Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. That'll be done. I'm going to ask for number one. We need to do our own thing. Yeah.

I think it's your question.

49 minutes. Wow. Thank you. I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know. Yeah, that would be great.

I don't know.

No, I'm sorry. The spring quarter. Yeah, it's changed. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm ready if you are. All right, everybody, let's get the agenda review taken care of for tonight. Not a ton on there. One note before we jump into that, I think most of you heard, but Commissioner Doan did put in her resignation. So she will not be joining us any longer. We're thankful for her service and hope she has some fun, whatever she's doing now. Okie dokie. So for the agenda tonight, we don't have any minutes. We did have initially. A reconsideration request scheduled for this evening, but the applicant requested deferral to the July 6th P&Z meeting. So we will be hearing that request for reconsideration on July 6th. Right now, we only have one hearing scheduled. So if we choose to reconsider that, we would just add that other one on it. That'd be the only item on the July 13th. Item one for our first public hearing is SUB 2616 COI subdivision at 2701 South Pond Street. And this is a prelim and final plot for a residential subdivision comprised of four buildable and one common lot on just under an acre in an R2 AIO residential compact with airport overlay zone. We are recommending approval and we haven't had any public opposition so we can try for consent for item one. Item two is a couple applications. It's CBA 26.7, CUP 26.6, and SUB 26.6. Applicant is Riley Planning Services, and the subdivision name is Audra Lane Subdivision. It's generally located at 13809 West Audra Lane, and it includes a variance to deviate from the subdivision buffer along an arterial and collector street requirement. A modification of a conditional use permit to deviate from use-specific standards for attached single-family and multifamily residential uses and to exceed the parking maximums. And then a preliminary plot for a residential subdivision comprised of 24 buildable and one common lots, all of this on 2.8 acres and an MX1 or mixed-use neighborhood zone. We are recommending denial on all of the above, and so we will be hearing that one this evening. Any questions?

Commissioner. Commissioner, go ahead. You're going to love me. We have to recuse on that last item.

Of tonight?

Yeah. One, two, three, four, five, and I'm in chambers. I'll hang around to preserve porn. You definitely are going to hang around.

Now that we've only got seven commissioners, we only need four for porn.

Okay. Yep. That's up to you. Go watch the Knick game. I will be, Crystal, I will be out July 6th. Okay. So this first item that we're deferring to July 6th.

Any other questions? Mr. Chair.

No, Mr. Chair. Okay. Yeah, quick question on the reconsider. I've never seen one of those before. Is that part of the new code?

Yeah, this is a little... It is part of the new code. So under the new code, the... The final decision body for a variance is the hearing examiner or PNZ acting as the hearing examiner when combined with another application. And so it's a, I'm going to mix up the wording, but however, whatever the deciding standard that counsel is, is the same as the hearing examiner and y'all when you're acting on that body. So the next step after reconsideration would be a request for judicial review. It's the same process as with something that goes to council.

Okay. We either say that we're open to reconsidering or not open to it and then we re-hear it and maybe they have new information.

That will be covered in a memo for the actual day that you're hearing the reconsideration. Today, it's just the deferral, but we'll we'll have all that information in the staff report leading up to that.

Okay. Crystal, my read of that, and I think this is just more of a point of order, not hearing the item in front of us, but the request is to reconsider the denial of the variance. Period. End of story.

Correct.

There seems to be some, oh, gray area on the variance and the conditional use permit and those two things being connected so that when it comes time for the staff report i mean my ask and i'm sure you're going to do this or that your staff going to do this but is to make that incredibly and distinctly clear because i think that's where this could go a different direction in terms of whether or not it complies with code. So just so I might read of it.

Okay. Crystal's like, we know.

I got you, Chair. Any other questions or comments for this evening?

I have a question, I guess.

Yeah.

Mr. Chair. So the judicial review that they could request after that, is that literally court review or is that appealing to city council?

Again, so the hearing examiner or P&Z acting as hearing examiner is the final decision body on a request like that, much like counsel is the final decision body for a subdivision or a rezone. And so the next steps after a reconsideration is, let's say, not taken up would be the same path. So yes, judicial review. You guys are really asking me to stretch my legal prowess here. So I hope I can't see Mary cringing behind either of you. Okay. If nothing else, then we can wrap up agenda review and we'll get started with the actual hearing in about seven minutes.

Oh, we're not.

Oh, thank you. Are you in California right now? Yeah, I'm in California. Thank you. Who can I get here to view?

Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Thank you.

All right, good evening, everybody, and welcome to the Boise 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 the commission. After that, we proceed to public testimony, starting with those who are in person, then who signed up on the signup sheet in advance, and then anyone else who raises their hand virtually. If you're tending through your telephone, you can type in star nine to raise your hand. Each member of the public is allowed up to three minutes for testimony. We are strict 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.

Okay, thank you, Crystal. We are citizen volunteers appointed by the mayor and appointed and approved by the City Council. We make final decisions on conditional use permits, variances in appeals and recommendations to City Council on subdivisions, rezones, annexations, and code or comprehensive plan amendment. Any decision made tonight may be appealed by 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. Schaefer.

Here.

Deha.

Here.

Torres.

Here.

Stallings. Stefancic.

Here.

Six present, one absent.

Okay. First thing we're going to do is act on item A. This is CBA 26-12. This is a land group. This is a reconsideration request located at, let's see, 1102, 1108, and 1110 West Hayes Street. Is the applicant present by chance? Nope. Nobody online. Okay. The request is for a deferral to July 6th. Is there anybody here in chambers or online? who wishes or who cannot attend the meeting on July 6th and was hoping to attend this evening? I see none. Okay. So if that's the case, then if there's a motion, we'll go ahead and accept this deferral.

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Moore.

I move that we defer the reconsideration request for item number A to July 6th.

Okay, I'm probably messing this up, but oh well. Is there a second?

Second.

All right. Any discussion? No. Clerk, please call the roll.

Danley.

Aye.

Moore. Aye. Schaefer.

Aye.

Seha.

Aye.

Torres.

Aye.

Stefancic.

Aye.

All in favor? Motion carries. Okay.

Sorry about that. I probably screwed that up. Let's make the consent agenda for item number. We only have one item that's eligible. This is SUB 26-16, COI subdivision. This is 2701 South Palm Street, a preliminary and final plat for a residential subdivision. Is the applicant in attendance? Okay. Very good. And do you agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report? Okay. Very good. Let the record reflect that the applicant is in attendance and does agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report. I see no sign up sheet. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number one, SUB 26-16? Okay, nobody online and nobody in chambers. So with that, we'll go ahead and place item number one and only one on the consent agenda. With that, I'd have them entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner Moore.

I move that we approve the consent agenda as constructed.

Very good. Is there a second?

Second.

Oh, I don't know. I think it was to my right, though. I'm going to go with Commissioner Torres on that. All right. Have we got a motion by Commissioner Moore and a second by Commissioner Torres? Is there any discussion? Yep, there is. I normally would never say anything about a consent agenda item. and will not be voting against the consent agenda item. But this application is very frustrating to me, not because of what you approve or what you submitted because of exactly what we knew was coming. So this is the one by the airport that had seven, I think it was units of 3000 square feet was going to be affordable in many ways, or at least a lot closer to what we were looking at in terms of AMI. And now because of this airport overlay, we saw this coming and we're right where we are with three units, 10,000 square foot lots and a very different product. And it's frustrating because I feel like we missed the opportunity there. It's no fault of the city. This is a federal issue with the FAA and all that kind of stuff. But when a city's trying to go to bat, four housing units at central on a key corridor and all of the things that we knew that this was to be. And we can't have that done because of noise, despite being flanked completely and totally by multifamily and greater density than this project. Boy, that's maddening. So a bit of an editorial there, I understand. And I apologize, but this is poster child for this issue. And here we are. All right. Sorry. Thank you. Appreciate it. But clerk, please call the roll.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

This is a request for a variance and modification of a conditional use permit and a preliminary plat for residential subdivision. Is the applicant present? Oh, you are. Okay. David, Mr. Moser. Mr. Schafer.

Oh, that's right. Mr. Schafer. I will be recusing myself from this item as I have been working at the landscape lands for this project.

Okay. Well, we'll judge him really harshly then. Very good. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Schafer.

Before we get started and before I forget, um, Our colleague, Commissioner Doan, has stepped down from the Planning and Zoning Commission. She was appointed at the same time as I was, so I just wanted to thank her for her service. I wish we could have done it while she was here, but hopefully she hears about this or watches it. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Appreciate that. It's absolutely accurate. Thank you. And thank you, Commissioner Doan, if you're listening. Probably not. But for your service, much appreciated as well. Okay. Commissioner Moser, or Mr. Moser, please take it away.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the commission.

The applicant requests a conditional use modification permit to deviate from the use-specific standards to exceed the parking maximum and a variance to deviate from the subdivision buffers along Arterial and Collector Street standards on 2.8 acres in an MX-1 zone located at 13809 West Adora Lane. A preliminary plot for residential subdivision comprised of 24 buildable and one common lot is also included. The property is located along the west side of Eagle Road, approximately half a mile between McMillan and Chinden Boulevard. Single-family residential neighborhoods abut the site to the south and west. Offices are located across Eagle to the east. A self-storage business is located across Adora Lane to the north. A planned critical side pathway connection extends along the east side of the subject property adjacent to Eagle Road. The applicant is proposing to modify a 46-dwelling unit multifamily development by converting 22 of the dwelling units into townhomes. The original apartments were approved with a planned resident development back in 2019. The proposed townhouses consist of four groups of four attached townhouses along the south side of the property and one group of six attached townhomes interior to the site. the remaining 24 dwelling units will continue as a multifamily development comprised of two five-plexes of a six-plex and an eight-plex building. The site plan shown here shows the buildings which will be converted into townhomes marked in green and the buildings which will remain as apartments marked in blue. In addition, the project was currently under construction and a surface parking lot and four of the buildings have already been completed. As such, the overall site plan, which was designed for apartments, will not change for this project and the variance is requested to reduce the required 30-foot wide landscape buffer along Eagle Road to about 27 feet wide adjacent to the proposed townhomes. In summary, converting the partially constructed apartment development into townhomes creates issues with the landscape and design requirements associated for townhomes. The use-specific standards that the applicant is requesting to deviate from are the requirements to front the townhomes onto streets or open space and the required landscaping in front of the townhomes, which requires a deciduous tree. These design standards were intended to enhance the street front appearance of the project and its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Directly fronting the townhomes onto a parking lot as proposed does not achieve these intended goals, nor is it consistent with the comprehensive plan. The subject property is not suited to accommodate the proposed townhomes since the project design orients the townhomes towards the parking lot, which does not comply with the required design standards or provides the required landscaping in front of the townhomes. These additional deviations or these requested deviations from the use specific standards could be resolved by modifying the site plan. However, as noted, these site improvements have already been constructed. But if the intent is to create a for sale product, the applicant could submit a condominium plat once the already approved apartments have been built. The applicant is also requesting a variance to reduce the width of the required 30 foot landscape buffer easement between the single family homes and Eagle road, the planning team does not support the requested variants. The plan team cannot find any evidence of a hardship existing with the property itself that warrants granting the variance request. Difficulties associated with converting a partially constructed apartment development into town homes is not a hardship, because it is not associated with the characteristic of the property as required in the findings. Also, the variance will conflict with the public interest and could provide a special right or privilege to the property that is not available to other properties in the area. The variance request is required because the proposed townhomes are considered single-family residential and therefore a subdivision development code requires a 30-foot wide landscape buffer along Eagle to buffer the single-family residents from the arterial roadway. It should be noted that the subdivision application and the proposed variance would not be necessary if the multifamily development were constructed as originally approved. Finally, the proposed modification would result in a project exceeding the parking maximum of the development code. The proposed modification will change the project use to both multifamily and single-family residential, which have different parking standards. Also, the requested modification will use the current development code parking calculations, which are different from the parking standards from back in 2019. As such, the request to exceed the parking maximum is not consistent with the required findings of the development code. The proposed excess parking spaces is not required to reduce an adverse impact on the surrounding area and there is no unique characteristics associated with the use that is not generally chaired by other residential development. The project was approved as additional multifamily development on 2.8 acres and the proposed modification keeps the project as a residential development. The request to exceed the parking maximum is not uniquely suited for the subject property since the improved pedestrian connections and pathways adjacent to the site This includes a 10 foot wide sidewalk or pathway along Eagle Road, which provides a direct connection to the commercial uses and large part less than a half a mile from the property. Exceeding the parking maxims would create a material negative impact on other use in the surrounding area. The parking lot could be reduced in size by removing excess parking spaces, reducing the amount of parking space to allow for a smaller parking lot area and allow for more open space and landscaping to screen the project. This would also reduce the amount of impervious surface area on the property itself, thus reducing the amount of stormwater generated. The proposed lots within the subdivision will comply with the dimensional requirements of the MX-1 zone, with the exception of the variance in the landscape buffer. The request to convert 22 of the multifamily dwelling units into townhomes and a subdivision application could potentially create other issues with the requirements from other departments. For example, the potential issues with the building code, such as fire separation or the amount of open open a wall openings with respect to the new property lines have not been fully reviewed as of yet. In summary, the planning team does not support the deviation from the townhome you specific standards or to exceed the parking maxims or the variance. The planning team did receive letters of opposition from the public expressing concerns with the project and that it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. It would result in a loss of property values in the adjacent neighborhood. And they've expressed concerns on how the shared amenities between the development and the adjacent neighborhood would be managed with the addition of the townhomes. In summary, the planning team recommends denial of the condition use modification, the variance and the substitution. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Moser. Is the applicant present?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Penelope Constantine-Tykes, Riley Planning Services, Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho, 83701. If I might, Mr. Chairman, just a result of an old jaw injury, my mouth is just not going to go as fast as it normally does.

Oh, my gosh. My mouth has the same problem.

Well, I would prefer that it not be this. I just have to be mindful of keeping my teeth in the right place.

Whatever we need to help you out.

It should be just a couple minutes. Okay. Not a lot.

Yeah, no problem.

Gotcha. I did want to mention before I began that David has been great to work with, as always. And I do appreciate staffs working with me through the processing periods. Before you this evening, as you know, is a CUP modification, a preliminary plat and variance for Audra Lane subdivision, converting the PUD and the DR approved Eagle Vela multifamily into a mixed residential subdivision with 24 apartment townhouses and 22 ownership townhouses. The 3.01 acre project is adjacent to Eagle Road with no roadway connectivity to the west, south, or north. Audra Lane was established as a private road with Roxy Place subdivision. It's not part of the site, and Boise Fire has designated Audra Lane as a fire lane with no parking. Based on the 2019 DR, the common area is 1.47 acres. which is 0.38 acres of open space, or about 16,558 square feet, and the total usable open space, 0.031 acres with 13,503 square feet, which does exceed the 10% metric that's located in Boise Code 11332. residential uses. Public utilities are completely installed, approved and operational, including domestic water and sanitary sewer design for both the public sector and the private, excuse me, for the public service and private service for the apartment buildings and the townhouses. Temporary occupancy has been issued for the buildings currently constructed on the site with three of the four apartment buildings and six of the proposed planning townhouses are already in place. The remaining apartment building and 16 additional platted townhomes are scheduled for Phase 2. The site layout includes 90 parking spaces, 22 of which are reserved for the platted townhouses. Parking exceeds the standard by 22.5 spaces, which was approved with the original PUD. In light of the location of the site with no on-street overflow parking potential and past neighborhood concerns, this seems to be an appropriate location to grant the parking variance. With the current housing crisis in Boise that isn't just about affordable rental housing, but also about attainable home ownership, the platted lots will provide much-needed ownership opportunities with supportable value-to-income ratios for families with moderate income to begin home ownership. The housing ladder in Boise is not performing well because, in part, due to stagnation in the transition from market-rate apartments to homeownership, This transition is necessary in order for others to advance on the latter. The most recent vacancy that I could find is 3.3. That's up from 2.7 in apartments. This is a very low vacancy rate. Two neighborhood meetings were provided and the project team is aware of recent HOA correspondence. The applicant is happy to work with the HOA to update existing recorded agreements should the project be able to move forward. The project team would like to provide a slightly different perspective on the staff report grounds for denial of the proposed CUP modification preliminary plat and variance requests. The first item is that the CUP does not meet the approvable criteria. The site will be functionally identical. Whether or not the plat with individual attached townhouses is recommended for approval. There is no increase in density. No change will occur that will impact the neighborhood. There's no change in the condition of approval of the original PUD or the DR, nor is there an increase in building square footage. The proposed subdivision does not change the nature of the underlying approval use, nor does the proposed subdivision change or delete any condition of approval. The only request is to alter the nature of the approved use with the addition of the platted lots. This does not represent a material change in the use of the site as it will function identically to the approved PUD. Parking in excess of the allowed amount by about 33% is warranted given the road network and the absence of any potential for overflow parking. The condominium plat has been proposed as an alternative. While the suggestion is appreciated, condos are more appropriate in an urban setting and condo ownership is better suited for owners with more discretionary income. The absence of front yard trees is cited as ground for denial. The condo plat would not remedy this. Front door orientation to a street or open space would likewise not be remedied with a condo plat. In light of housing issues, this aesthetic element seems to be of a lower order of importance. Compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood was found to be present with the 2019 PUD. The primary difference between the present question and the previous finding of compatibility is a function of the new zoning designation assigned to the site after the PUD was approved. And while the architect and engineering were working through the necessary construction and building permit approval process, this shift is understood to be part of the conversion implemented with the new code, but neglects to factor in the already approved development. The new zoning designation artificially shifts the rules. There's no material negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood as the site will be functionally identical to the approved PUD and not altered by the proposed preliminary plat and variance requests. The site development plan was deemed supportable in the PUD approval with regard to development pattern and context. No alteration is proposed. A three foot depth deficiency in the landscape buffer is acknowledged. It is the developer's position that the sound wall is a suitable alternative to three feet of greenery, especially in light of the elevation difference between the elevation of Eagle Road compared to the lower site and adjacent Roxy Place elevation. Generous comprehensive plan justification of the site design and compatibility with the adjacent development was provided in PUD staff report in 2019. Nothing has changed. In the analysis section of the staff report, they provide additional discussion regarding code shortfalls. These include parking, stormwater, landscape buffer, and ADA requirements along Eagle Road. The staff does cite ACHD standards, but I believe Eagle Road is under the jurisdiction of ITD. The gain in landscaping and the reduction in parking and stormwater retention would have a very minimal impact on the site layout. Fire department requirements for 150 feet of proximity and the provision of ADA parking will fragment any gains for a very minimal benefit, notwithstanding the neighborhood concerns regarding parking overflow. Hardship is always a challenge. In researching the benefits that could be obtained by permitting the 22 planted townhouses at the site. I came across the lending tree report published about a year ago, and it's quite sobering. Of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the nation, Boise is ranked 49th, one of the five states with the first housing crisis. Can hardship be more global than local, citywide as opposed to neighborhood? I grant you that I'm proposing something uncommon but I would think that we have a hardship across the city and that this site and the request before you could be an incremental shift, a change in the right direction. There will be no change in the function of the site. The question is whether or not higher order element of adding home ownership opportunity warrants approval of the proposed CUP mod preliminary plat and variance request. Some of the benefits inherent in the request includes the potential for a better functioning housing ladder and enhancing the mix of housing options in an area dominated by traditional single-family detached residences. The philosophy and intent of the Platte Town Homes is somewhat different than the Boise Code. However, addressing Boise's housing challenges in a constructive way is not necessarily bad, just different. The project team believes the benefits that Audra Lane subdivision will provide outweighs the site shortfalls in parking, landscaping, front yard trees, and orientation of the townhomes. Thank you very much for your attention, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

Okay, very good. Thank you very much. All right, the item is up for questions of the commission. Well, let me back up. Sorry. Registered Neighborhood Association. Hillcrest Neighborhood Association. Just to make sure. Mr.

Chair, it's Centennial.

I'm sorry, what?

It's Centennial.

Oh, next one. Geez. Yep, at the bottom. Centennial. Thank you. Is there anybody in Chambers from Centennial Neighborhood Association? Nope. Okay. Nobody online. All right. Well, with that, I'll go ahead and open it up to questions mr chair um could you just read off the name of who we've got there i think that person is in the audience joe joe is it leg or like you like you oh you are from the centennial neighborhood association yes okay appreciate the clarification so all right we'll have you up momentarily it sounds like you know the drill so okay very good All right. Thanks for that, Crystal. Any questions of the commission?

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Moore.

So to clarify, there's only some of these buildings have been constructed. All the flat work's been constructed.

I beg your pardon?

So only the flat work and then maybe four of these buildings have been constructed?

We have three apartment buildings and I believe it's six townhomes that are already constructed.

Okay.

And actually we have temporary occupancy permits now so there'll be housing families soon.

So um if I infer which building, it is it's the building. kind of parallel to Eagle Road. So it's going to be the one that's lots 18 through 23. That's the townhome building that's been constructed.

The blue lot along Eagle Road, the six townhomes that are green, and two of the three buildings on the west side are constructed.

Okay.

So, Mr.

Chair, just a couple more follow-ups. Yes, keep going. So if those, I think there's a few, those four buildings along the planned south property line, seem to be some of the larger offenders of some of these variance requests and things. So there's no way to redesign them such that they can fly.

The townhouse along the south boundary?

The ones, lots 1 through 16, those four buildings. There's no way to redesign those lots because they're not constructed yet, within the bounds of the flat work that's been constructed such that they comply with your requirement?

Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, that's a great question. I think probably it would be difficult to do that because of keeping the buildings large enough. Those townhouses are a little over 1,000 square feet. In order to do that, we'd have to reduce their square footage. I'm not sure. That's just a little bit over what you call a cottage. And those units actually have backyards. So I'm not sure that that would be a possibility.

Wait, before, if you'd like to participate, I need you to come up and identify yourself. You can answer questions as part of the team, I'm assuming. But I need you to identify yourself for the record.

I will answer that question in more detail during rebuttal.

Fair enough. Okay. I'm going to follow up on that, though. Because I guess the question is, it seems as though the drive aisle area is seemingly pretty difficult to change in terms of the layout. The open space may be a possibility. I guess, Mr. Moser, quick question for you. On the open space between the door and the front onto a street, if we were to somehow look past a street and accept the access route instead of a street, I don't recall, what is the open space dimensions required from the front door to a potential access route.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I believe the MX one zone that it has a, has a fairly reduced front setback, but there is a requirement for that, that there had some sort of landscaping to be provided there that accommodates a deciduous tree. It doesn't really give a standard for the front. It just says you have to have landscaping and a tree in the front and a tree.

Yeah.

It has to be big enough to have, well, it needs a tree. The code says you shall have a deciduous tree. Shall have a tree. I mean, a tree there. So you have to have a landscape area large enough to, you know, to have that, to put the tree in, that's required. Okay. I mean, usually it'd be a six, like an eight foot wide is for a class two tree, something that wide to get the root in there.

Which happens to be about the same dimension as the width of a parking stall.

Yes. Yes.

Okay.

Just saying, Mr. Chairman, I will give you a better answer when I do rebuttal.

Fair enough. Okay. Other questions? Sure.

And so to follow up on the building, I guess the building design, I think the staff report mentioned some concerns about the buildings not complying with building code requirements for Townhomes, obviously there's different requirements for a townhome than multifamily. So the one that has been built, that one does comply with requirements for a townhome.

And I'm talking like your separation walls in between the two is, you know, one hours versus two. Yes, they're built to be attached single family residences. So they do have the firewall system. I'm built into them.

And then Mister chair more so Mister Moser just to confirm if this was proposed condos the parking count is not an issue. The tree is not an issue. It's kind of a non issue at that point because it's considered multifamily there's no deviation from the current approvals is that correct.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, to answer that question, that is correct. Basically, you would build the multifamily and then you would condo the spaces inside the building independently. And you wouldn't be required to meet the townhome standards because they're not townhomes at that point. And condos are treated much differently than a subdivision. I'd also note, too, that just to clarify on an issue for the lots on 18 to 23, they did, I think, install or build them with the party wall between. But I cannot guarantee that when the building department looked at this, that they took into consideration that they're sitting on their own individual parcels at the time that the building permit. I do not know that.

Mr. Chairman?

There's a requirement for fire separation and distances for amount of openings between property lines, and I don't know if they took that into consideration in the building department. Did I hear you call it a party wall? It's a common party wall, like the alcohol wall between the units. It's a fire wall, essentially. Sorry, I got the new term. Okay, okay.

Got it. Okay.

Mr. Chairman, all the townhouses have that separation. I believe even the apartments have that separation. I think the building department was inquiring about the openings and access, which would be along the front of the building, and that one of the things that would have to happen is there could never be any awnings placed along that row of townhouses in front of the platted townhouses because of the restrictions with fire access.

And then, Mr. Chair, just to continue on that, so I'm assuming that the next step on that would be probably a plan mod with their current permit to re-review or something like that, then?

I would suspect that would be the case. I guess they could enter into some sort of non-build for the common lot. That would satisfy the fire department or the building departments. But there are some, I think there are some structures in the common lot that are part of the amenity. So they would have to then break the common lot into different common lots because you can't put a non-build and still have a gazebo out in some of these open spaces that are required or at least specified in the DR at the time.

Okay.

That makes sense.

Okay. Other questions? Mr. Chair. Mr. Torres.

My question is for the applicant. You talk about the housing ladder and housing affordability and providing another optional product for people to purchase to essentially enter the housing market. So based on those comments, can you give me an idea of what these townhomes might go for if they were built compared to what the apartments might rent for? Are they market rate? Are they going to be lower than that?

And Mr. Chairman, you're speaking of the Plata townhouses, is that correct? Well, all the townhouses. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, the current average price tag for a townhouse is approaching $500,000. I don't think that will be quite that high. Again, with rebuttal, I could be able to give you maybe a better idea of what the price point is. I know that a single-wide manufactured home is now going for $150,000. I did a search on Redfin and found eight townhouses or homes in Boise that were priced at under $400,000. So I think we'll probably come in at under that amount.

Mr. Chair, just a quick follow-up. Go ahead. So to clarify, though, would it be fair to say these are just going to go at whatever the prevailing market rate is? That's my assumption.

Okay, other questions? Thank you very much. I've got a few. Oh, yes, sir. So I can't zoom in on this red line, and I don't know the 15 point font that is but in this it matters this deviation of three feet right the three feet of the frontage so it looks as though the now existing multi-family building uh is it already within the 30 feet so in other words this is where it gets interesting because the townhome is what's in front of us and the change in the CUP and stuff. But I'm curious, is that multifamily already piercing that 30 feet?

Mr. Chairman, I can answer your question for you. That depicts where the lots will be.

Right.

So the multifamily, the one adjacent to Eagle Road, there's an additional side hill. Actually, I provided staff with a photograph. There's a separation between the what would be the eastern boundary of any of the structures along there before that 30 feet is measured basically from, or 27 feet is measured from that red line out to the edge of the right-of-way for ITD. So we're three feet short of that strip that's a separate common lot.

Okay. So I'm looking at lot number one in the far, I guess it'd be the southwest area. I don't know if that's, is that an actual structure, right?

In the southwest corner?

Lot number one.

Yeah, lot number one actually has a larger lot because it's a corner lot. And there's, I believe there's landscaping that's along the, what would be the western boundary of that townhouse.

Okay. Is there room to reduce that lot since it is abnormal? from the rest of the lots by three feet to then basically move everything over to accommodate this 30-foot frontage?

I think technically that's a possibility, yes.

Is it something that you'd be willing to do?

I will consult and get back to you. That would resolve it along that section.

At least there?

Yes. And I would offer, as I mentioned in my testimony... The elevation of the site is substantially below the elevation of Eagle Road. Right. And as you know, sound... how sand moves. So the wall is there, which actually, it's a great benefit. It not only protects the residents of this development from noise, it also serves to buffer the people in Roxy Place. So I think the wall, my testimony was that the wall was a great alternative to three feet worth of greenery.

Okay. I think at this point, just trying to think of options, but it sounds like, did you have something to add Mr. Moser?

Mr. Chairman of the commission. I don't know if it's necessarily to add, I think the lot one is a little bit larger because the initial CUP was trying to maintain a perimeter setback between it and the adjacent neighborhood. That's why it has a building's 15 feet setback, and that's why that's a little bit larger. Although if you go to a townhome, that kind of changes some of the parameters a little bit, at least on that one particular issue.

We could shrink each one by four inches and get to 36 inches. We're getting into that level of detail here. I mean, I need to ask you on your letter, you state that public works, Boise Public Works identified sewer service constraints that changed the nature of the sewer service originally planned for the site. And it sounds as though that's a pretty consistent reason why we're even here. It sounds like the sewer, is that the gist of it? Is that what I'm reading? Is that there was a determination by the city that, hey, something's amiss with this or something can't be done, and therefore you needed to make some changes?

Mr. Chairman, actually what happened was the project had full DEQ approval for a private sewer system, but the city of Boise Code doesn't allow townhouses on discrete lots to have private sewer. So what we're... and I went to the Planning and Zone, or the Public Works Commission, and as a result of that conversation and a follow-up discussion with the city engineer, what's gonna happen is a hybrid system, much like a project that was done up on, I don't know, Owyhee or Shone, where they have a combination of private, public sewer, or on one site, depending on which. So the apartment buildings will have private sewer, and the plotted townhouses will have public sewer. There are a couple of places where the sewer line goes underneath one of the landscape islands in the parking lot. But that's not a deal breaker.

All right. I'm having a little bit of a challenge on that. So I'm going to read this out loud. This is, again, under your letter. So in the intervening review period, And with consultation with Public Works, the layout shifted to mixed-use housing-type residential with both leased apartment townhouses and platted townhomes to adjust for sewer service constraints identified by Boise Public Works.

I understand what you're saying now. The original plan was to plat them all. But we had to factor in the private sewer. There were some places on the site where public sewer could not be provided. So that was where the genesis happened. And now we have some apartment buildings with townhouses, and we have been proposing some platted townhouses so that we have a mixture of private sewer for the apartment buildings and public sewer for the townhouses. So you're correct. The original plan was to platt them all. but we can't because of sewer constraints.

Okay. And so at the time that this was approved in, I think it was 2019. Yes. Was it your understanding or your client's understanding that the sewer issue was essentially going to accommodate what you were proposing and then you learned along the way that it couldn't be and that things changed?

I think that's a correct assessment. With all development, there's always surprises that show up along the way. Which is why we went to the Public Works Commission was to ask for a variance from them to serve the entire site with private sewer, which they won't allow.

And if I'm correct, I read, and this is, I guess, a question for Mr. Moser, but it sounds as though our public works departments have signed off on what's being proposed, at least when it comes to the water sewer issue.

Mr. Chairman, as a commission, that is correct. They looked at this as originally proposed. I think they wanted to, like, townhome everything at some point. It just wasn't going to work. Public works said, we're okay with this if we do have a mix of product type between multifamily and single-family products. And then we can accommodate the public sewer system in an easement in that case. But it was a waiver that they granted to do it. But they did sign off on this configuration. Okay.

Any other questions? I still got more, but I want to- Mr. Chair. Commissioner Moore.

To follow up on that, if that was what Public Works agreed to, why wasn't it applied originally like that? And why are we looking at it now? this way? Shouldn't this have happened in 2019? Mr.

Chair, members of the commission, in 2019, they came in with a multifamily product for apartments, and that was the intent at that time. At some point through the building process, and the applicant can further elaborate on this, they thought or decided that maybe they could go townhomes and then started to work towards that process, but it was kind of late in the game, and that's kind of where we're getting into They might be able to fill you in a bit more on that story.

I can add more to it. Actually, I searched very diligently in all of the correspondence between the architect, the engineer, public works, not so much in the planning department, but also in the building department. There was a breadcrumb trail about discussions about planning. It wasn't a brand new concept. It's one of those unfortunate things where My directness, or maybe it is a benefit, my directness works well because I'll just say what it is. So there were hints that the intention was to plat early on. It just didn't sink. It didn't get enough daylight. And so there was some mix-up in how things were processed. And there's no one at fault for that. It just happened.

Okay. Okay.

I'm going to follow up. Please. So if they don't get the plat, they probably can't occupy that one building or some of these buildings as multifamily then based on the public works.

Mr. Chairman, can I answer that for you? They'll all just be apartments. There's no restriction to them being apartments. If the plat doesn't work, if it's not approved, they'll just all be apartments.

Just to follow up.

Go ahead.

So that's okay with public works. So with the private and public, okay. Gotcha.

Thank you.

Anybody who has this story completely straight, I got 10 bucks for you.

I'm just saying.

I have a question regarding the common amenities. That was something that was mentioned in the staff report about a concern. I didn't quite understand what is the concern here. And I guess this has to do with the existing HOA that's nearby. I'm not clear on that.

Mr.

Chair, members of the commission, all I know is from the HOA's letter of opposition, they didn't note that. I think there is some sort of common money, particularly I think at the end of Audra Lane, there's a pathway that connects back into the neighborhood and there are some other aspects with water, like irrigation water and how it's used and some agreement between the development and the HOA and how they're going to pay for that irrigation water. I guess the neighborhood association has, or the HOA has concerns on if you start throwing private property owners into this, how does that affect that contractual arrangement? And they just didn't know how that was going to work because they didn't have a CC&Rs or they don't know how those type of agreements would work. So they're just expressing their concerns on that. That was my understanding of the HOA's concerns.

Mr. Chairman, I can follow up on that. So there are existing agreements in place now, boarded agreements, with regard to the maintenance of the common lot that connects Audra Lane, over to the public road in Roxy Place. There's also an agreement with regard to irrigation water. We have registered, we understand, we hear them. I got a phone call from someone in, I think he was with Roxy Place a couple of days ago about it. And I The applicant has been very clear. We had two neighborhood meetings and he's been very clear with the neighbors that should we be able to move forward with the plot, he's more than happy to work with them to adjust the recorded agreements, to accommodate for the change and the ownership mix at Audra. So it's just, the time isn't arrived yet to have those conversations, but there are already in place recorded agreements regarding those two items. So they may need some adjustment. And I understand their concern. They want to make sure that their HOA fees are paid consistently so that they are not running at a deficit over in Roxy Place. Mr. Helmer is happy to work with them on that.

Okay. So, David, if If one of the two requirements with respect to the variances has to do, or not the variance, I'm getting it mixed up, but I guess it'd be the sub or the conditional use. I'm getting it mixed up at this point, to be honest. But the open space requirement that's in front of the front door, if I'm looking at these four buildings to the south, if one stall per building was converted into a deciduous tree space. And would your professional opinion be that that would satisfy the open space requirement? Because it's not horizontal to the frontage. It's more linear, if that makes sense. But it is open space, quote unquote, and would satisfy a tree stall. That's not the right term either. Tree well, I guess.

They would have to have 16 of them. So I think that would consume most of the parking along that entire stretch. And then, you know, we would, there is currently a sidewalk there, but that could put it into an easement. So then you'd have to expand those lots to accommodate that open space. So it's now part of, although I think there's some flexibility on that. We've done that in other ones, in other situations. I mean, it's, without having, without sort of, I know what you're saying. It's just I'm trying to envision it. I mean, it sounds like that might work, but it would definitely consume a lot of the parking, although they are.

So we're talking apples and oranges, and I get it. I get what you're saying. You're saying because the code requires one tree, one unit, therefore 16 because of the number of lots. I understand that, I guess. this gets back into the parking issue and they're not being garages and all of this stuff. And so thinking a little bit differently that because I have essentially what amounts to be four, I have a box. The box is broken into four parts. So I'm looking at it sort of as a box. You're looking at it as the four parts because of code. I understand that. I'm just, I guess, trying to think about if there's a solution at all would be one box, one tree versus four to four. That's kind of where I'm getting at.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Seth. What is the average, what is the allowed length for a compact parking space?

Seven and a half by 15.

So we could gain five feet potentially by converting some of those spaces to compact spaces. And that may be a potential solution for getting trees along that frontage.

Are you suggesting, as Mr. Moser said, one tree per stall, but going in with the balance of the space? You're talking about reconfiguring all of the stalls to a compact space, but then adding a tree per unit, which would

Five feet. I mean, that's a five-foot gain that we could potentially get. I don't know. Without sketching it, it's an intriguing idea, and I do appreciate your thinking outside of the box. Maybe we need to take this up again at a later hearing, and I can see what kind of jujitsu I can come up with.

Good work. Good work.

Mr. Chairman. I feel like we're trying to design here. And I tend to agree with the applicant is that maybe there is some additional work that can be done between the applicant and the planning department on how to make this work. Personally, I have some concerns with the application, but I see where you and Commissioner Moore are coming from on a couple of things. And so I don't think it's our role to design, even though there may be some planners and some architects on this commission. So that's just my suggestion.

It's a good one. Appreciate it. Why don't we do this? Let's finish up any questions and then we'll take a break and then kind of think about this for a second and let it simmer. But before we do that, are there other questions, especially on any of the types of concerns or specific technical issues that we've not discussed? Nothing, Commissioner Torres. Surprise. Usually you've got questions.

I'm just, my brain is spinning. I'm thinking through these different factors and just trying to come up with a good question to ask.

Fine, that's fair. Okay.

Mr. Chairman, if I could. The applicant has reminded me that all the parking lot and sidewalk improvements are currently in. along the frontage of those four buildings. So it doesn't appear that it would be an option to do that. And utilities are in too.

Ah, okay.

But I seriously appreciate your thinking out of the box. That's pretty awesome, actually.

Okay, any other questions? There was another one that I had, but I'm not finding my citation. So.

Short break.

Anything Commissioner Stefancic, you're online. I see your head, but I haven't heard your voice yet.

Nope. Nope. Sorry. I was having internet issues, but you asked the question I was going to ask. And so I'm all out.

Okay.

All right. Well, if there aren't any other questions, then we'll go ahead and conclude the Q&A portion. And why don't we take, well, let's do this. I'm going to go ahead and you can have a seat and then we'll go ahead and open it up. We only have one person that wishes to testify unless you have every right to do that as well. But I have somebody ahead of you. I'm pointing like you guys can see that line. And then if the both of you want to do that, that's great. And then we'll We'll take a little bit of a break.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, very good.

Sure, please. Mr. Chair, if it serves the commission, I would be happy to delay until after your break, and then you could do the hearing at your discretion.

Thank you. I appreciate it. I would actually prefer that you give us your three minutes just so that it's additional information for us to consider and put into the hopper. There's a lot of hopping right now, but I'd rather have that now before we make any decisions. So if you could, yeah, go ahead, come on up, state your name and address for the record and go for your three minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, commissioners. I'm Joe Legue. My residence is 14435 West Guinness Drive in Boise, 83713. I am now a retired seven-year president of Bristol Heights Neighborhood Association, a 544-unit residential community to the north of Eagle Villas. I'm also a founding member of the Centennial Neighborhood Association and presently serve as secretary. I am not, however, speaking in representation of either organization. Rather, I speak as a citizen, property owner, and a decades-long resident of the city of Boise. I'm not going to read overly prepared remarks. I came first to listen and observe, and then carefully considered any remarks I might offer. As a city, we recently pursued an arduous process leading to adoption of a new citywide zoning code. deviating from code with variances should be, as you certainly embrace as the Commission, must remain infrequent exceptions, not the norm. There's considerable history on this infill opportunity dating back to 2019. Currently, there are those that believe the Eagle Villa's residential product is flawed as single-family development, albeit small, It may experience a good run as a 46-unit multifamily apartment throughout its useful life, but it has considerable disadvantages as an extremely small common interest division or a 22-unit townhome HOA. A compelling reason for the change has not been presented yet, at least in my opinion. I have professional expertise in both multifamily and common interest developments. And I look forward to the opportunity to review the governing documents and the operating and reserve budgets for this hybrid entity. While I don't expect the Planning and Zoning Commission to immerse itself at that level, it is not outside the bandwidth of the Centennial Neighborhood Association. Ultimately, we want to see this one be a successful residential development. And as neighbors, we have a vested interest. To that end, Continued collaboration is essential and warranted, and I believe our community offers that opportunity. I extend that invitation for further cooperative effort to the applicant, Ethan Elmer and Penelope. In summary, this may not be quite ready for prime time before the Planning and Zoning Commission, at least not in the way that it's presented tonight. So for the record, I ask you to consider Everything has been presented, but to conclude, staff's analysis and recommendation to denial warrants your vote in support of that recommendation. Thank you for the opportunity to address the commission, and I'll stand for any questions as desired.

How do you pronounce your last name again?

It's LeGue.

LeGue. Mr. LeGue, I just want to thank you. Those are some of the best comments I've heard in a very long time up here, and I think that without going too much farther, I just will say that it's apparent your willingness to do this kind of work, and obviously having served on the neighborhood association as long as you have. So I just want to thank you for your comments and your efforts in this great city. Thanks, sir. Okay. You can go ahead and have a seat. I do have one more person online that goes by the name of Larry Ice. Your hand is still up. If you want to go ahead and unmute, you can go ahead and state your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. Can you hear me now? We can.

Oh, wonderful. My name is Larry Ice. My address is 14048 West Talon Creek Drive in Boise, 83713. I am on the board of the Roxy Place HOA. and part of the Centennial Neighborhood Association within the Centennial Neighborhood Association. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will defer to the comments, the written testimony I sent instead of going through all the different agreements and CCRs we have that interface with Eagle Villas and just say that, The Roxy Place HOA provides benefits to the Eagle Village development. It's my understanding they're using some of those benefits to market the project right now. My concern is at the moment, our billing works with one entity. If the subdivision happens, we might have over 20 different entities to deal with, to invoice and bill. I'm not even sure how the water rights for the irrigation charges would work. All I ask is that, uh, before a decision is made, uh, Eagle villas and the HOA come to some kind of agreement on how that is going to happen. I would hate to see that something like this complicate that relationship and endanger both those benefits and the compensation to the HOA. Um, I would respectfully like to suggest that the time for that discussion is now before it's approved rather than as the applicant suggests after it's approved. And with that, I will concede my time.

Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Ice. All right. Anybody else? I don't think anybody else in chambers wishes to testify and there's nobody else online. So why don't we go ahead and bring the applicant back up? For rebuttal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you need me to give you my song and dance again?

I think so.

Just for the record, I'll be constant. Okay. Riley Planning Services for Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho, 83701. I'm going to go back to my testimony where I explained to you that we've had two neighborhood meetings with the neighbors. And it's already been explained to Mr. Issa and others who came to the meeting that there would be one payment made that was a compilation of all of the fees due for Audra Lane or Eagle Velo, whichever one you want to call it. So that's already explained. been stipulated that there would not be a whole bunch of different payers. There would just be one for the irrigation water, which is why I was talking about the already recorded agreement that is in existence between Eagleville LLC and Roxy Place. They've already gone most of the way there. They just maybe need to make some subtle adjustments, but there wouldn't be 22 more payors for irrigation water as a result of the subdivision. That won't occur. Is that right?

You need to tell me your name and your address.

Hello, my name is Ethan. Can you just speak a little bit or bring that mic up a little bit? Yeah, perfect.

My name is Ethan Helmer. I'm the developer, Mr. Chairman. I think I can answer and maybe simplify some of these questions just because I have the complete history and I know it's hard coming in, and this is complicated, and there is history here. But to answer that question, the new HOA for Audrey Lane for Eagle Villa will be the interface for the Roxy Place HOA. There's not going to be any difference at all. We get a yearly due bill, and I pay that right now as a developer. The HOA that we're going to start will pay that bill each year. There's no difference in how that's going to be handled. And to clarify, the Audra Lane CC&Rs and HOA will be for the whole site, not just the townhouse, but the apartments also. So one manager for the whole site.

Okay.

That should simplify the concerns about interfacing with multiple owners.

Anything else to add? You've got a couple minutes. Up to you.

There were some other questions about why this didn't get worked out. earlier. We tried. I thought it was. We did start as an apartment project. And then later after COVID and different things and just the market at the time, it was recommended that we change our design to townhomes. So at great expense and adding great length of time in the design process, we went back to redesign four townhomes. And as a developer, I was under the impression that And I thought that all of the bugs were worked out with the design team and the city. That's what I was told repeatedly. And it wasn't until we went to get these entitlements after we had received the building permits to start a construction that I became aware of the issues with the sewer. So that's kind of the explanation on why this is being addressed now. Not that that helps anything. I do appreciate you considering this. I know it's an oddball, but really our thoughts as a partnership for this project were that providing home ownership would be a plus to everybody. Home ownership was what we thought the neighborhood association surrounding preferred in the beginning. So we're trying to provide that. And like Penelope said, there's functionally no difference to the use of the site. If it stays apartments, if it goes to town homes for sale, it's the same. It's essentially all built. The only thing that's not built is the vertical on the 22 other units. I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone has.

Anything else to add?

It's actually the 16 remaining townhouses that haven't been built yet, not 22.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. All right. With that, that concludes the hearing. We'll go ahead and take a five-minute break, think about this, and come back and make some decisions.

What's your question?

I would have been happy But the only way that I do it is to go to my house and talk to my community.

Like, I don't have friends. I don't have parents. So I'm fine for it.

You know what I mean?

or anything

Oh, there you go. What do you like?

Mr. Chair, it looks like we lost Commissioner Sopcich.

He was just bored. There he is. Don't worry, I'm here.

I'm here. I had some internet issues, but I've tracked on most of the things here.

He was just sneaking a bite of some ice cream sundae or something like that. He just didn't want us to see. I see how it is. I wish. Yeah. All right. Well, let's reconvene the party. Party wall. Okay, so just to reset. In front of us are two... actual decisions and one recommendation so we have a variance request to deviate from the subdivision buffers along an arterial which is this 30 foot issue a modification of a conditional use permit to deviate from the use specific standards for attached single family and multi-family and to exceed the parking maximums on 2.8 acres in the mx1 and then we have the preliminary plat for a residential subdivision, which is the 24 buildable and one common lot. Okay, with that, the item is before the commission. Should have taken a 10 minute break. Okay.

Mr. Seha. I move that we deny CVA 26-7, CUP 26-6, and CUP, I'm sorry, SUV 26-6, the Audra Lane subdivision.

Okay. I've got a motion by Commissioner Seha that we deny the variance and the conditional use permit and a recommendation to counsel to deny the preliminary plat. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Okay. I've got a second by Commissioner Moore. Is there a discussion?

Mr. Chair, this one was a little bit complicated. And so I let me just pull up my little notes here. I struggled with this one, but really at the end of the day, I believe that I support the planning staff's recommendation of denying the CEP, the variance and the subdivision. I agree with the developer that providing home ownership is a plus. However, applicants need to comply with the code. There's a reason we have code and it's our role as commissioners to ensure that the application meets the code. I'm struggling with understanding how an applicant would move forward with an idea concept before getting approval by the city. Here we have a project that is being built as we speak and items like the parking utilities have been constructed and installed and that really restricts the applicant's ability to redesign to meet the city's code. As the discussion was occurring earlier, it was very clear that there are aspects of this. If we could, you know, move or make the law on the far, the South, left hand side smaller to kind of address that 30 foot step back over near eagle road um but or you know uh planting the trees but as the applicant indicated the utilities have been installed the parking spaces have been constructed. You know, like I understand being accommodating, but we also need to have consistency. And while our goal is to meet the code and the comprehensive plan and to also provide housing, I don't think that we can turn a blind eye to certain criteria. And that's why I am in support of denials.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Sehoff. Sure, Mr. Moore.

Yeah, I'll be in support of the motion. Agreed. And, you know, in terms of the approval criteria, you know, as stated in the staff report, I mean, we really just have to find hardship or find something along those lines, you know, has a lot of the improvements been constructed? Yes. But I don't think that that constitutes a hardship because you do have an avenue to proceed with single family. through a condo plat and it would not negate that ability to do so. It would also not require this list of variances and modifications to achieve. So I think there is an avenue to do that without all of these modifications to achieve this. So for that reason, I do agree with the motion. Any of these other pieces and parts to kind of mitigate a lot of this modification would require demolition of some of the already constructed pieces. And it just doesn't seem like that's amenable. It doesn't seem feasible. And with that avenue to kind of achieve that alternative, I think that makes sense. It makes sense for this product type. I think the city is trying to differentiate townhomes from condos and multifamily. And that's why the wider buffer, why the tree in front and all that good stuff. And so this does appear to meet the city's criteria for what a condo would be, which is very similar to multifamily and why it's a better fit. So for those reasons, I'm in support of the motion.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Moore.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Torres.

I, I will just, I will be in support of the motion. I don't want to repeat what my fellow Commissioner said. I just will note that I'm also troubled by some of the same things that Commissioner Ceja mentioned. I think fundamentally, it was mentioned early on that functionally, this is the same, this is the same, not product, but footprint, same amount of housing as was originally approved in 2019. But it's a different product. These townhomes are a different product. They're treated differently in code. And in addition to that, what was approved in 2019 was approved under a different code. We have a new code now that has different goals than the previous code. And so I think we're just trying to do too many things here to make this fit without it actually fitting what the code requires. So for that reason, I will be supporting the motion.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Torres.

Mr. Chair?

Commissioner Stefancic?

Thank you. I want to thank everyone involved in working through this. It seems like it's been a long process, a lot of thinking and reconstructing and putting these pieces together. Thank you, Mr. Moser, for a very detailed documentation here. There's a lot going on that was indicated here as well, but similar to my other commissioners, I'll be in support of this motion to deny these due to many of the things that were cited already. And we've seen similar versions of these come about. I know when I started reading it, I thought of other ones and I'm like, if we're making an exception here, then we have to make exceptions for all of these other developments with similar requests around reducing the buffer of that or not having the trees in there. These things are all clearly stated in the code. I think this property in the original sense could easily have been designed in a way if that was the original goal. And I know things change, and there's potentially some miscommunication or misunderstanding in some of the things that emerged here, and that's unfortunate. But due to the code and the situation here, I don't see hardship for some of these requests. And I will be in support of the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Stefancic. Okay. What's frustrating to me on this is that this comes down to a financial transaction in my mind. whether we're leasing or we own it, an agreement with the bank or an agreement with a landlord. But the functionality of the structure and the functionality of the property, there's no difference. And yet, because of the structure of the financial transaction, we have a shift in in requirements within the code specific to the dimensional requirements and other features that are in front of us. That to me is just frustrating given that townhomes are a product that this city lacks and that this city is desperately in need of. And we hear all the time of desiring home ownership but in a different form and to me here we have it the question and this is where it gets murky is that i i agree i don't see the hardship and i don't see the hardship because as i understand it things were already moving from what was originally intended to the shift in townhomes before then this whole sewer discussion started to come about, which if the timing would have been different, I think could have been used as an argument as a hardship that could have then allowed us to approve on, especially on the conditional use permit part of it, given some of the requirements that are there. With respect to the variance, I think that it seems as though the applicant is willing to move that three feet and move some things around, which eliminates that as even needing to be in front of us. The challenge, I guess, is that, boy, we have some fairly big departures with regard to this open space issue out in front The direct door to this tree well issue, city of trees, kind of an important piece to us. And I don't know that I can see past that. But I really want to. And I really would love. to see some creativity and hopefully the staff and the applicant be able to work out some of these differences and come back in front of us. Because frankly, we need this product. One thing I saw that was a little frustrating was the notion that this somehow has a negative financial consequence. I don't understand that. I don't understand that given that this is a for-purchase product versus the lease piece. That part is challenging to say the least, but I digress. That's a long way of saying, I guess, I'm going to support the motion very, very, very begrudgingly because I think we have something that's close, but I agree with Commissioner Seha that I don't think that we should be the ones to have to go in here and change every detail in order for it to comply with our code. That is not our job. And it is our job to at least give you some guidance. And I think we've done that today. I think we've been able to give you some takeaways. And I'm hoping that you and the staff, again, could come together. And the HOA and the Neighborhood Association, because it sounds like there's some support. It was said so this evening. Appreciate that. So, I would encourage all of that to happen. Okay. Unless there's any other comments, would the clerk please call the roll? Let me restate that. Hold on. Sorry. We have a motion by Commissioner Seha to deny the variance, deny the conditional use, and recommend denial of the preliminary plot in a second by Commissioner Moore. Clerk, please call the roll.

Danley?

Yes.

Moore? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Okay. Thank you. That concludes this evening's hearing.