annexed is a pro or the the overall area of the sub subject property being annexed is approximately 2 acres which includes the adjacent rideway. The subject property is currently zoned R1 in Ada County and the R1B zone is requested with the annexation. The R1B zone is consistent with the large lot rural land use designation of the comprehensive plan. In addition, the adjacent neighborhood to the north across Victory is zoned R1C and R1B. As such, the R1B zone is compatible with the comprehensive plan and the development patterns of the surrounding surrounding neighborhood. The R1B zone will also facilitate the development of additional housing and a mix of housing types with the neighborhood and there is a need for creation of additional housing within the city at large as detailed within the housing needs analysis report from 2021. The applicant proposes to annex the subject property and construct a cottage village development on the west side of the property, a forplex on the south. In addition, the applicant maintain will request to maintain the existing single family house at the corner of Victory Road and Bernett Drive. Vehicle access to the proposed cotta village and forplex will be from a service drive with a connection to B or will be from Bernett Drive with a connection to that to that road. The existing single family house will also maintain a driveway that

same driveway. Um, a recommended conditional approval will prohibit direct access to Victory Road, which will be noted on the plat. The proposed cottage village and forplex are conceptual in nature and are not before the commission tonight. These will require a separate land use approval. The proposed three lot subdivision complies with the standards and requirements in terms of lot size and frontages, street frontages of the proposed R1B zone. The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain the existing attached sidewalk along Victory and not install the required detached. The planning team recommends denial of the variance because we can find no hardship associated with the site. The subject property is a flat rectangular parcel with no unusual characteristics and there are several policies within the comprehensive plan that encourage the construction and installation of detached sidewalks along major corridors. Also, Victory Road is not scheduled to be improved on the current ACD 5-year capital improvement plan. However, it is scheduled on their on their plan between 203031 and 2035. The planning team did receive letters of opposition from the public expressing concerns with increased traffic and that the proposed R1B zone is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. To address these concerns, I would note that the R1B zone is consistent with the comprehensive plan land use designation and there are there are similar R1B and R1C zoned neighborhoods adjacent to the north across Victory and to the west at along Victory at the intersection of Mitchell Street and Victory Road. Also, the applicant will improve Bernett Drive Drive as a half street section abuing the site and ACD as noted will improve Victory Road to five lanes adjacent to the site between 2031 and 2035 to help address the traffic traffic issues along that road. In summary, the planning team recommends approval of the annexation and subdivision and recommends denial of the variance. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moser. applicant in attendance, come on up. [clears throat] If you wouldn't mind, state your name and address for the record. Is 10 minutes. Okay. Okay. It's more than enough. All right. Just making sure. Robin Gates, 2115 Heights Drive in, Boise. Um, do can you put up the plat, please? Um, no, just a plat of the property. the subdivision plot. Sorry, I gave this to him at the last second. I didn't This is

Is that in your in your thumb drive or you want him to pull up his Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So, as you see, we are proposing the three lot split. Um, our goal is on all of our developments is to do cottage development. So, now that you've gotten it where I asked you to put it, could you put it to the two landscape plans, please? I'm sorry. I brought examples of two um different cottage developments that we're doing collectively, our team. Um, and this is my goal is to do these. It's a just another option for more affordable housing. And this is why we purchased this lot was to be able to do this project. Um so, okay, I'll start with the neighborhood meeting because I think that's important to start with that. Um this was the property outlines, the three different lots is exactly what I proposed at the neighborhood meeting. I did have on lot one a single family residence. Uh lot two I had a cottage development and lot three I had an existing house and that was my intent um at that time. At that time we did not have partners to do this project with and after that we got partners and so some stuff has changed but everything that I told the neighbors is true. I said if we are approved for R1B, anything that's allowed in R1B can be on there, but this is our intent. So, I'm going to start with that. Um, the concerns for the neighbors for the most part was just human nature. I don't want development. I don't want things denser than where I am. Um, a lot of people don't think this is appropriate for the neighborhood. Um I there's not much I can do about that

because I disagree with that viewpoint. I think we do need affordable housing and this is how you get it. Um they had a lot of concerns about uh Bernett. They said people are sliding in and out and the lady across the street to the to the east um has had problems with people knocking out her sprinklers and stuff which would upset me too if I were her. Um, but I can't do anything about the road. So, what I can do is they were concerned, the people to the south were concerned about um view into their backyard. So, at the neighborhood meeting, I told everyone um that I would write or I would contact the adjacent neighbors only because there were a lot of people there um once we had a further plan like this and go over it and get their feedback. So I hand wrote a note to these people and mailed it to them. I had one person write me back which is a lady to the south and we had a great conversation yesterday. I told her what I was doing in the design to basically address all her concerns. Um and I didn't hear back from anybody else. Um

Okay, let's hold that. Okay. And if you want to testify, you're welcome to say that then. Go ahead.

Thank you. Um, and they had an issue with rodents. They're concerned about rodents. So, um, our design team that we have now has been talking to I think it's irrigation lady. They've been talking to somebody about trying to help with the rodents when they start moving the dirt. Okay. Um, I'm just going to move on if that's all right. Um, so lot one right now we have um we're calling them town homes or we're calling them a forplex because it's currently one lot. But once it's done, we're going to condo them and sell them individually. So they're really town homes, but until we get to that point, they can't be called town homes because it's all on one lot. Um, but with the new red lines that you guys are hopefully signing in soon, um, one of the things that was in the old zoning was you can't have two cottage developments right next to each other or within 400 ft. And that's going away to the best of my knowledge. So once that gets signed over and we actually start the design process, lot one could become outages as well. Um, but again, this this hearing is not even about the development. I just want to be very clear on the the intent. Um let's see. So I I read through all the letters from all the different departments on um what they wanted their kind of conditions of approval. Um and we're in agreement with everything. I mean there's really nothing much there. Um I sorry I'm not the best public speaker but um the only item that we'd like to really discuss is the variance item. Um and Tanner I think would like to discuss it. He's Tanner with uh Haven Idaho. These are the builders that we've been partnering up with on these projects. It's a small company that does quality

infill projects and he's been great to work with. But I'll let him talk. Uh Tanner Verhooks, uh 26230 Moononglow Drive in Middleton. Um Mr. Chair and members of the commission, thank you for having me tonight. Um yeah, like Robin mentioned, um we'd like to discuss uh the variance for the detached sidewalk. Um in in talking earlier today with with the design team in the group, um we all agreed and wanted to make it clear that we're not trying to get out of doing anything. Um, we're not trying to avoid cost or anything. Um, we want to be really intentional with the sidewalk that goes there and we'd hate for that to get ripped out in five, six years when victories widened. And so at the front of the site, we're planning for a landscape buffer. Um, pretty deep one. I think there's a a 30 30 foot landscape buffer there. And we want that to be uh a nice experience u for pedestrians to walk through. We like to incorporate the sidewalk into the buffer. um maybe have uh trees and and benches and things of that nature. Uh we're planning for our storm water retention to be up there. Um and one of the other landscape plans that was shown earlier at Pat's Cottages. Uh all of our storm water uh detention basins. We're we're actually doing uh we actually submitted a variance with the drainage department to do uh vertical sidewalled retention basins with boulders and stuff. Um and they actually really liked it and probably going to approve the variance. Um and so it's going to look really nice, right? you have boulders, you got trees. We're going to, you know, make it very park-like is the goal. And so, we just wanted to be intentional with the sidewalk that gets put in there. And we're not trying to avoid doing anything. We just don't want to do anything prematurely. And so, wanted to work with you guys and try to figure out how to plan for that detached sidewalk um appropriately um for it to not get ripped out and overwritten when uh the road widening comes through.

Um, and uh I'll stand for any other questions if there are any. Anybody else on your team want to You've got a couple minutes if you want it.

For the new um in the new red line thing, we saw that there if once that is accepted. Right now um the 10- foot sidewalk is in the code. Oh yeah. Sorry. Thanks, Greg. Oh, sorry. That's all right.

Um, in the new zoning, if you guys approve it, it says if a road is getting widened in the next 5 years, um, scheduled scheduled to be widened, then you you can get out of it. And, um, as David, who's been great to work with on this, pointed out, he said it won't be completed within 5 years. But the verbiage is gray area as far as I'm concerned. So, I just wanted to throw that in. It is something that you guys are trying to add to your zoning. So, I mean, maybe this is just something that says get the verbiage a little bit more clear. I don't know if you already said that. I was chith.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh probably have some questions for you momentarily. Um, we'll turn our attention to the neighborhood association. Is the Southwest Ada County Neighborhood Association here? I'm having some computer issues, so I can't access my Zoom, Crystal. Okay. All right. Well, with that, then we'll go ahead and open it up to questions um of the commission for either staff or the applicant. So, if applicants, if you wouldn't mind coming back up, I'm sure there'll be some questions for you. I think Mr. Chair,

Commissioner Moore, I'll start again. Um, so I think I've got a couple of questions, but I'll start with question for Mr. Moser. Um, so the location, the sidewalk location, typically that's, you know, ultimate build out. ACD's got a plan for what their full buildout of the road is going to be and you'd put your sidewalk kind of where that's anticipated. Is that what the current conditions are requiring is is at full build out after this widening happens or is it would it change?

Mr. Chair, members of commission with the subdivision, they would have to install it or bond for the sidewalk in order to get the the plat recorded. So ideally, if they were going to install it, they would need to work with highway district and figure out where that sidewalk's going to go. I don't know where they are. I'm assuming they're starting their planning process. If they're looking at 2031 or that somewhere in that that phase, I don't know if it's I don't know where quite where they are in their planning process, what this road's going to look like. Although other than it's going to be five lanes. So maybe they could figure out what the rideway width is least and then measure it off from there. But ideally just work with ACD and they would need to figure and then install it correctly. Okay. And Mr. Chair,

Commissioner Moore. Um, so that all makes sense. So for um for the applicant, there was one part and I think you kind of alluded to it, but there was one part in the reason statement that was a little bit confusing and it says another reason for the variance request is that during the cottage design process, we'll be proposing to use that 30-foot landscape buffer as a desirable outdoor space and that affects the design of the 10-ft sidewalk. Could you detail that a little bit? I was a little bit confused about how those are intermingling because the 30-foot space isn't going to change.

Okay, I can see where that's confusing. So, um, all the other subdivisions along Victory just put up a big old fence and then they've got their homes. We want to landscape that area and we're going to have access to the cottages from from that sidewalk. So, we were talking about having like actual edible gardens or um pollination plants and but make it more of an experience as you come through there um with more of a design than just a straight 10-ft sidewalk. Maybe something that kind of curves out, put a little bit more money into it, make it an experience. But right now, we just have boxes on a site plan. So, um, until we know if we're going to get approved, we're not going to start design on that, but at some point we will, and we would like to make it an experience.

Yeah. And Mr. Chair, Mr. Moore, a followup for Mr. Moser, it seems like the last several applications, the city's kind of preferred more straightened sidewalks as opposed to meandering. Is that still kind of the case? The city would be more supportive of a straighter sidewalk instead of a meandering deal, Mr. Mr. Chair, members of commission, that is correct. We we don't we do not like meandering. They're difficult for um folks with visibility impairments to to to navigate or other um assessments, but but we want we'd like straight sidewalks and that is I think there are specific policies within the uh the comprehensive plan that encourage Okay. non-meandering, right? So, and um and a little bit more, Mr.

One more. You get one. One more. Okay. I had two. Okay. Two. Okay. So to follow up on that, I think the mention of the code that's going in front of city council tomorrow, we can't make any decisions on based on code amendments that have not gone in front of city council, right? They would need to come back later after that was approved or modified or however whatever happens tomorrow. Mr. Chair, members of commission, that is correct. This application needs to be um reviewed against the code that is currently in place and as it was submitted under perfect and then one more Mr. Chair. Go ahead.

Okay, so the last one is unrelated to the sidewalk. So for the density piece, it's 2 acres. R1B is 4.8 units per acre, which is what eight nine almost 10 units, but they're proposing 12ish. So they're using some affordability covenants to achieve a higher density. Mr. Chair, members of commission, that would be correct. When they come in for the forplex or the cottage village, they're going to have to use the affordability incentive um to exceed that density. Awesome. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Torres,

as a followup on Commissioner Moore's questions about the the new code that's being heard again tomorrow night, uh code amendments, I mean, I'm sorry. Um, [snorts] we obviously, as Commissioner Morset uh asked and and you answered, we cannot consider um based on what might be approved tomorrow night or might not be approved tomorrow night. How does it work? If we make a decision tonight and it's appealed and the appeal takes place after a potential approval of the code amendments, they would still be bound by the code as it is right now. Is that correct, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that is correct? They are be reviewed under the current under the code that this was submitted and accepted under.

Okay, other questions. Chair, Commissioner Stefons. Um, yeah. Uh, real quick, and I don't know, uh, this is for the the city, uh, Mr. Moser. Uh the uh neighborhood to the uh east of this property, it's zoned R1 R1A. When when was that? When did that come into zoning? I know this might be a tough hard question, but Mr. Chair, members commission, the one to the west or to the east? The the one in the city? Oh, the west. Sorry. The west. I believe that was annexed into the city about 2014

or 2017. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Schaefer. Uh question for staff David. So regardless of the uh proposed development on these parcels, we have three parcels um all meeting R1B code requirements for square footages and setbacks. Correct, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that is correct.

Okay, great. Thank you. And then I'm sorry, just to to double back on the sidewalk topic. Um I'm a little gray. So, the victory widening is on a it's not on ACD's 5-year work plan. It's on the 10-year work plan. CIP 20-year capital improvement plan. Okay. Mr. Chair, members of commission, I it be on the the 10ear uh the the 2031 to between 2031 and 2035. It's not the current one that's in place. It'd be So, I I don't know how they do that, but their CIP plan.

Okay. Okay. Very good. All right. And then to the applicant which um I'm just curious on your timing and I guess before I go back to you guys real quick process-wise with this application before us um next step assuming approval assuming approval city council design review or do they go straight into building permit? Mr. chair, members of commission, the next step after annexation is complete at council and as a and the and the ordinance is has been read then would be the for them to finalize the subdivision

um and then get that recorded and then they would need to apply for um the planning applications. It would be a cottage village um CCC and uh probably a CCC for the for the forplex. Okay. Okay, great. So then to you to the applicant team timing I mean per Mr. Moer's input right there you have quite a long runway here of reviews if you would develop it as proposed tonight. Is that your guys's understanding of that? Correct.

Okay. So yeah great. All right. Thanks. Thanks D. Okay. Other questions? once. Sorry, real quick. Better be okay. The applicant team, Mr. Schaer, um you guys are proposing. So, no issue on the detached sidewalk that's proposed on. It's just a victory that you're asking for the variance for correct. Yeah, Bernette. Bernett makes a lot of sense. The victory one just coupled with the road widen anyway. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. I'm done now, Mr.

Excellent. All right. Any other questions? All right. Okay. Well, with that, then we'll go ahead and open this up. Thank you for answering the questions. We'll go ahead and open this up to the public testimony portion. And I've got about seven or eight names here. And it looks like first up, I think it's Susan. Is it Barkcus? Okay. Come on up. And just if you would state your name and your address for the record and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you chairman commissioners. Thank you. My name is Susan Barkcus. I live at 9402 West Bernett Drive. I'm three doors down from this development. I've lived in Boise, Idaho for 43 years. The last 18 of them have been in southwest Boise. I'm three houses away from the property on Bernard Drive. When I moved into this location, I was delighted with the space and the overall rural feel of this area. I opposed this project. It doesn't fit into the surrounding areas, will cause congestion in our quaint neighborhood, and it will be ugly compared to the surrounding homes. The particular property is bordered by Victory, which is a parking lot early morning and late afternoon. Bernett Drive is narrow and steep. People now are driving up and trying to make U-turns in that small space. And that's kind of a precursor for the drivers in this new development. One of the refreshing benefits about this area is there are little or no cars parked along Bernett. Even though the developers are planning car spaces for the cottages based on city code, I doubt there's enough planned parking for these additional units to park. Where will they park? a small section of Bernett. Parking along along Bernett should never be allowed. It's too narrow. Even when adding the sidewalk down down it, it will be narrow and steep. I opposed the 2017 Diamonte subdivision for these same reasons. It was through the Bernett Acres Group and those on Ron Meadows that we pushed for halfacre lots to let to ensure less density in our neighborhood. In 2020, music subdivision was created, further extending higher density in the area. I was able to pull an old map of the area before these two

subdivisions were built. It's amazing how the landscape has changed from very ruralike to higher density housing. So here you you can just see it's a block of green. We were surrounded by pastures and horses and now we I raised sheep for for 15 years. Um, but but now it looks like this. And all these slots are lots. Now you're going to put 14 units in this tiny space. Um, what I wish for is some breathing room in our area. Southwest Boise or 8379 is unique. Around 2015, I attended a city council meeting and there was a PowerPoint presentation that read, "Southwest Boise, embracing our edge." That was when they were really trying to annex us and then they decided they would not. I'd like you to stay away from our edge. Too many pieces of land along Maple Grove and FiveMile Road are now being developed. They're portions of maybe four or five acres or more of some probably farmland that's carved into and they're going to put in houses, but those areas are so much bigger than this tiny little square on the corner of Victory M and Bernett. It's like the developers are using a shoe horn to fit in housing. It's hard to get in and out of need to stop.

Just increasing density. One more. I can't I can't allow you to go over the three minutes. I've got 10 seconds. No, it's over. when you Okay, fine. Sorry about that. I just have to make sure everybody has their equal time. Thank you. Okay. Um I believe it's Claire. Is it Spansler? Butchered that. Sorry about that.

Thank you, chairman, commissioners. Thank you for your service, volunteer service. Appreciate it very much. My name is Claire Sponseller. I live at 9630 West Romero Meadowsport, two houses away from this planned proposal. Um, I grew up in Boisee, have lived in four states and visited many, many more. Uh, my husband and I came back because we love the lifestyle and wanted to raise our family in Idaho. A large attraction in Boise is our green space, the balance between urban and rural. We are losing that balance. There have been plenty of press releases in the last year that attest to the citizens with the same conclusion. I could go on about victory road capacity, the acting the actual listing costs for the proposed cottages units, appropriate fencing setbacks, feasibility of the Bernett roaded adaptations, etc. However, I think our sense of community and how we grow is just as important, if not more than those critical planning topics. 2024, I was a co-chair of a national conference for my professional peers across the nation. We held it at the Boisey Center with,200 attendees that came from all over. They loved our green space, location, and natural resources, and the safe community. Boise secret has been out for years, and a large part of why we move here is our community. People want to feel safe and welcome just as much as they want financial security. 8379 is rural, unincorporated county across much of the zip code. Inventory is low as 8379 as far as housing listed and is not and the houses are not listed for long because of that ruralness. It's land availability and space. There are few HOAs and the housing is distance from the downtown sites but still with an easy access. I know there is a growth and it must be addressed. What I'm asking for is balance. We need to create affordable housing but we need to address the community needs. We are headed in the same path as many metropolitan areas in the west and we can do better. Look at the front range of Colorado 10 to 15 years ago compared to now. It used to be a corridor that held town separation but still showed its agricultural heritage. Now it is one huge path that is more urban than rural

losing that small town local western feel. This proposal in area in southwest boyce still has that agricultural heritage. However, it is quickly disintegrating the way highdensity housing is approved. Studies show when you put highdensity housing next to rural spaces, it raises prices. I thought we were trying to minimize this effect and not compound it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should make the hard work count to find the balance between urban and rural. I ask that this be reszoned to 1A. R1A that matches the neighboring plots around this direct lot. The eastern plots are zoned R1. An R1A reszone still allows for growth but aligns more with the neighborhood and community. It would appease your strongest opponents and boyisey citizen and taxpayers. I am willing to compromise R1A RU. I'd like to see us work together to create a city for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thanks for coming out. Okay. Uh Carol, I think it's McFadden and then Sean Tips after that. I have my own. So, unfortunately, we can't accept that. It has to be part of our official packet and that there's a deadline for that that is, I think, earlier to mid of last week. So, I'm sorry to tell you that folks out here, they have their own copy of it. Ma'am, could you just wait till you get to the microphone so we can get us all on?

I will. Okay. My name is Carol McFaden. I live at 9500 Bernett Drive and um I've uh lived in Idaho all my life, multi-generational Idahoan. So to begin with, I would like to say that I oppose the designation of the zoning. I don't think R1B is appropriate for this. If you, my plot map shows in detail everything between Mitchell Road and Maple Grove, which is an area of a half a mile at least, and everything south of Victory, is either R1A or R1, except for this little corner, which was they want to develop, which was R1. one which is right. This is our neighborhood. Our neighborhood doesn't exist across the street. Victory Road is currently three lanes. There are minimum of 30foot setbacks and more on the north side. North side is landscaped with vegetation and trees and a winding sidewalk. But we can't see into those neighborhoods. Our neighborhood, as is evidenced when you drive in or walk in, is R1A and R1. That's our neighborhood. And they want to plop this development right in the middle of it. The density of the housing that they want to put in there is far denser than what's in R1C across the street. If you look at the bottom right hand corner of R1C lots, there are six of them there. six dwellings in a space analogous to this 1.65 acre lot. They are wanting to put

in 13 or 14 of the of the little cottages or 10 right now on the plot. If the zoning changes and they're able to do another a little collection of the little mini houses, we call them bird houses. Um they will be they could put easily another four or five in there easily where that forplex is. They have 13 spots for parking. I recently built a duplex in Oldtown Meridian. One half of it was grandfathered in, so I only had to have three or so off- streetet parking spots. The new portion I built had to have five for a two-bedroom duplex, off- streetet parking, five. They are allowing 1.2 or something parking spaces, but that does not include, we have a three or four bedroomedroom home in existence without a garage right now. They knocked it down, a forplex going up, plus there's just not enough parking. So, they're going to be parking lining the road on what they're calling Bernett Drive. It's been changed to Quirkus, but that doesn't matter.

Okay, so that is that is my I I need a Sorry. Yep. Three minutes, but thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. Uh next up is Sean Tips, followed by Jim Carson.

Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Sean Tips. I live at 9638 West Bernett Drive. This is all going to happen 10 feet from my house. I'd like to point out this. I know you guys can't all see it, but this is the surrounding neighborhood. There are 19 homes in that surrounding neighborhood. This is where they propose to put at least 14 and maybe 15 more residences, more dwellings. That does not fit in our neighborhood. this neighborhood. And so this isn't across the street from or adjacent to. This is in the neighborhood. We all have concerns about that kind of density. But I would ask everybody here, how would you feel if they were going to put the density of your whole neighborhood in your backyard? It's essentially what's happening here. We are totally against reszoning to R1B. We would ask you to leave it R1A, allow them to build sensibly and not double the capacity of the plan that we currently are living on. There are all kinds of other problems, not not the least of which is that let's just say that this has been less than transparent. I know that I know that the city has has documentation that say that the the meeting with the neighborhood was generally good. It was not. Nobody wanted this. We had concerns at seven homes. Now we're talking 14. We have concerns about parking. Quirkus, which is still named Quirkus, is not even completely paved. I mean, it's cut up and and choppy. There's no there's no uh there's no curbing,

there's no markings, there's no light, there's nothing there. People are going to try to come into there. And again, the parking situation, we know the parking situation is not going to be good. Where are they going to park? That road is slick in the winter and unsafe. Most of us won't use it, but that will be their only in and out of that place. We spent half a million dollars to buy our home eight years ago based largely on the zoning that we bought it in. We were knew we were going to be in R1A and we knew the property behind us was also R1A. Now somebody comes along and they want to change that. I would ask anybody, would you be happy with that? Not only are they going to want to reszone it, but they want to double the capacity of the neighborhood on that one little piece. None of us wants this. We understand that that we need to build and we need to expand, but we would ask you guys to really consider whether R1B is the right way to do it. R1A would be fine. Let them let them develop what R1A allows. We're not against the dividing of the lot even time. Sorry.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming out. Okay. Uh Jim Carson, followed by Tanner, is it Vorhees, I think it is. Oh, thank you. Okay. Appreciate it.

Hello, my name is Jim Carson. I live at 9647 West Brunette Drive. I've lived there for all of about 10 days. So, my introduction to Diamonte subdivision was seeing the signs go up that they want to split this property. And unfortunately, that's all too familiar for me. As my wife and I lived in Nampa, in rural Nampa, for the last 28 years and have seen our property surrounded by subdivision after subdivision after subdivision, um some max density, some um large lot subdivision. And one of the things that we did notice or that we an effect that we had on us was we lost approximately $150,000 value to our home based on the subdivisions that went around us. So it negatively affects the neighbors. I know the developers when they look at these pieces of land that they want to carve up, they look at these lands and they think about max profits, but you need to think about what it does to those of us that are in that neighborhood. I feel sorry for Susan who spoke first. She opposed the Deamonte subdivision um because it was what it was going to do to her land. And you guys hear emotion in people's voice because it's an emotional topic. I know for you guys it's another, you know, night of business and I get it and we're all about, you know, affordable housing and whatnot in the city of Boise, but it affects people and I would ask you to take take that into account. Not just can they put in the sidewalk that ACD requires and will they do you know interactive landscaping so you enjoy walking to and from your house but how does it affect the neighbors um allow I'm opposed to it obviously hopefully you can tell that um it's it's a nice rural area that feel I'm in a halfacre lot in a half a halfacre lot subdivision and everything to the east is nice little acreage properties goats sheep. And I get it. Who wouldn't want

to live there? But nobody wants to see that property split and have I I by my count I had 15 homes. I know Commissioner Moore, you said R1B allows it to go to 4.48 um homes per acre. And I read the sign up there and it says 1.65 acres. And so I did my math. That comes out to 7.92 units. And we're talking about 15 counting the ex the existing home. And I know they talked about the um uh I guess the uh low-income housing, you know, clause that they can get more homes in there. And the the one nice lady even spoke about um yes, they propose a forplex on lot one, but boy, after this thing gets passed and this other zoning gets uh uh approved, they're going to cram some more cottages on that lot. So that's kind of bait and switch if you ask me. So I appreciate your time. I appreciate your service to the city of Boise, to the public, uh, at large. But really, I would ask you when you, you know, I don't know if you think about this right now and make your vote or if you're going to, you know, take it and and talk about it later, but I would ask you to think about how it affects my neighbors right here. They've been there more than 10 days. Um, but I I would ask you to take that into effect when you make your decision. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Um, Shane Anderson. All right, sounds good. Um, is there anybody in chambers that the we're out of uh folks who've signed up, but if you want to testify, you're welcome to come on up if you haven't done so already. Or if you're online and you wish to do so, now is the time to raise your hand. So, anybody on chambers want to come up who hasn't? Looks like nobody. And online, I only have one. Must be for the next item. I think. Okay. Last chance. All right. Well, that concludes the uh public testimony portion of things. So, we'll bring the applicant back up. You have an opportunity to rebut for five minutes anything and everything you heard.

Mr. Chair, um Commissioner Torres drank a lot of water this afternoon. Could he request a bathroom break real quick before we have the rebuttal? I love how you just went third person on us. That was cool. Um, yeah, let's go ahead and do that and give yourself five minutes. No problem. You okay? I think we're ready to rock. Okay, if we can reconvene, we'll pick up where we left off. So, we'll bring the applicant back up and you'll have five minutes for rebuttal.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, thank you. Um, I just I just wanted to start off and thank the neighbors uh for their testimony. Um, I I do hear the emotion in the room. I I do get it. Uh, change uh can be tough. Um, what I have up on the screen is Path Cottages. Uh, this is our other cottage development that is approved and about to break ground. Um, I know one of the neighbors called these bird houses. Um, and I'm sure there's a lot of fear that it's going to be a sea of asphalt and um and and poorly built houses or low-income housing or something like that, but um Haven Idaho, we we try to really develop thoughtful things. We try to be good neighbors. Um we take into account what's around us. Um and so uh at Bernett, um there is 6oot privacy fencing, vinyl fencing that's already in place on our perimeter. Uh we're respecting all setbacks. Uh we're going to landscape heavily like you see at Pat's Cottages here. Pat's Cottages has a nice uh park-like feel. Um I don't have the renderings with me tonight, but it's very nice. These houses are meant to u serve a number of needs. Uh people that are retired and want to downsize. Uh people that want to live in a minimalist nature and and don't want acreage to take care of. Um lowincome housing. I don't want to even use that term, but people that just need affordable housing. Right. We we're in an affordability crisis. Um they're single moms with kids, things of that nature. People just need somewhere to live. They don't need a lot of space. They don't want a lot of space, but they want to be close to Boyisey. Um in regards to traffic, uh David Moer spoke to that. We know that Victory is being widened in the future. This is a major corridor. Uh we are willing to improve Bernett to improve that. Uh one of the neighbors mentioned that uh they don't even really use this uh access point on Bernett. they go around the other way. So, it kind of seems to me like we're not in the neighborhood, we're adjacent to the neighborhood, and we're trying to be respectful what's

around us. And we believe that this is truly helpful uh to the city's goals of housing. Um, regarding the town home and and cottage question on what's going to be on the other lots, um those are decisions that are to come and are going to go through planning. Um we'll weigh those and evaluate that. Um, but we want to have a mix of housing, cottages, town homes, uh, single family house. I think that that meets that goal of the city there. And I know Robin wanted to speak to some other things.

I'm just going to say a couple things. One, um, just the nature of density. The closer you get to the core, the denser things are going to get. And we're literally right on victory. um with bus stops and all the stores nearby there. Uh I just want to make sure that it is very clear that we are on victory. We're not in the middle of a rural area. And then um also this product, and I know you guys probably don't care about this, but like on Pierce Park, my daughter who's 27 and a single mom is hopefully going to be able to buy one of them. and there's nothing else in the market that she could afford to to have. Um, we really are trying to be part of the solution to the problem and I'm I'm just going to choose to leave it at that.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. With that, we'll go ahead and close the item and it has been front of the commission. And so just to level set again, we have two items that we are recommending body to city council for and one we are a decision-making body. So we have an annexation and the preliminary and final plat which will still go to council and uh variance which is in front of us though subject to appeal of course. So um with that why don't we start make this this simply I think why don't we just start with the annexation if that's okay

you want to do both okay we can do both right so let's go ahead let's party let's see what happens here so uh we'll go annexation and preliminary and final plat and uh see if there's a motion and then we'll discuss and go from Mhm. Mr. Sure. Commissioner Schaefer. Uh I recommend uh approval of CVA276 and C25-28. All the terms and conditions in the staff report. Okay. I've got a motion by Commissioner Schaefer to recommend approval for both C25-28 and SUB25-100. That what you said, right?

Okay. Sorry, I was taking notes. All right. Is there a second? Oh, sorry. I think I Sorry. I apologize. I apologize. I think I had Did I have the I had the variance in there, didn't I? My apologies. My apologies. I'll step back. Recommend approval of C25-28, which is the annexation, and recommend approval of SUB25-100, which is the preliminary and final plat with all the terms and conditions as written in the staff. Okay. Thank you for the clarification, Commissioner Schaefer. Is there a second? Second. Second.

I have a second by Commissioner Torres. Is there discussion? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaefer. Uh first of all, I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight u the presentation by the applicant team and then for all the testimony. Um as discussed in the testimony, you know, change is always um difficult and you know we're tasked at this dis with understanding where we are today and where the city is going in the future. So uh when I look at this application, of course, we are annexing into the city of Boisey. We're going from R1 in the county and aos to R1B with this application. Um, and I also want to be very clear here that the course tonight is the annexation and the reszone. We're not looking at cottage development. We're not looking at townhouse development. We're looking at uh an annexation into the city and then what zone is appropriate, you know, for that annexation. Uh there's a lot of discussion um in testimony in the presentation about should be R1A, should it be R1B. Um both those zones are adjacent uh to this property. When I look at both those zones, um the the difference is in lot square footages. Okay, setbacks are the same between R1A and R1B. The difference between R1A and R1B is the the square footage. R1A at 2,000 square feet, R1B at 9,000 square feet. As proposed, the three lots that we're looking at here in this application, um are actually closer to R1A in size. Okay. Uh lot three, which is the existing lot, is about just shy of 20,000 square ft. Lot two is over 30,000 ft². And lot one is about 14,000 ft². So when I look at that, I feel that the size of the lots, although it's

listed as R1B, um they're larger than the R1B minimums, and therefore I feel like they're appropriate to blend this proposed these proposed lots with the surrounding developments in the neighborhood. Mr. Chair, yes. One small point of clarification, Commissioner Schaefer, uh you dropped a zero on and you said 2,000 when you meant 20,000.

Sorry, 20,000. You're right. Thank you. Good catch. Thank you, Crystal. So, uh, taking all that into consideration, um, I feel like the as proposed, the lot sizes are appropriate for this condition. Um, and we are in a, you know, densifying part of the city. Uh, this part of town is difficult because there is so much ground that is Ada County, so much ground that is the city of Boisee. So, um, I want to I want to be very clear that I think the applicant team's done a nice job finding a point here where these three lots are an appropriate size. Now, we're probably get into some more difficult discussions in the future about what's proposed on those three lots, but what's before us tonight are three lots that are asking to be brought into the city. So, that's where I stand um with this application right now.

Okay. Thank you for Commissioner Schaefer. Further discussion,

Mr. Chair, Mr. Stallings. Uh, I will second everything Commissioner Schaefer Schaefer said, but you know, just also add we have feedback from our public agencies, our fire and police, um, Boisey Sewer, the water, um, the Oola water that feel this isn't acceptable and can be absorbed without increased cost and expense um, on, you know, a non-bordering property. And this overall I believe it supports the city's goals towards a pattern of scalable considerable sustainable um density in growth in this way. I thought it was um a well thoughtout plan and that's it.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Stallings. Any further discussion? Mr. Chair, I seconded [clears throat] the motion, but Commissioner Schaefer and uh Stallings pretty much covered everything I was going to say, so I will not add anything. Okay, Commissioner Moore.

Um Mr. Chair, um I'm in support of the motion. I think it's agree. I I think that R1B is an appropriate uh zone for this space. You know, Victory Road is a minor arterial. Um when the minor arterial, you know, that's a fair amount of traffic for large lots. That's kind of not what you anticipate with that much traffic, that much volume going by. That's kind of where you want to center density. Um, so R1B, especially with R1C adjacent, R1 B kind of caddy corner, kitty corner to that, um, feels appropriate to me, uh, in this particular location. Uh, and I think I'm in support of the motion and in support of the project for that reason.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Any other additional points we haven't mentioned? Anything? Okay. Um, I think it's just important. I'll just reiterate what Commissioner Schaefer said about what's actually in front of us. That's that's the tricky part that we're having to deal with, too. And that is what we have is is a subdivision application, but what we don't have is the actual housing units that the applicant has has brought forward. That doesn't mean that it's not coming, what have you. But that's not what we get to lean on legally. I can't have you do that because you have to understand we have to have a legal decision. That that legal decision has to be defendable in court. That means it's based on our code. What is in front of us is a subdivision application that is based on our code. What is not in front of us is the a lot of what we heard in terms of the the cottage homes and all of the things that might come forward. Not denying that but again legally defensible and that's that's the the challenge that this body has to face otherwise we get the city and the residents in trouble. So with that I'm going to be in mo in support of the motion. Um, let's go ahead and have the clerk please call the role.

Danley, I Moore, yes. Schaefer, yes. Deha, [clears throat] yes. Hores, yes. Dome, yes. Stallings, yes. Stfons, yes. All in favor? Motion carries. Okay, that leaves us with the variance. Mr. Chair, Mr. Schaefer. Uh, I am going to move to deny the variance request. CBA25-76. [gasps] Okay. I've got a motion by Commissioner or Schaefer to deny the variance request. Is there a second? Second. I think that's by uh Commissioner Sehaw. Yeah. All right. Discussion, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Schaefer.

Okay. Um, just I'll be try and be quick here. It's like a It's like a reluctant denial. Okay. So, um, what's at play? Uh, you know, a month ago, we reviewed the code change the council's going to discuss tomorrow, which alters how we handle rightway improvements, um, on ACG's 5-year work plan. And that was to my point of my earlier questioning to you all about schedule process, that sort of thing. Y'all have a year or two of additional planning, approvals, you know, drawings, that sort of thing. So um my thought process here is that that would give you time to coordinate with ACD on their widening of victory. You have additional approvals to come through the city and we can pick this up this discussion up again in the future. Right? Ideally we can find a place where this sidewalk is built in its final configuration as you develop your property. Whether you do that or ACG does that I don't know just now. But there were so many things in play that I felt like the the cleanest course of action was to approve this to deny the variance proceed as code dictates now um that we have before you know that we're operating under right now um and let things play out. So um again agreeable to the thought process that you guys presented just trying to find the best path to make it happen. So that's why I'm denying the variance.

Okay. Any other discussion? Mr. Seah

Mr. chair. Um I I see Commissioner Schaefer's point. I guess maybe I was looking at from strictly what's in front of us, right? What does the code say today? And there really is no um like the the the location is not configured strangely that would require you or would wouldn't require but would need you to work with what you have, right? Um and for consistency purposes too applying what we have to be looking at for variances. I mean we have to be consistent across the board. So that is why I support the denial of the variance.

Thank you. Commissioner say hi. Any other discussion? Um I'm going to add something real quick here because I think it's relevant and that is a couple of things. One, why are we not doing meandering? We're not doing meandering because this is not just a 10-ft sidewalk. It's really a multi-use pathway. And when we introduce bicycles into a meandering situation, it becomes challenging for pedestrians. So, we're trying to get away from that. Um, secondly, um, not long ago, a few years ago, ACD had a project, I think it was Locust Grove project that ended up going, if I'm not mistaken, something close to a hundred million dollar project. And that project was bid originally estimated to be like some fraction of that. That put a huge shift in their capital improvement plan and their 5-year work plan, which meant everything that was slated to go sooner ended up getting pushed back. So that uncertainty that was because the cost of construction and the estimates that we were thinking were going to happen ended up not coming to fruition. That's part of the challenge here, right? because we don't have that sort of luxury to think and hope and anticipate everything's going to go to schedule. Now, if we only had a fee in lie of program, then we'd have a mechanism by which we could collect the equivalent hold those dollars, improve the street or the sidewalk system around a neighborhood and ACD then naturally as their progression unfolds build what is going to be built. Oh, we don't have one. Bummer. Okay. Um, would the clerk please call the role?

Danley, I. Moore, yes. Shaper, yes. Deha, yes. Torres, yes. Dome, yes. Dawings, yes. Stfons, yes. All in favor? Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all for coming out. Appreciate it. Um that's going to move us forward to item number three and that is uh SUB25-85. This is Cloverland Crossing Subdivision. This is a preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision and lo and behold, Mr. Moser.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. This application may look familiar to you. Was heard back by by this commission on January 12th, 2026. At the hearing, the applicant discussed the detached sidewalk requirement and the pathway location along the canal. It's now back before you. In summary, the applicant requ the applicant requests an approval of a preliminary platform for a commercial subdivision comprised of four buildable lots on 6.15 acres located at 12535 West Overland Road and MX2 FPO DA zone. That's a mixeduse general with a flood plane protection overlay and a development agreement. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Cloverdale and Overland Road. Rydenbach canal extends along the east side of the property and the northeast portion of the site is located within the flood plane of five creek. The existing neighborhood is a mixture of multifamily residential uses and commercial uses along Overland Road and a single family residential use to the north and south. The city of Meridian abuts the property to the west. This slide shows the site the site plan in the plenary plat which is a four lot commercial subdivision comprised of commercial developments along Overland Road and a residential uses of the south parcel. As proposed all lots will meet the dimensional standards the MX2 zone and there is a record a recorded cross-axis agreement over the adjacent parcel to the west which provides access to lot one. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the conceptual plan of the DA. The applicant is is required to install a 10- foot wide detached sidewalk and 10ft landscape buffer on both street frontages and also a 10- foot wide pathway will be installed along Ryma Canal abuing the subject property. However, the planning team agrees with the applicant that the pathway should end at the north side of the lot one and connect back over to a Mova way ac across a recorded cross-axis agreement since the development to the south which was developed in the city of Meridian does not provide any additional pathway connection. The planning team did receive a letter of opposition from the public expressing

concerns the traffic and building height of the potential future residential development on lot one. ACHD stated that they will grant temporary full access to to Overland Road from the site, but will restrict it in the future. And as for the neighbors concerns regarding the building height on lot one, this is not this is not part of the subdivision subdivision application that's in front of you and will be reviewed as a separate planning application in the future. The planning team recommends approval of the subdivision to city council. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, M. Moser. Is the applicant present? Welcome back.

Very quick testimony. Just for the record, Derek Turner, David Evans and Associates, 9175 West Black Eagle Drive, Boisey. Mr. Chair, commissioners, we're in agreeance with the staff report conditions and stand for questions. That might have been a record. Okay. Um All right. Hold tight. Just make sure. Is there anybody from the neighborhood association? This is the Southwest Ada County Alliance Neighborhood Association. Again, Minister Keith not here and present, not online. Don't think you're with the neighborhood association. Okay. All right. With that, we'll stand for any questions from the commission. So, come on back up. I I suspect maybe not. We'll see.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. 100%. Just not quite yet. We're getting Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore. So this um I think our our public comment was on a lot of that was on this kind of lot one area that will have to go through its own separate approval process through the city at least through probably DR or something like that I would assume. Mr. Chair, members of commission actually the development agreement requires a conditional use for all you for any other development on the site. So it will require probably a DR and a conditional use approval. Okay. Perfect. So it'll come back through planning and zoning first as well. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

None shall pass. Any other questions? Making sure. How's the landscape architecture? All right. Just making sure. All right. Well, with that, I guess we have no more questions. And so now we'll go ahead and open it up to tuck public testimony. I don't have anybody signed up, but it sounds like you all want to come up. So, please do come on up and just state your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes.

Good evening. My name is Kim Boyak and I reside at 4270 East Overland Road, Meridian, Idaho. and we're to the west of uh this uh development and um I had some questions about uh the ingress and egress for this uh development of whether it was all going to pour into Mavado Way and um to express that right now Mavado Way is a um kind of a just a a uh it doesn't go straight through. stops right there at Overland. And we live in the house just just right across the street from that intersection. And it's a very busy intersection. Sometimes uh we can't even get out of our driveway. And I just keep looking at all of the traffic that they keep adding across the street from us. And I know that this is Boisey City that we're talking about, but we're in the Meridian impact zone, Ada County. Um they keep talking about putting a stoplight in there, which um from what I understand wouldn't be until 2035 or 2040. Um when cars come out of there, they're honking at each other all the time. Um we have had accidents in front of our house. Uh people pulling into the uh when they're making a out of Mato Way making a left-hand turn. And um our main concerns are with the traffic um any traffic that's being added to Mavado Way. It's already really um overwhelmingly busy there. And uh just want to express that those are our concerns as um residents in the area. And I know there's going to be a lot of change coming, but I don't think that uh

I I wonder sometimes if Boisee City and Meridian aren't talking to each other. So, I don't know how that's being uh worked out together. So, um I thank you all for your time and I can't believe that you guys volunteered to do this and I want to thank you for doing that. We we need people that care about our community sometimes. Neither do we. [laughter] Thank you very much for coming out. Appreciate it. You want to come up or

She's got it all. Okay. Very good. Uh all right. And there's nobody else uh in chambers who has not testified and I don't have anybody else online. So with that, we'll go ahead and have rebuttal to your very brief testimony, but I'm sure you've got some things to add.

Yes. Thank you, Kim, for the questions. Um that c there is a cross- access easement to Mato in Meridian and that was secured in about 2018 when that subdivision in Meridian went through. they were asked to and they did provide access to our boy uh uh commercial development uh their mixeduse development at that time. So we have our main access on Oberlin. We always view the access on Oberlin being our main in inlet outlet. Uh and we all know that in the future ACD could restrict that but probably by a median right where you have to take it right in right out. Right now it's full access and so we plan on using that uh uh fully and all the time. But there is an access out onto Mato Way and we do plan on making that connection.

Okay, your call. You good? Yep, we're good. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Uh with that, the item is before the commission. So this is a preliminary plat. So this is we're a recommending body. Um but the item is before the commission.

Can't go home until we have a motion. Mr. Chair, um I recommend Sorry, I'll make sure that I say this right. I recommend uh sorry I'm looking at my Mr. Chair I move that we recommend approval to city council on item SGB25-85 um based on the terms and conditions in the planning staff report. Okay, very good. Thank you. Commissioner Sea is there a second? Second. I've got a motion by Commissioner Seha and a second by Commissioner Torres. Is there discussion

Mr. Chair, I I don't have I mean, we we discussed this one in January. It came before us with um the revision to the end of the pathway and then that cross easement onto that street. So, I I have nothing to add.

Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Sea. Any other discussion? Well, I I'm sorry to add. I'm trying not to I'm trying to hold myself back, but I do need to I think I need to address your question, your concern, and I'll do it this way. One of the things is is that this is a number one, this is a really weird shaped parcel, as you'd imagine, but it's also zoned in a way that it could actually have much more significant development than it's being proposed. And I'll tell you from what's the the forgive me for the word, but the sort of the Bible of the traffic engineering world. It's called the trip generation manual. It's awesome. It's really good putting yourself to sleep. That will tell you that storage sheds are one of the least of traffic generating uses that's out there. So I understand the concern and I appreciate the concern but I just want you to know that what's being applied for anyway in terms of a traffic traffic generation is actually about the most sort of docile as you can about get plus with the direct um access to overland a lot of that is is mitigated. So, just I will be in support of of the motion, but I think it's important just to since you're the only one to to address your concern as much as possible. Um, and then I think as Commissioner Moore uh stated, anything with regard to lot one still has to come back at a future date whenever they determine and uh s subject of additional discussion and conditions of approval and so forth. Um, okay. All right. Uh, we have a motion by Commissioner Sea and a second by Commissioner Torres to recommend approval to city council for the preliminary plot SCB2-85. Any last discussion? Okay, hearing none,

the clerk, please call the role. Danley I Moore I Schaer I Bores I Don I Stallings I defonic uh I. All in favor? Motion carries. Okay. And that concludes tonight's proceedings. Thank you very much.