Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, everybody. Good evening and welcome to the Boisee City Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. 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 commission. After that, we proceed to public testimony starting with those who are in person. Uh 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 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. Good evening, everybody. All right. We are citizen volunteers appointed by the mayor and and approved by the city council. We make final decisions on conditional use permits, variances, and appeals and recommendations to city council on subdivisions, reszones, annexations, and code or comprehensive plan amendments. Any decision made tonight may be appealed to the city council, provided that the appeals 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, which is why it's important to give your name and address when you testify tonight. We utilize a consent agenda. This means that if the applicant agrees with the staff report and if there is no public opposition, the item will be placed on the consent agenda. All items that are placed in the consent agenda will are approved with one motion without further public comment. For items not on the consent agenda, we will hold a full public hearing, the order just detailed a few minutes ago with staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and then the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please call the role?

Danley here. Moore here. Schaefer here. Zha. Torres here. Dome. Dings here. Japons here. Six present. two absent. Okay. So, we have three items tonight. One of which is eligible for the consent agenda. That is item number two. This is CU26-5 Studio H Architects uh modification to a conditional use permit located at 3896 West State Street. Is the applicant in attendance? This would be Studio H Architects.

Oh, you are? Okay. And do you agree with the terms and conditions that are in the staff report? All right. Let the record reflect that the applicant is in attendance and does agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report. Is there anybody in session or in the chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number two uh CUP26-5. See nobody in chambers and nobody who's raised their hand online. All right, we'll go ahead and place item number two on the consent agenda. And that concludes the creation of the consent agenda. And I get a motion to approve. Mr. Chair,

Commissioner Moore, I move that we approve. Excuse me. I move that we approve the consent agenda as instructed. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Is there a second? Second. I have a second by Commissioner Stallings. Is there any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, is the clerk please call the role? Danley, I Moore. Hi, Schaefer. Hi, Torres. I Stallings. I Stantonic. I. All in favor? Motion carries.

Very good. Thank you. Okay, that takes us to item number one. Somewhere on the sheet. There it is. Where is it? It's CU25-45. There it is. Uh Tria, Inc. This is a modification modification to a conditional use permit to expand the current use to include a child care facility located at 1509 North 14th Street. And this is Mr. Exit. Go ahead, Mr. Chair. Oh, Commissioner Moore. Sorry. I will be recusing for this item as my office was part of the original CD.

Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Good evening, commissioners. Before you tonight is a conditional use modification to modify the conditions of approval for a permitted private school located generally at 1509 Eastman Street. The scope of the modification includes allowing a large child daycare use to exist on site, modifying two existing conditions of approval, removing a third condition of approval, and modifying the use specific standards for a child daycare use. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare requires the site to maintain a child care license based off of how it operates and recently passed legislation. As such, the request is mostly to align with state requirements, the function of the site, and Boise city entitlements. Furthermore, the site is located near Hide Park with a variety of transportation options. The conditions to be modified include conditions six and nine. They need to be modified to allow for the daycare use to occur. The highlighted portions are what? Okay. Um, as summarized in the project report, ACD never approved the on street pickup and drop off area which was required for condition 12. ACD furthermore indicates they will not be able to approve the loading zone either. As such, the planning team is also recommending the removal of condition 12 with a modification to the requirements for a pickup and drop off area due to the robust pedestrian grid network and the amount of alternative transportation options available in the area.

One public comment in opposition was received with concerns about concerts, pedestrian safety at 14th and Eastman, and drug use. Drug use is outside of the scope of the development code, and the applicant will need to abide by state requirements as well. The highway district indicated that requests for crosswalks should be directed through their agency rather than as a condition of approval. And lastly, concerts and performances are permitted through the original entitlements. In conclusion, the planning team recommends approval and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Okay, very good. Is the applicant present? Okay, come on up and you'll have 10 minutes, okay, to give us your presentation. Yes.

Okay, if you wouldn't mind, please start start with your name and address and you'll have 10 minutes. Home address or the business? Business is fine. Okay. John Sworthout 15406 Eastman and 1509 14th Street and do you want me to just answer any questions or I concur with Doug and the staff's uh approval of this? Okay. So, you have 10 minutes to tell us whatever you want.

Oh, okay. about the application. And if you have if there are I mean I my advice to you would be if there's concerns that have been raised that you anticipate you want to address those now. We will have questions for you but it'd be better for you to address them before we ask them. Uh in short, I concur with the decisions made by staff and and the review and really we wanted to keep it very simple so that we could be in line with the licensing requirements to prevent any disruption for operations of the existing students that we already have. And so that really is the nature of this cup modification. Um the reason we have to do this is because there was a shift from the licensing from the city of Boisee to the department of health and welfare. It became a state issue and so it shifted things for a lot of operating preschools and even though there is no change in use for what we have been doing that licensing is important and should be in place for us to continue. Um, and let me see here. Um, the only thing that I would like to ask about and add is in that original CUP where it does ask for no activities shall take place outside of the space. I would love to get a little clarification on what that actually means. Um, does that mean we cannot take the students over to Goodies and go behind and see how they make the ice cream as a walking field trip? Does that mean that when the fire engine pulls up outside of the building and we bring the kids out in

small groups, they can't have a, you know, engagement with the fire truck? I to me I would love to have that just ex all together. Uh but I understand you know we lean into the experts about these things. If it is safer and is better to just leave it in place that's fine but I would it to me it would be great if we could just remove nine all together that the children can you know have a ribbon cutting ceremony that we can uh you know block off the parking lot and have a food fight that we can have the fire truck visit that we can go on dance walks which we typically do. So, I don't want to throw a kink in what has already happened, but if we can simply just remove number nine, unless there is a compelling reason why it should stay in place. And so, that's my question for you guys, I guess. But we'll keep it as is if we need to just keep it that way to make things run smoothly.

Okay. Anything else you want to add? Uh, let's see here. I don't think so. That's all I can think of. I think it might be more useful if there's questions. All right. Very good. Well, we'll come back to you in just a second. We're going to first ask the neighborhood association who I see is here, and they'll have equal time, and then we'll go to Q&A. Okay. So, just hang out for a second. Unless you just wanted to come hang out. I don't know. always. Okay.

Uh, good evening, chair and commissioners. Eric Hagen, 809 North 18th Street, Boise, Idaho. Doug, can I get those um conditions that were being rewritten back up on the screen? Okay. So, you're proposing to remove daycare from six and to change the wording for nine. That is correct. All right. And then uh number 12 was to just get rid of all together. Correct.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Um so part of the original conditional youth permit uh COP20-000010. Um one of the conditions of that was that Tria had to meet with NITA on an annual basis and we've been meeting with them. Uh I've been meeting with their development director on an annual basis and getting feedback. Um we've also pulled the neighborhood. I walked around the neighborhood once one year and talked to all the neighbors and we recently did it again. Uh we had another another volunteer walk around the neighborhood and get feedback from all the neighbors and most of their comments don't have much of a bearing on this conditional use permit. So it's kind of hard to kind of quantify how to do that. Um, I know there's there are some issues with the original COP that maybe could be clarified, but that's going to be a neither here nor there item since we're talking about COP25-45. Uh, regarding the daycare. Um, as an organization and as the neighborhood, we don't really have a concern with the daycare use. Um, and because state uh requirements are to allow for an outside area for the kids, that totally makes sense. Um, we're totally in favor of that. Um, and so I was just asking I I wanted to see I hadn't seen the report before this. That's why I was asking Doug about this. Um, so we were just looking to make sure that it was clarifying items six and nine. The removing item 12 does concern is concerning to the neighborhood because one of the major concerns is drop off pickup pedestrian safety and um to to remove that I guess those would just go back to regular parking stalls and then any anyone could park there. Yeah. um that that is concerning

and we have not really addressed that part of this coop for this hearing. Um, and that would be something that would be worth looking into a little bit more because uh, one of the other items, item seven of the original CP addressed idling buses and that's uh, another thing and and John's provided us some feedback on that one that they would have no idling um, buses, no idling uh, signs for the buses or events. Um, but if we remove the drop off and pickup area, where are people going to drop off and pick up? And one of the biggest concerns has been the safety of the children around that that we've heard from several neighbors. So, um, in summary, I guess in a nutshell, we are for this. Um, we really enjoy Tria in the North End. We love having them there. uh we love the events that they do and we would like to continue to support them on this as we meet with them on an annual basis and uh I I just feel that there could be some more clarification between the two different CFPs addressing the new one to the old one.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Eric. Okay. Uh with that, we'll go ahead and open it up to questions of from the commission. Mr. here. Commissioner Torres, my question is for staff and it's essentially the question that the applicant asked. Um, is that allowed by the modified uh item nine or would we need to condition 9 or we would need to reward that in such a way that it included like field trips or outdoor educational activities as well?

Chairman, Commissioner Torres. Um, as condition 9 is propos proposedly rewritten, um, I would say it is probably not permitted. However, that is within your purview to add additional language to clarify kind of more of the scope of what the outdoor activities look like um as it relates to this condition. So, you could at your discretion add some language there.

Thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, I also have a question for the applicant. Um, I'm curious based on your location and the question about the parking spaces. Do you know roughly what percentage of the children who are who who attend your um your business get there on foot or by you know their parents walk them? How many live in the neighborhood? Do you have any data on that? We do. Can you come up to the microphone, please? Thank you.

Yes. Thanks. We do. I don't have a thorough report on me that I could tell you, but um if I were to estimate, I would say it really is people from all over the Treasure Valley. It's not just a bunch of North Enders. Um, we probably have about I'd say four people that walk in the preschool of the arts on a regular basis or ride their bikes because we see the bikes in the bike parking lot. Um, the rest of them are all in this drop off pickup area, which um I I wish we didn't have to remove it. I really wish we didn't. Um, in fact, when I give preschool tours, I give credit to the city of Boisee because I said they had great foresight more so than we even had by making this block drop off. Uh, but it sounds like the reason that that has to be removed is because um, ACD just sort of trumps that decision is what my understanding is. And so, um, unfortunately, I think we have because of their take on that. We we have to do that. I wish we didn't. I feel like it has served the community, the neighborhood, our families well with safety and um, a good process in place, but I realize that might be something beyond our control. Thank you.

Okay, further questions. Yeah, chair Mr. Stefons. Um, yeah, this is maybe for staff or applicant, too. So, number nine. So, can you tell me a little more about the background of why we would want to prohibit children from walking from the site for public performances? Chairman, Commissioner Stfons. Um I do believe the the spirit behind condition 9 when TriCo first received their entitlement was to really mitigate a lot of the impacts on the neighborhood. I know there was a lot of concern um and the public record for that hearing is very robust. Um, so I do believe that's kind of the spirit of it and I think there was just some extra language to just kind of clarify given the fact that, you know, Trio will be having um, you know, outdoor performance or not outdoor performances, they'll have public performances. So, they just didn't want it to be a weird loophole. It's my understanding.

Okay. So, as long as it's not a public performance, so if they're going to goodies and getting ice cream or seeing that, that is acceptable. Commissioner Stfon sick, I think as condition 9 is currently written, it could be questionable. As I mentioned to Commissioner Torres, that's within your purview to add extra language to this condition if you'd like to clarify that and clarify the scope more. Okay, Mr. Chair, Mr. Stallings,

question. How often are these field trips? Let's call them like, you know, the Goldies or maybe I don't know if we'd call the fire truck exploration a field trip, but if just to lump all those together, what's our cadence that we're talking about?

So, the fire fighters come annually and park outside and the children come outside and they give a display with the fire truck and so that's annually. Uh, as well as the field the walking field trip over to Goodies is also something we do annually. Um, we often with the summer camps as they're putting together a dance rather than just have them all inside. And this was something even before our building when we would rent the Menanite church on 12th and Eastman, we would go on dance walks to get them outside. Uh, and on each corner, we'd just teach a new part of a new dance step. And then we'd walk down and visit along the way and look at plants. And on the next corner, we teach another dance step with a group of maybe 12 to 15 students and three teachers. And it was just something that we did probably daily in the summer. Um, and so it is something that yes, we would love to, you know, get children outside and it's a walkable, livable neighborhood. I mean, the city of Boisee coins that phrase on where exactly where we're at and so we do feel a little bit like strapped with this that we can't walk and live and walk over to the flower shop is another one we like to do and you know they it it's like a walking field trip. Um we've gone over to Kasa Mexico and had when we were um studying about um Cinco de Mayo and learning the salsa and the merang and then we go over and have a meal in the basement of at Kasa Mexico there. So um things like that to me it just seems a little honorous.

Um, I will tell you that, you know, when we first started this project, it was actually back in 2007 and that language was from then. So I know there's been a lot of progression within the city and plan and zoning and a lot of these things with reviews but much of our existing cup that one expired and so seven years later we had to do another one and it was the same language most of it that was pulled over then and so and that's even what you see now. So, um I do know it is over 14 years old and a lot of those people are no longer even here and with plan and zoning. Uh they could really speak to why that was even in there. But I was a little puzzled by it at the first as well. But again, we lean into, you know, the the the people that are in power and help us with these decisions and because we realize we're experts in teaching and inspiring children through the arts and you know, we look to you guys to guide us in the planning and zoning efforts. But I if you were to ask me my opinion, yes, I would say please strike that altogether. And uh if we could keep that drop off zone, I think it would be in the best interest of the community. But I also understand that that's probably something outside of our ability.

Mr. Chair, forest go. Just to follow up, I should have asked before, but since we just talked about it, um my question is for the neighborhood association. Um, do you have objections to um condition 9 being a little bit more expansive to allow things like outdoor educational activities or field trips? Oh, sorry, Eric.

Uh, Chair Danley, Commissioner Torres, I don't feel that that would negatively impact the neighborhood if that was completely removed. Um it is as John has noted it's it's been a troublesome one to adhere to because invariably if there are events going on people will be mulling outside regardless. Um and the requirements of the state require children to be able to be outside as well too. So it's it's very limiting not just from Tria's point of view but from the neighborhood's point of view. And so I would imagine that we would be in support of that removing that entirely. Thank you. Um followup for staff. Um I guess so if we were to do that, would it make more sense to just strike condition 9 completely or edit it like I suggested to include I can word it as expansively as possible, but outdoor field trips, outdoor excursions, what whatever we want to call it.

Chairman, Commissioner Torres, uh you know, the request to modify condition 9 further um you know is new as of this moment. So I as a staff member haven't had time to really look into the history of it or do analysis there. So um at this time I can't really give um you know direction there

uh question to staff. If we leave nine as it is, how is that enforceable? How does that

um chair commissioner stallings? you know, our code and conditions of approval are uh compliance-based. So, the city is not going to proactively be, you know, looking at Tria, you know, 247. However, if there was a code complaint about it and there was an investigation through our code compliance team that did find they were in violation of condition 9, um, you know, then there would be areas there to remedy that um, and ensure there is compliance. whether that's them aligning with the condition or potentially coming back um with a new conditional use permit modification. Follow up, Mr. Chair.

Go ahead. Um so would it for our duties up here to you know support the the letter and in application is it best to modify this so we don't have an enforcement issue that you know I mean I can't I know you can't say like yes definitely redline this but wouldn't that make everybody's job easier to make this more clear on what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Chair, Commissioner Stallings, I do believe, in my personal opinion, striking condition 9, remove some gray area that could inadvertently be there by adding more language to condition 9 to try and expand the scope. Um, that way we don't have any potential conflict of interpretation in the future. You know, as I was mentioned earlier, you know, some of the people who work originally worked on this entitlement, you know, are no longer with the city. There's definitely some history with this permit for sure. Okay. What am I missing? Why are we Why are we having heartburn with a preschool taking kids to the park? What What am I missing?

I don't know the answer to that question, yeah. Why is this even being discussed? I mean, honestly, like we've had other preschools where they've had an expansion of enrollment and therefore they've had to use re nearby parks to accommodate the actual code requirements for for the space aotment per number of pupil. And so therefore, walking to a park is perfectly acceptable. And we've had that. I I don't I guess I'm just missing this. I don't understand why this is a problem. But in any case, okay. Um, Mr. Chair, please. Commissioner Schaefer,

if I may. I mean, same page. Same page. Um, I guess to that point though, Doug, have we is the city aware of any code um enforcement issues? Any any complaints, calls from the public. I know we have, you know, Eric testified for the neighborhood association that they're in support of the application. Are we aware of any problems adhering to this cup? Um, Chairman, Commissioner Schaefer, I'm not personally aware of any code compliance issues that have been um, at least reported to the code compliance team regarding these conditions. Furthermore, with the, you know, the outdoor play area language in condition 9, that does permit, you know, children walking to Camel's Back Park because that is in our code a way to have outdoor play. Um, so there is some flexibility with it. However, you know, as it was kind of mentioned a little bit earlier, some of those field trips and other outdoor activities um were not brought up until this hearing.

Yeah. Sure. Okay. And then one other followup on uh TW condition 12, which was the previous condition 12, right? It's related to the parking. So, is the just to clarify what we're doing tonight, we're looking at is it it's basically asking the city and ACD to re-evaluate that drop off. So it may it may go away in the short term, but I believe the way it's written right now, it's basically saying you got to talk the applicants to talk to the city and THD to clarify that drop off zone and how that may operate. Is that Commissioner Schaefer? The way condition 12 operates is it is from the original conditional use permit from 2020.

Yeah. Um while it did designate the western four parking stalls, ACD never or does not have record of them formally approving the hours which is part of the condition and conversation with ACD a couple weeks ago they indicated that they will not be approving any signage in that manner and are actually in the process of removing the signage from the street as we speak.

Um because it is their right of way. They typically don't reserve it for private businesses because there can be some issues there in terms of enforcement, use and abuse of it, etc. And the typical, you know, parking in the rightway conversation of it is public for everyone. Um, for more Boise City Parking Services really doesn't entertain the idea of doing um special parking on the street for businesses. Typically, they do the residential zones, but I know they're even transitioning away from that. So, with condition 12 being stricken as proposed, um it essentially does open those spots back up because this condition really isn't enforceable anymore given the fact that ACD can't approve the signage.

It's also just being real, this is also their typical red herring argument, which we reserve the right to widen a road. They're not going to ever widen easement, but that's what they all threw all on paper and stay to hold sort of sacrosan. And so now we're talking about putting it in the alley, which the question I have is, boy, how does that work once a week when it comes to trash pickup, for example, and any conflicts that are happening in the alley with that? Can you speak to that? I mean, do you anticipate you know the back of your building better than anybody and you know the operations that happen in that you know also the width of that alley versus the street. So what is your anticipation of what that looks like? Um, the alley would be not as safe because on the northern end of that alley, the houses go really close up to the sidewalk. And so the less traffic in there with pedestrian movement, the better. And that would be the thoroughfare if they did that. On our end, it is a little more open and visible. What I anticipate happening if that is removed is people would just use the street parking as a find a spot, come in, drop their children off, walk back to their car, and leave. I don't anticipate them using the alley.

Um, sheriff, if I may also clarify, with the modification that is before us tonight, there is no proposal to utilize that alley as a drop off zone. Um, you know, as the applicant stated, kind of the the intent with removing the requirement for a designated pickup and drop off area is the fact that there is ample on street parking throughout the entire neighborhood, a lot of safe pedestrian routes. There's bus systems, bikeways, a lot of different ways to get to the site. Um, and that's further evidenced in the original conditional use permit with the uh traffic sodium and parking reduction they did there.

And I do concur with that. Um, but it is a little unfortunate because that drop off area did serve us well. What are your hours when you typically have your drop up drop off and pick up? What about that?

Free school of There's different programs at Tria. The preschool of the arts is 8:30 to 1:00. So that's that's a drop off and pickup window there between 8:30 and 9:00. And then uh around 12:45 and 1:15 and then there's another one that hits about 5:30 when the afterchool program ends and there's drop there's they aren't dropped off. We walk over to Washington Longfellow, walk them over, but then the parents pick up between 5 and 5:30 is the other window. The summer programs are 9 to5, so a little bit later, but those are those are the ones that are all drop off and pickup.

And remind me, what's your enrollment right now? What's it uh for the preschool of the arts? We have about 48. for the capture the castle after school program. I think we have right around 40. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions to the commission?

Okay, hearing none, we'll go ahead and open this up to public testimony. Thank you very much. Um, I have one person signed up on the signup sheet, but if anybody else wishes to testify, we'll give you that chance momentarily. Uh, that person is Michael Denny. Come on up, sir. Just go ahead and if you would please state your name and your address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. Uh, good afternoon or good evening. Uh, my name is Michael Denny. I live at 1317 West Eastman. So, directly opposite the corner of the property we're talking about here. Totally in support. Love the sound the kids, the excitement, the energy it brings. The place used to be derelict. It was a launching pad for pigeons. It no longer is. And we spent a lot of time on item 9. Whatever. The the parking isn't the issue either. It's the drop off and pickup. I mean, it's We've got garbage trucks coming down that alley. I've got ugly rooftops in Hide Park. I mean, you guys have been to Hide Park, right? Everybody's been to It's It's a busy place. You're going to have people parking, dropping off kids, cuz that's what we're talking about, a school for kids. So, I know AHAD soon to be a politicized organization is going to try to dictate to you, but I guess I just want to emphasize that that's that's a concern for us. And I think any of their neighbors, the the association came by and spoke to us and that was the one concern I passed on on to them. So,

okay, great. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Anybody else in chambers wish to testify on this item?

Okay. Um, that'll go to online. I've got a Well, I had two hands up. There we go. I've got two hands up. Let's start with uh Justin Snyder. Hi. Uh, my name is Justin Snyder. Uh, address 302 West Idaho Street in Boisee. Uh, I am the owner of Lysole French School for Children, another um, childcare facility downtown. I was actually here to testify about the um item that went on to the consent agenda, but because this came up, I just wanted to um speak in support. uh there it it sounds like some of these conditions um to me based on my own um uh experience owning five uh early childhood programs in Boisee are um pretty out of the norm and ownorous and and unnecessary. Um you know Lisa is right downtown on third and Idaho street. Uh we have had no issues um you know using parks uh walking through downtown. Uh and uh you know our neighbors who had initially uh indicated that they were concerned about it um when we expanded a few years back uh all came and spoke in support. Um as for the drop off zone um I have found that this is basically kind of a useless part of code. I do understand that it's in code. Um, but the fact that ACT won't approve dropoff zones um makes it a bit of a challenge uh to actually make that happen. Our dropoff zone also happens to be in our alleyway and I can tell you that maybe one or two families use it um per day and the rest of them just use the nearby on street parking. Again, we're in a very busy area in downtown as well. So, um, just from my own

experience as another owner of a early childhood program, um, I wanted to speak in support. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Um, let's go ahead and go to Karina Y. I think it's Yos. There we go. I live at 1512 North 14th Street. Can you go ahead? I'm sorry. Can you real quick pause with the time?

Karina, can you just please real quick restate your name and address and then go ahead and you have three minutes.

Karina Yutz, 1512 North 14th Street. Um, with condition 9, what you're missing is that if you remove it, it will allow events that are not childcare related to spill over outdoors. So, keeping condition 9 in place with language to support everything the children need. Obviously, we want the kids to be able to do all of the things that were mentioned, but please don't let the events spill over outdoors. Um, Eric Hagen from the North End Neighborhood Association mentioned that people from events tend to mle around outside and this is actually the source of my greatest concern. Um, is the events which I don't believe that Tria was approved to be a concert venue and a rehearsal space for like rock music. It literally hosts rock concerts that are ticketed like any concert venue in town. And um if you look at state law um it says that there there aren't supposed to be drugs at any time at a at a daycare facility. And these concerts have drugs. The reason we know this is because we live here and we observe this. Um the parking lot is used for marijuana smoking. And I think if I I don't know how many parents know what goes on there at night um or if they would feel comfortable, but I was looking at the state law. I was thinking about it a lot and I realized that one of the big problems is if you know somebody drops like a marijuana edible or some other kind of drug that a little kid might ingest. So my solution, my idea for this because I do not think that it is a safe place for a daycare with these types of concerts

and rehearsals of and it's in my testimony which I sent the link for this is in the testimony the source 40% of people use marijuana at concerts. I don't think this place should be a concert venue or a rehearsal studio for music. I don't think there should be any live amplified music there and I certainly don't think it should spill over to the outdoors um these events that have nothing to do with the daycare. The daycare 100% get the kids outside as much as they want. Let little kids learn dance steps all over town, but please keep the events to church type events like weddings. And think like you are approving a daycare in a place that's basically functioning the way the knitting factory does with the exact type of concerts, concert attendees, drug and alcohol use that is happening at the knitting factory at night in a daycare. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. I don't see anybody else online. Is there anybody else one more time wants to testify on this item? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public testimony portion of things. And applicant, you have five minutes of rebuttal for anything that you wish to testify against and anything that you heard or anything else. Um, I would just like to clarify that for the events uh that Tria was approved for as a venue rental uh in those contracts, we specifically state that there is no unlawful or disruptive activity as part of their agreement. Uh, and that it shall not be used for any illegal activity that is demeaning to the community or drunken or violent disturbances. Um, not only that, but we also always have a TRIA liaison on site for these events to self patrol and enforce these issues. That's all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Well, with that, the item uh is before the commission as a reminder. So, this is item number one, CP25-45. of Tria, Inc. This is a modification of a conditional use permit to expand the current use to include a child care facility on 43 acres located at 1509 North 14th Street. This is a conditional use permit, so we have final authority and the right to change or modify existing or or conditions in the staff report.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Torres. Um, I would like to, um, move that we approve CUP 24, I'm sorry, CUP 25-45 with all the terms and conditions of the staff report with one modification. Um, I want to rewrite uh, condition 9 to state pickup, drop off, outdoor play activities, field trips, and outdoor educational, cultural, and recreational activities are permitted. Any other outdoor activities are prohibited and other activities must be must remain indoors at the property. Steph, get that. Need him to repeat that a little slower. All right. You want to try it again?

Yeah, I can repeat it. Um, so rewarding condition 9 to state pickup, drop off, outdoor play activities, field trips, and outdoor educational, cultural, and recreational activities are permitted. Any other outdoor activities are prohibited and other activities must remain indoors at the property. Got it. Um, is it possible to show what Commissioner Torres just said up on the readerboard for us to be able to just be able to make sure we're fleshing it all out? Can you guys do that while we're doing that? Uh, appreciate it. All right. We've got a motion by Commissioner Torres to approve CUP25-45 with the modification to rewrite item number nine or condition number nine uh that discusses pickup and drop off activities, outdoor play, field trips, cultural events, and so forth. Perfect. Is there a second?

A second. Okay, very good. I have a second by Commissioner Stfons. Uh, is there discussion, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Tors,

I think based on the feedback we've gotten here tonight, the condition as originally written was too strict, too too uh binding, you know, outlawing activities that just, for lack of a better word, common sense you would want a daycare to be able to do, especially in a community that values outdoor space, education, and providing, you know, cultural opportunities to uh to to our children. So, I want to word it in a way that allows for the uses that we that were discussed in the in the feedback we received, but also not make it so open-ended that it becomes an issue for the neighborhood. Okay. Very good. Uh, any further discussion,

Mr. Chair, before you all vote, does that look like what you're aiming for?

How's that looking, Commissioner Torres? just a couple minor modifications. Um, so I think we want to specify um field trips. Oh, I'm looking at the wrong thing. Hold on one second. I'm sorry. I think that's fine. Nailed it. All right. Any further discussion?

Sure. Mr. Spons.

Yeah. Uh I'm I'm in support of this. I I think unfortunately the story of how it came to be and it it left it seemed to be um misaligned even when we heard from uh other folks in the public. um about this. So, uh I think this makes sense 100% and thank you uh Commissioner Torres for for putting the language to it um and opening this up so that these educational spaces can be utilized um in in the in the neighborhood. I don't see why you would want to limit that. Um, and I I I will note the uh yeah, number 12 is unfortunate um and how that works out and um I hope that there's an opportunity to appeal that through ACD so that that pick up and drop off um can occur in a safe manner um for all those in that area. Thanks,

Mr. Chair. Sorry to jump in again. looking at over again, I do think we should we want to include um not just cultural activities but uh educational, cultural and recreational activities, recreational Mr. Chair, Commissioner St.

Do we need Commissioner Sons to rescend that? That's not what my real question was, but I just wanted to know. Well, I'm assuming he you agreed with the original motion since it was stated beforehand and Yep. I have Okay.

Um, I will be in support of this motion. I think that um I love seeing this in our you know urban centers and I think the concerts and performances as noted in the staff report they're already allowed in the original entitlement. So um you know the the noise and some of those um observations from the neighborhood like it's not something we have purview about. And then to second what commissioner said I wish we had more say on the drop off area. It's just not in our purview and I do wish you luck on that. Um I think that's for the safety of the kids but just not something we're able to have judgment on.

Anything to add, Mr. Schaefer?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, excuse me. Sorry. Um, this is one of those where it's like I'm going to support the motion, but I would actually be in favor of striking condition number nine altogether because I can't believe we're in a world where we have to clarify that you can walk the kids from the daycare to Goodies or the fire station or wherever you want to walk them, right? So, um, and I was here in 2000 in 2026 and you know, we were under a lot of scrutiny, you know, with this original cup. So, some things probably got slipped in there. We were being really thorough and careful and probably overreached a little bit. And I feel like this is, you know, an overreach as well, but I'll support the motion. Um, so it's kind of one of those strange uh situations that we find ourselves in from time to time up here on the DIS. Um, yeah, and you know, I understand the concerns too about drop off and traffic. Um, you know, but you know, quite honestly, like I don't want to live in a world where we have to build, you know, 60 parking stalls for drop off that gets used 20 minutes a day. You know what I'm saying? So, I get the concern. Um, drop off at schools is an issue at every school in the city. You know, I've been up here for a long time and we've heard it time and again, right? But that's just the world, the way the world operates, you know, um, to some degree. It's unfortunate. So, um, and again too on I agree with all my fellow commissioners out here up here about condition 12. I mean, good luck with ACD. You know, unfortunately, they manage the right of way. So, we're kind of stuck on that one. Um, but all in all, you know, the other than a little bit of feedback about some illegal activity that may or may not be happening at the site. That's unrelated, I think, to this approval, right? That's a that's a police enforcement issue, right? um in your cup you have clearly identified hours of operation. You have a lot of rules that you have to follow for your events and if things are happening outside of those hours that are illegal or things are happening that are illegal during those hours then

that's a police enforcement issue in my opinion. You know it's not a cup issue. So um if there are illegal activities happening on the site then call the police. You know that's kind of where I sit on that topic. So, um, again, um, I'm going to support the motion, but I would be in favor of striking condition 9 alto together.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Schaefer. I'll be in support of the motion. I know that for first and foremost, we have a conditional use permit. We have four specific requirements that we have to satisfy, and I think the application and the staff report has demonstrated uh, to my satisfaction anyway, um, that all four have been satisfied. Interestingly enough, we do have more authority on the roads than we ever use. There's documented case law in the state that give the state the city of Boisee more authority over land use decisions with respect to our street than we use. Um but it beun becomes a a legal question that I don't want to put be the one to put our city into a situation like that. But needless to say this is exactly one of the things that we could do believe it or not um and grant the the on street parking. We have that backing because of a case that was heard about 15 20 years ago. Um, that being said, I think we would be upsetting the apple cart in pretty significant way. Wouldn't mind doing it, but nevertheless, it is a sticky one and I don't I don't like it. Um, but I agree with Commissioner Schaefer and and I understand that this is a pretty um pretty solid dense street grid and very walkable and there's there's options there might not be ideal. Um, but I do think it can be mitigated. My cons my my one thing I keep hearing with regards to the the operations of a preschool and a and a concert venue and I have a hard time believing that both things are happening at the same time. So if they're not happening at the same time then how is this an issue with respect to the walkability component of things? I don't think you're having geography classes you're here and now it's a slip knot. It's just not something that's that's happening. So if that's the case, if that's not the case, then restricting, you know, kids from walking from the venue, you know, outside, then there doesn't seem to be that conflict. I would assume that those are happening in the evening time and on weekends or what

have you when daycare isn't in operation. But in any case, I I think we've satisfied appreciate the attempt by Commissioner Torres to to walk that line. So anyway, okay. Um, will the clerk please call the role? Danley. Hi, Schaefer. Hi, Torres. Hi, Stallings. I stonic. I. All in favor? Motion carries. Very good. Thank you all. Okay, we're going to go ahead and take quick five and then we'll move on to our final item number three.

Good. Okay. Okay. Let's go ahead and move on to our last item, item number three. This is uh CVA25-42 and CUP25-50 and sub25-60. This is uh ADP architects the conditional use permit to deviate from the use specific town home standards and a variance request to deviate from the buffers along an arterial and collector street standards. And then the preliminary plat for a mixeduse subdivision comprising comprised of six buildable and one common lot located all located at 3113 West Overland Road. Mr. Moser.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the commission, the applicant requests a conditional use permit to deviate from the use specific standards and a variance to deviate from the subdivision buffers along Arterial and Collector Street standards on 0.43 acres in an MX2 zone located at 3113 West Overland Road. A preliminary platform mixeduse subdivision comprised of six buildable onecom lot is included. The subject property contains an office building located at the corner of Hervey Street and Overland Road. The adjacent properties abudding Overland Road are primarily comprised of office and retail uses and to the south of subject property is an established residential neighborhood. There is an unimproved alley abudding the site along the east side of the property. The applicant is proposing not to use the alleyway due to existing infrastructure within that alley. Overland road adjacent to the site is identified as an existing as an existing level one bikeway within the ACG roadways bikeway master plan. And there is a bus route number 29 adjacent to the site and there's a bus stop located about 450 ft to the east along Overland Road. This slide shows the site plan in the pro in the project layout. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing office building and construct five three-story town homes along the east side of the property. The town homes adjacent to Overland Road. The townhouse adjacent to Overland Road will have its front door oriented towards the street and the other townhouse dwelling units will front onto a service drive. The project includes includes street improvements along Hervey Street and Overland Road. These street improvements include constructing an 8 foot wide landscape buffer and a 10- foot wide detach sidewalk along Overland and an 8ft wide landscape buffer and a 5 foot wide detach sidewalk along Hervey Street. And as noted, the applicant is requesting a conditional lease permit to deviate from the use specific standards by not orienting the town houses towards the street frontage or open spaces for the town houses are oriented towards the service drive and the town houses do not

provide a deciduous tree deciduous tree in front of the units as required by code. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance to maintain only a 16 foot wide land landscape easement along Overland Road instead of the required 30-foot landscape easement in front of these single family homes. The highlighted area in green on this slide shows the required 30- foot wide landscape easement as by code. This slide shows the landscape plan for the project and the planning team does not support the requested deviations from the use specific standards. The use specific standards that the applicant is requesting to deviate from are intended to enhance the street and front appearance of the project and the livability of the town houses. Directly fronting the town houses onto the service drive does not achieve these intended goals and is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. The subject property is not suited to accommodate the proposed townhouse since the project or design orients the front of of the four town houses towards a service drive and does not comply with the required design standards. In addition, the project design does not provide a safe, convenient, or efficient network that minimizes conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles because the required pedestrian pathway for the site crosses the entrances of the garages and encroaches into the 20 foot wide service drive which creates conflicts. This is due to the project design that fronts the town houses onto the service drive. The requested deviations from these use specific standards could be resolved if the applicant selected a different pro residential product type other than single family town homes. The applicant is also requesting a variance to reduce the width of the required 30-foot wide landscape easement between the single family homes and Overland Road. The planning team does not support the requested variance. The planning team does not find any evidence that the hardship exists with the property itself that warrants granting the variance request and the variance request is required because the proposed town homes are considered single family residential and therefore a subdivision code requires a 30-foot landscape ement along

Overland Road to buffer the single family houses or single family residences from this arterial roadway. I would note that the project if the project was redesigned by a different resident to with a different residential product type for example something that isn't single family it would remove the need for a subdivision application and the proposed variance would not be necessary also the variance would conflict with public interest the landscape buffer is not wide enough to provide the required landscape screening along Overland Road and the variance could provide a right of special a right or special privilege the property that is not available to other properties. The planning team did receive letters of opposition from the public expressing concerns the potential for the potential of increased traffic and the project is and that the project isn't incompatible with the surrounding area. However, the planning team does not necessarily share the same concerns with the neighbors in terms of compatibility with density. The planning team is concerned with the requested deviations from the use specific standards and the impact these requested deviations and variance will have on the project's livability. In summary, the planning team recommends denial of the conditional use, the variance and the subdivision. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mo. Is the applicant present? All right. 10 minutes. Okay. All right. Just a reminder, name and address for the record and we'll let it rip. Derek Kerner, 9175 West Black Eagle Drive, design engineer. Uh, Mr. Chair, commissioners, thanks for having us tonight. And then David, if you would be so kind as to Oh. Oh, you got it. Yeah, you got it. And there is a clicker there for you.

Oh, thank you. Nice. Okay. Um, I got uh got a few slides, short presentation. I wanted to start with the executive summary. Um, we've got uh two written testimony in opposition from neighbors. We got to digest those uh and read them in detail. Uh, looks like one of those individuals wasn't able to be at the neighborhood meeting. One of them was at the neighborhood meeting, but uh, good testimony and, uh, well written. Um, so, uh, what they're what the neighbors want is the least amount of density possible. uh outside of the Overland Road corridor, which is a mixeduse zone, you're surrounded by the older established single family uh neighborhood, and they they very much want to preserve that view. Uh staff is concerned mostly with the 30oot the 30ft uh buffer that is uh required on the single family product. So the youth specific single family product that we want uh is brings into that uh brings into the equation the 30ft buffer from Overland Road. Uh for us it's unavoidable and it's it's the one that we just like well we're going to have to bring this in front of you guys, get your feedback and see what you think. Um yeah, I'll more about that in just one second. um if we did an apartment project, if we did something more dense, some of those use specific single family stuff goes goes away. So um in in our in summary in the right in the beginning it would be uh we think that what we're proposing is is is a good fit for the site and it strikes a balance between you know what what max density we could do in a in a mixed use compared you know to balancing what the uh the neighborhood would like to maintain which is a single family vibe. So again, if we we erased the property lines and we just did a multif family 5plex, some these things don't uh aren't an issue, but we definitely want to do single family. We would like if

you guys agree, work with us a little bit on uh on that uh 30 foot buffer variance. So on the slides, this is just a a vicinity map and we can use come back to this one if we need to need to. This is a zoomed in version. We can come back to that if we need to. So what we're trying to accomplish on this development, we want to keep the existing building. That existing building was used as an office space, but we found out through the through this process that it was not permitted. So the cup also takes an account that, hey, we've got this building that we want to renovate and continue to use as office space. It's got a parking lot and everything, but it was never permitted. So, okay, well, let's correct that at this exact same time. So, we want to maintain this building as office space and uh and do five uh additional single family town homes. So, it's really mixed use within the project site. Um that's what we'd like to do. And when you're trying to preserve an existing building, you can't move it. And so, you can only push pull so much of the site. There's just uh in the case of the 30-foot landscape buffer, that is something we just couldn't get around. Oh, okay. What we're trying to avoid is demolishing the building. And then as a result of that, we'd have to do a higher density apartments or that's what we would do, right? Um yeah, if you had a blank slate, you could accomplish uh quite a bit with this 43 acres, but uh we're trying to preserve that building. um renovate it, continue to use it as a as a office space, and then get five single family, which again we say that the single family is a better use for this area for the neighbors compared to max density that what and there's a couple examples in here of what other people have done down the road and what we contemplated as a concept at the beginning of this. Um the front the next two slides are just zooming zooming in on the site imposed on a uh on a uh uh Google imagery. Uh this is the landscape plan. So we did beef up

the landscaping quite a bit. Uh this is and this is an an attempt to mitigate for the single family use variance. Um, what we've got from property line is 16 16 We got 16 ft from property line to the building on lot number uh three, which is the northernmost town home, the one that is closest to Overland. We've got 22 and 1/2 ft from back of curb. So, we are not coming in front of you with a variance for sidewalk. Um, we know how you guys feel about sidewalk. We got to do it. Nobody else has a detached 10-ft sidewalk along here, but we've got it in here. got a 10-ft uh buffer um sorry planter strip, a 10-ft detached sidewalk along Overberland, and that first town home is 2 and 1/2 ft behind that. So, that's what we're asking for uh the variance for uh that that unit would just go away and it doesn't work for us. So, in order to comply with that that single family, again, if it was you race the property lines and it's one fiveplex multif family, that requirement goes away. But, we want to do single family. I think it's better for everybody. Um, but we got the five foot detached sidewalk and 8ft planter on Harvey Street. Uh, the drive aisle. So, oh, so let me read my notes here. Building 2 and 1/2 ft behind the detached sidewalk. Um, we're 10 foot off of the southern property line. U, so what I would propose in in talking with uh, we did work with staff because when we first came on that we've been dealing with this project for actually a year. So when the first when the code new code boy code came out it was like oh my goodness how do we comply with all the new rules on this site because when you're trying to preserve an existing building it's hard to do. So we work with staff to really eliminate uh variances so that when we're coming here we're only asking for the the absolute minimum or the stuff that we we just can't get around. We want to see what you guys think. Um we have on this plan just striping for basically asphalt and

painting a uh pedestrian walkway. We would want that to if this was acceptable to you guys introducing a a uh condition that that would be stamped concrete or something. We've we've seen this you guys have seen this in the past where uh you're d differentiating or doing a better job of differentiating between a pedestrian walkway and uh and a drive aisle. Now those are ballards. That's an emergency access on the overland. So the only person driving to the northern tip of that is the the resident of lot three. Um that drive aisle is we've got balconies on the second story that protrude out into it. We had to preserve a full 20 ft for the firet truck. So that that drive aisle is not just the minimum the 20 that's that's from edge of balcony and that balcony sticks out 3 and 1/2 ft. So that's a 23 and 1/2t uh service drive from the garage face to um the face of curb on the other side. Um that goes to the trash cart area and out to overland from the front doors. Um if you go half a mile to the west, when we first started looking at the project, we're like, well, let's see what other people did, other developers. This was an apartment building on the north side of Overland, half a mile to the west. It's on um a 14-unit apartment building at the corner of Overland and Persing. So we looked at them. What did they do? Well, they kept their five foot attached sidewalks. Well, that that's out. You can't do that anymore. But they they uh they had that site's actually a little bit smaller than ours. They did a point4 acres. Ours is 43, but they put a 14 unit building and then an L-shaped drive around it. So, if if if somebody was to wipe the slate clean, we had a blank a blank uh project site. That's what somebody could be looking at doing. There's a a picture of what it is. And they didn't do a lot of landscaping. It's very very minimal. That building's pretty darn close to Overland Road. um ours would be set back um a good a good

distance more than that. And then in the lower right hand corner is a concept that we uh we toyed with. So if if you had a blank slate, what could you do? Well, that was that was a fourstory apartment complex with a parking garage on the bottom. And so the the the floor 2, three, and four were living quarters. And we think that that was probably like a 16 or a 20lex. Um it depends on how much you could. Cool idea. definitely invasive from what the neighbors would like to see happen. So, we're definitely wanting your support on a single family product. We can't get away from the 30-foot buffer requirement that is specific to the single family product on overland. And I do have the architect client and uh Jay with David Evans as well in case I miss something. That's all I've got.

Okay. Thank you very much. Um, let's go ahead and give the chance to the neighborhood association, but uh I don't think they are in attendance. Are you with the Vista Neighborhood Association? No, just you'll have an opportunity to testify as the general public, don't get me wrong. So, just hold tight real quick second. Just want to verify. I've got a Mia Russell with the Vista Neighborhood Association, but um not in attendance. So, we're going to go ahead and open it up to questions of the applicant and or staff and then we'll have public testimony momentarily. All right. Any questions, Mr. Chair?

Commissioner Moore. Um, question on the drive aisle. So, it's 20 it's 20 ft from the front of the balconies. What is this? The city would be looking for five foot attached and then five foot landscape and then the front door or you know the face of the building. Is that correct? Mr. Chair, members of the commission, if you're talking interior to the site along the drive aisle itself, we would want a a pedestrian pathway along the you know that the pedestrians can use in front of the buildings that would have to be 5t wide. Um that connects them back to the parking or connects them back to the street. Okay. So, Mr. Chair,

go ahead. More. So, if they're they stated that their drive aisle is 23 and a half ft wide to front of the building, not including the balcony, they're only a foot and a half short of that 5ft pedestrian pathway. There would, Mr. Mr. Chair, me members of the commission, if I'm understanding what the situation, it looks like it'd be a slight encroachment into the drive aisle for the pathway if it were to be 5T because it would have to be 25 ft from the front of the building to the other side for that pathway to be completely outside of the drive aisle.

Okay. So, Mr. Chair, um, so they just need to make they could potentially shorten the width of the building by a foot and a half and comply with that five foot deal. Mr. Mr. Chair, members of commission, if they did that, I think that would interfere with their parking requirement because they have to I think their their parking stalls and garages are at the 20 ft. So, it would shrink I think it would be difficult for them to shrink the building. Um, I do have to ask them, but an applicant question for you as well.

Too soon, Mr. Chair. Commissioners, uh, very tight. We've already taken several feet out for for the drive vial itself. We're working with the fire department. We're like, oh man, does it need to be 26 ft wide. It only need to be 20. There's also how close it is to the existing building. And so it's like, well, we want we want some shrubbery there. We don't can't have the curb right on the building. So, let's just be real about that. And then I've done projects before where uh you have a 20 foot drive and the parking I'm sorry the walkway is actually delineated inside of that because again it's it's 20 foot wide for the fire truck in the emergency. It's like uh so the the the people walking can occupy the same 20 ft. In this case it wasn't quite like that. It was we have 23 and 1/2 ft from the garage door. I think we had actually more than that. It's 20 24. All right. Sorry guys, but uh it it's 23 and 1/2 ft and we got a three and a half foot balcony. So it was 20 feet from the edge of the balcony. Got it right.

Okay. And uh Mr. So the main the main question those can't get narrower like you can't find that foot and a half somewhere in the living space or the garage or somewhere in that inside the the floor plan of the

the short answer is no because I've already gone to the architect several times to say we need another we need another we need another and and it's like at some point you're like that living room's too small to to make this anymore. I have there's one one thing that we could do like if you embrace what I said of we can move the five- foot walkway out into the 20 foot um uh drive aisle paint uh painted or it wouldn't be painted. I want to actually do a a stamped concrete and then we could because you'd have to walk around, but we could do um planter strips at every single garage, right? And every single front door. So we could produ produ and even plant a tree in front of people's front door. So you have like a but it's it's only if we encroach it more. So, if we bring the stamped concrete out into the drive aisle, we could actually provide some some um planters at the end of each garage cuz you can't walk through them. So, it's either no planters and leave it right where it is or we can go ahead and scooch this up. But again, I have been successful in the past. You have a 20 foot drive aisle and the five foot is part of that 20. In this case, the the five foot is part of the 23 and a half.

Okay. Thank you. I think that's all I've got. I'm just going to follow up. Why Why do you feel it necessary to do stamped concrete rather than it being a smooth concrete but at grade? No. Uh I stand correct. I like your idea better. Smooth concrete. I mean because stamp concrete you can you can get into an ADA compliance issue. They they get too crazy with it. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Other questions? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stalin. question for the applicant to follow up on what you just mentioned on the idea of putting uh the deciduous trees in front and having some kind of planter. Wouldn't they then hit the terraces above the garage?

No. Um not in front of the doors themselves. So I'm thinking um it's kind of a mirrored configuration. Wish I had that u back up on the screen. I don't know if you could screen share David. Um Oh, thank you. So, in the al cove, that is the two front doors. That's where we could put like a street tree and have that streetcape look to it. Um, and again, the fire department's going to be okay as long as they've got 20 ft if they got an emergency and they need to roll through there in full 20 ft wide and knock the ballards down. But again, the only person heading back there is the person that lives in unit three in in lot. Um, so there's not going it's not a full access drive where pedestrians and traffic are going to have to compete um as intensely as that's what I'm trying to say. It's uh been successful where they they share the same 20 ft. So we could move that out and have um a little half moonshaped planters in front of every garage. That looks nice. We do it all the time. And then uh we could plant trees in front of each uh doubled cove that is the front doors. I'm not sure. Commissioner Stallings has a puzzled look on her face if there's a followup.

I I mean it's I was just thinking like how do I move my couch in there if there's a tree there, but that's not for this commission to discuss. So, and we are not helping anyone. Garage door. Garage door. Someone else is taking a couch in there. May not be you. Who's got to take a couch in there? A bean bag. All right, other questions, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Schaefer. Uh, David. So, the city's just so I understand layout of the world here. So, the city is seeing the Overland side as the front setback, correct? Mr. Mr. Chair, members of commission, we're actually seeing Herby as a front and then overland will be a street side and that's why the 30-foot landscape buffer kicks in for long a street side abuing and arterial. Okay,

that makes more sense. Okay, but the existing structure. Same rule applies the existing out the existing structure. It's an office building now, right? Is Mr. Chair, members of the commission, although it would not necessarily apply because the landscape 30-foot required landscape buffer only applies for single family buffering. The existing structure is technically used as an office. Okay. Um or was converted at some point in the past to an office. Um interesting. Okay. That helps. Thank appreciate it. And then I guess Mr. Chair, thank to the applicant team. I guess I just

I'll be honest with you. I'm struggling with the I is there sentimental value in the existing building? Like why are we trying to save that building?

We've already renovated it and and uh we tried to get a permit for the use even while we're going through this process and it's held up because of this. It it's the CUP actually takes care of the unpermitted use. You know, we didn't know. It's like, well, golly, I didn't know that nobody back when they started using it as office space pulled a permit to use it as office space. So, it's all the success of we were going to build an ADA ramp for it, everything. So, that all that's been in the works is if that thing is staying. So, sentimental. We've already have money invested into the renovation of it. Um, so, so there's that. And then we do plan with the tenant plan to have that uh as a as a commercial space. Um, and it's held in the balance for this this this project.

So, the short answer is just that you've already put money into renovating it. Yep. Okay. Mr. Chair, Mr. Mark, a follow up on that. How does the cup take care of the existing office use? The cup is the variance to deviate from town home standards and the buffer for the single family.

U, good point. And I I may have to have both of us answer that question because I really thought that the cup was requested by staff as a way to take care of the non-permitted uh office use as well as one package. But in in your testimony, it sounded like well it was another variance. And I would like to know too because I thought we got it down to just one 30 foot variance.

Mr. chair, members of the commission, the variance is is just the one 30 foot uh landscape buffer along Overland Road as part of the subdivision. Um, as for the the use itself for the existing office, I mean, at some point in the past, this was a C2 zone in the past, which is our general commercial office wasn't allowed use in the zone at the time. They wouldn't have come through planning to convert that to an office use. It was just allowed. Um, if there was some sort of unpermitting, it might have been the fact they they didn't pull a building permit for it, which I suspect is what the case was. Um, this conditional use wouldn't necessarily even in the MX2 zone, which is um, office is still an allowed use. So, I think what they need to do is go through the building department and make sure they pull a building permit and bring the building up to current uh, um, in commercial building code standards because it was probably built as a house.

Okay. So that's my that's what I suspect's going on. So Mr. Chair Commission, it has more to do with the occupancy. They just need a certificate of occupancy for that prim and to get that they need to do the building permit and all that good stuff. Mr. Chair, that is correct. They would and members of the commission that is correct. They would need a certificate of occupancy through the building department. And I suspect the issue is and maybe the architect might know better, but I suspect that it's just it's a building code thing. Okay, that makes sense.

It sounds like we tried it and it failed. So, in our talks with the building department, they said, "You need to get through this and clean up this process with planning." Because we were we were working with them on an actual ADA ramp design. We me and the architect were trying to get you. It's just stairs in the front door. So, we making it ADA compliant and everything. They said, "Hey, breaks fix sort all this stuff out before." If I if I may, another issue too is once you pull a building or once you pull a subdivision, it puts a hold on all building permits until the new property lines are set. So that may be the issue is that they pulled they started the subdivision application and then pulled a building permit and then they can't pull a building permit until the subdivision is complete because they're adjusting the property lines. That also may be an issue.

Gotcha. So Mr. Chair, you're making you putting buildings on new lot. The building department's not going to approve it until you figure out what your lot is so that they know where their setbacks are for FAR. Got it. Okay, understood. Mr. Chair, Mr. Stalls, question for the applicant,

can um you talk to us a little bit more about why the variance is a a non-negotiable? Is it that the project doesn't pencil if you reduce these to two bedrooms or that lot three to two bedrooms or is that is that the issue here? it is for us. Um it in order to comply because we're we're at 16 feet and we need 30. So we're 14 feet. We're talking here. Uh it would eliminate one unit. We'd only have four. And I was like, well, you can make them wider and grander that uh the ownership team was like, it doesn't work. It doesn't work for us. And so we're what uh the punchline for me would be we we want to do the the single family product. I think it's that balance between what the neighbors are trying to preserve with the the feel and not max density. We want to preserve the existing building. I mean, usually that is a a win when you're like, hey, let's work with what was there. Um, so it kind of checks all the boxes, but at the same time, it's got to pencil for us. It's the sidewalks, the the everything. It's like, man, we need five units that this is going to work for us. Otherwise, it we're looking at some kind of multif family product.

Mr. Chair, Mr. times that that hardship as defined question to staff I suppose is not something we can rule and take into consideration as an official hardship on the project.

Mr. Chair, members of commission, all variances require the a hardship be defined some physical constraint associated with the site. That that is that is a that is a finding that has to be made in order to prove a variance. I'm gonna ask a question real quick if I can. Would you mind putting back up the picture that you all took of the multifamily that was in the neighborhood? Yeah, I'd be the one. All right, David. So, our code shows that because this is a town home and it's for purchase, the lot that is part of this subdivision is for purchase for a single family. It therefore needs to be a sub and therefore we have this 30foot requirement. If it was condos, it'd be the box that we're basically b buying rather than the lot and could sort of look similar to this andor what you're even showing frankly. And then you have this multifamily which a four lease property but in terms of look has a very similar feel look design functionality even to what is being proposed. So my question is what is the thought process behind the 30-foot requirement as it relates to town homes when town homes have a very similar feel and look to even multifamily and doesn't

look very similar to a single family detached which I I suspect a lot of that goes to with the conventional way that you know subdivisions are fenced and all of that kind of What's the logic behind it?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the logic behind that as far as I can understand what the code what the code requiring in the 30-foot landscape buffer um is it's it was in the legacy code too. Um and it only applies for buffering single family residential uses from arterion collectors. So, it's really trying to create a buffer between a a a for an owned product, not a rental product, and that and large busy residential streets to enhance the livability of of the I guess of the unit. That's the only thing I can think of what it's really trying to do

that. Wow. No, no, no. And it's also in a way to protect the private areas of in the backyards of those homes. Whereas in a in a in a multifamily, it's more of a collective, you know, open space area. But, you know, I this has been in the code for a long time. So, I'm trying to and I was trying to give thought as to why this is why why it's there too of some in somebody from 1970. That's not really making

I mean and and the general like looking at this like I I can understand the the thought of softening that look and not looking at the side of a of a building so to speak. I can understand that part of it. The livability piece between multifamily and per ownership that's a different argument but in any case. Okay. Um, that's like a graduate school level seminar class.

If I could figure I'd just put a a cap on that and and answer your question more fully. Um, so Mr. chair, commissioners, the like it's like kind of one of those please don't take our fifth unit because if I just erase the property lines it's a fiveplex and that's okay but a five five unit town home product which is what we want which is what it's more single family it's more it's more better uh don't take us our fifth unit cuz all if I just raise the property lines we're all good and when it's I'm have to ask for the variance because it's a single family product it definitely is more work to ask for single family in the mixeduse zone than would be to do an apartment or something more intensive of the

Thank you, Mr. Schaefer. I think you were gonna uh Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions for staff. David, the the tree the tree planting in front of the units is a requirement for single family homes. Correct? Is that right,

Mr. Chair, members of commission? It's a requirement for town homes. that they have to have a tree in the front of each unit. I guess with the the idea there was that you provide an open space area sort of like a large or like a a patio landscape grassy area to separate the the townhouse and the front door from the sidewalk and the street. Um you know and I just don't know given this circumstance if you could get a tree in there and actually provide space for it to flourish as described.

And that was my next question. There's nothing in code that dictates the width or the size of that yard or that planter strip. That is up to that. That is a bit of a gray area for the design team to propose.

Mr. Chair, members of commission, it is a bit of a gray area really. I mean, rule of thumb is you generally need about I think an 8 foot for a for a class two tree or even or even a class one tree. You need at least 8 ft wide for the root ball to exist and not for the tree as it goes up, not to basically push into the building itself with a crown as it crowns out unless you're choosing, you know, unless there's a way to choose a specific species or something that you know that might fit into it. But rule of thumb, you need you need more than a five foot um landscape buffer to have a tree.

Correct. Okay, great. Thank you for that. Um and then proc uh process-wise here because we are in a town home application single family uh there's no design review. Is that right? Mr. Chair, members of commission since this is just townhouse there there is no design review. It would be just a zoning certificate. Zoning certificate. So we are the look at the variance, give a recommendation on the sub, go on your way to council and get a building permit. Yeah. On the way to council for the for the subdivision, you are the final decision on the the cup and the and the variance.

Okay. So no design review. There's no other other entitlement stop along the way. Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore. So, if the I'm still stuck on this 30foot. If if the um buildings were rotated, if Overland was the front setback, what would the setback be? Would it just be 10 ft buffer 10ft sidewalk?

Mr. Chair, members of commission, in the MX2 zone, it's I think 0 to 20 um for building. parking might be a little bit different, but but you still would we would probably still want some sort of landscape buffer and and you know between between the building unless you're really trying to activate the street. Um but yeah, but the the setback is for a front setback is 0 to 20. Okay. So if this was fronting Overland, it would comply with the setbacks. Or you know, if it was accessing off of Overland, for whatever reason they couldn't access off of Hervy and Overland was their front setback, they would comply as is.

If it was, Mr. Chair, if it was fronting Overland, but they they can't take access off of Overland because it's an arterial roadway. So their street fronted or the street access off Hervy. Um, and then that being said, they would still have to meet all the the specific uh use specific standards for town homes regarding the town regarding the front doors opening up onto a active street or open space and the tree in the front would still be a requirement. Okay. So, that's zero to that's 0 to 20 foot 20t being the max. Yeah. Zero is the min 20 is the max in the MX2 zone for for structure.

Okay. Thank you. David, I have a procedural question for you that might be curveball given that we are the decision body for the conditional use and that is one of the biggest issues here. It seems if we were theoretically to uh approve that or I guess grant the conditional use permit, then it's the preliminary plat that would move forward to council. But that application to council would be absent this discussion with regard to the conditional use permit. And I know that we made our change in code six months ago that gives the council more control over that in in the in the potential for an appeal. But in this instance, I'm trying to think I don't think the council would even see or hear about the conditional use piece of this moving forward if we were to do that. That correct?

Mr. the chair, members of commission really the the conditional use is only addressing the use specific standards and the deviation from it, right? So it's just those two items. Um so it's really not in their preview per se. They'll be looking at the subdivision all the subdivision code which also would include the landscape buffer because that's in the subdivision ordinance. Think that's good. That's that's right. Okay. Or the landscape easement. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Shaver, that also assumes no one appeals the decision. Well, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're just saying straight proced. Yeah, I'm just trying to think of what the dominoes look like. Clarif clarification for everybody. We don't have to go through design. We thought we needed to go through design review. Is it because it's not a PUD? Sorry.

I'm pretty sure. Excuse me. Thank you. Just make sure you're on the record. It's important whether or not we have to go through design review. And there's another I apologize. My name is Glenn Walker. 1831 East Overland Road in Meridian. And we were early on in discussions with Jeff Low, who's a planner. And I really honestly thought that Jeff Low was talking about this whole process of what we need to do. And I was pretty sure that he said we'd have to go through design review, but you could correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Chair, members of commission, the the town homes do not require design review. any change to the existing office would require it.

Okay. And uh Mr. Chair, I might just clarify there. It's because this didn't go the office didn't go through any permitting before. This wouldn't be like a any changes. It would have it has to go through design review to be accepted. Right. So just the office itself would have to go through design review and not the Okay, that makes sense. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Stfans.

Yeah, I I had a question. Let's see there. It's on somewhat of a different topic here. Um, so you mentioned earlier that this for the applicant that uh you you read over the the feedback from the neighborhood association and you felt like this was the best kind of fit for the neighborhood um and using single family homes or town homes um in this area. Um what what information did you use to make sure that those were aligned since you got some of that information afterwards? take me through some of your thought process just because we know we're going to hear from folks in the community about this and I just want to make sure I understand yeah how you're reviewing this.

Um Mr. Chair, commissioners, thank you.

Um it's not our style to threaten the max density and come to a neighborhood meeting with, you know, these these maps of what we could do. Uh we just try to come right out the gate with what we think is reasonable. We are single family. This client is single family developer. So multif family is they can do it. They have done it, but their bread and butter is a single family product. Uh we think it's think it's appropriate right out of the right out of the gate of what we're proposing. The neighbors want to preserve what they've got, right? They want the least amount of traffic, the least amount of density. Um they have that old his you know historic Boisey feel. It's been around that's probably in the 50s, you know, subdivision on both sides of Overland Road other than the Overlink corridor, which we know it's mixed use and and that can demand a pretty uh intensive use. It's got an office that was never I say it's never permitted. It wasn't like a slap on the wrist. It was just old code and so we have to we have to make that office legal. Um but uh but it really is I think um a low density proposal. So, I'm hoping that people and the neighbors can support and not in a threatening way, but it's like this is what we would be pushed into a corner to do if we had to demolish the existing building. It's like, well, we would do apartment complex, you know, and and try to and get all that to fit in there and do something cool, but but that's it's going to be more intense. It's going to be uh could potentially be a taller building, right? So, thank you.

Can I ask one more question here, please? Um, okay. This one's uh a little different. Maybe I could get some clarity as I'm reading into the the report packet here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ACD said that the entryway into on Hervey Street needs to be moved further down the street. Someone clarify that it's um let's see uh staff recommendation. Uh it's 2C on page six from um from the ACD report says staff comments. Applicant proposal required to dedicate a rightaway 2 feet behind the back of sidewalk or should provide permanent rightaway easement. Wait, am I reading the right one? Oh, no, sorry. It's uh 42C Hervey Street. Um it's on page seven. They have to close the driveway with the vertical curb to match the existing one and a 22 foot wide driveway located 145 ft south of Overland. uh what I think they're trying. So I'm I'm grasping at what I think the answer is.

I think that there is an existing curb cut in and there's nothing there. It's just in the grass. It's there's an existing curb cut. So ACG is saying, "Hey, you got to you got to pull that out. You can't just leave that there. Somebody might think it's a permitted approach eventually." Um so I think there's an old remnants of where a driveway used to be north of where our current driveway is and they want that to be removed. Um, a lot a lot of times it's just correcting the record. Sometimes they say so many feet uh south it just you got to read that. Uh, but they're not in my opinion they're not asking us to relocate what is currently there. But I believe there is another a secondary approach that there's remnants of that they want removed. They want us to put new curb there.

Okay, that that makes sense. That's what I was looking for. I was like this didn't make I was reading through this and I was missing something. I just want to make sure that I believe that is Mr. Chairman commission. I believe that's correct. their conditions talk about closing existing and and relocating um on on Hervey Street. So, and then they give their distances. So, and it's in the conditions um in their sight specific conditions. Okay, cool. And that and that aligns with the the drawings and everything. I just wanted to Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair who just walked away from I think we're good. You're chair now. I'm chair now.

Um that's not how I'm reading it. So it says and this yeah I mean like commissioner spons said it's page seven it's uh 4.2B it says applicant's proposal is the applicant is proposing to close the existing driveway. The applicant is proposing to construct a 22 foot wide paved curb cut type driveway on Hervey Street located 145 ft south of Overland Road. And then the staff's comments are some stuff. And then the applicant's proposal to construct a 22 foot wide driveway located 145 ft south of Overland Road does not meet driveway location. And they're telling you basically you have to move it five feet. Move it 5T. 5T south, which which we did.

Okay. Gotcha. Cool. Mr. Chair, Mr. Torres,

my question is for staff. Um I want to go back to the question about the setback that we've you know beaten to death at this point. But um understanding that this this requirement dates to the legacy code and is probably decades old. The modern code obviously is trying to encourage more more density and infill development in MX2 and and denser zones basically. um is some of the thinking at the city and I don't know if you can answer this to to encourage more of the density in a in a spot like this that's along an arterial that I mean it's technically not one of the best in class because it's not Vista Fairview or um or uh State Street but it would likely be the next one I would think in the city. Um, so is it kind of just an intention in the code to make it to encourage that more denser development versus things like town homes where possible?

Mr. Chair, members of commission. Um, yes, it is staff's recommener roadways that have public transit. Um, bus 29 route 29 runs along this. There's a bus stop I think about 400 ft either direction. One at the school, one about 450 ft the other direction. So this is you know it is a trans it is a transit roadway. I think it is a bike an existing bike lane that will and there's other bike lanes in the area. It's close in on in central in the central bench area. So yes, what we're trying to do is is try we would like to encourage density along these type of roads. Um we just believe that you know we take a look at um the developments as they come in for each project site and area and see for the appropriateness on what they're doing and see if it's if it actually matches that you know that site and its and its specifics. Not every not every product type is ideal for every location.

Oh sorry David Mr. Chair followup. So essentially it's harder on on intentionally not to make it impossible but just we want to encourage developers to to look at putting more there where they can um to encourage more density versus lower density products. Mr. Chair, that is correct. We we try we try to do the encourage we encourage that the comprehensive plan encourages that. In this case, we're also have very specific code standards that are in the ZO, you know, in the in the development code that we also meet that we are required to comply with. In specific, the the landscape easement standards and those type of things are are very very black and white code standards within the within development code.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Schaefer, um David, the buildings as proposed um in this application are 35 ft tall, correct? Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that is correct. Um, and the zone MX2 zone allows up to 45 ft. Is that correct? That is correct. And is there a number of floors identified in that 45 ft height? I don't chair. I I I don't not know off hand. Okay. But the zone allows up to 45 ft.

Mr. Mr. Chair, the the zone allows up to 45 ft. And I don't think it specifies a height or a floor max. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. And then um Mr. Chair, if I may quick question for the applicant, I notice um I appreciate the uh robust tree planting um around the souththeast perimeters of the site, but I also noticed you have about four water lines running right underneath all of those trees. In my experience, the water line wins that battle. So, what's the plan with all the trees? What happens to them? We'll we'll be moving those water lines around that the trees kind of came in as a the last thing that we did is we bolstered those up so we can we can move those around. We're not doing uh being single family, every unit's got to have its own water line. Sure. So, as long as we have separation to the sewer services feeding those, then we'll be in good shape. So, we'll be moving that.

Okay. Also, just to put the a cap on the ACD, ACD catered their approval to what we exactly showed. We have there's two old remnant. There's one in use. We're ripping out both of them and we're building the new one that you see on our site plan about 7 ft north of the southern one which was 157 ft and the new one is right at 150 ft. Mr. Chair, Mr. Stallings,

um, looking said after the 10 side there I don't think so very close

yes chair Mr. Commissioner uh commissioners Mr. um that there's an al cove for that front door and it's it's like at an angle so it's not just opening right onto the sidewalk. It's tucked into its own little al cove and it it opens up if there if Yeah, if we could, David, that would be great to see. Um and it's u it's positioned in that corner by where the garage door is and the and the sidewalk, but the door swing would not be out on the sidewalk like like a commercial development. There we go. Um, can you can you see it? So, there's a little white space in the in the the northwest corner of that is that al cove that I'm talking about. Okay. Any other questions of the commission? Three, two, one. All right. Thank you very much. We're going to go ahead and open this up for any public testimony. If you all would like to come up, I don't have anybody on the signup sheet, but that's okay. Just

That's all right. No worries. Come on up and just state your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. I'm assuming you want to speak individually or do you Okay, great. Um, I'm Bo Gold. I'm Cena Gold. Okay, let's do this one at a time just for the sake of the record. I'll go first. Okay, so more I'm more on the historical side of the things. So, um I need to get your address. Sorry. So, I'm 1607 Palmander Street. Okay.

So, I am literally going to be looking directly at I'm That's right there. So, first I suggest everybody just take a drive about two-minute drive and actually look at the lot. first and if I can ask you all this too. So if this was going to happen let's say on Coutney would this would this happen would this thing be built on Cney? Okay. My street, I look at my street as a little miniature kinney. Okay. And let me ask you, is there anybody here that um is not aware of the Egyptian theater?

Respectfully, we don't we can't answer questions. Okay. I'm just going to say that I'm going to I'm talking about this house has a story. My house was built in 1936. The Egyptian theater was built by the same guy that built my house

and the house next to it. I can't touch my house. My house is on historical society now. I can't touch the outside of my house at all. And so I' I've actually tried to build stuff in the back of my house and I can't even and the city has turned me down for setbacks. So, that being said, if this goes in, I'm going to go to the city and I want the same setbacks and I want to build an ADU three stories tall to block this view cuz I literally have a deck above my house, beautiful yard, and I'm going to look right directly at this.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Um, my name is Perfect. Okay, go ahead. Sorry.

Tina Gould and I'm the owner and resident of the historic Gould residence that he's talking about identified as such on the plat map. Our property shares a direct rear boundary with a43 acre site where the applicant seeks approval to construct a five multi-story town home unit plus a common lot. I strongly oppose the conditional use permit variance and preliminary flat divi subdivision for the following reasons. Significant invasion of privacy and loss of quality of life. The proposed multi-story town homes would be constructed with only a minimal encroachment into the required rear setback. This places the structures directly in my backyard. Upper level windows and balconies would overlook my private living areas yard and home, resulting in a complete invasion of privacy. No reasonable amount of buffering or screening can fully mitigate the loss of seclusion. My daily enjoyment of outdoor activities, relaxation, and peace on our property will be severely and permanently diminished. failure to meet MX2 zone standards and buffer requirements. The MX2 zone includes specific dimensional standards, including a minimum 10-ft rear yard setback and landscape buffers, particularly where higher intensity development transitions to existing residential uses. The requested variance to deviate from use specific town home standards and to reduce or eliminate required buffers

does not satisfy the necessary findings for approval. The proposal fails to adequately protect adjacent residential properties from the impacts of this higher density mixeduse development. In compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and historical character, the area surrounding the site consists of established single family residential properties, including my own historical residence, introducing dense multi-story town homes, immediately abetting my backyard is incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and the intent of the MX2 zone, which seeks to balance mixed uses as well respecting transitions to lower intensity residential areas. The pre preliminary plat creating five building lots plus the common lot further exacerbates issues of density and massing right to the property line directly impacting the setting and enjoyment of this historical property. landscaping, fencing, or minor design.

I'm gonna need to have you pause. I'm Paul. I'm sorry. We have three minutes and I need to just stop you there, but I appreciate it. But I do have a real quick point of order question to ask you. Can we just point up pull up um a map that shows the around this the homes around the site. I just want to make sure hopefully it's clear enough in that image. Can you zoom in a bit, please? Can you just make sure I just want to make sure I understand which home is yours. where the arrow is. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. Can I just make one more statement? I can't. I'm I'm sorry. Fire department. What's that? Has to do with the park.

I I appreciate it, sir. I have three minutes to give everybody. Um perhaps the applicant may speak to fire department type thing if they anticipate that though. Um, I want to make sure that is there anybody online who wishes to testify? I do have someone. This is Logan. Logan Hill.

Hello. Can you hear me? We can. Go ahead, sir.

Yeah. Hi there. Uh, Logan Hill. I currently live at uh 283 West Cashes Street. a resident on Hervey Street 1712 uh for 5 years until October. We just moved. But I'm also in opposition, similar reasons that the previous two stated, just about not fitting with the aesthetic of the neighborhood. Um the height concern, um just really close proximity to, you know, these people's house and the one uh adjacent on Hervey Street. um setbacks. Doesn't seem like enough space. I was denied building a small addition on the back of my garage on Hervey Street. I wanted to uh just add a like a 5 foot, you know, shed for some bikes and uh yard tools and because it was going to be attached to the back wall of my garage, uh it was denied. Um also have concerns about the effect on the neighborhood just parking. I'm seeing garages and only three parking spaces. Um, if you look south on Hervey, there's a bunch of houses. The density is fairly close. I mean, there's not much space. I worry about the overflow parking effect on traffic with that as well. And safety getting on and off Overland. That right-hand turn from Hurvey onto Overland um is already tight. Um, and you can hardly see uh traffic coming from the west. And I just yeah, I just don't think this fits well. And if I was on that street and I do drive by there uh literally every day, I just don't think this fits well with the aesthetic of the neighborhood at all. So I'm in opposition of the setback as well as approval of the plat. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill. And uh I don't see anybody else uh online. Just double check. Yep. Nobody else online. Okay. And this is the product team. So I don't think there's anybody else in chambers unless they're hiding um wishes to testify. So with that, go ahead and uh give the applicant five minutes of rebuttal and then the item will be before the commission.

Yes. Derek Kerner, 9175 West Black Eagle Drive, Boisey. Uh thank you. So, kind of in reverse order here, we've got uh the fire department. We if we go too tall, you have to provide a 26T drive. So, there is even a fire code that that kind of keeps you if you only want to do the 20 foot, you need to keep your roof so so tall. So, there is a there's a design factor there. So, we definitely um uh kept it underneath that only needed to do the 20 ft. So, that also helped neighbor the bulk of the building. Again, you're allowed to go taller. Uh but uh other things change like fire code if you do um it it is zoned mixed use. It was zoned commercial before that. Um it it's it's that whole well if we erase the property lines we're all good. I mean we could have a five unit uh apartment complex there or or more right. Um we want to do five single family homes. I think the neighbors well will well will take and they want to preserve their um uh their single family uh vibe. We also look at a property when somebody buys it to develop, it's like, well, it's zoned X. What can I do with that? Um let's also try to be respectful of what we propose and we think that this is that respectful proposal. Um and and it's hard. And so in this case, you're going to have one unit on the on the southeast corner of our project site that would be tall enough that they could look down into a backyard of of of the neighbors versus I guess what could be is three apartment units stacked and three different people on that corner looking down um upon you. So it's just that how bad it could be. I think this is more um reasonable, respectful, and um a good a good proposal for a mixeduse zone. Again, it's harder to ask for single family in a mixeduse zone. So, we're here asking for that variance that

we wouldn't have to if we did apartments. Um and I I may be able to help you out with the ADU. Yeah, that's all I've got. Okay, thank you very much. All right, with that the item uh the test or the public hearing component is over. We'll go ahead and make this uh decision before the commission. This is item number three, CVA25-42 and CUP25-50. Uh conditional use permit to deviate from the use specific town home standards and a variance to deviate from the buffers along an arterial and collector. Uh reminder, we are deciding body on the conditional use permit and the variance. And then the preliminary plat 25-60 for the mixeduse subdivision comprised of six buildable lots, all located at 3113 West Overland Road. Mr. Chairman,

Commissioner Moore.

All right, I'll I'll start. Okay, I move that we I'm getting this right. I move that we deny CUP 25-50, approve the variance 25-42 for the buffer along Overland only, and recommend approval of SUV 60 25-60. Okay, you just threw me a curveball. Can you state that one more time? I want to make I'm just trying to pull up my notes before I can.

All right. Uh that's deny the cup, approve the variance, and recommend approval of the subdivision understanding that the variance does not include the rear setback. Okay. Okay. I've got a motion by Commissioner Moore to deny the conditional use permit and approve the variance and recommend approval to the uh sub to council. Is there a second for at least the sake of discussion?

I'll second at least for the sake of discussion. Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Okay, any discussion? Commissioner Moore, let's unpack this. So, I don't know if that was the right if that was the right order of the motion or if we can do that that order. It's funky.

Um, so ultimately, I'm not in favor. My heartburn is the the setback on that interior drive aisle. I've seen sharing the pedestrian walkway with drive aisles for existing buildings. I'm having a hard time with this one with a new building. I think, you know, we've got kind of a blankish slate, at least that, you know, that small slender rectangle on the eastern side of the site to provide, you know, that minimum setback for production of pedestrians. Otherwise, you know, you're walking out your front door and you're looking out for cars and you don't have kind of a safe protected route there. The variance, you know, we we've kind of discussed the the rear setback. Um, so the variance, I think, you know, if these this project was facing Overland, it would be a maximum of 20 ft from Overland. um you know, if you were proposing the same exact thing that wasn't town homes, it would comply. I think all of those reasons for me make sense to permit the variance at Overland to deviate from that buffer and and make it kind of look more like a front yard setback along Overland or more like it would for a multif family. And then the subdivision, you know, kind of goes with that town home deal. I don't know what it looks like when you modify when you don't have the CUP to deviate from the subdivision standards. Uh, and that's kind of the question. I don't know. But, um, that's kind of where I'm standing right now. It's it's so close to not needing that cup and you've got kind of that rectangle. I

I agree with the city's assessment on on the CU piece and you know I I think the variance makes all the sense with that I'll leave it there. Okay. Thank you Commissioner Moore. Um is there further discussion Mr. Chair? Commissioner Torres.

Um I'm not going to take them one by one. I'm just going to address the project as a whole. Um and I'm I'm struggling with this one. Um, you know, I do think the code encourage wants to encourage more density along um, arterials like Overland, and I think that's part of the reason why this is hard. Um, but I'm also struggling with, you know, this almost feels like the perfect storm project to have a whole bunch of barriers in different places for the applicant. And, um, you know, on the one hand, we want, you know, multif family would would check almost all the boxes for this one, but it requires tearing down an old building. And we want adapter reuse. We want to preserve existing structures where we can. Um, and if they were to eliminate one of the town home units, it it doesn't pencil for them. So, we end up with even lower density at the site than than is proposed. Um, so there's just all kinds of things on this one that I feel I'm just struggling with it. Um, I I appreciate what you're trying to do. Um, I don't know if it's workable in this site because of where it's located and because of the the rules of our code. You know, one of the goals of this commission of the city of city council is to refine this code over time to learn where the where the problems are and the barriers are. Um, it it feels like this project almost works but doesn't quite work. And I think that's where I kind of come down. I agree with Commissioner Moore on the variance for Overland. Um it it is it seems contradictory that we allow you know if it was facing overland it would it would not have to meet these requirements. If it was a multif family it wouldn't have to meet these requirements. Um I understand why that's frustrating for you as a as a developer. Um but I I I I think this project just barely doesn't work. Um at least for the cup um among

other things but that's the main my main concern there. And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Torres. For the question, further comments, rather, Mr. Chair, Mr. Stallings.

Um, I appreciate the motion. Um, very thoughtful. I I could get there on the variance. I do agree with the thought process on this product type is what's restricting it. Um, even though we would like to enhance that character feel of an arterial street. Yeah. Um, and you know, the safety and stuff, it would be allowed with a different product type. I agree with denying the cup for safety concerns and the shared drive aisle. I there I just see issues arising with that, especially with kids and, you know, overtime. Um and then the last one, the recommendation for approval for the the subdivision at um I've I've been a part of, you know, low mid to low density multifamily in a single family area and there are still um stepbacks or height transitions along when you're adjacent to single family homes that I don't think that would be considered if this was a different product. It's not like the variance. it would just be approved if it was a different product type. So, I kind of worry about that. I see the goal still with the city is to protect light and privacy and neighborhood character. I do see the rub there that we're hearing from the neighbors. Um, so I won't be in support of this motion, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness and yeah, for me, the application just isn't quite there.

Thank you, Commissioner Stallings. Further discussion, Mr. Sure. Commissioner Schaefer. Um I will not be in support of the motion. Um I agree with Commissioner Stalling's uh comments at a at a high level. Um I actually agree with the staff report in pretty much every summary of what's before us tonight. Um I mean quite frankly I don't think the applicant showed demonstrated a hardship on the property. Just because there's an existing building that they've invested in is not a hardship. You know, in my simple terms, when I think of hardship, it's a cliff. It's a major irrigation infrastructure that can't be relocated. It's some physical constraint of the property that's, you know, occurs more naturally, not just a building that's existing. And let's be quite honest, that was a home originally, and now it's an office space, an office building, right? So, it's already been adapted once in the past. So, um, so I think if the if the shoe doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. And we're trying to squeeze these little things in here. And at the end of the day, you've got, you know, these single family homes that are facing a drive aisle, an asphalt drive aisle facing a roof line of an existing structure that I I understand they've put money into. They've already worked to redevelop. So, kudos for trying to save that building, but in my opinion, this just does not work. there's no hardship demonstrated and we're we're just asking for too many things to try and get to a single family product when I don't know if this is the right place for a single family product quite honestly and I think we have to be very careful comparing things down the street to this property. Okay, so um there are other rules that apply for multif family homes, right? There's virtually no green space proposed in this application. Multif family homes require multi multif family

developments require you know green space percentages. Um there are different rules that apply right so we have to be very careful about comparing the thing down the street that was approved at a different time that has different setbacks and faces different directions to what we have here today right with this property. So there's also other things within the code that would control how multif family would be developed on this property, right? You can't put parking lots between the street and the building for example at a very high level simplistic level, right? So um I think we're just in a case for me there's just too many uh things we're trying to do that just don't make this work for me. So that's kind of where I'm coming down at a high level.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Schaeer. Mr. Stefons, chair.

Um, yeah, this this one's a tough one. I think not to repeat too many things that some of my other other commissioners had said that are in opposition as I'll be in opposition of this motion. Um, two is, you know, I try to look at this and I know the applicant put in a lot of work to try to make this, but I think to, uh, Commissioner Schaefer's point, right, the shoe doesn't fit, then uh, I think got to think, you know, erase it and maybe think differently about it. Um, I do appreciate that you you are trying to do the single family home thing in in this area and that's somewhat aligned to what I think the residents or the neighbors are are looking for but not quite in this way. Um but I am fearful that if this all gets denied in this way uh then you may come to the point where it's like okay big um you know apartment building uh that you can put in this space without having to ask for a whole lot of variance or conditional use. And I pretty sure that's not what the residents and the neighbors want either. Um so it makes it really tough in that way but given the the conditions that we are asked to look at within the variance and the cup um yeah I can I agree in not supporting the cup and also not supporting the variance um here as well.

Mr. Chair, may I just I'm sorry. Can I real quick just to clarify too, just for the for the folks that testified, um I get we get the concerns. We understand.

Um but you also I hope you understand that this property is zoned differently than your property, right? So the rules are different along Overland Road than on your property. So, um, just know that, you know, should these gentlemen come back with a different application that looks different, plays by diff by, you know, tries to adhere to the code, the zoning that they're dealing with is different than the zoning on your property, right? So, I just want to be very clear and for the folks online that testify too that live in the neighborhood, um, you know, much of the surrounding neighborhood is R1C zoning and these properties along Overland Road are MX1 and MX2 zones. So, the rules are a little differently. So, I just want to be very clear about that, too, that um you know, it'll it'll change differently than like your home parcel would. Okay.

No, I'm sorry. I can't. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Torres, I realized I seconded the motion and when I gave my remarks, I didn't actually say how I'm coming down on this because I second it for the purpose of discussion. Um, Commissioner Moore's knowledge of the code is second to none. But I I guess what I would say my position is I'm in favor of the variance. I would probably I would oppose the subdivision as well as the C. So I'm going to be a no on this motion as well.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Torres. Um, I am going to be voting in opposition of the motion reluctantly, begrudgingly, but I there are times when this commission, I think, would like to do something that's different than what we have to do. And I think that this is one of those instances where we have to do uh what essentially is written in our code. and and and I agree with Commissioner Schaper. I don't see the hardship. And I think to me, this whole application comes down to that that without that hardship, I can't grant a variance. And if I can't grant the variance, there's no point of the sub and what they're trying to do. I hate that because I I I I I appreciate the fact that you're trying to build uh a purchasable product that is something that we don't see as much of as we'd like. We see a lot of multifamily, right? Which is fine. The market needs that too, don't get me wrong, but we don't see as much as the the for the for purchase properties that are also in demand um and that people would like. And so I' I wish that we could say yes. The problem is again I don't have a hardship. I don't have that. And and again I think Commissioner Schaefer articulated well the existing building is not that it's there's not a there's not a canal or a lateral. There's not a big topography issue. There's not that type of a thing that's here that's forcing you to do something on this. it it's it's the code meets um the challenge here. So I I would add that I think also to Commissioner Schaefer's point, Overland Road is a principal arterial. It is one of a handful of principal arterials and because of that

and because of the nature of what has happened along it over the years, it is why this is zoned MX2 and the intent of the city for at least the parcels that front Overland to become more dense because of that transformation, the typology of the roadway itself. Um, that's the whole point of the MX3. So, I don't have it with the height and stuff. That's not as much of of a challenge. I understand. I totally understand that rub. We hear that every single week. Um, but now we're going to be in a situation where you all going to have to go back to drawing board and chances are you're going to come back before us with a different property and it's probably going to be more of an impact. Just being honest. And um, that's the conundrum that we face. And if nothing else, I think that hopefully this is one of the things that our council may take up at a future time when they continue to tweak our code because this is something that we've they've committed to. We've seen it. We've seen ev evidence of it very recently. And I think even uh to Mr. Mr. Moer's testimony earlier about answering the question in terms of the spirit, it's pretty clear to me that this is a relic that goes back several generations. Well, it's probably something that's one of those that's just continued to be there and present. No one really questioned it. Well, maybe you just did something that changes this and it's not going to be to the benefit of your project, but it certainly might be to the benefit later on down the line. That doesn't probably make you feel very good. I know. But um I'm hoping that that's something because I don't know a town home that's masked that's certain height feels different feels multif family, you know, but because it's for

purchase versus lease, we have a different set of rules on it. So anyway, all right with that. Um I think we've all had our say on the on the motion anyway. With the clerk, please call the role. Danley, no. More. Yes. Schaefer. No Torres. No Stallings. No Stupanskick. No. One in favor, five opposed. Motion fails. Okay. So, I need another motion. Mr. Chair,

Commissioner Torres. Um, I move that we deny uh CVA25-42 and CUP25-50 and recommend denial of subdivision uh of SUB2-60. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Torres. I've got a recommendation to deny CDA 2542 and CUP25-50 and a recommendation to denial to deny sub 2560 to council. Is there a second? Second. We got a commission or a second by Commissioner Stallings. Any discussion, Mr. Chair? Mr. Torres,

I'll be brief. We kind of covered this in the on the previous motion. Um, I just I don't think this project is quite where it needs to be to match to meet the code. Um, I appreciate your intent. I appreciate the effort into this. I know, like uh Chair Danley said, I understand that these words of comfort probably aren't very comforting to you right now, but um hopefully you've helped us to further refine our code for future projects that maybe you will build yourselves. Um and that's why I'm recommending denial. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Mr. Chair, Mr. Stall,

I don't want to, you know, beat a dead horse. We've said plenty, but I just to reiterate uh some of the points that Mr. Schaefer, Commissioner Schaefer had noted. It's a great point on we are held to um defining what a hardship is and we just don't have the ability. So just to walk back kind of what I said when I on my on the other motion um completely in agreeance with how we need to adhere to what we are allowed to rule on.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Sh, I'll be quick to just to help you guys with maybe a little more guidance, you know, as you re-evaluate the property. I think looking at things where you provide parking or green space between the homes to what you're proposing. Um things along that nature, right? To help it blend in. So frontage towards your buildings fronting towards overland privacy more towards the existing family residential behind and to the east I think would be beneficial as you look at this and you evaluate your options moving forward. Okay. Good. I think we're good. Okay. Okay. Will the clerk please call the role? Danley. Hi. Moore.

No. Schaefer. Yes. Hores. Yes. Darling, yes. Zonic, yes. Five in favor, one opposed. Motion carries. Thank you all. This concludes the hearing.