Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

A gender review. Okay, so we've got no minutes today, so we can head straight into our new business, starting with CVA 2561 for Roudin Architects. It's at 9035 South Federal Way, and it's a variance to the streetscape standards, access and connectivity requirements, and buildings and parking placement provisions. 3.36 acres in a light industrial zone with airport influence area and wildland urban interface zone. We're doing a partial approval and a partial denial, so we'll hear that one as number one. Pausing for questions. Seeing none. Item two is CFH 2639 for City of Boise Parks and Rec. We are addressed at 1104 West Royal Boulevard, but this is all along the river, as it is a Boise River system permit for ongoing maintenance and enhancement project, as outlined in the Boise River Resource Management and Master Plan. we are recommending approval and um i know we say public opposition here but we just had a public inquiry and when asked if she wanted to testify she did not respond so you can try for consent on that and if she shows up online or if she's in person or if anybody else wants to talk about it then we'll obviously pull it but um she was she had more had questions that matt answered and then didn't follow back up so we can try to consent on that mr chair

item crystal was that in our was that inquiry in our packet yeah i didn't see it because i didn't see anything no it came in after late correspondence okay so matt was just being overly cautious there but we didn't hear back from her so we'll just we'll see okay cool thank you yeah but chair and mike online um so typically though when we do have opposition we will have documents in their letter late correspondence correct

If it comes in before the deadline, which is Thursday at 5 PM before the hearing. So if anything comes in after that, we have to cover it during our presentation or, and so in the script. So she, she, I guess, reached out after the late correspondence deadline. And so that's why there was no mention.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Thanks for clarification. I just wanted to be able to read into it in the future.

Absolutely. Great question. Anything else on this one? Okay. Okay. Excellent. So item three is CBA 2626 and sub 2627. Applicant is Legend Engineering and the Gowan Business Park subdivision number two. This is addressed at 6490 East Eisenman Road. And so the main thing here is a preliminary and final plot for commercial subdivision of two lots on just over two acres in an MX2 zone with the airport influence area overlay. Added to that subdivision is a variance to deviate from the streetscape standards and access and connectivity requirements. We are recommending a yay on the subdivision and a nay on the variance, so we'll be hearing that one as well. Item number four. Oh, sorry, pausing for questions. Item number four is sub 2622, this Kronos Village subdivision at 9820 West Shields Ave. And this is a prelim and a final plat for residential subdivision comprised of six buildable and one common lot on 0.69 acres and an R1C zone. And that is residential traditional for those following along at home. We're recommending approval and we haven't heard any opposition so we can try for consent. And Danielle continues to evade her debut at PNZ if that is the case. Item five it's up 2017 and some 2625 applicant as well tower and it's the vista point subdivision at 2017 West victory road. Some modification to a previously approved cp for a plan unit development and then a prelim plat for said residential subdivision. We are recommending a deferral to September 14th on this one, as we didn't get quite all the information we needed before the cutoff for project report. So we'll be hearing that one next month. I still want to make sure that there's nobody here who's trying to testify that can't make it on the 14th, but otherwise.

So that was a good question I was going to ask. So we don't usually see an incomplete application for a reason for deferral. So I was wondering if that had anything to do with that process of people being here if they don't have all the information.

It just wasn't ready for the project report to be completed. But because we did post it and it did get noticed, we just have to do the whole thing of making sure that folks have the opportunity to testify. And if we do have someone that just gets tagged on to the record for when we hear it for real. Okay. Okay, and then last but certainly not least is UP 2620 for the whosoevers. This is addressed at 20 South Auto Drive, and this is another modification to a conditional use permit, but this one is to change an approved use on just over a half an acre in the MX3 or mixed use zone. We are recommending approval, and we haven't heard any public opposition, so we can try for consent on that one, and we will delay our newest planter mill trout's debut if that's the case as well. So, Just to go over that once again, we will be hearing item one, we can try for consent on two, hearing three, trying for consent on four, deferring five, and trying for consent on six. Great. Okay, I got about nine minutes before we get started, and we'll see you guys then.

then I don't have to say anything, so yeah. Okay. at this point um thank you thank you for coming over and horrifying

Yeah, that's fine. I mean, I was just.

Right.

I got to try that.

But I'm here. I'm sure you do. Thank you. Yeah. I'm like, whatever I can do. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. I fear that that is what started this whole thing. There's five minutes. There's five minutes. Yeah. Yeah. We're still going by children, and we're essentially self-taught. We're far from that.

We're still going by children, and we're essentially self-taught. We're far from that.

Right now. Sorry. Yeah. It's not quite as easy.

It's not quite as easy.

Okay. Okay.

All right, good evening, everybody. 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 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 9 to raise your hand. Each member of the public is allowed up to three minutes for testimony. We are strict at this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed five minutes for rebuttal, after which the hearing will be closed, and the commissioner will deliberate and render a decision. Mr. Chair, you have the floor.

Thanks, Crystal. Trying to contain my excitement. We have a new opening statement that I have to read here. It's riveting stuff. We are citizen volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. We make final decisions on type three applications and recommendations to the city council on type four applications as specified in the Boise zoning code. Any appeal to city council from a decision made tonight must be filed within 10 days of the written decision. In order to file an appeal, you must have given written or oral testimony at tonight's meeting. So that's why it is important to give your name and address when you testify tonight. We use a consent agenda. This means that if the applicant agrees to the staff report and if there is no public opposition, the item will be placed on the consent agenda. All items that are placed on the consent agenda are approved with one motion without further public comment. For items not on the consent agenda, we will hold a full public hearing. And the order just detailed a few minutes ago was staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and then the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Stanley. All right, very good, thank you.

The first three items on our agenda tonight looks like they're gonna be heard for various reasons. So we're gonna create the consent agenda starting with item number four, This is SUB 26-22. This is Kronos Village subdivision located at 9820 West Shields Avenue. This is the preliminary and final plot for a residential subdivision comprised of six buildable lots and one common lot. Is the applicant present? Okay, and do you agree with the terms and conditions in the staff report? All right, great. Let the record reflect that the applicant is present and does agree with the terms and the conditions of the staff report. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number four? This is SUB 26-22. Okay, seeing no hands, I'll go ahead and place item number four on the consent agenda. Item number five, this is CUP 26-17 and SUB 26-25. This is both located at 2017 West Victory Road, a modification to a conditional use permit and a preliminary plot for a residential subdivision. Um, this one is going to be pulled and put onto, we're going to defer it to September 14th. I need to make sure. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify, who wanted to testify on this item who cannot make it to the September 14th hearing? Okay. Nobody online seeing none. We'll go ahead and place item number five on the consent agenda and defer it to September 14th. And then item number six, this is CUP 26-20, the whosoevers, as it's called. This is located at 20 South Auto Drive. This is a modification to a conditional use permit to change an approved use on 0.54 acres in an MX3 zone. Is the applicant present? Okay, let the record reflect the applicant is present. Do you agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report? All right, wonderful. Let the record also reflect that the applicant does agree to the terms and conditions of the staff report. Is there anybody in chamber that are online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number six, CUP 26-20? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and place item number six also on the consent agenda. And this... Is it for the creation of the consent agenda?

Is there a motion? Mr. Chair, I would like to consider including CFH 26-39, City of Boise Parks and Rec.

We have some people who are going to testify on that. So we're going to go ahead and hear that one. Thank you, Bill. Appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, if we could have the consent agenda be voted on separate from the deferral.

Okay, we'll take item number five off the consent agenda. Thanks for that. So the consent agenda now consists of only item number four and number six. Can I have a motion to approve?

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Stahls.

I motion to approve the consent agenda as drafted. Okay, thank you.

One second.

Second.

Okay, great. I have a motion by Commissioner Stallings and a second by Commissioner Ceja to approve the consent agenda as constructed. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Stanley?

Yes.

Schaefer?

Yes.

Ceja?

Yes.

Torres?

Yes.

Stallings?

Yes.

Japonsik?

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Okay, very good. Let me fix my error. Apologies. Item number five, this is CUP 26-17 and SUB 26-25. This was the deferral for September 14th. We've already established that nobody, unless anybody walked in that I missed. I don't think so. Then we'll go ahead and defer this to September 14th, but I'll need a motion in a second.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Torres.

I move that we defer CUP 26-17 and SUB 26-25. at 2017 West Victory Road to September 14th.

Very good. Thank you. Do I have a second?

Second.

I've got a second by, I think that was Commissioner Stallings. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Danley?

Yes.

Schaefer?

Yes.

Ceja?

Yes.

Torres?

Yes.

Stallings? Yes. Stefancic?

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Okay, that takes us to item number one. This is CBA 25-61. This is, I think it's Rudine Architects. This is a variance to the streetscape standards and other things located at 9035 South Federal Way, Mr. Dennis.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. The item before you is a variance request to deviate from the streetscape standards and access connectivity requirements, as well as the building and parking placement provisions on 3.36 acres and an I1AIO WUI zone. The subject property is located on the western side of Federal Way between I-84. It is currently undeveloped and was annexed into the city of Boise earlier this year. The first variance request is associated with the design standards of industrial zones, which generally require street activation by requiring buildings to be located as far frontward on a site as possible. This section allows surface parking and drive aisles to be located between a building and a street that the site is accessed from, if and only when the proposed building is within 100 feet of the street pavement. As was described within the project report, given the composition of the site, which is comprised of flag lots that extend well over 300 feet with the primary buildable area located on the western rear side portion of the lot behind an existing building, this presents a hardship due to the characteristics of the site layout. This area is the only portion of the site where the proposed building and associated drive aisles and surface parking lot can fit the dimensional standards of the zone. Granting this variance will not conflict with public interest nor will it create material negative impacts to public health, safety, or welfare as the site provides adequate circulation onsite for pedestrians and vehicles and will be subject to design review to confirm that the required screening has been met. It will also not provide a right or special privilege to the subject property As the site is physically limited to where the proposed warehouse and associated surface marking and drive aisles can be located. Shown here is the approval criteria for a variance request, of which this request meets all of the applicable findings. The second variance request is associated with the streetscape standards access and connectivity requirements. and industrial zone streetscape standards, which require the installation of a 10 foot wide detached sidewalk with street trees along an arterial roadway, such as Federal Way. As described within the project report, and this is shown on that bottom right hand corner, that yellow line signifies a proposed five foot wide detached sidewalk when a 10 foot wide detached sidewalk is required. As described within the project report, the planning team does not concur with the applicant's cited hardship of surrounding developments containing five foot wide detached sidewalk that justifies granting the variance request to allow five foot wide attached sidewalk. The presence of five foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the site does not constitute a characteristic of the subject property. The site is relatively flat without topographic or otherwise physical limitations that negate the applicant's ability to meet this standard. ACHD has provided agency comment. which recommends against the installation of curb and gutter given the lack of drainage infrastructure in the area. Therefore, the planning team has waived the requirement for curb and gutter and street trees. However, the planning team recognizes the importance of installing the full width 10-foot wide sidewalk. Granting this variance request would conflict with public interest as 10-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along arterial roadways because they can accommodate high levels of multimodal transportation while increasing pedestrian safety and comfort by providing a physical separation between pedestrians and vehicles. Similarly, for this reason, granting the variance request will create material negative impacts to public health, safety, or welfare. And as more sites along the Federal Way corridor redevelop, so will the street frontages with similar requirements. Shown here is once again the approval criteria for a variance request, of which this request meets none of the applicable findings. In conclusion, the planning team recommends approval of the variance request to deviate from the building and parking placement provisions and denial of the variance request from the streetscape standards and access and connectivity requirements. And I will stand for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Dennis. Dennis is the architecture firm. Rudeen Architects is the applicant present. Great. Do you want to come up and testify? Assuming you do. Okay, great. If you wouldn't mind, I just need your name and address or an address for the record.

Will Christensen, Radine Architects, 189 North Capitol Boulevard, Suite 602. Great. Actually, the improvements for the variance that we intended was to also include for the street trees and some of the other improvements. Those would still be not required, correct? Based on what I'm hearing just the 10 foot walk.

Mr. Chair, and that's correct. The planning team's recommendation is against curb gutter sidewalk and street trees. The street trees will be mitigated through the designer view landscaping, premier landscaping portion.

If the only requirement is the 10 foot walk, then we can do that.

Well, let's see if we get some clarity real quick on this one.

We want to say that again. The only requirement is the 10 foot sidewalk. That would be acceptable. We can do that.

That's correct. That's the planning team's recommendation.

All right. Perfect. Okay. Works for me.

Thank you. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Well, I guess we have to make sure we go through the, all of it anyway. So I don't have anybody from the neighborhood association. The item would be up for questions of the commission then. If there are questions here.

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Torres.

My questions for staff. So just as a point of clarification.

There's two variance requests for the five foot wide attached sidewalk rather than 10. That was the proposal included. So that was what was reflected within the project report.

Follow up, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. So just to clarify, we would still need to hear, we'd still need to make a decision on both the initial variance that was recommended approval for and the one that was recommended in the aisle, even though he's willing to drop part of that.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Torres, thank you for the clarification. That is correct. Before I use two variance requests.

Mr. Chair. Mr. Schaefer. I'm going to step into it just a little bit. Matt, do you know, well, two questions. The property immediately to the south looks like it recently redeveloped. I'm looking at page six of our packet. It says the Aerial map. Yeah, that there. Do you know, Matt, by chance, is that sidewalk there, is it five feet wide or is it 10? It looks like it's been recently redeveloped or recently developed.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaffer, off the top of my head, I'm not sure of the adjacent sidewalk width. It's likely, depending on the timing of when it was submitted for review of the development permit, up until the adoption of the modern zoning code, only five foot wide sidewalks were required. So just, sorry, off the top of my head, I'm not positive what the width of that sidewalk is. According to the applicant's letter of intent, I think that they cited adjacent five foot wide sidewalk, but maybe the applicant could attest to that.

Okay. I guess the reason I really ask is, do you know what's going on? There's like a little fenced, part of the area, there's like a little fenced area in the northeast corner of this frontage. It looks like there might be some utility conflicts. And the existing five-foot walk north of the site runs right adjacent to that little fenced area. So I'm just wondering, I appreciate the applicant you know, agreeing with the, the new requirement of a 10 foot sidewalk. But I just, I just kind of want to bet out a few things here where like it could get messy if that's some utilities that are in the way and we're trying to tie into the five, but that's just adjacent right there. Right. So I'm just, I just kind of want to bet it out a little bit before we get, before you just say go.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaefer, it is common practice for there to be interferences with existing utility or fencing, um, You know, the right-of-way improvements would be subject to an ACHD approval. So during that review, ACHD would likely, you know, provide mitigation or conditions of approval that formalize that pedestrian corridor.

Okay. I guess while we've got the applicant up, you can come on up if you want to respond to that comment. I just, like I said, kind of vetting out a few of these things, right, while we're on the topic.

Okay. The adjacent sidewalks are five feet. Okay. And that is the fenced enclosure encloses a gas service.

Okay. So the intermountain gas. Correct. Intermountain gas.

And there's a transformer directly adjacent to it, but it's farther into the property. Okay. Okay.

Thanks. Thank you, Matt.

Okay. Any other questions? All right. Going once, going twice. Sounds good. All right. Well, with that, we'll go ahead and open it up to anybody from the public. I don't have anybody on a sign-in sheet for this item. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify on item number one? This is CVA 25-61. I see nobody's raising their hands here. Nobody online. I just went right by the... No, I'm sorry. We're good. Let's say the neighborhood association. We already passed that. All right. Well, with that, then we'll go ahead. There's nothing to rebut, but you're entitled to five minutes if there's anything else you want to add. Okay, well, with that, then we'll go ahead and close out the hearing, and the item is before the commission.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Stallings.

I move to approve CVA-2561 in accordance with staff's recommendation to approve the variance related to the building placement, but deny the variance related to the streetscape sidewalk.

Okay, I've got a motion by Commissioner Stallings that is in line with the staff report, and that is to approve the variance request, but to deny the streetscape. Is there a second?

Second.

I've got a Commissioner Torres with a second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Chair. Mr. Stallings.

I agree with staff's recommendation about the property creating, you know, a unique placement and related to the building placement, excuse me, and to support their, you know, variance request. I don't find the same hardship with the second variance and agree with the staff report that, you know, preexisting conditions on adjacent sites don't create a precedent for our development standards, according to the code and Blueprint Boise.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Stallings. Any other discussion?

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Torres.

I don't really have anything to add. As I was looking through the staff report, there were sections that I noted for the discussion purposes, but the applicant made it easy by accepting the city's terms for the second variance and coming to an agreement on part of that as well. So I won't add anything. I'll just say that's why I'll be supporting the motion.

Okay. Very good. Any other discussion? All right. Hearing no, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Stanley.

Aye.

Schaefer.

Yes.

Steha.

Yes.

Torres.

Yes.

Stallings. Yes. Defonsic.

Yes.

All in favor. Motion carries.

Very good. Thank you, sir. All right, moving on to item number two. This is CFH 26-39. This is an application by the City of Boise's Parks and Rec Department. This is a Boise River system permit for ongoing maintenance, technically located at 1104 West Royal Boulevard. Matt, you're with us again. Old veteran here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll take it. The item before you is a Boise River system permit in order to conduct ongoing maintenance and enhancement projects as outlined in the Boise River Resource Management and Master Plan along the length of the Boise River. This includes removing and replacing invasive plant species with native ones, protecting existing native trees from beaver damage, and mitigating user-defined trails to reduce erosion damage to vegetation. The estimated area impacted by the proposed project is approximately 28 acres, including Class A, B, and C lands. across various zoning designations and land uses, as you can see here on the top and bottom maps. These areas contain varying land uses such as, but not limited to parks and open space, offices, the Boise State University campus and more. The proposed project areas are split into three general areas, including upriver, midriver, and downriver. The applicant, within their letter of intent, delineates the scope and area of work proposed at each location in specific detail, which varies slightly from site to site and of which I can let them attest to shortly. No new development is proposed herein. Rather, the project will enhance the existing habitat along the river and mitigate for any losses associated with removal of existing vegetation. As described within the project report, there are many goals, policies and principles within Blueprint Boise that encourage placing a priority on the protection of environmentally significant areas and waterways while enhancing and protecting habitat along the Boise River, along with in partnership with various agencies and community stakeholders. Finally, this application is intended to act as a master plan for the proposed work and continued improvements at various locations, which, as mentioned previously, is an ongoing process. As such, a recommended condition of approval allows these continued improvements that are in line with the scope of work and within these general areas to be reviewed administratively as determined by the planning director. In conclusion, the planning team recommends approval of the requested Boise River system permit, and I will stand for any questions.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dennis. Trevor Kessner.

Trevor Kessner I'm a planner with Boise Parks and Recreation. My business address is 1104 West Royal Boulevard in Boise. The application for you is a river system permit application. It's rather large in scope. It's basically north and south of the entire river stretch. The reason for this permit is because the department utilizes volunteer coordinators to basically deploy different groups to basically hand pluck and use shovels. It's a lot of just man work to basically eradicate invasive species in certain areas along the river corridor. Many of those invasive species have been kind of pointed out within the application, um, very, very technical, very scientific stuff. I don't even want to go into, but, um, however, these projects are fully intended to provide permitted activities by the department throughout the, the, the time of this permit, which I believe is, is basically two years. And we would re-up, you know, every necessary year or two to, um, to make sure that we're permitted to do these activities. Um, As I said, we deploy certain volunteer groups to do these projects, to eradicate invasive vegetation, and basically plant native plants that would basically outcompete the invasive species, do various projects like wrapping trees and restoring natural resource values within the riparian corridor. I wanted to explain in case there's anybody that has any opposition or questions about the nuance of the projects within this permit application. Again, these are going to be hand pulling, shovels, that kind of activities would occur here with these specific projects. So if I were to basically explain it, there was a recent project in Catherine Albertson Park where we removed quite a bit of Russian olive trees. And I know that a lot of folks had some concerns about birds and wildlife and that sort of thing, which can look like clear cutting within a really natural area. So that type of a project would probably require a separate permit outside of something like this. This is just basically all the projects that we would be undertaking within this permit would be all just kind of small areas as pointed out within the permit application. If anybody has any questions, they can certainly contact the department and discuss this with our volunteer coordinator and our resource management specialist. So with that, I will stand for any questions you might have.

Okay, very good. Hold tight. I think, I don't know if there's nobody on our signup sheet that's from the neighborhood associations. So we'll get to the public in just a moment. But just to verify, nobody here is from a registered neighborhood association and speaking on behalf of any of them, correct? Okay, and I don't have anybody online either. So with that, then we'll go ahead and open it up to any questions of the commission, should there be any. Commissioner Seha.

Just to point out, can you clarify, you said it's mostly hand-pulling. I thought I read Russian olive oil.

Russian olive is included as an invasive species. That has been identified within the entire corridor. So there's a lot of it, but the amount of work that it would take to fully eradicate some Russian olive species, the entire Russian olive species would certainly be beyond the scope of this permit, actually.

But you may end up pulling.

We're going to end up pulling.

And that's not hand pulling.

I mean, yeah. But again, this is not going to include bringing large equipment into the river system area, the river setbacks like tractors or backhoes or that sort of thing. Probably at most it would be handsaws and chainsaws.

Perfect. Thank you for the clarification.

Okay, other questions? Chair? Commissioner Stefancic. Yeah, I have a couple of questions here. So for the removal of some of these invasive species that are listed on here, as was somewhat indicated by Commissioner Ceja here in her question, are different methods used for different types of species? wetland area in the A, B, and C. As A being one of the more sensitive areas, do you use different methods in there as opposed to B or C in order to not damage the landscape anymore by the removal of those species?

Uh, chairman commissioner, we do actually our, uh, resource management specialists do take great care and the specific class a and class B areas, um, to ensure that the human activities that are being undertaken are. sensitive to the existing natural habitat that is there. So our goal is to eliminate, obviously eliminate the invasives while not trying to trample or damage the existing vegetation that is desired and supposed to be enhanced. I don't know if that really answers your question, but I know that our volunteer coordinators take great care in instructing these volunteer groups to watch for what they're supposed to be pulling and what they're supposed to leave alone. And again, great care is taken, especially the Class A areas.

And also as a follow-up, is there a continued monitoring kind of protocol many times when you do remove invasive species? There's lots of disturbance in the soil, which is prime for other invasive species to come into that area. So sometimes it takes multiple rounds of treatment. I didn't see a whole lot of detail in that. I know there's a scope of time within here. but to address that as disturbances do bring in more invasive species in that time. So is that part of the plan or could you expand on that?

I couldn't expand too much, but I can tell you that our department has obviously logged all of the invasive species that are along the river. So if we were going to go in and remove invasives and plant new natural stuff, that we would be documenting that through photographs and also just basically checking at least seasonally to ensure that the work that we've deployed is is actually taking. Because if it wasn't, if it was ineffective, we would certainly need to go back and try it again. Not much information more that I could provide on that, but just the best I can do. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Okay, great. Any other questions?

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Stallings.

My question kind of for both the applicant and staff, or rather who could answer it better, I'm not sure. A little bit piggybacking off of what Commissioner Seha was saying, I understand mostly hand-pulling and handheld equipment maybe, right? What are the specific guardrails on this maintenance that would... that would push it over to another permit or approval process? Like what, is there a defined line or is this, you know, tied to the scope or where, how do we define that on like where, where it would require another review? Again, I didn't know who could answer that better.

make sure I could try to try to address that and a little bit has has a little bit to do with just basically trusting the professionals and the specialists that work for the department and the the public trust that the department holds as far as like neighborhood associations and the citizens that love riparian corridor and really really care for the natural resources that it provides that if we were to undertake a project again referring to the size and scope of removal of Russian olives like such a large area that we specifically permitted for in Catherine Albertson Park I'm not sure that it would if there's clear lines or definitions where we would go for a separate permit but I could guarantee you that the department would step out and do some public notifications if there were something on a broader scale that folks would pay attention to that we would probably want to do more public notification and greater basically eyes on the projects that we were doing if the scope were to kind of go beyond hand-pulling shovels and handsaws and chainsaws. something where we would need to bring in like a trailer to haul off the amount of stuff that we were going to take out, if that makes sense.

Matt, just an opportunity, anything to add? I didn't know if you wanted to.

Commissioner Stallings, Mr. Chair, just in general terms, anytime that there's work or development proposed within the highlighted area on the map right now, the A, B, or C lands, the Boise River system permit is the appropriate permit to confirm that you know, the mitigation is incorporated into that. And generally, the mitigation and those type of elements are tied to displacement or other things that go along with development, moving, you know. And so with this application, with no structure proposed, a lot of the work proposed is actually envisioned by the overlay in the management plan which calls for you know protecting native species removing non-native and so invasive species and so the the from a planning perspective any type of work going on within these areas is a river system permit and so specifically for this one the review was relatively in almost, you know, kind of what the, not just in line, but really what the overlay is trying to accomplish. So that's why a lot of the required mitigation and kind of the project proposal and the requirements align in that way.

Thank you. Thank you both.

Thank you.

Okay, very good. With that, we'll go ahead and Open it up to public comment. Thank you very much. And I've got a couple of folks who are signed up on the signup sheet. So first up is Gretchen Hoyt. And then I'm guessing you're Danielle. Yeah, all right. You're up next.

Hi, Gretchen Hoyt, 891 North Lander, Boise, Idaho. This is fun that it isn't about the shelter. It's the only time I've ever been up here. Um, so I'm only here today. I have no problem with this. I use a green belt almost every day. Love the parks department. They do a stunning job. I just have a couple ideas for the, I'm only here cause I want to know what the presentation was without bugging anybody. So, um, are the deer going to be addressed? Just, there's a ton of deer down there. Five point buck, a fawn or a doe that has twins almost every year who tried to kill my dog last year, but that was, she was protecting her babies. So deer need to be taken into account. And I would suggest maybe with the volunteer people, they have some sort of designation on them that attaches them to the city and the parks department. And being ready with answers, sorry, not the shelter, but it's still, being ready with answers like, yes, the little netting around what they're planning is biodegradable. Took me a long time to figure out. Couldn't find anybody that knew the answer. And then I'd like to see something different than metal netting irrigation flags with plastic on them to say that they just planted a new plant. Just because it's just more trash, I find them in the river. But I want to thank the Parks Department. The greenbelt here is stunning. So that was all. It was just ideas.

All right. Got to train that dog to fight back.

Pardon me?

Okay. Danielle Jorgensen?

Hi, my name is Danelle Jorgensen and I live at 4028 West Glendale. As mentioned by staff, this is a very well-loved area in the Veterans Park neighborhood. And I want to say thank you for, I know I kind of ruined the consent agenda because I don't, As my dear friend and neighbor says, I'm not in opposition to this. I just wanted to bring up a few considerations. So I often tell people that I live in a vacation, and this is what I mean by that. I walk out my front door, and within 10 minutes, I'm down by the river. I can hear the sounds of the river. I can see fly fisher people doing their thing. People are reading books on logs. People are practicing yoga under trees. families are cooling off in the water there's rafts and paddle boarders are floating by and sometimes if you're lucky there's a singer who will go out and practice and practice opera um in the natural um acoustics so that's really special um So what gave me pause in this are the mitigation of the user-defined trails. Those trails lead to connection and meaningful interactions with our neighbors. They are a place of community, and I'm asking you to consider a balance of protecting all these important ecosystems that we all love and cherish. And the invaluable connections that people are forming in nature to nature and with their neighbors friends and families. It sounds like staff has already considered some of these things on how we could find a balance between these two goals, for example, is there an opportunity for the neighborhood to be. a part of this conversation and to continue to be good stewards of the land, perhaps that could look like adopting a section and committing to maintaining it, educating folks on what good environmental stewardship looks like. And I also want to commend the city for all the hard work that has gone into cleaning up and protecting our river. And I think that one of the most effective ways to continue that work is to bring in the neighborhood because I know there's a lot of love and a lot of passion for that and and knowing that this is potentially will be a precedent for what the master plan could be. I think this is also an opportunity to think about how we could do that together. So thank you all for your time and to staff and the city for all the work with this.

Excellent. Great. Thank you. Good job, Commissioner Torres, all that singing out there on the green boat. Anybody else in chambers who wants to testify on this item or anybody else online? Okay, five minutes of rebuttal. Take as much as you need.

Chairman Danley, commissioners, I certainly will not take up the full five minutes, but it's probably be quick. Just to address... folks that signed up and i really appreciate them showing up and asking the questions um so there are certain activities that folks will undertake along the river we can't prevent access we can't prevent folks from accessing the boise river because it is navigable waters of the united states so there's no way that we would be able to do that um excuse me but a lot of the activities that some folks will undertake along the river could trample and jeopardize the natural resources that are there. So that's the entire purpose of this permit is to basically restore the natural resource values that are already there that have been degraded already and try to prevent additional social trails from appearing in certain areas that are just sensitive, that have sensitive species. So in answer to some of those concerns, that's kind of the point of doing all of this. Secondly, I would encourage anybody within the neighborhood association or anybody that's interested in what the department is doing is to contact our volunteer coordinator. And we would be happy to put them to work and to notify neighborhood associations and the public to be good stewards of the river corridor, because that's what we're trying to do here. So with that, if you have any additional questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Okay, that'll bring the item to a close. The item is now before us for decision. This is item number 2, CFH 26-39. Mr. Chair?

Go ahead, Mike.

I would like to submit a motion for approval for CFH 26-39 for City of Boise Parks and Rec at 1104 West Royal Boulevard, actually along the whole section outlined in the staff's report following their recommendations that we approve this request.

Okay, very good. I've got an motion to approve by Commissioner Stefanski. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, I've got a second by Commissioner Seha. How's the discussion?

Yeah, I'd just like to... Chair?

Go ahead.

All right. Online, it's a little difficult here to sense the room. But I'd just like to offer that I put this motion forward because I believe it really addresses our goals here in the comprehensive plan and through Blueprint Boise to really manage this resource of the Greenbelt and the Boise River. It helps us continue to enhance the native species and ecological value that it provides for the wildlife plant species here, as well as enjoyment for the rest of the community. So I think it checks a lot of those boxes here, and that's why I submitted this.

Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Fonseca. Any other discussion?

Mr. Chair, I don't have much to add except that I am obviously in agreement with the staff report.

Excellent. Thank you. Any other discussion?

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Torres.

I also don't really have anything to add. I agree with my fellow commissioners. I would just note this seems like the perfect example of what makes Boise, Boise. We love our parks. We love our greenbelt. We love our river. We love our natural environment. And their core part of what makes Boise, Boise. So I'll be supporting the motion.

Okay. Anything over here? Good. I just want to add, thank you both for coming out tonight. Appreciate it. Thank you for your feedback. Different item, as you pointed out, a little less contentious than the last time you were here. Certainly this, again, I of course would agree with this. I think we're very fortunate to live in a city that does the maintenance of the river the way that it does. There's many cities that do not. do that, you know, and don't do it very well at all. And so, yeah, environmental stewardship, number one in our comp plan is why we're here. Big reason. So definitely excited to approve this. All right. With that, with the clerk, please call the roll.

Stanley.

Aye.

Schaefer.

Yes.

Deha.

Yes.

Torres.

Yes.

Stallings. Yes. Stefancic.

Yes.

All in favor. Motion carries.

Very good. Okay, last item, number three. This is CBA 26-26. This is Legend in Engineering. There's a variance to deviate from the streetscape standards. Located at 6490 South Eisenman Road. Mr. Dennis, man, you're getting overtime, buddy. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The item before us is a preliminary and final plot for a commercial subdivision comprised of two lots on 2.1 acres and an MX2 AIO mixed use general with airport influence area overlay zone. Also included is variants requested to deviate from the streetscape standards and access and connectivity requirements. The site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gowan Road, an arterial roadway with a level one bikeway, and Eisenman Road, which is designated a local roadway adjacent to the site to the west. As proposed, both lots and the existing buildings thereon meet the dimensional standards of the MX2 zone. And typically, the development code requires lots that have frontage on two or more streets to consolidate to a single street access point onto the street with the lowest traffic volume to the maximum extent practical. As you can see here in blue, there is an existing driveway both onto Gowan Road to the south and then a shared driveway to the west at the northwestern corner of the site. So for this reason, the planning team is recommending a condition of approval, which requires the applicant to close the existing driveway access onto gallon road. And for these properties to record a shared access maintenance and cross access even for the existing driveway on Eisen road. Also included with this proposal is a variance request from the Street Skate Standards in order to waive the required improvements consisting of a five-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by an eight-foot-wide landscape buffer along Eisman Road to the west and a 10-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a 10-foot-wide landscape buffer along Gowan Road to the south. The applicant's cited hardships are summarized on the top left of your screen. As detailed within the project report, the development code does not define construction-related costs as a hardship. Similarly, relocating infrastructure is a common practice for new and redevelopment that requires the installation of detached sidewalks. Doing so would redirect drainage to landscape buffers to accommodate street trees rather than its current improvement, which is just detention basins. This improves pedestrian safety and comfort by providing a physical separation from pedestrians and vehicles and provides shade from street trees. This also aligns with public interest by improving the public health, safety, and welfare in the area. Eisenman Road is under the jurisdiction of Ada County Highway District, ACHD, and Gowan Road is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Transportation Department, ITD. Neither agency provided comments that expressed concern with the standard requirement to install a detached sidewalk along the street frontages. Therefore, granting the variance to waive this requirement to retain the existing attached sidewalk on Eisenman Road and to retain no improvement on Gowan Road would result in the quality of the development being diminished as it would not present a predictable development pattern. Further, it would provide a right or special privilege to the property that's not generally available to other properties within the same zoning district. Therefore, granting the variance without Evidence of a hardship on site would result in a right or special privilege being provided to that property. Shown here is a list of approval criteria for the variance, as I just briefly described, of which the request does not meet any of the required findings. In conclusion, the planning team recommends approval of the preliminary and final plots and denial of the variance request to deviate from the streetscape standards, access, and connectivity requirements. And I'll stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you, Matt. Is the applicant present? All right, you want to come on up? You got up to 10 minutes. If you wouldn't mind, sir, please start with your name and address for the record. That'd be great.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. I'm Cal Johnson, Legend Engineering, 52 West, 100 North in Heber City, Utah. Appreciate the time that staff has spent reviewing this project. We did just want to add a little bit more context to three of the conditions that were presented by staff. The first one is in relation to Eisenman Road frontage. Staff's recommendation is to have a five-foot detached sidewalk with an eight-foot planter. On that frontage, there's existing utility infrastructure phone pedestals, things of that nature. Those are pretty easy to remove and replace and relocate those. However, there's also an existing retention basin along that frontage, which would create some significant slopes off the backside of that sidewalk to the extent where there may need to be a retaining wall installed on the backside of a detached sidewalk. So we felt that keeping the existing sidewalk in place would be more safe. Secondarily, we did get a letter from ACHD that notes that they've reviewed the submitted application for the preliminary plat reference above and they determined that no improvements were required to Eisenman. That letter is within the packet and we just request that recommendation be given to the letter from ACHD and then the topographic hardship along that frontage The second item is in relation to the Gowan Road frontage. Staff have recommended a 10-foot detached sidewalk with a 10-foot planter. In this instance, it would require the reconstruction of those retention basins, which are ITD's retention basins. They are enclosed with wrought iron fencing, and they are for Gowan drainage for their drainage infrastructure. Um, we felt that, uh, you know, in the, in the report, it notes that there was no comment from ITD. We felt that a comment from ITD was critical for this as it is their infrastructure. So we reached out to Kendra Condor and, uh, received this email just today, which I'm happy to forward on to staff and to the commission.

Unfortunately, with the timing of it, we can't accept that. Can we have him read it? Can I, can I read the, okay.

Um, she says, uh, ITD does not have any objections to the submitted plans. So the ones that do not show improvements on gallon, she says, including maintaining the existing frontage along gallon road. ITD does not have any intentions on modifying our drainage facilities in the area. Uh, so we would request that, that consideration be given to ITD's request to not reconfigure their drainage infrastructure along gallon road. In addition, you can kind of see it on the Google Earth imagery, the western retention basin is set back about 10 feet from the back of curb. The east one is only set back five feet from the back of curb before that fencing begins. In both cases, if we were to construct the 10-foot sidewalk behind the 10-foot planter, there's about a 20-foot drop in grade from those retention basins down to the site. So it would be physically impossible to maintain that storage volume within the drainage facility and give that same volume back to ITD. There's just no physical way to be able to store that amount of water in any other configuration. Lastly, staff is recommended as shown that the access from Gowan Road be abandoned in favor of a single access from Eisenman. And we simply request that the fire marshal re-review that request as a secondary access to a commercial site with multiple commercial buildings may be desired by the fire marshal. In your packet, the fire marshal does note that he approves the plans as they were presented and that any deviation from that should be reviewed. So we just ask that that be reviewed by the fire marshal to make sure he's okay with the closure of a secondary access to a commercial site. With those points, I'm happy to answer any questions that y'all might have related to the project.

Okay, very good. I'll hang tight just for a quick second. Okay. Okay, I need to see if the neighborhood association, this would be Sina, I think, right? Who's not here and not online. So with that, then we'll go ahead and open it up to questions from the commission. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Schaffer.

I'll start. Mr. Johnson, right? Yes, sir. Thank you. So just for clarity, again, here on the person, the drive, the existing drive, From Gowan, your drawings are indicating that to remain. Correct. Stabs indicating closure. You're just asking fire to confirm the closure is acceptable with that. Correct. Okay. Thank you. And then if you wouldn't mind, could you read that email from Ms. Condor again? We're talking from ITD? Yes. Regarding the detention basins?

Yeah. She says, ITD does not have any objections to the submitted plans, including maintaining the existing frontage along Gowan Road. ITD does not have any intentions on modifying our drainage facilities in this area. Okay.

All right. Thank you for that.

I'm going to follow up on Commissioner Schaefer's question real quick, just for a point of kind of clarity. If I'm not mistaken, that is not a full access going into your site, right? It is not enter only. Right in only. Yep. No exit. And any full access already exists on Eisenman. Correct. Okay. So the request of staff and the terms and conditions is to eliminate what right now is a right in to the site, right? Just for clarity. It's narrow.

It's a very narrow spot. It's a very narrow access.

Mr. Schaefer. Expected big things from you with this. Yeah.

Been up here a long time, right? Matt, Mr. Dennis, if you would, please. It's interesting to me, the Gowan Road frontage Um, there is an existing attached sidewalk, uh, all along gallon, essentially, you know, from this corner to federal way. Correct. And there is no, I mean, we're looking at the aerial here, um, but just off the beach to the right is federal way. There's another parcel, um, from that off-ramp to Federal Way, no sidewalk on any of that stretch of roadway on Gowan currently, correct?

Mr. Chair, I believe that's correct, especially along the north end. There's definitely some fragmented sidewalk areas, yes.

Yeah, okay. Do you know, just by history at all, Matt, like obviously IATD chose we're going to put a sidewalk on the south side of Gowan. We're not going to put a sidewalk on the north side of Gowan. I mean, that was a very deliberate choice. Do you have any history on that at all?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaefer, I do not, other than the observation you made as well. Okay. All right. Okay. Thanks.

That's not a very old project either. That Gowan interchange area through there is only a handful of years old. Other questions from the commission? Commissioner Stallings.

Um, question for Matt, um, or possibly the applicant again, volley us up to either one of you. Um, can you walk us through how. Vehicles maybe, but pedestrian cyclist, you know, anybody not in a motor vehicle might be intended to move between these two lots and like the, you know, the surrounding other commercial properties. Is there like a rhythm or a flow or is it dependent on striping or where would a pedestrian walk between these two sites to stay out of the right-of-way of vehicles is kind of what I'm trying to get to.

You mean, so like if a pedestrian were to enter the site, walk down the sidewalk on Eisenman and then come into the site? Is that kind of what you're thinking?

Yeah, or coming or parking over at block one and moving over at two.

Yeah, there's not a lot of interior sidewalks. We are proposing some new cross-hatched striping for some of the interior connection within the lot separate to themselves, but not really any cross between the two lots, if that makes sense. And existing right now, There's not really any crosswalk striping or anything between the two buildings. So right now, the parking stalls are striped, and then pedestrian access throughout the site is through the parking areas.

Yeah, I just, I guess what I'm trying to, what I'm driving at is, you know, an adolescent or somebody that might be not the height of a F-150, say, like, how are they supposed to navigate this safely, right, to get to these sites too? I see where sidewalks start and, you know, lead to buildings. I just see them kind of going into, it looks like vehicle right-of-ways is what I'm seeing. I'm just wondering if there's any more detail that we can provide on that, but.

Yeah, and we're more than happy to add additional crosswalk striping, you know, striping of the parking lot and things that way to help with flow so that people can visually see where they can safely cross through the parking lot.

Mr. Chair, my question is for staff. Matt, can you address the concerns or the applicant's comments about the drop in grade for the sidewalk if they were to do the 10-foot detached sidewalk? And also just the comments about ITDs retaining the drainage. I'm sorry, my brain's not working today.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Torres, thanks for the question. So with starting with the Eisenman frontage, ACHD provided agency comment with very standard language stating that their requirements aren't triggered to install curb gutter detached sidewalk, which is common. Although their requirements are not triggered for a new detached sidewalk, the city of Boise's are through the development code. And so in doing that, without understanding that the detached sidewalk is required, the ACHC would provide any site-specific conditions of approval or express opposition to any type of improvement that isn't feasible, similar to the last variance request where they recommended against Furbin-Gutter. So aside from the, you know, including standard language in here, did not express any opposition to the DTAT sidewalk along Eisenman. Moving over to Gowan. Similarly, Mr. Johnson, the applicant, mentioned the change in existing grade due to the detention basins. which is a common practice to re-grade some drainage infrastructure. And then unlike the Eisenman frontage, the ITD not providing an agency comment is similarly seen as not receiving or not expressing opposition to the proposal or the standard requirements as well. Yeah, when an agency fails a comment, that's seen as a no comment or no opposition expressed.

Just to follow up, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. So to clarify, if ACHG had any concerns about the safety of the sidewalk due to the grading, they would have stated that, essentially. And in the case of ITD, the letter that the applicant received or the email they received It sounds like it states that they have no objection to the project as proposed, but it also doesn't say they have any issue with our terms and conditions, the city's terms and conditions.

Commissioner Torres, Mr. Chair, that's an important note. Very similar to the Gowan Road frontage and the ACHD, so thank you for bringing that up.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair.

We should say hi.

So my question is to the applicant. So in your letter requesting this variance, You say we're requesting the variance to be granted due to the utility topography issues that would incur significant costs. So to me, when I read that sentence, the biggest concern on your end is the cost, not necessarily that the conditions that the city is asking you to meet are not feasible from an engineering perspective.

Yeah. I'm glad you asked that question, Commissioner. Initially, as the landowner looked at it, that was the initial concern is that all they want to do is divide these two properties with no other improvements. And so the cost felt like a large burden for what they're trying to accomplish. However, when I went to the site and looked at it today, on Gowan specifically, it would be physically impossible to maintain the storage volume of those retention basins and regrade in a way that we could get 10 foot planter, 10 foot sidewalk and the storage volume required for those basins.

So question, we are reviewing what's in the application and we are basing our decision on the information provided in the packet and then any late correspondence that would have been sent to us on Friday, end of day. So any new information provided today would you say should not be considered in our ultimate decision?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Seha, that's correct. In addition, similarly, the planning team's recommendation was based on the application materials. Just a point of order. The commission is able to consider it, although I haven't had the chance to review it.

Okay.

Thank you. Chair? Questions for Mr. Sifonsik?

Yeah, so continuing this, I guess, line of questioning, the retention basins that are on there that ITD put in when they redid Gowan Field, would ITD be responsible, or would they have different requirements if those basins would need to be moved to a different location? What would be the process that the applicant would have to go through if they had to move those? Maybe this is for staff.

Commissioner Stefanczyk and Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. My understanding is that, and I haven't had as much experience with ITD projects with ITD as much as ACHD, but my understanding is that it follows a similar process that the city of Boise sets the requirements and the permit for the work within the right-of-way is reviewed and approved by ACHD.

So, I mean, to your knowledge, these retention basins aren't like specifically designed to be in these locations, but they could serve in potentially other locations or a different design from your knowledge. And I know that you might not be an expert in detention basin design.

Commissioner Stefanski, that's correct. I'm not super familiar with the engineering and the capability of what the current detention basins require.

And then in this case, if they were to be moved or redesigned, given that they might put in new sidewalks, then would that cost be something that ITD would share with an applicant? Have you heard or seen any of that happen before?

Commissioner Stefanski, members of the commission, I'm not exactly sure the cost breakdown between the public infrastructure ITD versus private property. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Shaper.

Mr. Chair, Matt, I'm looking at our The aerial map, which is page 88 of our packet is the aerial with the boundary of the prop. Perfect with the property line in bold red for our viewing pleasure. So Matt, can you explain to me the detached sidewalk and street trees on gallon road? Where does that terminate? on the east side of the property. And what does that look like, that terminus?

Commissioner Schaffer, members of the commission.

So the nexus or the proportionality of the requirement to install sidewalks is only adjacent to the subject property. So, you know, kind of pending ITD review, the city's requirement would only require the improvement up until the terminus of each side of the property lines.

So the graphic that we're looking at here, it's, I mean, I don't have the scale, of course, but the city's condition and standards would terminate that sidewalk at the red line. And we'd have a gap of whatever that is, 50 feet to the off ramp of the interstate and then nothing beyond that. And we also have to contend with ITD's requirements of maintaining the drainage facilities that are existing.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaffer, that's correct. As a minimum requirement, the city can only require the proportionality which is adjacent to the site. I think that ITD would have some say in exactly where those improvements exist and Also, just kind of looking at the property lines here, there's a good amount of existing right-of-way there to work within. So as a minimum requirement, the conditioned 10-foot wide landscape buffer is only the minimum requirement. So oftentimes, to... avoid drainage concerns we see wider than 10-foot landscape buffers. So that could be the case here.

I guess the other question that I have, Matt, is this is a city requirement. Does the city have any concerns that, let's say, let's play it out, that a sidewalk gets installed on Gatlin Road for the requirement. Does the city have any concerns that we're sending people down a sidewalk that terminates in desert next to an off-ramp with no other sidewalks until you get to Federal Way, which is two miles, I don't know how far it is, a mile down the road to Federal Way? I mean, is there any legality or concern from the city side of that? I understand, I 100% understand the desire for pedestrian facilities. I'm just kind of questioning the logic in this instance where we do have conflicts with ITD infrastructure and then we're not really terminating anywhere that makes any sense in my mind.

Mr. Schaffer, Commissioner Schaffer, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that's a valid point. You know, as a standard requirement for the subdivisions, right, we're working with adjacent. So I think that the intent of the development code and the reality of the situation is that the development code requires the improvement as lots redevelop. And so... Although there may be, as we see often there are fragmented connectivity. There are often sidewalks that terminate without, um, you know, clear fourth pattern um development pattern and so that is partly why the um development code functions the way it does is that it recognizes the importance of improving pedestrian corridors if and when sites redevelop so um you know with all those concerns in mind they're still in existence today i think that the intent of the development code is to at least

improve what is existing right with detailed sidewalk okay i guess to that that next point then matt with the eventually this would go to a design review seminal i mean obviously not this the subdivision per se but would this go through design review um mr chair commissioner schaefer

I'm not sure off the top of my head. Maybe the applicant is aware. But any external modifications to a commercial site require a designer view application. My understanding is that there's not exterior changes. But I'll let the applicant speak to that.

Matt's correct. We don't have any exterior changes. In fact, we did go through a, I think it was an administrative design review already on the site just to make sure there wasn't anything that needed to be reviewed. And the only thing that was discussed was the trash enclosure.

Okay. So there were no other landscape like buffer requirements or changes since the site was developed? Correct. Okay. All right. Thanks. Thanks, Matt.

Okay. Any other questions of the commission? Okay, we'll have you back up in just a second. We'll go ahead and open this up to members of the public. Is there anybody in chambers? I don't have anybody on a sign-up sheet, so is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify on this item? This is item number 3, SUB 2627. Okay, seeing none, you have five minutes of rebuttal or additional, whatever it is that you want to do, typically rebuttal, but It's your time.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. I appreciate the discussion today on the kind of the nuances of this particular site. Just some clarification, additional clarification on those stormwater retention basins on Gowan. Gowan Road sits elevated above this site. Those retention basins are being fed by about four catch basins immediately adjacent to those retention basins on Gowan Road. And so relocating those two retention basins over to... the east along the off ramp right of way would not be feasible as that elevation is higher. So that design solution wouldn't work. About the only other design solution I could think of would be is if ITD were open to underground storage of stormwater along the right of way here. any other gravity means of handling this drainage would not be feasible. And I think that covers the only other item I wanted to clarify there from the discussion.

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. That brings the hearing to a close. Matt, would you mind bringing up in your presentation there were the slide that you had of the terms for the variants? Yep, that one. Can you put that up, blow it up, make it nice and big? Just to help us out here, I think. Okay, that leaves it up to the commission for decision. This is SUB 26-27, just as a reminder. So we have a preliminary and final plat. So we are recommending body for both of those. But we also have an application for a request for variants. And so that is going to be in front of us. Other information, just as we heard three things from the applicant with regard to the Eisenman frontage. Um, the letter also from ACHD on that front, um, the Gowan 10 foot detached sidewalk slash planter. And then the consideration for the, um, fire marshal was a request, but officially we have the, the variances is in a specifically, uh, for this evening with the terms and conditions staff report. So with that, turn it over the commission for recommendation and decision.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Torres.

I recommend, I'm sorry, I move that we recommend approval of SGB 26-27 and that we deny CVA 26-26 with all the terms and conditions in the staff report.

Okay. I've got a recommendation by Commissioner Torres. This is to recommend approval for the preliminary and final plot of the commercial subdivision and a recommendation to deny the variance request for the same application. Is there a second?

Second.

All right. I've got a second by Commissioner Seha. Is there a discussion? Mr. Chair. Mr. Torres.

I hear the concerns about the grading and the ITD retention area and the other concerns as well related to the interstate, I'm sorry, the exit ramp and all that and the sidewalks terminating at the desert. Having said that, we have no objection to the recommendations of staff from ACHD and we didn't receive anything from ITD before the cutoff for late correspondence. So just kind of summarizing some of the points made in the staff report. The applicant citations of fencing utility pedestals and existing stormwater retention basins that would need to be relocated to accommodate the detached sidewalk. And I'm sorry, I'm reading off of page 110, 111. in the staff report, do not constitute hardships that justify granting the variance request. It is common practice for existing infrastructure to be removed and or replaced as redevelopment occurs. As conditioned, drainage would continue to be retained on site because the required streetscape accommodation, I'm sorry, accommodates drainage through its landscape buffer. And again, referencing the fact that we didn't hear anything from ITD about that. If they had concerns, they could have weighed in. The required improvements align more with the public interest than its existing condition, as the installation of detached sidewalks constitutes a predictable development pattern. It also improves pedestrian safety and comfort by providing a shaded physical separation between them and vehicles, thereby reducing the urban heat island effect. Thus, granting the variance would constitute a right or special privilege to the property that is not available to other properties within the same zoning district as all properties within the MX-2 zone are required to be improved with detached sidewalk as part of the new development and redevelopment. And I just want to note, this is MX-2. This is not zoned industrial. This is an MX-2 zone. We expect this to develop along the lines of an MX-2 zone. To Commissioner Schaffer's questions about the sidewalk terminating at the ramp and the desert, we really don't know what this area is going to look like in five years, 10 years, 30 years. You know, we want to plan for the future and we want to fill in these gaps where we can. I've got some more stuff I can read here, but I think I kind of made my general point on this.

Thank you. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Torres. Additional discussion?

Mr. Chair, I don't think I have anything to add. I think Commissioner Torres was right on point.

Okay, very good. Any other comments?

Chair?

Commissioner Stefancic?

Yeah, I'm kind of torn on this one. I mean, I really understand that concern on Gowan. Obviously, it's an engineering challenge to put that 10 foot pathway. And then it's going to get to where the off ramp is. And then between that off ramp and the next intersection, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just trying to remember my memory from that. There is really no other properties. ITD is, would have to create that sidewalk it's unfortunate that they only put a sidewalk on the south side so this this sidewalk will potentially never connect to anything else in that which is really really unfortunate and really challenging because oh why else would itd come in and actually come back and put a sidewalk after they just replaced all of it um it's really tough um the eiserman sidewalk i get that i think i think that that needs to be part of it um i want i i almost wish we could separate them out um that's why i'm a little torn on this one okay thank you commissioner sponsek mr shaper i'll jump in seems like good timing for this so um

uh thank you for the application uh no problem you know with with the subdivision um and you know the slip lane conversation i think is totally a fair question to ask fire about that i don't suspect fire's gonna have any concerns but i think that's a fair fair requesting question to make sure that they're okay closing that um ramp off of gallon um i'm in support of denying the variance on eisman i know for a fact that The property across Gowan is redeveloping currently and they are detaching the sidewalk and doing the eight-foot planter strip and a five-foot detached sidewalk on Eisenman. So I'm in support of denying the variance request on Eisenman. Like Commissioner Stefancic, I question the wisdom of the detached sidewalk on Gowan. You know, it's a tough one because, you know, there's part of me that says, you know, it was struggling with It would theoretically, I think, create a right or special privilege if we just said don't do it. However, we do have infrastructure in the way, and I suspect that those detention basins are there because this is a very difficult part of the city to build in. There is basalt. extremely like right underneath the topsoil. Like there's almost no topsoil in this part of the city. So I suspect the tension basins are there because that's the place they could put them. Right. So, and that's probably why they proceeded with providing the sidewalk on the South side of gallon road. and building pedestrian infrastructure on the south side of Gowan. Again, just suspicions, right? And then when I look at this, I see, well, there is pedestrian connectivity on Gowan Road. We are providing connectivity to Federal Way on Gowan, but it's just on the south side of the road. And I really do question the wisdom of putting a sidewalk in that terminates not even at the off ramp, but shy of the off ramp on the north side of Gowan Road. So where I was kind of going with my thought process here was moving maybe to a partial denial of the variance on Gowan and requiring the street trees to be installed, but not the sidewalk. So we get some of the public benefit of the street trees So that's kind of where my head went. And the good news about this application is they get to go to city council anyway and discuss the subdivision. So, you know, if they want to appeal our decision, if we wanted to change the condition and appeal that decision, they just really have that conversation with city council when they discuss the subdivision. Or does that go to MELT?

Mr. Chair, variances are not appealable to city council. So that would be a next step would be judicial review.

Oh, okay. Oh, wow. Look at that. Okay. So anyway, yeah, I mean, I threw that out there just for consideration, right? That's where I stand. You know, I think right now I would be a reluctant approval of the motion, but I wouldn't mind maybe discussing that idea of just the street trees on Gowan, but not the sidewalk, if you guys are amenable to that discussion.

Mr. Chair. Did you want to, well, let me come back to you real quick. Do you want to? Okay. Commissioner Seho.

I could possibly be amenable to that, but I'm also reminded that when an applicant submits an application, they should have their T's Um, and their eye, well, they should have their eyes dotted and their T's crossed. And so what I heard today by the applicant was a bit of new information, um, that may have changed things. I don't know, uh, had it, the application or the information been provided in the application initially. So that's where I struggle. Mr. Chair.

Mr. Stallings. A lot of what my fellow commissioners have said resonates, but what Commissioner Seha just said really resonates as well. It feels like there's a lot of late-stage information that was coming in that, while I agree with Commissioner Schaffer's possible amenable solution, it does feel like the application that was before us did for me, did not create the undue hardship that we have to judge all of these applications on. So yeah, I'm a little up in the air, but I would wholeheartedly second what Commissioner Ceja just said.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Stallings. I think you're a victim. I think you're a victim of bad design. There should have been a sidewalk on that from the very beginning. And the fact that there isn't on an arterial connecting commercial uses, other side of gallon, you start getting into residential before long. That should never have happened in the first place. Details matter. And yeah, I'll just stop with that. With respect to Commissioner Schaefer's point about a sidewalk that comes to an end, I guess I would add on that, understand completely, there's an example of that on Amity. You go down by the, there's a car wash gas station, you go right down the hill, there's a sidewalk, says the sign right there that this is to be extended. We do that with roads all the time. ACHD has their sign that they put on, this road's gonna be extended. But less than ideal, especially by an interchange. The irony here is that because there's no sidewalk, that slip lane isn't as big of a factor. That slip lane and pedestrian access is typically in conflict, which is precisely why we try to get rid of those slip lanes. But in this instance, that's a moot point. So, yeah, what a beast, right? What a beast. And moving detention ponds, I mean... That's a lot. And I don't know how much faith I really have that at some point, someone's going to pick up the ball and move it forward and complete that to the other side. Because that overpass, that deck was built two years ago, three years ago, whatever it was. And it's probably got a 40, 50 year life. So I hesitate on this one, man. And you all know me on the pedestrian side. That sucks. So... Um, preliminary plot, final plot. I don't think anybody has any objective objections to that, but your point about at least adding street trees, that's an interesting one. It adds at least a traffic calming into a sea of asphalt that's out there concrete. I guess I should be more clear. um as opposed to the pedestrian component of it i don't know if we want to entertain that that's up to the motion er and and second er of the motion you know uh but otherwise if not then we can take the vote uh As is, I guess one thing I will add, I don't know. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think you mentioned something about you received the email today. And so I don't know. I'm just going to give you benefit of the doubt on timing of that. If there was information that just missed last week, it's a Monday summer. We all get busy. I don't know what you got. I don't know when you got it, but you're telling me on Monday, I have no reason to doubt you, you know? Unfortunately, those timing things matter. We had that in the item before you, where, you know, we had a member of the public who wanted to submit something last Friday. So these things happen. I don't know. Mr.

Chair. Commissioner Torres.

I'm open to a compromise on the street trees. I will say, though, that I am inclined to agree with Commissioner Ceja and Stallings about the timing and the late information. Even acknowledging your point about ITD's correspondence, I would still note that their correspondence, based on what was read to us, did not object to the city's conditions either. I also, part of me just feels like conceding the fact that this may be very bad design at some point when this was built. do we wanna keep doubling down on bad design? We need to fill in the sidewalk gaps in our community. As I pointed out when I made the motion, we don't know how this area is gonna look in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 100 years. We might want that sidewalk someday. Our code requires these sidewalks to be built when development or redevelopment occurs. And so that's why I'm inclined not to support it, but I'm open to discussion if my motion fails or if we wanna entertain it further. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to support my fellow Commissioner Torres and propose that we vote on it.

Okay, so the motion by the motioner and second of the motion is to continue as is with what's in the terms and conditions of the staff report as written. So just to reset, the motion is to recommend preliminary and final plot be approved by council and that a denial of the variance before moving to council. Any other discussion? All right. Well, I know what the next step is. I'm just giving myself a second to think here.

Hmm.

All right. Would the clerk please call the roll?

Stanley.

Always got to be first.

Sorry, Mr. Chair. Are we doing both items right now? Are we doing both, the sub and the variance? Yes. Okay. I mean, if I may.

Mr. Chair.

Yeah, we may. If you may make it, you're the chair. You might consider, I think the variance is the question, right? So we might just pass the sub and get that through cleanly. Just a suggestion as a former chair.

Who provides the motions?

Mr. Chair and former chair, I'm amenable to that. We can vote separately if everyone wants to do that.

Okay. Well, then hold off on the request for the vote. We have an amended motion, and I'm making sure that the second of the motion is okay with that. Can you just officially say that?

Yes.

Great. Okay. So we're going to revise the motion, and the motion in front of us now is to move forward with recommendation for approval of the preliminary and final plot to council. Does that just confirm? Yes. Okay. All right. Yes. All right. With that, then let's go ahead with the clerk. Please call the roll.

Stanley.

Aye.

Schaefer.

Aye.

Teja.

Yes.

Torres.

Yes.

Darlings. Yes. Dupontik.

Yes.

All in favor. Motion carries.

All right, now let's go ahead and hit the variance. So still, nothing's changed. Now we are the deciding body, though that is technically appealable, but we are the deciding body on the variance request.

Mr. Chair, just to clarify, it's not appealable. I don't think it can only be appealable. Well, next step would be judicial review.

Right. So there's some form of a backstop, although it might be difficult.

And then Mr. Chair, just another point of clarification. There are two variances.

Oh, yes. Okay. Sorry. So we have the, we have, yeah. Okay. Thank you, Crystal. Okay. So do you feel comfortable moving forward with the motion on the two different variances here?

Yes, I do.

Okay. Go ahead.

Do I need to make a motion? I'm sorry. I move that we deny CVA 26-26 with all the terms and conditions of the staff report. And I will just defer to my previous remarks about it. Thank you.

Okay. I've got a motion by Commissioner Torres to deny the variance request. Second. And I've got a second by Commissioner Seha. Is there a discussion on this? You've already said you've got it on the record, but

I don't think anybody wants to hear me read all that again. So we can just refer to the record.

Oh, you can't tell me just pull that apart and then not have a comment.

Well, I don't know if I have, but that's to me, right? That is to you. Uh, August is my month. Yeah. Um, no, I, I thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh, Tony and Esther, I think breaking them out makes a little more sense just because I don't think any of us had any issues with the sub, right? The variance, obviously the sidewalks, kind of a little bit of a discussion point tonight. You know, like Tony, I'm just kind of questioning still that. I have said my statements on the record like Tony. I'm just still kind of questioning the feasibility and the need for the sidewalk on Gown, the detached sidewalk on Gown, that's all, right? Just because as we've talked about, right, I just do questioning kind of the wisdom of sending a sidewalk to the desert on an off ramp. And we have no picture what's, a lot of these cases, we have kind of idea of like, oh, these properties are kind of ripe for redevelopment. sidewalk will be extended in the future. This is one of those instances where we have interstate highway and underpass and federal way, you know, however far down the road, right? So, you know, redevelopment to the west, or excuse me, to the east is not going to happen until you get to federal way, right? So, yeah, that's where I come down. Just, that's me thinking out loud, right? About that side of things. Given ITD's input tonight, I agree that, you know, that's late course, the latest possible correspondence, but we have, you know, no record of that. We also don't, I don't think, have a clear picture of does ITD understand what the city is asking the applicant to do on Gowan Road, right? We don't know that per se exactly either. So, you know, it's a little more fodder for the discussion, I guess.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Stallings, tackle the fodder.

Say again?

Tackle the fodder.

Oh, yeah. Commissioner Tony, sorry. I really agree with, you know, we don't know. We're up here to hold to the development standards as outlined in the code and in Blueprint Boise and the comp plan. I do think part of our job is to look at the exact site. Nothing we do up here creates a precedent for anything else we do. I really agree with Commissioner Schaffer. After some deliberation, I'll say, really going back and forth on this one, but I think the best we can do on this particular site is... more tree canopy, more greenery. I don't see the use with all of the elements of putting in the sidewalk. I am not opposed to the sidewalk just because it dead ends. I'm opposed to it for the compounding reasons of it does not necessarily make sense, in my opinion. I support Commissioner Schaefer's viewpoint and perspective on this one.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, once again, I just might encourage the Commission to explore discussing both variance requests if we're not going to separate those out as you work on your deliberation.

Thank you, Crystal. Chair? Yeah, unfortunately. It's going to be up to us at this point. So there's an encouragement for us to look at both variances. We have the one on Gowan as their discussion on the other item.

Mr. Chair, I'm just thinking of, you know, Commissioner Schaefer mentioned that, you know, there's situation here with, you know, the basins. But how many projects have come before planning and zoning where they have had unique issues? I can think of the Collister project where they did not want to build a 10-foot sidewalk on Collister and State. because of utilities. We have utilities on every single one of these projects. What makes this one so different than any others that come before us, I guess I would ask?

Mr. Chair. Mr. Schaefer. Well, I think to your earlier point, we don't have a clear picture of what these detention bases are doing. However, they're there They were placed there in that fashion for a reason. And we don't have a clear picture of how the area that they're draining, right? So the feasibility of relocating them could be quite difficult, like almost impossible, right? Just being honest. Because again, we don't know. We don't really know the area that they're draining. They're draining Gowan Road, but we don't know how much of Gowan Road they're draining for how far, right? Um, and then just, I think the physical constraints in that part of the city, just from personal professional experiences, that it's very difficult, uh, ground, right. Like basalt at a very high level. Right. That's why you see, like, there's a basalt shelf across Gowan road, like in the air, well, the aerial's not up, but in our packet, right. Side, the side, sidewalk on the south side of Gowan has like a six foot basalt shelf, you know, next to it. So.

So maybe a consideration would be to separate them out and maybe consider a deferment on the second one until we can get some additional clarification from those different agencies.

Yeah, that's great. That's fantastic. Get some more input from ITD. Yeah, I think it's a great solution.

All right, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Torres.

I'm open to that if that's the consensus of the commission.

OK. Well, I guess in that instance, is there any other discussion on this? It sounds like that might not be a bad way to proceed. OK. Well, in that instance, then I guess we're going to be, we still need a motion to defer, right? So when we have an indefinite, we don't have a specific calendar date. It's going to be up to the applicant and our staff, of course, to be able to figure out when that is to come back with additional information. And then for us to be able to deliberate and go from there. So with that, I guess I'd go ahead and entertain a motion. I'm assuming you're okay with that, by the way. Okay. Got to make sure of that.

Mr. Chair. Are we entertaining both variances still? Are we going to do a motion on one and motion on the other?

I think we're going to do a motion on, I mean, I can entertain, I can, I can do a motion to deny the first one and defer the second one, or I can as a single motion, or I can do two separate motions. Whatever is easiest for staff and for the record.

It seems as though this is just my read of it, but I've not heard us say much of anything on the Eisenman discussion. So it doesn't the pulse of the room seem like we're opposed to that. So I would suggest that you make that motion for that variance. And then we defer the other item.

Okay.

But that's just a preference. So, you know,

Again, just a point of clarification. So there's the variance request deviate from the streetscape and connectivity standards, which would encompass both sidewalks. So on Eisenman and Gowan. Right. And then there's a variance to maintain basically that second little roadway. Right. So that those are the two. But you could split them out. You can tackle them any way you all prefer. So it's very clear with what you are.

Thank you, Crystal. So it seems as though there is a general consensus on the street setback requirement and the variance request for the Eisenman portion alone at this point, because the slip lane off of Gowan would be affected by the potential discussion regarding the sidewalk and the information that we would glean from a return visit. So it seems as though if there's going to be a motion tonight, it would be I'm just going to throw this out there. The possibility of a denial of the variance specific to the streets, streetscape requirements that pertain to the Eisenman Road section alone, and then a deferral for the other two items.

Mr. Chair, okay, I think I've got it.

Okay, let's try this out.

So I move that we deny CVA 2626 in regards to the streetscape improvements along Eisenman. Perfect. Per all the terms and conditions of the staff.

Perfect, don't say another word. Second. Second by Commissioner Zaha. All right, I don't think any discussion, we're good? Oh, come on.

No, I'm good as long as staff is good with that approach.

Okay, great. Third, please call the roll.

Stanley.

Aye.

Schaefer.

Aye.

Teja.

Yes.

Torres.

Yes.

Darlings.

Yes.

Bonsick.

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Look at us. Progress.

All right. Mr. Chair, you are making me work for it tonight. All of you are. I move that we defer CVA 26-26 in regards to the streetscape improvements on Gowan, including the slip lane. And I'm just going to shut up right there.

Okay, I've got a motion by Commissioner Torres to defer the variance requests that pertain both to the streetscape requirements regarding Gowan as well as the slip lane access discussion to the parcel.

Mr. Chair, can you give me just a moment to look at the code just to make sure that there's no limitations here on when we need to come back? Maybe just like a two minute, three minute recess? Three moments.

You get three moments. Okay, yeah, go ahead. Do you need more than that? Okay, we'll pause for three minutes then.

Sounds like we have an opinion from legal that you're good, but

That's up to you.

Mr. Chair, I move that Crystal, Ed, and Matt get a vacation.

Yes. Okay. Well, in that case, I think the motion is on the table for deferral. Second by Commissioner Seha. The motion by Commissioner Torres. I think the discussion has been exercised out pretty good. The applicant understands what's being asked, right? I think, right? Bringing out information correctly. Staff's good.

The one thing that we want to make sure that the applicant is aware of is the applications that have been placed in a review body's agenda may be deferred no more than 60 days unless the applicant agrees to a longer period. And so I might work into the motion that if they agree and then how long it takes to collect this information just because we are limited to that 60 days unless they say.

Okay, Mr. Chair. I move that we defer CVA 26 dash 26 in regards to the streetscape improvements on the gallon portion of the project. With the understanding of the applicant knows this would need to be with we heard within 60 days unless they agreed an extension after that. And then I'll have some remarks afterwards, but Okay. Including the slip lane.

Okay. I got a motion by Commissioner Torres. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Seha. It's been amended. We have the 60-day notification. Applicants' goods were good, but Commissioner Torres, you said you had something else.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure that the applicant understands that we're really looking for ITD to weigh in on this and give us what their perspective is on the detention. You know, what their perspective is on it, essentially. That's kind of why we're delaying this, deferring this. So that's all I was going to add.

Okay.

Mr. Chair. This will be quick. It'll be quick. And then August will be over. And then also, obviously, just utilize this time to make sure Boise Fire and any of their input regarding that slip lane is resolved as well as part of this discussion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Sorry. Like Mr. Chair said, this was a little bit of a bear, right? Victim of circumstance in some regards. So thank you. And thanks staff for keeping us in line.

Okay. I think we've beaten the living daylights out of this. So let's go ahead. And if Madam Clerk would please call the roll, we'll be good.

Stanley.

Aye.

Schaefer.

Yes.

Deha.

Yes.

Torres?

Yes.

Stallings? Yes. Stefancic?

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Very good. That concludes tonight's hearing. Thank you.