Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, everybody. Good evening and welcome to the Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. A few things to start out with for tonight's proceedings. Everyone from the public entering the hearing virtually has been automatically muted and cannot speak. As the item you're interested in comes up for discussion, you'll be called upon and unmuted. There is a chat function in Zoom. However, this is not part of the record and should only be used if technical difficulties arise. Our procedures for public hearing begins with a presentation from the planning team. Then we'll go to the applicant and then the representative of the registered neighborhood association, followed by questions from the commission. After that, we proceed to public testimony, starting with those who are in person, then who signed up on the sign-up sheet in advance, and then anyone else who raises their hand virtually. If you're attending through your telephone, you can type in star nine to raise your hand. Each member of the public is allowed up to 3 minutes for testimony. We are strict at this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal, after which the hearing will be closed, and the commission will deliberate and render a decision. Mr. Chair, you have the floor. Okay, thank you, Crystal. Good evening, everyone. We are citizen volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. We make final decisions on conditional use permits, variances, and appeals, and recommendations to the city council on subdivisions, re-zones, annexations, and code or comprehensive plan amendments. Any decision made tonight may be appealed to the city council, provided that the appeal is filed within 10 days of this hearing. In order to file an appeal, you must have given written or oral testimony at tonight's meeting. That's why it's important to give your name and address when you testify tonight. We utilize a consent agenda. This means that if the applicant agrees with the staff report, and if there is no public opposition, the item will be placed on the consent agenda. All items that are placed on the consent agenda are approved with one motion without further public comment. For items not on the consent agenda, we will hold a full public hearing in the order just detailed 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 roll? Danley Here. Moore, here. Shafer Baha Here. Torres Here. Stone Here. Starlings Japonski Here. Six present, two absent. Okay, we're going to start off with the creation of the consent agenda. We'll start off with the work session minutes and meeting minutes from April 6th, as well as from April 13th. Hopefully everybody's had an opportunity to review the minutes. Are there any comments on the minutes? Okay, hearing none, I'll go ahead and place the meeting minutes and work session minutes from April 6th and 13th on the consent agenda. That moves us uh to item A. This is PUD 21-62. This is given Pursley LLP. This is a time extension. This is a conditional use permit for a residential planned development located at 8373 West Victory Road. Um unless there's any objection, we'll go ahead and place this time extension on the consent agenda. Hearing none, we'll go ahead and place that on the consent. Okay, next item um up for potential consent is item number two. This is CAR 25-19. John Romero. This is a rezone of approximately 0.15 acres from R2 to R1B, located at 2603 North Lancaster Drive. Is the applicant present? All right. Let's see. I don't see that name.

looks like they're online. They are? Mhm. Now they're online twice. Oh, you're seeing the name Drew. Oh, which is the Okay, got it. I'm sorry. I I I I lost my connection, so am I supposed to be chatting now? [laughter]

Um all I need you to know all I need to know is if you agree with the terms and conditions in the staff report, sir. Yes, yes, we do. Awesome, then that's all I need from you at this point. Okay, thank you. All right, um is there anybody in attendance here tonight who wishes to testify in opposition to item number two? This is this rezone um from R2 to R1 at 2607 North Lancaster Drive. I see nobody on the sign-up sheet. Okay, nobody in chambers, nobody online. All right, without objection, I'll go ahead and place item number two on the consent agenda. Okay, that takes us to item number three. This is CUP 26-4 CPI-DSP Heartland Boise IOS owner LLC. This is a conditional use permit for heavy vehicle and equipment sales located at 4125 South Eagle's and Rose Road. Is the applicant present? And you're the applicant? Okay, and do you agree with the terms and conditions in the staff report? Okay, let the record reflect that the applicant is present and does agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number three, CUP 26-4? Seeing nobody in chambers and nobody online. All right, unless there's any objection, I'll go ahead and place item number three on the consent agenda. Our consent agenda consists of the work session and meeting minutes from April 6th and 13th, item A, item two, and item three. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Moore. I move that we approve the consent agenda as

constructed. Very good. I have a motion by Commissioner Moore, is there a second? Second. All right, thank you very much. Is there any discussion? All right, hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll? Stanley. All right. Moore. I. Sayha. I. Torres. I. Don. I. Stefancik. Yes, I. All in favor, motion carries. Okay, very good. You good to go up in the back, sir. Thank you. All right, that takes us to our one and only item. This is item number one, CAR 26-4, Allquist. This is a modification to a DA located at 200 North 4th Street and Madison Lockborn, take it away. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. The item before you is a request to modify the development agreement at 200 North 4th Street in the mixed-use downtown with development agreement zone. As outlined in the project report, the proposed change to the to the development agreement is relatively minor and only includes the includes reducing the required amount of residential units in the project from 69 to 68 residential units. The project will still provide five affordable units and no other changes are proposed. Public comment was received in opposition to reducing the number of units stating the number of units should remain to support more housing. The proposed change within the development agreement does comply with the findings of the development uh development code. In conclusion, the planning and zoning team recommends approval and I will stand for any questions. Was that under 60 seconds? I think that was a record. And this is the last one, right? Where you'll use it. Oh, man. Okay. All right. Uh is the applicant present? All right, come on up. And if you wouldn't mind, state your

name and address for the record. I'm going to guess you don't need 10 minutes. She did it in 60. 60's pretty good. I'm going to try to I'm going to top that. Maybe maybe won't, but All right.

Mr. Chair, thank you for having me here tonight. My name is Ryan Cutler. I'm the chief development officer for Allred Development. Our address is 1144 South Silverstone Way in Meridian, Idaho, 83642. Appreciate staff for that short and brief uh staff report and we agree with staff's recommendation. We appreciate Madison and Josh and Maureen and those that have helped us in uh developing the staff report and making sure that we are in compliance with everything that the city uh needed. Um We're excited about this project. As you've probably seen going up downtown, it's it's nearing completion. Um we're a few months out from this building being completed and being a part of the community and we're really excited as a development team to to provide not only some housing, but some affordable housing um as a part of this project. Again, we agree with the staff report that has been recommended as approval here. Um reason why we're making this adjustment, I'm sure that's why we're all here tonight. Why are we making this adjustment? Uh it is very minor and again, the only item on this agenda tonight that we're discussing is changing the number 69 to 68. That's the only thing that we're discussing this evening. The reason why that is happening is we had somebody approach us that wants to buy two units and convert it into one. I'll stand for any questions. Was it Was it you? It was not me.

Okay. All right. I tried. I got outbid. No. All right. That That's really it. It And that's plain and simple. Somebody wants to buy two units, so we're converting two units into one on the ninth floor. Okay, sounds good.

Yep. Do you hold tight just real quick? Um is there anybody here from the neighborhood association? I don't think there's anybody and nobody online. All right. Well, with that if there's any questions from the commission, now's the time to ask them. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Moore. So, um this is a question for staff. If I read the staff report right, the MX it's this is MX5 under the current code. Um no DA would have been required. It wouldn't have required a minimum number of units. There's no maximum number of units in MX5. Is that correct? Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that is correct. In the MX5 zone, there is no residential um minimum or maximum um for this zone. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Stefansic. I have a question for applicant. Um so if this doesn't go through, do you lose a uh potential renter or or somebody to purchase this? Is this like a a deal breaker to them if they can't? Great question. Uh Mr. Chair, uh commissioner. Um as you're aware, this project is currently under construction and well a well along the way as far as structures being completed, uh devising the devising walls, all the things being happening on the inside. There are other units that are way further along doing finishes and those things now. We have stopped on this unit to be able to have this DA hearing to modify it. Um the uh the unit is far enough along at this point in time that it uh when it was stopped it will maintain at 60 a single unit. So there's been without going into too many details on this there's been a contract signed by the individual that's purchasing purchasing the unit and it's intended to to move forward. So if if not it will maintain at one unit if this person didn't go through with

the sale. So Hopefully that answers your question is Yes, you know, maybe we're taking a shot on this and saying it could happen. Yeah. But again, we're far enough along on all of this. I mean we're two months away from this building potentially being opened that we're comfortable and confident that that unit that is two will be one unit for this individual. All right. Cut a hole in the floor and a fire fire slide or something on the pole. I don't know. Mr. Chair.

Mr. Torres. Um kind of along those lines. Um so we're reducing the total number by one unit. We let's say we approve this and then next week someone else comes along and wants to buy combine two units into one. Um you'd have to basically repeat this process. Um so based on what Madison said about how there is no minimum or maximum required for any in the MX5 zone. Um do you you definitely wanted it 68. You don't want to just have it be open-ended where you can put whatever units you want in there. Great question. Thank you Mr. Chair, Commissioner. That is a a valid question that we went back and forth with staff on. We discussed it ourself. Again, maybe to my point earlier all the other units that are being built right now are well beyond where this one is to where if it were to be reduced again it would have to go through a sub substantial change from the construction standpoint, from a fire standpoint, from a power standpoint. So we are comfortable with this staying at 68 uh where it is now. Uh we have no intention of that going any lower than that. And recognize that if it did, for whatever reason, we would have to go back through this process and and meet with staff again. Uh and I'm comfortable saying that we don't want to do this again. Okay. Mr. Chair, follow up. Mr. Torres. Um there was a comment in the in the report uh from somebody saying that we shouldn't reduce this because we want to increase the supply of housing in in the community. Um what are we looking at as far as pricing for these units? Are they market rate? Are they at a certain AMI? Um can you give me some clarification on that? Sure, Mr. Chair, Commissioner. Um per our requirement in the development agreement that we've completed already, majority of these units, outside of the five that are designated to be affordable housing, are market rate. Okay. Okay. Any other final comments or questions, rather? All right. Hang tight.

Thank you. Um with that, we'll go ahead and open this up to the public testimony. I don't have anybody signed up on the sheet, however. So, if there's anybody in chambers who wishes to testify, now is the time. Come on up. And all I ask is uh you give us your name and address, and you'll have 3 minutes. And if there's anybody else out there that wants to come on up and take a seat in the front row. Uh [clears throat] excuse me. My name is Cindy Sheffield, and I would love to give you my address personally. I did not want to put it out here right now. So, I can do that. Um I am here in opposition of this. Mr. Chair. I'm so sorry. We do need an address.

Can I give it to you cuz one time I I um testified before, and I was able to give it to you privately. I don't have to put it out on the internet. I've never been asked that. [clears throat] A zip code? Okay. Can we get 83702. There we go. We're good. good enough? All right. I think that works.

Okay, thanks. Um I am opposed to this and in my mind, I have been part of the opposition to this whole development. Not in my mind, but I have been I feel this is a done deal already. Yes, it's a few walls that might not be put up, but I feel that it is a done deal. I am just voicing my opposition. One of my reasons is they always make changes. They made changes to the boundary line. They made changes to the height, then they put it back to a different height, then they made changes. They made changes to the number of units. Now they're making changes to the units again. What's next? So, I'm just in opposition just for the fact that they keep changing their mind, making it fit their needs. Good. All right. Thank you very much. Anybody else want to testify? I think we have a taker. All right. Same thing if you wouldn't mind. Name, address, and you have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Pete My name is Mark Sheffield. I live at 200 North 3rd Street, Apartment 1003. I'm in opposition, but also I I guess it's more of a question. Will the decrease in it of one unit, will it change the tax income to the city? I mean, will the city get less money cuz there are only going to one unit's being bought versus two units? So, that's my question. Is there an economic impact with this change? Great. We can't answer that, but the applicant's going to have 5 minutes of rebuttal and he'll probably attempt to maybe answer that, but that's up to them. Um so, thank you. Okay. Appreciate it. Anybody else? All right. Anybody online? Looks like nobody beautiful day out there and they said, "Nope." All right. So be it.

Okay. Well, with that we'll go ahead and close the public testimony portion and applicant you'll have 5 minutes of any rebuttal you'd like. Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Again, Ryan Cutler for the record. Um we appreciate members of the citizen uh citizens coming out and discussing matters of this and recognize that this this site has gone through many changes. Uh 'tis the life of a developer as we go through different things and iterations there that that work within city code um to to I appreciate Cindy and her comments. Um to her point, nothing in the site really changes. The walls internally, the square footage of the building doesn't change, nothing changes except for a wall on the inside of the building that will be removed uh to make uh two units into one. Um we're not outside of the code what allows us to do that. Um that would be my only comment there. Um we recognize that any changes we have to make do have to go out to the public. We have to come before you. We have to go back out to the public. Allow them to come and testify at these types of hearings which they're certainly welcome to do. But as from us as the developer side of things and the code and working with Madison, doing this is not outside of the code of what we're allowed to do. Um and so I would make that statement about um that comment. Uh for Mr. Chapfield, um another great question. Um these units, even though two units is going into one, the value of the unit is going to be the value that those two units would have been. There's really no tax change uh from that perspective. They're still going to be paying taxes on the value of one larger unit which would have been similar to two smaller units. I stand for any questions. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. With that, we'll go ahead and close the hearing and the item before the commission.

Mr. Chair. Commissioner Seha. I move that we recommend approval of CAR 26 -4 um the August modification of a development agreement on approximately 1.19 acres in an MX5 DA uh with the terms and conditions in the staff report. Okay, very good. I've got a motion by Commissioner Seha to uh recommend approval and with all the terms and conditions in the staff report. Is there a second? Second. Uh second by Commissioner Torres. Any discussion? I think this is a pretty clear-cut um modification uh the clarification on the reasoning for it makes sense. So, I have I've nothing to add. Okay. Any further discussion? Commissioner Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um first of all, I just want to add there's nowhere I'd rather be on a Monday night than at Planning and Zoning. So, um um I don't really have much to add. I mean, this is pretty clear-cut like Commissioner Seha said. Um the MX5 zone does not require a minimum or maximum number of units. The DA to my knowledge is only in here because this was passed under the this was approved under the previous code. Um you know, so I see this pretty clear-cut and so I'll be supporting the motion. Okay, very good. Commissioner Torres, any other discussion? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Moore. Uh yeah, agreed. I I support the motion. I think yeah, it's combining two existing units into one. I think it's not changing the form of the building. It's not really changing the impact. I think you might be reducing a little bit of your plumbing fixtures potentially or maybe I don't know. Um but ultimately, it doesn't really change the form. It doesn't change the height, design, size, anything like that. It's really an internal modification, so I think that it meets the approval criteria that we have on hand. All right, thank you, Commissioner Moore. Anything else?

Okay, I think we're good. Uh, will the clerk please call the roll? Danley. I. Moore. I. Sayah. I. Torres. I. Stone. I. Stipanovic. I. All in favor, motion carries. Okay, thank you very much. This concludes tonight's hearing.