Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, thanks everybody. Let's get started so we can get through agenda review and our work session today. So, we're starting off with a couple words from our relatively new planning uh PDS director and senior manager of planning, Moren Brewer and Josh Wilson. And I'll let them just go ahead and take it away. Okay. Uh, good evening, commissioners. I just wanted to come and introduce myself. As Crystal said, Moren Brewer. I'm our new um, planning and development services director. So, just wanted to make sure that you all were had a um, face to the name and were familiar with me. I'm sure we'll get to know each other um, as we go along. Um, but I've been at the city for about eight years. Started out as um the our path home coordinator, so coordinating our community's response to homelessness. Did that for three or four years and then moved into the senior manager role. So, I've been overseeing our affordable housing efforts across the city for the last several years before moving into this role um two short months ago. it already seems longer. Um, but I just wanted to come, like I said, and introduce myself, get to know this body a little bit better, and then also wanted to share out that our team has been working very hard on another zoning ordinance amendment or a proposal for one. Um, and we will be in front of council at a work session tomorrow uh afternoon. So, in um that presentation or in the zoning ordinance amendment that we've been working on, there's a

couple things. One, um another set of technical edits akin to the ones that you all saw in the first um kind of major zoning ordinance amendment from earlier this year. And then we're also working on a set or have been working on a set of I want to say five or six policy topics. Um and you're probably familiar with with those by and large. So, EV parking requirements, bike parking, our housing and sustainability incentives, and a handful of others. So, we'll be at work session with council tomorrow. Invite you to tune in to that and then expect to submit that application this month hopefully. And then that means we're likely we will likely be in front of this body in February. Thank you all. Uh promise you won't be here till midnight like the last time you saw me. Um Josh Wilson. A little bit of background about me. Um uh I've been with the city for a total of 18 years now. Surprisingly I I was uh with the city for 11 years. Uh left for a couple of years and I've been back for seven years now. uh just moved from the designer view and historic preservation manager into the senior planning manager role. Uh excited for the new responsibilities. Might see you all more um depending on the applications that come through, but look forward to continuing to work together and under Marines uh leadership really excited about basically everything. I think we're headed in a really good direction right now. So, just want to say hi some of to some of you again. And I know some of you I haven't met or had the opportunity to work with. So, look forward to that as well. Thank you.

You guys have any questions for him? What's their favorite Thanksgiving dinner meal? What anything? I have one, Mr. Chair. Go ahead, Commissioner Torres. It's not really a question. I just want to It's a comment. I'm very excited to have somebody in this position who comes from the affordability side. Um, I work at one of our local nonprofits that struggles with that all the time. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. Congratulations. Thanks. Thanks. All right. Thanks.

All right. Awesome. Short and sweet. Um, so we can get going with our uh agenda review and then you guys can have a nice long break for when food arrives. So, starting off tonight, we've got minutes from the work session and hearings from November 3rd and November 10th. So, we can try for consent on those or add those to the consent agenda. And then, miraculously, we have no deferral requests this uh month. So, all four we will be doing today. So number one is CUP 2523 and CBA 2552 with a subdivision sub 2545 or Centurion Engineers LLC Koi subdivision and it's at 2701 South Palm Street. It's a cup to exceed the density limit of five units per acres in the B1 airport influence area as well as a variance to deviate from the access and connect connectivity requirements as well as a residential subdivision comprised of seven buildable and three common lots on 0.9 acres and an R2 AIO residential compact with airport influence area overlay zone. I really love making these legals and reading them aloud. Um, we are recommending denial on this, so we will be hearing this this evening. Item two is sub 2556 Harllo subdivision located at 5917 West Clinton Street. This is a combined prelim and final plat for an industrial subdivision comprised of just one buildable lot on 1.1 acres in an I1 or industrial light zone. We are recommending approval and we haven't received any comments. So, we can try for consent on item two. Item three is CUP 2531 and CVA 2548 for

GGLO. It's located at 1080 West Front Street. It's a conditional use permit for an allowed use with alternative zone specific standards as well as a number of variances from the vehicle parking location and design and required bike count counts um on 089 acres and an MX5 or mixeduse downtown zone. Um, we did initially have uh a partial approval, partial denial of the variances. Um, but we received word from the applicant today that they'd like to drop the two variance requests that we were recommending denial on. So, um, if everyone is okay with that and we don't have anyone show up, we can try for consent on that. Um, and then last but not least, we have item four, which is a big one, so stay with me here. We got COP 2521, CPA 254, CR 2514, and sub 2542 for the Land Architect LLC. It's the Rose Street Cottages subdivision. This is located at 6300 North Rose Street. It is a modification of a conditional use permit to expand an assisted living facility, a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation from suburban to compact, a reszone of approximately 3.64 64 acres from R1A to R2 and a prelim plat for residential subdivision comprised of three buildable lots again on that 3 point uh oop I guess I've got two numbers here 3.46 acres in the pending R2 zone. We are recommending approval but we did receive some testimony in opposition. So we will be hearing that this evening. So, as I have it right now, and then we can open it up if anyone has any questions. As we've got, we can try for consent on our minutes, all four of those. Item two and item three, and we'll be hearing items one and four.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Shaver, thank you. Question for Crystal. And Crystal, I realize we're in work session. I just want to make sure I understand on item number three, the applicant is in agreement with the conditions of the staff report related to those two variance requests. Is that right? Yes. To say it like uh plainly, they are in agreement with all terms and conditions of the staff report. Okay. Okay. Perfect. All right. because there was still they were requesting a much lower number of short-term stalls than you were propo you were proposing an alternate reduction and they're now in agreement with that alter.

Yes, there are like six of six requests, but I believe the two that we were recommending denial on were the ones of the actual count. So, the long-term cargo and then um the short-term uh visitor, they have essentially dropped those requests and agree with the terms and conditions. Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying.

Uh chair, Mr. Stefan Sik, right? Thank you. Um I have a question here for Crystal on the same point um that was just brought up. Uh will they have to re uh submit or recome to the uh planning and zoning with renew or different designs?

Mr. Chair and Commissioner Stfans, that's a great question. No, they had initially included plans that showed that they have space for all of those. That was something that was in the staff report and so the plans are in the record. Um, and so they would just build it as such. Um, and and so again, if it would be we'd have to put on the record during the building of the consent agenda that this is the case, that they are in fact in agreement with all the terms and conditions of the staff report. Um, and if that is the case and no one has shown up to show uh to testify in opposition, then it is at y'all's discretion to put that to on the consent agenda. Uh what if there I have questions about some of the design specifically around the bike parking when would I make those or uh ask those questions to get um answers [clears throat] for from the developer or or from us?

Well, it is again um at at this commission's discretion on whether or not to place it on the consent agenda. So, if folks have questions about that, that's certainly something that could that we could hear it. Um, I will there is a design review um component to this as well, which would be more of the design. Um, but again, it's at it's at your discretion. So, we wanted to pull it from consent, that is also an option.

All right. Thank you. All right, there is silence and your dinner approaching. So, if there are no other questions, we can let you guys have a break to eat and get started at 6. Pausing and seeing no eye contact. Continuing to pause.

I will pause. So, this would be a good question on on taking the temperature on item number three, whether it goes to consent or whether this commission wants to hear it. Um, it's a conditional use permit. Do [clears throat] I don't know if Crystal you prefer us to discuss this during the hearing portion or if it's or now on whether or not we should move forward with a full hearing on it or if no one opposes it to go to consent. M Mr. Chair, it sounds like we we don't have a preference there as long as no specifics are discussed right now during the work session, general procedural questions or like what we are looking at under these applications. Again, don't you know the reason for the season that you are hearing this is they are asking to deviate from that one zone specific standard. Um and that's where the CUP comes in. use is allowed um as is shown in the you know the uh in our code and then the variance requests as well.

Does anybody just encourage everybody to think about maybe where their questions are and if it is in line with why you you are what you're deciding on this evening which is the alternative to the zone specific standards. We don't have to have an answer right now. We can when we reconvene we can have that discussion. So if people want to think about it um certainly can. Okay. Sounds like we want to think about it. So

dinner time it is. All right. Good evening everyone and welcome to the Boisee City Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. A few things to start out with for tonight's proceedings. Everyone from the public entering the hearing virtually has been automatically muted and cannot speak. As the item you're interested in comes 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 for your volume.

Okay. Is this better?

All righty. We're gonna I'm gonna keep going. After that, we proceed to public testimony, starting with those who are in person, then who signed up on the signup sheet in advance, and then anyone else who raises their hand virtually. If you're attending through your telephone, you can type in star9 to raise your hand. Each member Each member of the public is allowed up to three minutes for testimony. We are strict with this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed five minutes for rebuttal after which the hearing will be closed and the commission will deliberate and render a decision. Mr. Chair, you have the floor. Thank you, Crystal. We are citizen volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. We make final decisions on conditional use permits, variances, and appeals, and recommendations to city council on subdivisions, reszones, annexations, and code or comprehensive plan amendments. Any decision made tonight may be appealed to the city council provided that the appeal is filed within 10 days of this hearing. In order to file an appeal, you must have given written or oral testimony at tonight's meeting. So that's why it is important to give your name and address when you testify tonight. We utilize a consent agenda. This means that if the applicant agrees with the staff report and if there is no public opposition, the item will be placed on the consent agenda. All items that are are placed on the consent agenda are approved with one motion without further public comment. For items not on the consent agenda, we will hold a full public hearing in the order just detailed a few minutes ago with staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and then the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please call the role?

Danley here. Moore here. Schaefer here. Deha here. Torres here. Dome here. Stallings here. Defons here. All present.

Okay. As mentioned, we're going to start this evening with the creation of the consent agenda. First up, our meeting and work session meeting minutes uh from no November 3rd and the November 10th meetings. Is there any discussion on the meeting minutes? Okay. Hearing none, I'll go ahead and place uh unless objected work session minutes and meeting minutes from November 3rd and November 10th on the consent agenda. Uh the first item that's eligible uh for the consent agenda, let me make sure of that. I don't have anybody signed up for item number one on our sheet, but I know we have it says that we're, you know, obviously going to be hearing it. So, it's conditional use and preliminary plot, but just making sure we're still hearing that.

Mr. Chair, we are recommending denial on item one.

That's why. Thank you. Good catch. Okay, moving on. Item number two is eligible for the consent agenda. So, this is SUB25-56, Harlo Subdivision, located at 5917 West Clinton Street, a preliminary and final plat for an industrial subdivision comprised of one buildable lot on 1.1 acres in an uh industrial one uh zone, industrial light zone. Is the applicant present? Okay. And do you agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report? Great. Let the record reflect that the applicant is in chambers and does agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report. Uh, now I have nobody signed up for item number two. Is there anybody in chambers? Hold on. Anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition of item number two, SUB25-56? None in chambers and nobody online. Okay, let's go ahead and move item number two to the consent agenda. I now have a sign up for item number three. So, we're going to go ahead and hear item number three as well as item number four, which means that the construction of the consent agenda is finished and is eligible to be approved.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore, I move that we approve the consent agenda as constructed. Very good. I have a motion by Commissioner Moore to approve the consent agenda and a second by Commissioner Torres. Any discussion? Hearing none, would the clerk please call the role? Danley. Hi Moore. I Schaefer. Hi Deha. I Torres I Dome I Stallings I. Stfons I. All in favor? Motion carries.

Very good. That takes us to item number one. CUP25-23 and CVA25-52 as well as SUB25-45. This is Centurion Engineers. This is a preliminary plat as well as a conditional use permit located at 2701 South Pond Street. And Doug, take it away.

Good evening, commissioners. Before you tonight is a conditional use permit, preliminary plat and variance application for proposal located at 2701 South Pawn Street. A conditional use permit is required to exceed the permitted density of five units per acre within the airport influence area B1. Preliminary plat for seven buildable and three common lots and a variance to deviate from the requirement to have sidewalk on both sides of proposed private drive will also be discussed in the presentation. The subject property received approval for an 11 unit development with a reszone in 2007. The airport expressed opposition at the time and uh the guiding policies within Blueprint Boise directed density to three units per acre back then, which has since been increased to five. It's important to note that in 2007, the airport influence area only existed within the comprehensive plan, but has since been codified with the 2023 zoning code adoption. The conditional use permit is required, as I mentioned, to exceed the five units per acre density within the airport influence area B1 on a case-by case basis to specifically address impacts of airport operations. The 65DNL contour crosses the subject property, which will be discussed later, but is unique to the property as not all B1 properties have the 65DNL contour. The FAA uses the 65DNL as an area where impacts to noise from airport operations are considered significant and grant assurances from the FAA require appropriate zoning practices to ensure compatible uses near the airport. The purpose of the airport influence area is shown on screen which includes compliance with federal guidance and compatibility. The subject property is further identified as an incompatible land use on the airport's 2020 noise exposure map as seen in the blue oval, further showing incompatibility for increased density above 5 units per acre with the subject property. As such, the planning team does not support the conditional use permit.

The proposed subdivision would consist of seven buildable and three common lots with detached sidewalk along the northern side of the private drive Koi Lane. Abiding by the codified density limit 5 units per acre, the property could be divided into four residential units which is still greater than the existing single family house while protecting the interest of the airport. The variance is also not supportable because the density is not supportable and if the codified density of five units per acre, a variance would not be required as the opport or as the properties could be accessed by a single common drive rather than a private street. In conclusion, the planning team recommends denial of all three applications and as shown on screen, a reminder, the subdivision is a recommendation to city council. The conditional use permit would be a final decision by planning and zoning commission that could be appealed to city council and the variance is a final decision that can be requested for reconsideration and I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

Very good. Okay. Is the applicant present? Okay. Conhead come on call up if you would state your name and address for the record please. Chairman commissioners my name is David Crawford with Centurion Engineers to represent the applicant tonight. uh appreciate the staff's review of the project. We certainly went through a lot of girrations on this project and the staff was pretty patient with us as we tried to make it through there. So, we appreciate the input that they had. Um, one of the items Can you just real quick throw me an address of any Oh, 2323 South Vista Avenue, Boise. Thank you. I usually catch that.

That's all right. No problem. Um, so, um, one of the things that brings us here tonight is because I've had several projects that I've presented to the city of Boise that are very similar in nature. And every time I go up before city council, they always ask me, could we get any more lots on here? And so, we've taken that to heart because most of the time we can't. We're trying to get the most that we can get. in this particular area. Uh, you know, R2 zones are pretty flexible when it comes to density. This isn't an R2 zone or, um, most of the area is single family residential, but I would like to point out that directly south of this property, there's two projects that are multif family and both of them are 14 units to the acre, more or less. Um so we're asking essentially for seven which is two or three additional lots depending on how the density is calculated I suppose. Um we understand that the airport overlay district is there to protect the airport. However what the requirement is this property or this project doesn't affect the airport. It affects the construction standards in our area. So, in order to comply with code requirements, we actually have to increase, you know, insulation or the decibel um that can be heard inside the home. So, what we're asking for is essentially two or three additional lots and that's all. Um we did have neighborhood meetings, two of them to be exact. None of the neighbors objected to this because it's in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. And um so we believe that the project is act this is a really good project to have this uh conditional use permit to have those extra homes in there. Um we don't believe that we're asking for any special right or privilege with the

variance request or with the conditional use request because the variance request for the sidewalk on the south side has been granted to other projects for the very um recently in the city of Boisee. We don't believe that we're asking for increased density that's beyond that that's already been afforded for other properties in the area. We believe we're consistent. We're actually under what other projects have been provided. We believe that this project the way we presented it will be an attractive asset to the city of Cuna or city of Boisey. uh provide the housing and with the addition of the two or three lots, it'll provide additional needed housing for the city of Boisee and this is a great opportunity and a great area to do so. And I'll stand for any questions you have.

Excellent. Okay. Thank you, David. Um we're going to turn our attention real quick if there's anybody here from the neighborhood association and that neighborhood association is the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association. Ashley Mallaloy. Maybe anybody else online. I don't have anybody uh signed up. So, nobody from Hillrest. Nobody online either. Okay. In that case, we'll go ahead and open it up to questions from the commission. Mr. Chair. Oh, this. No, you beat me. [laughter] I think Commission Torres by Okay, go ahead.

Okay. Sorry. Um, my question is for staff. We had a hearing last year um early on my tenure on the on the commission in the airport overlay district and there were a whole bunch of discussion there was a whole bunch of discussion in that hearing about the FAA's requirements for that type of for that area of the city essentially. I know we discussed at the time the city, you know, might need to revisit these criteria and it just would be really helpful, I think, to get some clarification on exactly what is required because there's a section in the packet on page I think it's page 54 that talks about um the proposal for the for the three additional homes outweighing the potential impacts to FAA funding on the economy of Boisee. Can we get my question is very broad and I apologize but can we get some clarification on what exactly is required by the FAA what the risks are to the city for approving something at higher density and um you know if I guess the other question would be is the city going to revisit this at any time in the near future. Thank you

Commissioner Danley Commissioner Torres. Um, as shown on the screen, this is the specific FAA grant assurance that was provided to me from the airport in one of their comments that was submitted for this application. Uh, so this does pretty explicitly state that there should be appropriate zoning laws to restrict the, you know, the use of land within the airport. This specific property as well is pretty close to the airport itself. Um, I know there was a recent project also within the B1 area as you can kind of see in the top left in the white circle. Kind of hard to see. Apologize on that. And then the blue circle is this current proposal. So you can also see geographically the difference between the two proposals. The one that you referenced and the one before us tonight. This one is very close to that airport. It has that 65DNL contour running through it. other proposal pretty far away from the 65 DNL contour even though it's still within that B1 area. Um, so this is an example of where kind of that case by case determination for the conditional use permit really comes into play in regards to, you know, revisiting the airport influence area overlay kind of discussions. I don't have any information on that at this moment. Um, oh yeah,

Mr. Chair, followup. Go ahead.

Um, I think in that previous hearing and I that's the last time I'll reference that for now. Um, you know, there was the discussion about how in other cities and and before I say this, I understand that we're bound by Boyisey Code. We're bound by Idaho state law. We're bound by the agreements we've made with the FAA as well and regulations and all that. But there was a discussion about how in other cities that are denser and bigger than we are. You do tend to have more dense development very close to the airport and those airports tend to function fine. So, I guess I know I'm kind of, you know, harping on this here, but I just I guess my question is why is it allowed in the You probably can't answer this, but why is it allowed in those cities, but wouldn't be allowable in our city, if that makes sense.

Yes, Commissioner Torres. Uh I do believe a lot of those instances it's where the urban footprint was established before those airports really kind of geared up to their current functional status. Whereas in this case there's still those opportunities to provide those adequate zoning protections. Mr. Moore,

so another question for staff. So, if I'm looking at staff packet page 7 or our packet page 53, um you can see it's got the little diagram of where the 65 DNL contour crosses this across the site. So, where does that five acres per or five unit per acre requirement kick in? Does it kick in on the north side of that 65 or on the south side of that? Commissioner Moore, that 5acre requirement is for the entire B1 area. Um, the 65DNL is specifically a reference point the FAA and the Boise airport also use. Um, so this on the map, you can see where I had those two projects highlighted. Pretty much those two orange areas shown on the screen, that is the B1 area where there is that um density restriction. So any development that would come in within those areas would require that five units or yeah five units per acre regardless of the base zone.

Okay. So Mr. Chair, commission more to follow up. So the B1 zone is what's triggering the five units per acre. The 65 DNL is kind of also triggering it, but it's triggering some sound mitigation as well. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes.

Okay. Gotcha. That's all for me. Any other questions? I got a couple. So, since this last discussion that we had a year ago or two years ago that now our code has been fully codified to capture what was otherwise an overlay district. Does that mean that all of the residential units that are in proximity of this are now non-conforming? Commissioner Danley, I do believe any residential within the airport influence area of A and B, so the blue and the light green are considered legal non-conforming if they were established prior to the adoption within code. With airport influence area B1, I do believe as well, if it's exceeding the density of 5 units per break, they are legal non-conforming as well. So, the applicant referenced and maybe we can pull up uh a closer image of the parcel. Um some of the mixed or some of the multifamily that's a couple lots just to the south. So, you're telling me now that the action that we've taken has now made all of that non-conforming.

That is correct, Chairman. Okay. Uh, another question would be the applicant is requesting a deviation for the sidewalk and I guess I don't recall off the top of my head is the is the street going to be a private street or a public street and go ahead. It's going to be a private street.

Is there is So then I I'm assuming oftentimes in the private street it's going to be narrower. Maybe the applicant can ask answer this. is parking permitted on the south side of that street. Chairman, commissioners, David Crawford again, 2323 South Bista Avenue. Um, it is a private street. We haven't received a request from the fire department to restrict parking on one side or the other. However, it is narrower. It's a 28t backtoback curve on the front and it's 24 near the west end of the project, but we'd be more than happy to sign that no parking on one side. There is adequate off streetet parking as we're having garages and a driveway for each one of these units. So, um, but we'd certainly be more than happy to sign no parking on the south side of the street. My thought and the where I'm asking is that if people park on that side and are passengers and get off get out of the vehicle and there's no sidewalk or stable ground to get off. That's where my logic is going. [snorts]

The side we are providing sidewalk on the north on the north side. So if people parked on the south side of the street, they'd walk across the street to that sidewalk. Yeah, I gotcha. Okay, any other questions? I got one last one, but other question. Commissioner Stallings. Yeah, I have a question for staff. So, um, as [clears throat] Commissioner uh, Danley just mentioned, the other project that's in that B165 area boundary was approved at a higher density rate. Doesn't that set how does how does that work and this one doesn't? I guess is poorly framed. I apologize, but

yes, Commissioner Stallings, the main difference between those two projects, as you can see, like I said, the white circle being the one from a about a year ago that's been referenced and the blue circle being one before us tonight, is it's really hard to see here, but there is a very faint pink line. That pink line is the 65 DNL contour. It does cross through this blue circle, which is the proposal tonight. The white circle over here does not cross that 65 DNL. Um the 65 DNL actually ends within kind of around here around Victory in Coleish. Um so that's the really the main difference is even though the other proposal was in that B1 area, it was viewed differently because it didn't have that 65DNL. Have a followup.

Go ahead. Um and the 65DNL is about the noise decibel, right? Correct. It is the noise decibel from airport operations. So, it's the dayight average sound and that's tied to the FFA FFA regulations and grant applications. Correct. But otherwise, this is allowed in this zoning.

Yes. If it wasn't for the airport influence area, the density that they're requesting would be permitted in the R2 zone, but because it is within that B1 airport influence area overlay, that's where the density restrictions coming in. Um, and with the sound contours that are tied to the FAA funding regulations and things like that, that's where the city is taking the stance of this is not an appropriate place to exceed that 5 unit density. Um, whereas the other proposal didn't have the noise kind of um aspects of it as it didn't have it wasn't near the 65 DNL. I believe it was a mile out. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have one more question.

Go ahead, Commissioner George. Um, my question is again for staff, just to clarify, and you probably already said this, I apologize. The purple is the airport influence overlay.

Yes. So, I should have put a legend on this. My apologies. The purple is airport influence area C, which residential is allowed. No density restrictions there. There's just, I believe, some um insulation requirements for all construction airport. The orange is airport influence area B1 residentials allowed only at a density of five units per acre unless the CUP is approved. Um, and there's only these two little pockets here. The green is airport influence area B. No residential is allowed whatsoever. Uh, and then airport influence area A, which is pretty much the airport itself in the directly immediate areas. No residential is allowed there either. and they all have different levels of u required installation for any kind of developments whatsoever.

Mr. Chair, one last followup. Um you may not know this, but do you know what the approximate square footage of the green area and the purple area are? An estimate's fine. [snorts] I'm not confident on answering that at this time. Square miles, I meant to say, not footage. Yeah, I do know that the B1 area is the smallest out of the four overlays. Not much I know. Mr. Chair, Mr. Schaer,

uh, Doug, question for you on the uh, so the permitted via the CUP, the permitted is five units per acre, correct? So, it would be um, the existing home, if this were per code, be the existing home and four additional units, lots. Commissioner Schaefer, if it was to follow the letter of the code without doing the CUP process, it would be the existing home plus three additional units. Um, since the parcel as a whole is.9 acres, right? So, it would be four units total

and those could all be accessed off of a common drive, which then would no longer require the variance application as well. So, it be all just a preliminary plat if it complied with the base densities. Okay. And then is the existing home eligible for like an ADU. Um, Commissioner Schaefer, the answer is yes. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Chair. Question. Commissioner Stefonic.

Um, yes. Uh, and you might not be able to ask answer this. Um, and I don't think we have anybody from the airport on how these uh decibel levels are calculated. Um, are they regular commercial airlines? I know we have A10s over there. Um, in their letter in the packet here, they allude to uh F-16s coming in 2027, um, which are substantially louder than the A10s. Um, how will that change the decibb um, here in this map? Commissioner Sonic, I'm not sure on how the contours will be adjusted with those uh F-16s coming into the airport. They are going to be significantly louder, so that will very much adjust the contours. Um, and the airport would definitely be one to answer that question more accurately. Based off of the information, um, I do believe they update the contours every 5 years, so they're probably in the process of updating them soon. U, but based off the information I have, these are the current contours.

Thank you. So following up on that, if if the presumption is we bring in an aircraft that's even louder and they're going to be updating the contours to reflect the volume that's being put out by a louder aircraft, does it not stand to reason that this map will only grow?

Commissioner Danley, I do believe that is an assertion you could make. Yes. So, one of the one of the strong assertions in this in in your staff report was the economic element of this and the notion that the airport uh to demonstrate compliance and to go after federal grants and that sort of thing. Uh needs to demonstrate what this is about. Right. So going back to the multifamily that's just to the south of this and the units that were built. Do you have any sense of when the multifamily units were built that are in proximity to this this particular parcel?

Commissioner Danley they were constructed I believe around 2007 or 2008. Okay.

Um similar to when the initial entitlement on this property was granted. Um this original entitlement just never you know real got realized therefore it expired but the reason stayed. So, in the near there, and again, there's nobody here from the airport to answer this question, but in the near 20 years since those units were put in, I'm curious how much economic activity has occurred at the airport since then in terms of the construction of all the new parking garages, new terminal, all of the things that we know have occurred at the So, how has this these units and others presumably in proximity to it hampered their ability to get federal grants? Commissioner Danley, I don't have that information available right now.

Um, I do know, however, that the airport has stated in their comments that they've been seeing increased activity of 6%, I believe, year-over-year, and they're continuing to expect that increase, especially with concourse A um, going underway and then the third airport or the third runway to the south of the airport coming online for commercial use. 6% of what the total growth of the airport activity you mean? Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Chair, looks like uh 1993 was when those 1993 so 30 years 30. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Crystal. Mr. Chair,

I have one more. I lied.

Um my question is for the applicant. Um, as far as the the units that are proposed here, do you know as far as affordability goes, what you anticipate these might go for? Are they going to be um rentals? Are they going to be for sale? How much are you thinking they might, you know, go for for somebody purchasing them? Just trying to get an idea because as we've discussed, affordability is an important part of the city's goals with getting more housing built. Um, thank you. [clears throat] Yeah, excuse me, Chairman, Commissioner Torres. I can't speak to exactly what the price point would be because it just keeps moving up, but I do know that we have smaller footprint homes here uh with singlecar garages. Some of them will be twostory. I suspect that they'll be uh more affordable than other developments in the area because of the because of the way they're just a smaller footprint, so more people will be able to afford them. Okay, any other questions? Okay, looks like we don't have any. Okay, we'll go ahead and move forward uh and open it up to the public, but I have nobody signed up on any of the hand or the signup sheets. And it looks like there's nobody online. Is there anybody in chambers who wishes to testify on item number one? Make sure. Yeah. Okay, seeing none, any rebuttal? [laughter] Sorry, just a stupid lame planning and zoning joke. Okay, with that, we'll go ahead and uh call it a public hearing is up and then we'll go ahead and make a decision on this. Item number one, CUP25-23, conditional use permit to exceed the density limit and SUB25-45 preliminary plat for the residential

subdivision comprised of seven buildable lots and the uh request for the variance to deviate with uh the sidewalk exception.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Torres, I'm not prepared to make a motion, but I wonder if you'll allow me a little bit of discussion before we make a motion. Um, yeah, we can go ahead and do that.

Okay, thank you. Um, I'm struggling with this one. I went to bat last year on one and got outvoted by a super majority on this commission. Um, so I don't know that I'm prepared to necessarily do that again in this case. Um, looking at the map, especially the purple map, the larger uh area, that's a lot of square mileage in the city, that is pretty much limited in in some way as far as the density allowed or the noise requirements or other limitations at a time when we, you know, I say this every week or every month, we need we desperately need more housing. Um, you know, I I I I'm also struggling with the idea of four versus seven. I think that was the the total number. Um, I don't have it in front of me. Um, you know, it's one thing if it was like 30 units proposed, but it seems like it's not that many more units being proposed in this area. So, I really I really would like to get clarification from the city about what the FA specifically requires of us and what and how they might um for lack of a better word, punish us if we go too far in that regard because we're up here. We're tasked with proving projects that that can address other problems we have in our in our community. And more housing does also generate economic, you know, growth in the city. So, I'm just I'm just kind of putting that out there for discussion. Um, again, I don't know which way I'm going to go on this one, but I wanted to just put that out there on the record. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Torres. Just so reference in our code, it's under uh 11-2-07 under the overlay districts. There's just some of the language in there. Section C talks about specifically this area B1 um the requirement for decibel reduction and it gets into the five residential unit discussion just in case anybody's got it up and is curious any other is there a motion or any discussion we want to Mr. Chair Commissioner Yep. Commissioner Se

I too am struggling with this one. Um, I see uh Commissioner Torres's point about, you know, what's the difference between four and seven, but I guess maybe I'm looking at this from through a different lens and that um if any of you have spent any time on the bench up on Columbia Village, um at certain points of the day, uh you can feel um some homes I don't want to say move, shake, but you can feel the um you can hear the noise from the planes that have the flight pattern that go up near micron. Um so I'm looking at this from the noise um perspective and having you know four or five homes versus seven. Um the staff report indicated that um the applicant did not um address any further mitigation measures to try to um address the the deciple um concern. So I, you know, maybe if the applicant would consider doing some additional mitigation to insulate those structures so that the noise is not as high, then maybe I I would be amendable to it. But at this point, I'm not quite sure that I am.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore, I'll make a motion. Um, I move that we deny CP25-23 and recommend denial of SUV 25-45 U based on the terms listed in the stack report. I'll second. Okay. I've got a motion by Commissioner Moore and a second by Commissioner Sa or Schaefer uh to deny the conditional use permit and recommend denial for the preliminary plat. Is there any discussion? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore,

I'll start off. So I think um Commissioner Sea's point is is well spoken. Um you know first I think there's two pieces to this particular application that's different than the previous application. One specific piece and that's that 65 DNL contour. That means that it's a lot louder here. It's in the same B1 zone but it is you know in that contour area and that does affect kind of the noise level that we're anticipating. whereas that previous application was well well outside of that. So that's the first the first piece of that. Um and I think that those two those two characteristics of this particular site kind of play together in making the five units per acre kind of doubly make sense at that point. you have this overlay existing here and you have an additional kind of reinforcement that this is this does experience that additional noise. Um and then I I agree with Commissioner Sea. I think you know there's no discussion of additional mitigation efforts to attempt to reduce that and maybe appease the airports, you know, comfort zones whether they're even willing to entertain something like this. Maybe that would get there. I'm not sure, but um yeah, I think some of those mitigation efforts were were definitely per the the staff report a little bit missed. So, for those reasons um uh in support of the staff report.

Okay. Any other discussion, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Stallings.

Um I agree with a lot about what it's been said up here. I'm still really struggling with this in that um you know what you said commissioner um about the economic drivers here which which one is a more predominant feature of prosperity in our community um that's hard to regulate and hard to see in this um the noise ordinance it I yeah I'm really on either I can really argue this either way ultimately So, I really I I really see myself wanting to approve this application in that I think that this is compact variety of housing that is applicable if someone's willing to have that ambiance a couple of times a day. Um, yeah, I but I I see a lot of sides. Um but yeah, I will be voting no for this.

Okay. Thank you. Any other com conversations?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaeer, this is the second of the motion. Um certainly felt appropriate. I comment here. Um agree with the motion of course and all the comments from Commissioner Moore. Uh I think the staff report did a nice job of summarizing the challenges. is the city's not saying no to housing here, but they are saying make it per the code. Now, and let's be clear that, you know, this code is put together for comfort of the residents, right? They're living in these structures. So, you can still build four homes here, three new homes, right? Four new homes. And they have the existing home, and the existing home could have an ADU. So, you can still get residential on this parcel. the city is just uh being clear that we want to be building in the appropriate places for the comfort of our citizens. Right? That's where I'm coming down. Okay. You made the point earlier up here in the discussion about, you know, homes on Columbia Village, right? And you can feel the aircraft, you can hear them, right? So, um I'm not going to sit here and argue with, you know, directive of the studies by the airport that indicate where it's appropriate to put housing or where the city thinks it's appropriate to put housing. again, you know, the city is saying, "Let's do it per the code and we don't have a problem." And that's where I'm coming down with this one. So, totally comfortable if they want to come back. Um, that also does check a couple other boxes. Um, if they come back, the sidewalk variance is eliminated. We're in a just a shared driveway condition for the new properties. Um, so I think that that solves many issues coming back and doing this per the code. So, totally comfortable with staff report and agreement with that and agree with the motion of course.

Thank you, M. Schaefer. Any other comments? Mr. Chair, Mr. Torres,

I already said a lot of my thoughts beforehand, but I I guess I'm going to reluctantly support the motion. Um, I do, like I said, I do encourage the city to revisit this part of code because it seems like it is binding us in a lot of ways long term. Obviously, the the DNL is is important. Um, we had a very long discussion about that last time. Um, So, I'm going to reluctantly support the motion, but I do really think we need to try to figure out a way to allow more stuff to be built in this area without coming uh falling a foul of the FAA and federal regulations. Thank you, Mr. Don.

Um, [clears throat] excuse me, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm going to be in support of the motion. Um along the lines with what even uh Commissioner Sea Moore and Schaefer said um I agree with their perspective on it. Um the B1 does is the trigger for the five units per a per acre. Yeah. Um and I think we need to stick with that condition. So I mean we're in agreement with staff report as well. anything. You don't have to. All right, chair. Commissioner Stefanic. Uh

I feel like I'll join the join the party here. Um [clears throat] yeah, it's it's a real tough one. Uh I applaud the developer for trying to maximize this in what the city and the code is trying to do. It's unfortunate that it falls right here in a tough area. Um, and you know, like other commissioners have said, I think the city needs to figure out how to uh how to work through this and and and consider that impact uh because it's counterproductive. Um, and what we're trying to accomplish here. Um, but I I still think you can increase the the density of this area. U may not be as many as we would love to see. Um, and so I I'm going to support support the measure.

Very good. Um, I'm not going to be supporting the measure. I think that this issue continues to rear its head and I think that that we have got to get a handle on this because I believe this issue is choking this city in a lot of ways. This influence area continues to come up every single year. And when you look at the those contour maps and you realize the very large percentage of our city limits that's controlled by it when we are at a crisis with housing. Um, to me, we've got to figure out a different way. We've had discussions about this issue in the past, too, with respect to the five unit, and it's been uh I I'm not going to use the word arbitrary. I think that's a little bit strong, but there's never been a great discussion on the true difference between allowing four homes there versus allowing seven homes there. What we can do as a conditional use permit is we can choose to mitigate that. We can say that you'll get your conditional use permit, but you do need to require additional insulation and that the sound mitigation needs to be significant in order to handle this 65dB. When we have units that have been there for nearly 30 years just to the south and the airport's probably seen billions of dollars of revenues, that doesn't seem to me to be an issue. Um, and furthermore, I think to the applicant, the applicant's point, the design of these is a product that we do not see. This is a single family unit, s onecar garage that's not in the types of things that we see and part of the market that's missing. And I can I applaud the applicant for trying to work with this and make something work um in terms of a product. So, those are my thoughts. I know they're kind of strong, but um it's how I feel. So if there any other discussion or we can go ahead and clerk call the role. Any other discussion last?

Okay. With that the clerk please call the role. Danley. No. Moore. Yes. Schaefer. Yes. Deha. Yes. Yes. Dawn. Yes. Stallings. No. Defons. Yes. Six in favor, two opposed. Motion carries. Okay, very good. Let's go ahead and take five and then we'll come back for item number three.

Okay, let's go ahead and get started again. Moving on to item number three. This is CUP25-31 and CVA 25-48 uh GGLO. It's a conditional use permit for an allowed use uh with alternative zone specific standards on 89 acres in MX5 zone located at 1080 West Front Street. Uh looks like Dennis or Matt. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, and good evening. As you just said, the item before you is a conditional use permit for an allowed use with alternative form to deviate from the MX5 zone specific standards along with six variance requests to deviate from the requirements of vehicular parking locations and design and required bicycle parking standards as well. These applications, the the bundle of applications before you is for the proposed development, which is a 39 story, 451 foot tall mixeduse building containing ground flooror amenities, including restaurant, retail space, uh, and a residential lobby with a bike repair station. On on top of that is five levels of parking with approximately 437 residential units spanning across 32 levels of the structure. First, the requested cup to deviate from the MX5 design standard requirement of 80% of the street frontage ground for street frontage being active. The applicant's proposal includes about 78% uh street activation. This request is supportable because of the reasons listed on your screen which are centered around constraints of the property. Uh mainly given the fact that there's not an alley adjacent to the property which under the applicant's ability to comply with this street frontage active street frontage requirement. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a mural on the 10th street frontage to mitigate this lack of activation. Listed here are the six variance requests within this application. One of them is for vehicular parking standards for compact spaces to be within the parking garage and the rest are concerning bike parking counts and location criteria. And we'll go into these. So the planning team is supportive of and recommends approval of the four variance requests listed on your screen

for the details uh summarized here and detailed within the project report. The planning team is not supportive and recommends denial of the two variance requests listed on your screen for reasons detailed within the project report. The planning team finds that there's not a hardship that justifies the inability to accommodate these requirements as the submitted plans demonstrate that area that there are areas that can accommodate additional cargo and short-term bicycle parking spaces. Thus granting these two variances would conflict with public interest and would create material negative impacts to surrounding uh to surrounding properties by not being able to accommodate the various forms of travel which helps reduce vehicle miles traveled. All of which all of all of these elements are especially compounded given the fact that the site is adjacent to the 11th street bikeway to its west. So in conclusion, the planning team recommends approvals in a for these requests as listed on your screen and I will stand for any questions. Beck,

can you just point of clarity? Uh believe we had late correspondence that the last two on this list. The applicant has since Can you address that just for the record, please? Uh Mr. Chair uh and commissioners, thank you for the point of order. um correspondence with the applicant today um basically aligned with the um with the staff report with the recommendation and so those two variance requests that staff is originally recommending denial on have been withdrawn.

Very good. And just for this commission, so just to make sure we're clear on this, in front of us is the conditional use permit, which addresses the 80% of the site being activated and this being 78. And we'll get into the details of why, but then also these specific uh requests for variances and how the staff is recommending. we uh judge on each of these including a approval now of the bottom two of this list. Mr. Chair, uh not approval of the request to deviate from has as we understand it and I would wait to have that confirmed by the applicant.

They've been removed. They've been removed. Okay. So, clarity. Thank you. Thank you. Let's hear maybe from the applicant.

Okay. So, the bottom two are no longer relevant then. Is that okay? Great. Okay. Okay. Is the applicant present? Okay. Would you please come up, state your name and address for the record, and have up to 20 minutes or so. Uh, Mr. Chair, uh, commissioners, thank you very much for having us here and, uh, taking the time to look at this. My name is Sean Kennedy. I'm an architect with GGLO. address is 113 South 5th, Boisee 83702. Um, as stated, I'll just re uh confirm what staff has said that um we are in agreement with the recommendations um from the staff report on all of those counts. Um what we've proposed is a high density, highquality downtown urban style of development. Um this is consistent with uh the Boisee uh policy for the MX5 zone. The nature of these kinds of projects, high-rise um mixed use projects though, is that there are a lot of services and uses that have to come together, particularly on the lower levels. Um and as we've worked through the code, um some of those things were creating conflicts that didn't um allow us to design the project in the um proposal um that the staff have recommended. though we do believe that all of their recommendations will allow us to uh fit all of those things together. Um so uh we are supportive of their recommendations. Um so that's uh uh that's all um that I wanted to

address, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, hold tight. Make sure that the neighborhood association, if they're in attendance, let me just make sure online sometimes they sneak in. Um, so this would be the neighbor the downtown association if I'm not mistaken. Right. Um, but it looks like nobody anybody in chambers. I know we have somebody signed up to testify momentarily from the public but not from the neighborhood association and then it looks like nobody online just to confirm. Okay. All right. With that, go ahead and open it up to questions from the commission. Mr. Chair, [clears throat] Commissioner Torres,

just to clarify, if we were to approve this, we would approve without additional conditions, it would be approved based on all the terms and conditions of staff report because the variance has been withdrawn. Is that correct? So, the two specific variances at the bottom of this screen. So, the amount of short-term bicycle parking and the maximum percentage of long-term cargo bicycling biking bike parking have been pulled and there's no longer a request to deviate from our standards. the remaining list. So, the top five still are relevant in that there's been a request uh for variances that are stated there and staff's recommendations of each of the variants as well as the actual CUP itself are all approved in in conjunction with the terms and conditions that are put into the staff report. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Any questions from the commission? Yeah, sure. Mr. Stefons.

Yeah. Um I have a my question is mostly around this uh variance to increase the maximum percentage of long-term bicycle parking space. It requires the use of stairs or an elevator. Um, can you talk about where the location of the elevators are? Um, I'm not an architect, but I feel like I uh identified correctly where they are. And can you explain how an individual who needed to use an elevator to get their bike can get to the elevator and to the parking uh the bike parking space? Can you walk me through what that process would look like? Sure. Um, again, Sean Kennedy, GGLO Architects, uh, 113 South Fifth, Boisey. Uh yes, the primary entrance for someone with bicycle is to come through what we've called the bicycle lounge, which on the image that's on the screen right now, it's the yellow area that's kind of stepped up on uh the upper left hand side that's facing 11th Street and facing the new bike um corridor, bike improvements that have come along there. So, what we envision is a dedicated door for um bike riders to come in off the street at that location. They come in, there'll be a place there that we envision um being able to sit down, take off your bicycle shoes or your gear um and uh perhaps get a cup of coffee um in that space. There will also be um a couple of stations for cleaning and repairs. Um, and then there will be some uh storage for bicycles at that location. They'll then go um you can you'll be able to go through back through that. There's a door that comes through sort of roughly in the middle

and you see the elevators located in uh the red square on the screen there. Um and so there will be a dedicated access through there. Um, and there is in particular one of those elevators that will be able to accommodate the large bicycles. Okay. So, just to be clear, so an individual would have to walk take walk their bike through two doors open door openings from 11th Street. Uh, yes. Yeah. Because there's that little kind of uh entryway. Um, so they'd have to get through both of those doors. I'm just going to assume that they're going to be automatic open and they have a hold open so you can easily walk your bike through.

Yeah. Um because they're a little narrow. And then so then they would have to navigate all the way through past all the bike parking and then do they come out the back door, the backside past all the parking? Yes. And then they walk walk through a side hole all the way down to where the elevators are to take the elevators up to the second floor if they need an elevator to get their bike up and not use the runs on the stairs that you

to be clear there there's no parking on this ground level. No vehicle parking uh car parking level. Yeah. Yeah. But for the bike, they would come through what you see is the middle of the corridor uh through the bicycle lounge and where the bicycle storage is. And then at the end you see a a pair of doors. You come in and take a I guess that's a right-hand turn and you come down to the elevator core. Um and the elevators do need to be there. That central core is what is the primary structure for the building. Mhm.

And then and then go back for the second floor. I don't know if we have the second floor uh piece up on any of the slides. So there is a in addition to this, there is a mezzanine with additional bicycle storage part of that lounge. It's just an overlook. Um but they'd be able to get there with the elevators. They could get there with the elevators or with the stair that has run. Okay. And then that's where your additional vertical bike parking would be for short term or long term.

Uh those are the residents bicycle parking. The short-term parking for retail and coffee shop restaurant visitors is is on the perimeter. It's on the outside. But then there is also parking for cargo bikes on that first floor. That is correct. And then some other select parking or That is correct. Right. There's a number of those and then you just have them split with the mezzanine. That is correct. And there will also be parking um areas on the floors above there on the uh vehicle parking floors as well. Oh, okay. Can you I I might have missed those. Where are those in the that

So, in this view that's on the screen right here, you see the two uh shaded areas in the corner. Mhm. And those are uh those are bicycle storage areas. Okay. And then so in order to access those, a cyclist would bike up the ramps to get there. Is that No, the intent would be that they would take the elevator up to this level and then there's direct access out. Oh, cool. That's much better. Thank you. Okay. So, yeah. So, they'd have to go through multiple doors to get to there and then all those doors would be automatic. I I'm a bike commuter and I park inside and I know how challenging

that can be. And the reason why I'm asking this question is um I understand the constraints with that and I love how you've tried to work with this, but I'm just trying to think of a use case, right? I'm walking in with my bike and I have to get through this door and then another door and then I'm walking through and then I have a series of other doors to get into an elevator to go to a place to park. So yeah, in this case I think we it's really just kind of two to get into the elevators. There is a pair of doors that you see there. Those are fire doors that are automatically held open. So, but there is a

Yeah, but the doors to get through the lounge, go through the lounge and all of that. There seem to be ones when you come in and then at the back of that lounge Oh, do you go through that corridor that you go right through the lobby? So, if you can pan that would be easier. Right now, the I the plan is for someone to come in directly off of 11th through that vestibule. So, if you zoom in there just a little bit right there and then turn and go up into that space, that's the bicycle lounge area um with the cleaning stations and and repair stations and storage here. You go through there and then you come down through that corridor there

directly to the to the um elevators. Cool. Yeah. So then you have two more doors to go through and then those doors are always open in case of Correct. Right. Okay. Thank you. Other questions, Mr. Chair? Mr. [clears throat] Torres.

Um my question is for the applicant, so don't sit don't sit down. [laughter] Um, as far as the it's mentioned in the report that the some of the parking stalls could be potentially converted later into additional units. Um, can you talk about what that looks like potentially if that were to happen down the road? I know that's not part of this specific approval, but I'm just curious, you know, just for the record. Um, thank you.

Yeah. Uh, thank you for the question, um, Commissioner Torres. It's a it's it's quite an interesting concept and um I think one that uh the applicant and our team is really excited about which is anticipating that one day in the future the way that we all use cars and the way we store cars in an urban environment will eventually evolve. Our client intends to own this property for a very long time and wants to make maximum use of um of the property in the long term and maintain the value. So, we've designed the upper three floors of the parking garage with floor to floor heights um and a column layout that would accommodate one day f in the future being converted into uh residential properties um or possibly a commercial use there as well. Um but we've got the height um to be able to do that. We're designing um a demountable facade system. So you might notice in the facade there's sort of a line between the lower two parking floors and the upper three floors so that that upper section could be taken down as part of that conversion. And then we have access for mechanical equipment um to be able to come in from the back. It's a long-term strategy. Um, so there's nothing specifically designed or proposed at this point, but it is something that uh we think creates long-term value and potential.

Mr. Chair, another question completely unrelated, but um, as far as the pricing of these units, it sounds like are they going to be for rent? Are they going to be for sale? Has there been any thought of holding some of the units at more affordable rates to try to address affordability beyond just increasing the supply, which obviously this does? Um, and I'll let you answer that.

Yeah. So, uh, thank you for the question. Uh, the intention is that all of the units are for rent. Um, there is not a specific, um, affordability program analysis put in here, but I don't know if you have access to the floor plans themselves. But what we have uh tried to design is a broad um array of unit types r uh which range from very small um compact studio units up to some much larger family-sized units um as a way to address sort of a larger affordability um spectrum. Sorry, I thought more there. Uh Mr. Chair, one last followup on that. Um, understanding this is going to take a a while to build. Um, it's okay if you're not comfortable answering this, but ballpark, what do you think these ideally would rent for from the from those small compact units up to the largest ones?

Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm not con um comfortable sort of guessing that it will take several you know years uh of finishing out the design work and or another year of finishing out the design work and then several years of construction and it's really hard to predict where those numbers will be but certainly um you know the intent is to be in the market of the downtown residential um the the downtown residential market. Yeah. Other questions.

You got it. [clears throat] I should say.

Um, so my question I'm not sure who I guess maybe to staff. So um when I was reviewing the um report and ACD's report specifically, it indicated and this is expected, right? This is high density downtown. Um that this development is estimated to generate 1,894 vehicle trips per day. And then ACD document says that during particular uh roadway segments during certain times of day um exceed acceptable levels of service. Um so what do we do about that?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Sehal, thank you for the question. Um so I think the main concern uh the main street concern would be front street which is actually under the jurisdiction of uh state of Idaho, Idaho transportation department. And so that definitely adds some complexity as far as fronting onto a street that turns into the the highway connector. Um so I definitely see your point there. The um the ITD provided agency comments as well that were um that alluded to that they would have a further investig or u review of the traffic impact study.

Can I jump in? I'm going to jump in here. Um so to clarify on that point um ITD provided a single page in this packet and that basically that page said we'll get back to you and front street is an ITD state highway and this is your building is presumably obviously right there including construction period which I'm going to come back to momentarily but the level of service from ACD which does not include front street because that's not their road but does include some of the adjacent streets i.e. 10th, 11th and I think it was I think it banic or whatever it was which are uh classified as local streets or collector streets those level of services are different than front street front streets level service E and the peak hour whereas the two collectors are level service D so the threshold is higher in terms of whether it's to be exceeded or not so their comment in their staff report basically said that at least in a period of time for a collector standard those might be exceeded. It also says, and this is a question I would like to ask if I can, that's related to this question. In their staff report, it says that you're allowed to do a shoulder hour analysis. KDson's not here, right? So, I don't know if you can even mention or discuss. Was that done? Because that's something that ACD doesn't often state in their traffic uh in their documents to us. But this is saying, hey, this is downtown. It's unique. There's not traditional mitigation their word right on page 252 i.e. widening. So we need to look at other things. One of those being a twohour shoulder hour analysis. So does that ring a bell at all? I know your traffic folks aren't here so it's on putting you

on the spot but yeah uh Sean Kennedy uh from GGLO I can't speak to that specific question. is part of the design team and has been uh working on a variety of analyses, but I'm not prepared to speak at that.

Okay, appreciate that. And this is a tricky one because man, I want to go, but I also know that this is a conditional use permit specific to the activation of the street level activity site. So, something to keep in mind, Mr. chair if I if I can jump in. I think that that's a good point just because the although the as you just you worded it perfectly the condition use permit is for the street activation itself and so the density proposed is allowed by right in the MX5 right Mr. Sure.

And I understand that. Um just being cognizant of the traffic challenges down there um is what piqued my interest here and ACD's response. So

So following that up, I think what ACD is saying is essentially because this is downtown and again traditional mitigation, their phrase, traditional mitigation, widening, widening, widening, that's their method. They're saying they ain't buying buildings to widen it to an extra lane. That's what they're saying. However, it does say in here that, and I'm reading this, it says the applicant may suggest feasible alternative mitigation measures beyond improvements from district policy such as off-site sidewalks, off-site bike facilities, etc., etc., within 1.5 miles of the proposed development. However, in the report, I see none of that. There's no recommendations at all that has to do with anything like this outside of the immediate vicinity of the building. Is there anything that can be added to that discussion? Anything any thoughts on that,

Mr. Chair? Uh members of the commission, that's certainly under the under the the power of the commission to add um the the conditions uh as you see fit. um the those weren't included um partly because of that complexity that I told you that that uh that density is allowed by right and the the the street enhancements and the improvements themselves are under the jurisdiction of uh the state and the county. So the complexity there was um rather large but as as you said you you certainly have that that ability to add conditions where you see fit. Okay. Thank you. Other questions more

Mr. Chair. So for the cup piece, the the street activation piece, how exactly is that calculated? Because there's, you know, a first level that's I mean almost all glass and then there's some upper levels that are more solid. So the street activation is calculated by that first level only and it's just kind of depending on the use on the other side of the glass and um whether or not it's kind of storage circulation that doesn't have anything to do with the street and things like that.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner, correct? That's correct. Or sorry, Commissioner Moore, that's correct. Um the street activation as you said focuses on the ground floor and so looking just past the facade of the ground floor. Um street activation is typically a clear facade with um act active users where people can you can see activity on the inside. So that's how it's classified. The um 10th street frontage does not meet that activation requirement because it's the facade is not transparent and it's ent entering into a parking garage. So that doesn't influence um public activity through there. Gotcha. And Mr. Chair, Mr. Mo,

follow up on that. So that that ends at the first level. So I would guess that anything above that first level that's not like a street activation thing and that would fall into purview of design review. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore, that's correct. um above the the facade um articulation and modulation and transparency will all be covered under the design review application or yes and then it was just the street activation that's the the cup got and then Mr. M

for the various variances. Um that's a kind of a a piece that I've brought up in in the past about the amount of bike parking related to some of these infill sites, especially some of these smaller ones. When you start adding up those 2 by six boxes, it adds up very quickly. Um, is there any kind of plans of the city to allow certain variances kind of in line with this to help facilitate more infill kind of in line with with what we're seeing on this? That's more of like an overall, but just

Commissioner uh chair uh Mr. Chair and Commissioner Moore. Uh, not that I'm aware of at this time. Okay, perfect. Thank you. That's all I got. Commissioner Chair, question. Commissioner Stefons.

Yeah, this a question for the for the city. Um, so along these same lines for the the bike parking, you know, I realize that, you know, when these type of structures are going up, it is really challenging to get the bike parking in. And so we've given some flexibility for them to put bike parking in different areas of the building. um in that way. Um in the code uh in the zoning code, right, we we talk about that it's accessible. Um I'm I wonder if we continue to to offer these and we start to see developers and and builders put them in all these spots that they can put them in, right, that they become, you know, more challenging to access for cyclists and therefore they're they're kind of no nobody's going to use them. Um, so then it's kind of like, okay, why why are we just putting we're putting them in there to put in there and it's almost like an afterthought. Now, I'm not saying like we need to build, you know, these buildings for bike parking first. I get it, right? But, right, when we try to fit them in in these areas and then we're like, yeah, they're accessible, but to whom? And that was what I was trying to illustrate in the point, my first question is, how is an individual going to navigate to these bike parking locations? I'm fine with them being in different locations, but how how can h how do you talk to builders in that way on on how to make it accessible?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stefanchic, um yeah, that's an excellent question. Generally, when looking through the the development code, the term accessible uh tends to mean um compliant with ADA standards and PROWG standards. So in in general terms, you know, are there is there a 5 foot wide clear path to each element and is, you know, is it not a staircase? Right. So um that was really the the you know given given this finding the um the understanding that each one of those parking spaces that are throughout the building can be accessed. uh without needing stairs, right, with the elevator that there's a five foot wide um pathway to the entire through the elevator to the to the site. So, uh to whichever level that that parking is is located. So, that that was the the understanding that was applied to to this application.

Okay. And so, is does it in the code does it or is there an opportunity to add those that clarity that accessibility is I have that five foot all the way to that location from the street to the to the bike parking wherever that may be.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stefonic, I don't think the development code makes that that much of a distinction. Um, so how it's written on the screen right now is how it's written in code without the use of stairs or elevator. And so, you know, with the understanding that this the amount of bike parking proposed, you know, accommodates uh or requires a large portion of land. The idea is that spreading it throughout with um with pathways that are accessible to the to the best extent practical would meet the intent of that. Um and so the codified statement of of um without requiring the use of stairs and elevator um was was recommended approval to to deviate from with that understanding.

Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? Got two quick ones, but any other thoughts real quick for me?

Okay, couple quick questions for you. Um, one is on Front Street in particular, how long do you think once you go to construction might or maybe you won't even need to, but I don't I don't want to be too presumptive, but if you were to have to shut down a lane of traffic on Front Street, how long would that take, you think? How about what's your general thought on the actual um you know prohibition of of traffic flow on Front Street for construction purposes? Sean Kennedy, architect from GGLO. A construction plan has not been

developed yet, but will be as part of the permitting process going forward. Um, a project of this scale based on past experience is probably under construction start to finish 30 months or so. with this particular um design and the sort of physical structure. The plan will be uh certainly as quickly as possible to get off of Front Street, load up the top of the parking garage with materials and supplies to be able to then um take them up. So, I can't give you an exact um Yeah, I didn't expect general contractor, but

Can you swag it? It's going to be it the there will be a tower crane at some point that's located on the site and that tower crane will sort of drive the use of being able to lift up materials up on to the staging areas. So it's at least 12 months maybe 18 months. I'm not I'm not sure. I'm not but give it roughly a year to a year and a half where we might see a lane restriction on front and certainly the other streets the 10th and and ninth I think it is. There will be some I'm sure there will be some just based on past experience but I can't speak to to those. I think uh certainly the

uh there will be every effort to limit that on on the um 11th and 10th street. Okay. Uh frontages.

Okay. My last quick question, I know this is going to come out of left field, but you'll understand why later. $2.5 million. If you were to think about the number of units, and I know you've addressed that question earlier, they go from whatever it is, 600 square feet or something all the way up to probably 3,000 or whatever your spectrum is. If you were looking at especially the the lower end of those, how many units would two and a half million buy you, you think, to construct roughly? Could you get 10 more units, 20 more units, five more units? What do you think? As pure dollars in the current sort of mix, it probably would not get more units directly just simply because the um services and the parking is sort of capping that off.

Okay. Um, but$ two and a half million dollars would uh, you know, it it if other things were able to work out, you know, maybe it buys another floor of units. Okay, that's fair enough. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions? Okay, the last chance.

I'll ask one I'll ask one of the applicants. You made you you put it in my mind and it's obviously not the project before us, but just for your curiosity sake, if you were to eliminate some of that parking, the the automobile parking, how many more units could you potentially get into this structure? Well, the math is fairly straightforward. you can sort of just look at the floor plans and and extrapolate kind of what's there because much of the structure of the building is what kind of sets the the floor plate size. um based on other projects. Um we do believe though that we need this sort of um where we are on the parking in order to make the uh to meet the market um in the space. Okay. Thank you very much. Let's go ahead and open it up to public testimony then. I do have one person signed up and that is Lori Larson. Thanks for your patience. Appreciate it. If you wouldn't mind, just throw the pull the microphone down a little bit and tell us your name and address and you'll have three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh my name is Lori Larson. My address is 149 East Malard Drive in an apartment unit in that building. Um Mr. Chair, commissioners, and staff, my testimony concerns um the structure itself as opposed to the variances. In correspondence with council member Ste, earlier today, I was guided to testify this evening. Uh thank you for hearing me. The findings for approval of a conditional use permit in subsection B I and I are where I locate this concern. and requesting substance to proposed use within the economic and financial development of constituents. The land has the ability to provide a home for many. Provided real estate values continue to increase. The proposed apartment tower will be a lucrative endeavor for the property owner assuming traditional short-term apartment lease agreements. Ethically speaking, the city's proclamation of economic development for constituents is wanted to be identified. I'm interested in the planning and zoning commission advocate with me for leveraging this capital structure. An outcome of improving the economies of rental tenants is wanted. Please consider mandating the developer and property owner allow tenants the ability to include leaseold improvements and long-term leases for development of tenant equity. This mandate would require the developer bare essentials only within apartments preventing developer inclusion of luxuries.

Similar to commercial real estate, tenants then have the selection to gain equity. This equity would be through the leaseold improvements and the long-term lease possibilities. This gain is capable of a win for the mayor's stated strategic priority areas of the city, providing said tenants a home and movement. The movement in this case is growth in financial security. Thank you for your willingness to hear my testimony.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you hanging out and being patient with us. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else in the chambers who wishes to testify on this item or anybody online? Looks like no. Okay. Well, with that, we'll go ahead and close that and you'll have five minutes for rebuttal if you want. If not, you can wave that and we can go to uh commission decision. Your choice or five minutes of last words, your choice that way too. Sean Kennedy, GGLO Architects on behalf of the applicant. Uh thank you for listening to this. It is a complex building. Um, and there's a lot that goes into that. Um, we believe we're trying to make something that's really um, special and uh, will bring a lot of of um, urban life and urban character to downtown Boisee. We have included our as for instance, our primary heating system in the building is tapping into the boy into Boise's geothermal uh, system which we think is really exciting. That again is one of those things that takes up part of the frontage on Tenth. Um but it also makes the project really um interesting and has a lot a lot of long-term value. Um we do believe that it'll be um something special for for the city and for the neighborhood. So thank you very much for your time.

Great. Thank you very much. and Matt or Crystal, could you please pull up the um just the various decisions that let list of the now five particular pieces that we need to address? Yep, that's it. Okay. The item is before the commission and this is item number CUP25-31 and CVA25-48 conditional use permit and the request for four different variances um that are and staff's recommendations on the screen in front of us. Looking for a motion before we proceed. Ideally, Mr. Chair,

Commissioner Torres, I move that we approve CU25-31 and CBA2-48 with all the terms and conditions of the staff report acknowledging the withdrawal of the two um variance requests that the city recommended on. And just to clarify, Commissioner Torres, are you also then recommending we approve the four variances that are in front of us as well? Yes, I am. Okay, thank you. Okay, very good. We have a motion by Commissioner Torres to to approve item number three, the conditional use permit, as well as grant the four variances um that are before us and the recognition that the two other variances uh have been pulled. Is there a second?

I'll second with a followup. Okay, [laughter] one second. We'll get to your followup. So, thank you, Commissioner Stallings, for the motion. Is there any discussion?

I'm not sure what to make of that, so I will just discuss based on my original motion. Um I um I hear the concerns about traffic and Front Street. Um I understand the the disruption that could cause while this is being constructed. I appreciate the applicant being willing to try to limit that to a shorter period as possible. Um, and um, I also hear the concerns of um, the lady who testified a moment ago. Um, I'm not really sure what we can do as far as that goes up here, but I would definitely encourage the um, applicant to work with the tenants on on that proposal if that's something that they're uh, open to. Um, I I kind of come back to like if there's if there is a single area in the entire state of Idaho that this project is appropriate for, it is the rough peri area between Broadway on one end, the connector on another end or 13th Street, University and Americana and State Street to the north. Like this is pretty much the densest part of the entire state. Um, it is the only part of the entire state that you can really truly classify as what most people traditionally think of as a city. Like that level of urban density that you think of when you think of a of a downtown of a city. Um, this is a lot of housing. Like this is dropping a housing bomb in a in a in a good way on the city and and downtown. You know, we talked about we talk about affordability all the time up here. Um, I understand that these units are not designed to be affordable below market rate, but they are a broad range of different styles of of or sizes of of unit. There's a lot of them. Um, this increases the supply of housing significantly in the city, but

also just downtown. Um, you know, I I appreciate some of the design decisions. the the possibility of converting some of that parking into additional units in the future I think is a great idea. I hear all the time about parking garages, you know, that are that why can't those be converted into housing? You know, that would help with a lot of housing. There's a proposal here where that could potentially be done. Um so, you know, factoring in the location, the design, the number of units, um I think this is a pretty good project. obviously still acknowledging the concerns about traffic while it's being built. Um, you know, ACD gave us their concerns. Um, ITD didn't really give us any specifics and I don't think it's fair to deny the project because we didn't hear hear from them on it on it. Um, I just hope that the applicant will work with all the various local stakeholders to minimize the impacts as much as possible while it's being constructed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Torres. Commissioner Stallings.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um yeah, I would also like to thank the public testimony about the leaseholder um improvements for tenants. I would encourage the applicant to consider this with your client and would love to see more of this in general landlord leaseholder practice in the in our community. Um I also do want to thank the applicant for that long-term thinking that Commissioner Torres said about conversions, about you know um different energy sources. Um, this is the kind of thinking that I'm really encouraged by, especially in these um, immense developments, right? This is going to be here for a long time. Thinking about what this looks in 20, 30 years is really proactive and I love to see it. I do share the concern about the what our ability is to approve or deny this without the um, input from ITD. I thought that comment from Commissioner CS uh was was appropriate and it's frustrating to not know how that gets handled and and what our authority over Yeah. ability to make this decision without with such a blind spot, such a large impactful blind spot that impacts the development and impacts the community through the construction and the life of the property in general. So that I guess was my followup on the second is I don't know what as a commissioner I'm able to deny this on their inability to shine some light in there. But yeah, that's that was my main concern, I guess, was the traffic the traffic density in this area and this added um interaction on such such an active corridor and then just off of it and still an active area that's more

walkable, bikable. Yeah.

Thank you very much. Okay, Commissioner. So, um I'm in support of the motion and just looking at the condition of use permit. You know, I think to me I do see the reason for a request to deviate from that kind of 80% activated use piece of it. Um I think you know there's no alley to this site. the fact that you were able to achieve 78% activated usage with, you know, the garage entrance, the trash entrance, the various services is is pretty impressive, honestly. Um, just being able to achieve that in itself. Uh, and so I'm in support of that. I think it's there's a lot of things going on along the street that are pretty clever to kind of get some more active uses and to get some of those uses that we want to see on the other side of the glass. Um, so I think I'm in support of it. I see the I see the request and I I see the the hardship for sure. So I think it's a it's a clever approach to it.

Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Other comments? Go ahead, Commissioner Stefon.

Thank you. Um, yeah, I I I love the the building design. I I I I really thought you you guys did a great job figuring out [clears throat] with all the limitations of this uh the location. Um, and as other commissioners mentioned, um, it's it's I wish we had more from ITD and, uh, and what that impact was going to be, um, on the building and, uh, and that access because you have to funnel it in all on 10th Street there and and that I think it's going to bring a lot more kind of traffic and and disturbance when it's when it's built. But, you know, uh, that needs to happen. Um, so as I look through these, I I want to say yes to [clears throat] all of them, except as my questions uh indicated, I'm I'm a little concerned about uh the moving uh or or the increased variance for maximum for the long-term biking parking that require the use of stairs and elevators. Um, I'd be fine if I felt like they were provided good accessibility and I would be really concerned about that. Like I mentioned earlier, if we're going to put some of these in here, I understand the the design constraints in the space and we can scatter them throughout the building, right? You know, if I'm on this floor, I come in or I park near there. That might be nice to have my bike there if it's secured in those locations. But some of the other locations seem challenging to get to if I'm coming off the street or I might not feel comfortable riding up around the uh uh the ramps um to get to that bike parking um and want to use the elevators to get there. Those seem challenging to get to in the current design um so because of that and how this motion is paired, I don't think I would approve it.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. say

I will be supporting the motion. Um I do have one comment though and I think some of us like Commissioner Torres um we become a broken record in that we know um it's clear our zoning code does not require um any kind of uh you know percentage of rental or affordable housing. But it would really be nice when we have these largecale developments in the downtown core um and other places in town um for developers to really consider, you know, a couple of units. I know that at the end of the day, your goal is to make money. Um but we also want a a livable Boise for all. And that means all regardless of socioeconomic level. And so I just hope that you take that message back.

Okay. Mr. Chair, Mr. M. Uh I'm going to I'm in support of the motion. Um I think it's an amazing project. Um of all the things I can think of is sure proves that Boisey is growing up. So um it's a it's just a fantastic project. Um, and I'm not a cyclist, so I don't quite know all the ins and outs, but it appeared that they did reasonable effort to make all of those things work. So, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Sh.

Yeah, I'll be brief. I don't really have much else to add. Um, I'll be in support of the motion, and I want I do want to thank Miss Larson for her comments on um, lease holding improvements. Um, unfortunately I'm just not prepared to speak to that in any real detailed nature this evening. I think it's a wonderful idea. Um, and I definitely need to be educated as to how we can make that more of a reality moving forward. But um, so unfortunately I don't feel comfortable commenting on that beyond just thanking you for being here tonight and bringing that to our attention. Um, and then I hope we can find a way to incorporate that moving forward, you know, in some of these other applications that we're we're undoubtedly going to see. So, um, well done with the project, gentlemen. Um, it is exciting. Um, as everybody know, it's, you know, going to be quite the change for downtown. So, um, and obviously a huge change to our skyline. So, good luck moving forward with construction.

Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer. Okay. Um, I I will be in support of the motion. I think it's a it's an excellent project. It is a incredible consequence to our city in a positive way, but nevertheless, it's consequential. And so for that, I'm really disappointed that we did not hear anything from ITD. This is Front Street. It's a major major arterial in and out of downtown. It's going to be shut down at least one lane, maybe more, for probably at least a year. They don't charge impact fees. ACD does. So, not only is there not going to be anything on the mitigation of traffic in terms of their system, it's actually going to be impeded for at least a year. We have the responsibility for public safety, health, and welfare and have nothing we can really do about it because in this instance, we've not even heard from them. And that's really unfortunate. Um, to the applicant, this is where I was going with this, and this is why I think we have a system that is unfortunately quite broken here. You're going to be charged $2.5 million in impact fees by ACD more than likely. You have 430 plus units. It looks like they're going to have a $5,000 something dollar per unit fee. $2.5 million, right? For what? What? What is that going to? Because your own traffic study and their response to you said there's nothing you can really do. However, what they did say, and it's written here on page 252 of our staff report, is that you have every right to look within a mile and a half of your spot to look for improvements that are not vehicular. We are trying hard to require bike parking, to do pedestrian realm activities, to activate this space. And yet, there's not a single requirement of anything within that mile and a half. You still have to go to ACD. If I were in your shoes, I would go and say, "Can we not write a $2 and half million dollar check that, by the way, can only be spent on congestion mitigation?" And that's state

law. That's that's what their interpretation is. Instead, run with that mile and a half and say, "How about this list of projects that are pedestrian based, that are bicycling based, that are intersectionbased, Pioneer Pathway, South Park, never gets talked about, right? These are things that you could go to for 2 million, save yourself some money, and do a lot of good things with in the downtown environment because they've already said you can't do anything with vehicular mitigation. Right? That's where I was going. The other part of it is why are you being charged at all? Instead, that $2.5 million to Commissioner Torres and Commissioner Sehaw's uh points could easily potentially have gone into units that may be deeed restricted in some way or or something. it gets to 50 or 60% AMI, right? But there's part of that system. So that is a soliloquy and a half, but it frustrates me to no end that this is the system that we have when there's such an opportunity to improve all of downtown to a mile and a half. That's a big big piece of ground in all the ways that could be. So with that, I will be in favor of the motion. Uh, and I think we're all out of comments. So, would the clerk please call the role?

Danley, I Schaefer. Yes. Deha. I. Torres. I. Dome. I. Stallings. Yes. Stfons. No. Seven in favor, one opposed. Motion carries. Okay. Can we take quick quick five and then come in for our last one and we'll be done. Thanks.

Okay, I think we're ready to reconvene. I see the top of Matt's head over there, I think. So, I think Okay. All right. Last but not least, item number four, but it's got four different parts. So, we've got uh CUP25-21, a modification of a conditional use permit. CPA25-4, a comprehensive plan amendment. Uh C25-14, a reszone application, and then uh sub25-42, a preliminary plat for residential subdivision, all located at 6300 North Row Street. Matt, please take it away.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the commission. As you said, the item before you is a a bundle of four applications, including a comprehensive plan amendment to adjust the land use designation from suburban to compact, a resone from R1A, residential large lot to R2 residential compact, modification to a conditional use permit to expand an assisted living facility, and a preliminary PL plat for a residential subdivision comprised of three buildable parcels located at 63000 North Row Street on 3.46 acres in a pending R2 zone. So, some background. In 2004, the planning and zoning commission approved CUP04-100, which was a planned unit development comprised of an assisted living facility uh to be accommodated across five units with 15 residents each for a total of 75 residents. And to date, only the southern two of those originally approved buildings were constructed. The applicant now seeks to modify this approval to develop the rest the northern portion uh shaded in red with a different housing type and and site layout than what was originally approved. So starting with the comprehensive plan amendment um the the request is uh so first the applicant requests to amend the the land use map to a designation that supports a a more intense zoning designation as was stated within the project report and as summarized on your screen. the request the request complies with the applicable approval criteria. And so this graphic shows how the site borders two more intensive land uses to the south and west which are compact and mixed use which demonstrates compatibility with the area as well as its alignment with public convenience and general welfare by directing density to an area where it's envisioned to be accommodated. Moving on to the reszone, the applicant requests to reszone the property to R2

as stated within the project report and summarized on your screen. This request applies with the applicable approval criteria as well. This graphic shows how the property borders or is in close proximity to to three higher zoning designations including R2, R3, and MX3 to the south. This zoning layout uh reflects a predictable development pattern as it locates the most intense land uses along and in close proximity to the arterial roadway, in this case, State Street, with less intense land uses located to the north in this case, further from the arterial and more internal to that suburban neighborhood. Next, the applicant requests to modify the existing cup by proposing a different layout and residential use than what was originally approved. In this case, the applicant is proposing a multif family component rather than continuing that assisted living as was originally approved. As stated within the project report and summarized on your screen, the request complies with the applicable approval criteria. And this graphic shows how the requested modification on the right remains within the scope of the original approval on the left in terms of scale. It also includes enhancements to the site such as increased setbacks to the adjacent single family dwellings to the north and east and more open space for recreation as well as better street activation to the west along Rose Street. Finally, the applicant requests to subdivide the property with three light three lots all of which meet the dimensional criteras of the development code. Shown here are the compliant preliminary plat on the left and the landscape plan overlaid on an aerial on the right. Late correspondence was received prior to this hearing which expressed concerns that focused on the proposal mainly focused on the proposal's eastern setback as stated within the lake correspondence memo and project report.

The project is supported by guiding documents complies with all dimensional criteria and neighborhood transition standards. Design review will also be required to further ensure that these requirements are met as proposed. And just a note, a correction to the late correspondence memo that's that's worth noting is that these structures are proposed as 45 ft tall, not 29 as stated within the memo, which still complies with the pending R2 zone. In conclusion, the planning team recommends approval of the applications listed on your screen.

Okay, thank you. Matt is the applicant in attendance. Go ahead and come on up and if you wouldn't mind state your name and address for the record and you'll have up to 20 minutes. Uh Andrew Wheeler, project architect, 9201 West State Street, Boise, Idaho 83714. Uh Matt, do you mind pulling that presentation up? Uh Mr. Commissioner, members of the commission, thanks for hearing us out today. I know this is a lot on this agenda and uh we look forward to getting this project underway. Uh this is a unique property that as you can tell on the site, you know, it's adjacent to a compact density on the west zone, commercial or mixed use on the south as well as R2. And it presents an opportunity to build more units. I've heard several times tonight how many how we need more housing. This is intended to be a for rent product of two 22 unit buildings. So it's 44 units intended for senior housing. So, uh, get into it here. And to kind of just to recap real quick from what Matt had said. So, currently the this is the current zoning R2 to the south. That's actually R3 in the dark orange, not R2. So, there's both of those those uses there. And then you have the the MX3 a little beyond that. That R3 zoning, which is currently threetory apartment buildings, is about 175 ft away from the corner of the property currently. So, it's very close proximity. We do have single family to the north and to the east and then that uh R1A zoning on the west side and a little bit to the north which is intended to be compact on on the west side of Rose Street. Uh looking at that future land use just a little more zoomed in. This really is a nexus between these two uses. You know, it fills this void and we have two vacant acres here. You know, what do we do with it? Do we put 10 homes in there or do we provide more housing for seniors which

as you'll hear from our uh land owner about some the what the need for senior housing in this community and especially a place that can be a transition. You know, somebody is living in a single family home. They're tired of the maintenance. They're not ready to go to an assisted living facility. They're looking for something that's low maintenance. They, you know, want to stay in a in a community in an area that they might already live in. So, that's what we're proposing here. a few images of that aerial graphic on the bottom right of Google Earth image just to show you that context and the level of in density that is surrounds the project currently that open grass field in the upper left of the project site again that's that future compact zone so it's anticipated that the level of density you're seeing here is going to continue to that northwest corner that top right image is the existing buildings that's 175 ft away from the subject site uh which is that red dimension on the left now looking a little bit closer at the property so currently It's operated as an assisted living home and a memory care. So, both of those uses are are currently going on. Uh we do have the uh you can see that there is a fire turnaround uh from that initial development plan in 2004 which we are slightly modifying as well as the storm water which we're we're incorporating. But you can see what a a big piece of land this is and what the opportunity that we have when it's nestled in this this zone between compact and R2 density. uh sort of a mass void diagram just to highlight where the single family homes are on this property. To the north side, you can see how much distance there is between the property line and those homes. And then we do have single family to the east which in the design we have been very cognizant cognizant of and have mitigated that impact on those residents. Here's some existing photos of the property. So that upper left image you're looking standing at row looking kind of northeast at the current entry into the project. Uh the existing site uh view four on the bottom right is the ACD rightway that has storm water uh treatment as part of that. We don't own that property. It's a meandering sidewalk currently. We're

proposing to keep it as such. You can tell it's in great shape. Uh it it benefits the project that we see no that was recommended to straighten the north half of that and keep the south half meandering, but in all intents and purposes, it'd be better just to keep it all meandering and we have incorporated in the project. Uh here's a few other pictures of the existing site. So looking at the phasing of this project, one unique uh part of this is we're proposing to phase this in two phases primarily for the final plat. So we're here today to approve the entire preliminary plat. Uh but we would proceed with a final plat as phase one where we're literally just parceling off that property. So that's a vacant twoacre parcel and then coming back to then um do a separate final plat for the infrastructure improvements and have that legal parcel separated. So, it's a more of a technicality of the final platting process than it really is of changing the development plan. Here's a survey on the left. You can see that pull out my laser pointer here. Uh the existing storm retention right here serves the site. So, we are relocating that and we are picking up all the storm water on on this component here as I'll show in the the new development plan. The existing uh Viola water easement that runs right down the middle. We are looping around and then adding a new 8 in sewer in Rose Street as well as extending the sewer about 20 foot south up to this point. The uh site plan here. So, a couple things of what we've the this all started with mitigating the neighborhood, right? That single family residential. We realized that that's a critical piece of this project. Uh we in the northeast corner uh originally we did have a trash enclosure there. We had a dog park in that northern component here. And for reasons of, you know, not having dogs next to neighbors fences for getting trash away from the fencing. And we've put our storm water in that northeast corner to heavily mitigate from a buffer standpoint. And then we have just a

parking structure here. Uh a singlestory, you know, covered parking with 10-ft landscape buffers which meet the neighborhood buffer standards all around the project between the R1C and the current R1A or proposed R2 zoning on the east side. So we and we have other sections to look at in a minute, but we do prov provide the 10- foot uh buffer, five foot landscape site, uh five foot sidewalk, 20 foot parking, 22t drive, and then you're at the building. So we're about 60 ft away from at the short end here, and about 108 on the step back from the building B to the north. Uh wrapping around the bottom. So, we did add a a on the northwest corner, we added an entrance here to mitigate the congestion of the existing facility to this one entrance and exit. On our first preapp meeting, uh staff did not recommend that they would allow a second entrance there and on upon further review that was deemed that they we could do a second entrance. So, we think that benefits the project greatly by mitigating the traffic congestion. Looking at the landscape plan, so we're heavily landscaping this based on the arburish report and the requirements there. uh these trees here on the top, these are about 45 foot trees or 40 foot trees. I can't right about 40 foot trees in height and 35 foot width that are along this this north buffer. And here these octagonal trees are about 40 foot in height and 30 foot wide. Again, all around that northeast corner. And then all along the east side we have uh these trees, these maples that are about 35 ft in height, 25 ft diameter. So very heavily landscaped. Uh we also have a lot of landscaping in the middle here. And you know, we see this as a with the amenities on this corner. It's a real entrance into the project. You know, again, this is senior housing. We're trying to have active active eyes on the street, if you will. You know, a real community vibe that's going to connect with the existing facilities, get people outdoors and engaged

on Republic Services. So, one of the the existing trash enclosure is is located here. So, this is right here in the site. So, this photo is looking south and it's not an enclosure. It's uh sitting, you know, open. This current backup is how Republic Services is pulling in and then backing up and then heading out. In order to mitigate or allow Republic Services to pick up the the trash for the existing facilities, we are proposing a new trash enclosure here which would service the existing facilities. The internal trash rooms for both buildings have trash shoots uh three stories trash shoots down to the bins and we have coordinated with Republic Services to have those staged uh out front on the drive aisle. We do have the adequate space to do that which would be positioned by property management. Uh looking at parking. So on uh phase one or building A here and is a little confusing with the phases. So I apologize on that. The uh phase one is um well we can go into the phasing later but for this slide purpose this would be phase one which is uh 27 parking stalls required we are providing 30 and phase 2 building B is 29 required we're providing 30 so we are parked above uh the requirement uh per code uh bike parking as as has been indicated uh earlier bike parking is challenging to make fit but we do meet that requirement uh we do provide uh some parking in these garages. So, you'll see here these are oversized garages. So, we are providing one stall bike parking as well as a combined uh bike parking space for for people who can't put their bike in the garage if they don't have one because there's only about 14 garages. But we do meet all the bike parking requirements. Uh this graph here is just showing red the vehic vehicular traffic circulation and then blue the pedestrian. So the one goal of this project was to allow plenty of pathways, connectivity,

opportunities for connection for seniors and to get outside and meet their neighbor, you know, engage with the dog park, the pickle ball court. The pink is our uh public patios and then the yellow are the community spaces. So a very active um front along uh Row Street there and entrance into the project. And we do connect here. There's this is an ADA uh offloading area right here. So here and here would also connect to the existing uh facilities. Now look at amenities. So we provide dog wash station uh our dog park, a pet wash, pickle ball court, fitness area, game room, community lounge, large outdoor patios, and private patios at all units. Uh here's our pickle ball court in front of uh that phase one community room and then the dog park here with the community room and patio uh on the north building. And here's the patio uh for that southern building. I just showed this real briefly to illustrate the amenities on the interior. So this would be your community lounge, community kitchen off the patio, and then a double height vaulted space and then fitness room above. And this is at at the southern building. At the northern building, we have three levels of amenities. community lounge, kitchen, uh game room, and a fitness room. At level three, uh open space, we're providing about double the open space required, about 15,500 square ft with the requirement of 8,300. So, we're we're heavily amenized and heavily open spaced on this project. Now, looking at setbacks on the north side, so we have 35 ft from the property line to the building. Uh the level two and three balconies do project out about 2 feet. So about 33 feet um effectively at level two and three 45 ft in the northeast corner is that property line steps back a little bit further and the drive is straightened out. So even an increased landscape buffer there. This image on the upper right is the

structure that you see right here which is essentially a garage with an ADU on it. So this is not the primary dwelling of that lot which is located right here. Uh so it is a small uh what's effectively used as an ADU currently. uh this neighbor did attend the neighborhood meeting, did not object to the the project as they're involved in development themselves and understand the need for housing and density. And then here on the east end, we have a 93 foot setback to the the singlestory structure. So this piece is one story for the bike parking. Everything from the stair and over is threetory. And then we have 109 ft here. And then here we have that 61 ft to the building. And if you take away those projections on those balconies, about 596. So fairly ample uh spacing from that property line. Uh section looking on Ro Street here on the left about 108 ft, you know, from providing that amenity space and really opening up to embracing people coming into the project. And then on the right here, uh, that where that note C is, uh, that's we're about 61 foot6, um, back from those existing single family residents. A few views of the elevation, which we can get into in more detail, uh, wherever commissioner would like to go with that. Uh, here again, the same as view as that section. This is just showing an elevation. Uh, we do have tucked under garages, a lot of stone and and good quality materials on the ground floor. And then here on the the west elevation, this is the Rose Street elevation. So this is that two-story community space, double height volume, um threetory community space, and then we have that shared uh mew if you will or PO through both of those buildings. And looking at a few renderings, so this is that same entrance that you saw earlier in the existing photos with the meandering sidewalk. So, we are keeping

that and integrating that into the the pathway around the project. Here's that uh entrance uh pickle ball court and that heavily landscaped area between the buildings. And this is that patio, you know, here and here. So, a lot of activity going on here. We think this will be a really quality environment for seniors. So, this is building to the north facing Rose Street. And now this is that southeast corner um looking northwest. Now, here's that singlestory bike parking uh structure that's about uh 90 ft or so from the property line to the east. So with that, I'll stand for questions. We are excited to bring this project to the valley. We feel that it'll provide a lot of needed housing for seniors and incorporate well within the given context of the current site and the opportunity that this vacant 2acres provides.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. Anything else from your team? You're good. You'll have rebuttal if you if there's necessary to just have we did have the landowner sign up to speak, but uh that'll during public testimony. Okay, fine. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh we'll next turn our attention to the neighborhood association. This is the Northwest No Association and Richard Llewellyn who's not in attendance um or online. So, making sure nobody from the neighborhood association. Okay. All right. With that, we'll go ahead and turn it over to the commission for questions before we come back to public comment or public testimony. Any questions, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Torres.

U my question is for the applicant. Um so we received late correspondence from one of the neighbors who was concerned about several things, but one of the things he was concerned about was the proximity on the east end to their west property line where the the parking would be. cars would be he was concerned about car exhaust. Um I'm sorry, they were concerned about car exhaust. They were also concerned about potential smells from the trash trash enclosures in that area. Um I believe they also mentioned the pickle ball courts and concerns about that as well. Um I just wanted to give you an opportunity to address those concerns and and see if you've had any discussions with him about how to mitigate those.

Mr. Commissioner uh Commissioner Torres, appreciate the question. Um to take those one at a time. So east end parking. So we are currently meeting the 10-ft neighborhood buffer plus a 5ft sidewalk and then we have the the parking there. So uh we're meeting the intent of the code as far as separating those vehicles from that property line. U you know there are plenty of examples where you're a lot closer than that uh to an adjacent parking lot. And so I we don't anticipate that being a a big challenge from a vehicle exhaust standpoint. Um as far as smells in the trash enclosure, we that was a very direct as I mentioned earlier concern of a a neighbor where we had the trash enclosure exterior uh out there. So we have brought the enclosures internal uh to waste rooms. Those by code have to be vented and we don't anticipate any challenges with that as far as especially somebody who's 100 ft away to be able to have any impact on the smell of the trash room.

Okay, other questions. Uh yeah, chair Mr. Stansk. Sorry, it's another follow-up question to the applicant. Hi. Thanks. I know there's a lot of us who's talking. Um, can you explain how this trash room works? I I haven't lived in an apartment building. So, they have the trash shoot that will go down in into the one of these trash rooms,

right? [clears throat] And but then what are these other like this exterior trash room that's near the parking in the lower right hand corner? White. Yeah. Right there. How How does the trash Nope, the other the one the one that's white in the Nope, sorry, you were down bottom right hand corner. Yeah. How How does the trash get there? And is that how is that enclosed? Mr. Commissioner, Commissioner Stech. Got it. [laughter] Great. I appreciate the question. Um, so the question is about the external trash enclosure. Yeah, this external one. I get the internal ones and that, but there's another one here. or what? Tell me more about that.

Yeah. Uh it's a standard trash enclosure 12 x 18 typical that you'd see in any multif family project. I mean it's it's above and beyond what's currently being provided that there is not an existing trash enclosure currently. Um this would be what you Whoops. Uh sorry I goofed you up there Matt. Well

I I can see it. I'm looking on my screen. the so typically those are built you know CMU wall or something to that effect with an opening on that east end and that's where there's a sidewalk there to that opening which then somebody can enter throw their trash away and exit. We do need to make them accessible so enough space there to be able to navigate around those three yard bins and then dur on trash day that is Republic Services comes up front picks backs up and then loops around that road. Okay. But the trash in the trash room, does that have to get from there to there or do they pick it up in the trash room?

Yeah. So, completely separate. So, the the exterior trash enclosure in white that you see there is only servicing the two existing buildings, not servicing the existing uh the the new proposed construction at all. Those buildings are serviced with the internal trash rooms. So, it's two bins with trash shoots. So, your people level three aren't dragging bags of trash, you know, through the hallway. Um, we worked extensively with uh with public services on this. The bins will be rolled out by property management and that we have ballards against the building to prevent damage to the building. It we have 22 feet. You need 16 to allow a a car, vehicle or truck to get by. And then that leaves the 8 ft for the uh or sorry 6 feet for the yes 8t for the dumpster bin to sit there temporarily. And then that's once it's picked by Republic Services, then it's moved back in by staff management, property management, uh, back into the crash room. We do have to always have one bin under the shoots at all times and and we've worked through that with Republic.

Okay, cool. Thanks for explaining how that all works. Yeah, and both buildings have the same condition, same situation, two separate trash rooms. So, three total trash enclosures, if you will. And then the the one in white here, that's the one you talked about in your presentation about moving because of how you had to change the driveway. Is that was Well, the actually it was in the northeast corner that we had one originally. This sort of came up later actually. We were already submitted. Uh then

yeah uh so the that came up later from Republic Services about hey the we won't service that that bin because we need to back up and so we were you know asking well can't you come in here turn back up you know like a you know this is a hammerhead if you will right but they won't back up and on a radius that's the the crux of the issue so we needed a pay to be able to have them service the existing enclosures um within the context of of what we had in this layout. And then so this extra one, does it have a wall around it? Yes. Yeah, it's a full enclosure. CMU wall, metal gate um visibly screened. Cool. Thank you. Sorry for all that.

Oh, thanks for the question, Mr. Schaer. Thank you. Yeah. So, just to clarify, so that is the one on the southeast corner there. That is just a standard CMU. It's not a fully enclosed building. No. Yeah, it's a open air typical open air enclosure. Couple of bins inside. Correct. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I believe that was the one that the late correspondents was referring to and that I was referring to just to clarify. So, um I do have another question though.

Um understanding these are designed for people be to be able to potentially age in place, um you know, housing for elderly Boyceians, can you address affordability? You've heard me ask it about the other two projects today. Um, are these going to be available for sale, for rent? Do you know what they're roughly going to go to? And will any of the units be deed restricted to meet some kind of lower AMI than, you know, whether it's 80, 60, 50, what have you. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Commissioner Torres, appreciate the question and your uh diligence on on those questions. to each applicant. Uh these would be for rent uh market rate. So they are not intended to be deed restricted or for sale.

Follow up on that. Do you know roughly I know I know everybody dodges this question, but I will ask it again anyway. Do you know roughly what they might rent for? I know obviously the market rates can fluctuate and all that, but do you have a rough idea what we're what you're thinking as far as those go?

Yeah, I think Mr. Commissioner, Commissioner Torres. Um, the reality is that we need to make these projects pencil. I mean, you know, at the end of the day, it's expensive to build and we're I mean, yes, we are a business to make a profit, but we also are trying to provide a great product as well. And so, it's the nexus point of, you know, where does that that market rent and the amenities that we're providing and the value that we're giving, how does that, you know, from a how does the consumer see that as value, you know? So, I don't have a specific number, but um you know, it's infill projects are expensive. You know, I mean, you you're still paying for the sewers, you're paying for the road, you're paying for the water, and you're only, you know, spreading that out over, you know, 44 units. I mean, at the end of the day, it sounds like a lot, but uh but those costs run up quick. And we are with the infrastructure improvements that we're making to Rose Street, which is only going to further aid the the compact development to that western side as far as bringing up the sewer, the new 8 in water line in in Rose Street. I mean, those are costs that we're having to bear now and are going to, you know, be an economic driver in the future.

So, I'm going to ask a quick followup and it might be for both of you real quick on on this related note here. Um, so I know in our staff report I see uh a senior living complex is the intention. I only I think I only saw that written though once and it might have only been in your section. So can you verify that that's the intention of this project that it is a senior living and I'm guessing what is the I'm approaching 50 so please be gentle. Was it going to be 55? It's gonna be 55, isn't it?

Mr. Chair, I appreciate your comments. the uh so this came up early on uh you know Mark Maxfield who you hear from earlier is the current owner of the cottages owns and operates the facility uh he doesn't want 25-year-olds speeding a car through here and you know both posing a risk to his current residents and not aligning to that vision of you know the the holistic of the pro the holist of the project. So it is yes intended for seniors. It's not age restricted, you know. So, we're not it's not if you're if you're not 55, you can't live here, you know. It's it's the it's the intent to do that without putting a specific restriction to it. And however, we are happy to if there's a mechanism of tightening that up somehow that that commission or staff would want to do, I mean, we're open to that.

Um, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the applicant has proposed a multif family development. So the um part of the condition use permit is that it's changing the the nature of an approved use uh to allow for the multif family for the northern portion of that site to be developed with modern u multif family not uh assisted living. So that was taken into consideration in this the CP modification and the standards as far as most most things that are going to be required through design review things like open space um parking that will all all those criteria will be under the multif family development

and I if I could Mr. shared clarified these are uh independent living. So this is not assisted. There's no Yeah. So so it is it does function as a multif family you know for the use of it but the the the market that we're intending to live there is the senior. Got it. I got it. Okay. I think commissioner say you had a question.

I I guess maybe I'm a little confused. Yes. Um Mr. Chair, I I do have a question. Um the application provided and the staff report and the staff report also speak to the fact that um one building could be individually or let's see one would be rent a rental uh structure multif family and the other one would be individually owned. But yet what I heard um you say when Commissioner Torres asked you said they were all going to be rentals.

Mr. Commissioner, Commissioner say uh that is correct and the initial intent was that we were going to have half of the buildings be a for sale product and half of for rent. We've since revised that to full for rent. Okay. I didn't see that in the application. Mr. Commissioner uh Sea, thanks for bringing that up. The um mention of that in the project report was taken straight from the letter of intent. And so there's no um although there's been a a change in the plan, there's no condition that would uh affect uh the the ownership versus versus renters of of the 44 units that are proposed. Mr. Chair, if I may, as

Yeah, please go ahead. Joe Dodson, planner with the project team. Um I guess my home address 1027 West 12 Meridian. So the other component of that would be which is a great question as well and I did include that in the letter of intent. They still have that option. The owner still has that option after the preliminary plat is approved because we would be condo platting it was the original intent which had done through the short plat process. So it's not that we're prohibiting ourselves or the city is prohibiting us from doing that. It's just not part of the current proposal. But I do know that the owner has discussed having that option in the future. But you're right that is not reflected in the narrative that the more recent changes to keep it for rent for now. Y okay other questions Mr. Chair

Mr. Stallings uh question for the applicant on the IL senior living.

How does the lack of that definition but your target audience fit into equal housing and fair fair housing law? Can I ask that? Mr. Commissioner, Commissioner Stallings, that's a good question. Uh, we are we are letting the market decide on how that's going to be best fit, you know, for the we're we're balancing that act. I mean, the intent is we can't say no, only these types of people can live here, and we're not deed restricting it or making it an age restricted uh development. uh we're going to mitigate the the intent is to attract that senior community uh to the project. Outside of that, I mean, there's not really much we can do to stay within those fair housing guidelines. The oddity is is I think if it's declared 55 and over, it actually covers what your concern is because if it's unofficial and you therefore say to someone who's 49, you can't be here, then it could be what you're trying to get at. There's the oddity.

Mhm. That the [clears throat] whole other s that's not gerine to this particular hearing but it's you know I think part of what the concern of the commission is especially given in the application we hear that is intended to be a senior complex you know and the intent especially near the memory care facility or the assisted living and all of that. So the p the the the the march of age if you will is part of the discussion I think.

Mr. Commissioner, if I may, the uh product type I think is going to also drive that. These are one and twobedroom units. Uh so we don't have three and fourbedroom family units. So that is a component of that. Very good. Other questions? Like you might had one, Mr. Schaper. Yeah.

Okay. I [clears throat] think I'll start with Matt, but it might come to you guys, too. Um Matt, what's the story? I was curious about the streetscape on Row and the existing sidewalk, meandering sidewalk, but I see on the survey there's a 25 foot storm drain easement and it looks like that runs the entirety of Row Street because I notice the new developments to the south. They don't have any street trees uh in the planter strip. Is that all driven by this is a kind of unusual, right? What's what's the story there?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaefer. Yeah, that is a good point. Um so breaking this off into two portions of the sidewalk um through the planning you know through the planning team's review was it was determined that since no development is occurring on the southern half of the site that there's not the proportionality to require detached sidewalks there um new detached sidewalks. So focusing on the northern portion where the development is proposed. Um as you said uh so the applicant um submitted a waiver request a sidewalk waiver request because Ro Street is a local street so its standard improvement would be 8 foot wide detached 8 foot wide landscape buffer 5 foot wide detached sidewalk.

So this um and as Mr. Wheeler alluded to as well this sidewalk is recently installed. Um it's 5t wide. It does meander but it meanders around infrastructure the storm drain storm drainage. It also meanders around existing street trees. So that was kind of you know taken into consideration as far as the nexus of new versus existing infrastructure.

Gotcha. Okay. And do you know I I don't recall another situation where we have a storm drain ement like this. It's kind of unusual, right? Because it again I looked at that development to the south. That's fairly new as well. They must have that same condition. Is this just a unique Is Street unusual with that for some reason? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaefer, I I can't speak for Rose Street entirely. Um, but I can speak for the shape and the location of the easement is is is rare. Um, it's not the having a storm drainage easement adjacent to the ride ofway like that on the subject or on the on private property is rather rare.

Yeah. And maybe you John would know too is that is AC it's an ACD storm drainage easement. Yes, that's correct. Yeah. And in the ACD report their recommendation was to straighten the north half and keep the south half meandering which I touched on earlier which just seems in congruent to a cohesive development plan especially when the sidewalks in great condition. You know it it adds uh it adds value to the project rather than takes away. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Okay, Mr. Sure. One question, Commissioner Moore.

I haven't done any of this one. Um, so that kind of just to follow up on Commissioner Schaer's line of questioning. So, ACD wants to straighten out that sidewalk. You guys don't. What's the city's

Mr. Chair, uh, Commissioner Moore, thanks for bringing that up. So ACD's agency comments did not require uh any modification to the to the sidewalk other than the northern and southern portions that they terminate at the northern southern property lines, not out to the street. So that was the only sight specific condition. The determination of whether the existing sidewalk meets code and and would be granted a waiver was determined by the planning team, not ACD. So ACT's only conditions were to have the sidewalk terminate on the northern and southern property line so that it continue it can continue because right now it it dumps out onto back onto Rose Street at the curb line on the northern and southern portions.

Okay. So Mr. Chair, Commission, the city is okay with it meandering that you just wanted to terminate on the sides instead of at the street. Commissioner Moore, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay, last call. Looks like we're good. Okay, we're going to go ahead and uh turn this over to the public testimony. I have one person signed up and that person is Mark's Mark Maxfield. Where you want to testify, you're more than welcome to. If you do name and address for the record, you'll have three minutes.

Good evening, [clears throat] commissioners. Mark Maxwell, 6300 North Row. Actually very excited to be here tonight. I know my time's limited, so I'll be be brief. Um, I am the CEO and owner of the Cottages, Assisted Living and Memory Care, the other facilities that that was in reference there. I've been doing that for 25 years, 22 buildings through the Treasure Valley, starting from Weezer all the way through up to Mountain Home. I'm been on the National Assist Living Board for 12 years, current chair. Before that, I was on the Idol Healthcare Association board for 13 years and chair. I tell you all that just to tell you that this has been my life's work. This is all I do is senior housing, senior care issues. If I'm an expert at anything, it's these type of issues. You guys know as well as anyone since 2010, 10,000 people a day have been turning 65. That first 65 year old is now turning 80 this year. And we're going to have a serious need for housing and places for seniors to go to. Currently, there's like I think 13.7 million people in the country over the age of 80. In 25 years, that's going to double the 30 million. Where are they going to go? What sort of services are we have for them? And that's why I'm in favor of this this project. I'm the owner of the land there. Initially, it was planned and approved for a five building assist living there. I I think it would do well. I could fill it. However, because of current staffing requirements, it makes sense to have smaller campuses than have them in various parts of the city just to do better at staffing, which is always a problem as you know. Um, yeah, I I I think this project is good for the community. My vision is that we'll be 55 plus. If there's laws or codes that prevent me from saying that, so be it. That's what we'll attract. That's what we want to be there. be a nice transition from those that want to

move on to cross the parking lot to assist living in memory care. Um, I think it helps seniors. Many seniors stay in their homes too long, they fall, break a hip, they skip assist living, they go right to skilled nursing. This will help provide at least a small part in helping those that want to age in place and transition to that their housing needs. So, um, I'm excited about it, but of course I stand for for questions, please. Great. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. I have nobody else on the signup sheet, but anybody who wishes to testify, um, more than welcome to come on up and yep, please on please do. And if all I ask is you, uh, state your name and your address for the record and you will have three minutes.

Then if you can pull that microphone down a little bit, that

My name is Von Clark. I live at 6475 North Fairfax Avenue and I'm uh I'm on the east I we live on the uh east property line and uh I attended the neighborhood meeting and uh Andrew here told me to fly a balloon to see about my height and proximity concerns. And so I did that and we found it to be objectionable. The particularly the phase one aspect of this the eastern the east facing uh building the height and proximity are they're objectionable. They're too they're too close to my backyard. And um let me see here. We um we had a an overall concern too about the height and proximity of the east facing building. But uh we also were worried about the parking lot along the east property line. Our west property line. It's right on the other side of our fence. And uh as it was brought out before, uh the exhaust and the the the noise we find objectionable and we would ask you to uh disallow this. It seems to be that that east facing building, if they would eliminate the the pickle ball courts or the dog park, it might be where they could shift the whole

building. Shift the whole complex to the to the west away from our property line and that height of th those inhabitants peering down at us. and uh so close to our our property line that we we just we suggest that they eliminate either the dog park or the pickle ball court or both and shift the whole complex west. And we're uh let me see I also the parking lot along the east property line and the garbage dumpster sites to us are intrusive. We live just west of uh well we the phase one building is uh is our greatest concern. the east facing phase one building the height and proximity and I'll just leave it at that. All right.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Thank you for hanging out with us. Okay. Anybody in the back want to testify? We're good. All right. I I don't think anybody else is online. So, with that, we'll go ahead and you'll have five minutes for rebuttal if you'd like. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, uh um Mr. Clark, appreciate your comments. Um I wanted to note that uh at the neighborhood meeting when I touched on earlier that we had the Matt, could we get that presentation up real quick? Can I? Um we had the project actually flipped, we did not have that northwest in entrance. So we didn't have a loop road around there and actually the buildings were north south oriented. That's what we showed at the neighborhood meeting. So this project, imagine it's rotated 90 degrees and we had the whole broadside of that building facing the east and then we had the dog park in that pocket to the north and then in the northeast corner we had the pickle ball court. So for all the reasons of stepping back the building and trying to limit the uh width of the building that fronts the eastern side as well as pull all of the noise mitigation me dog park on fences, pickle ball court up against there. uh we pulled all that to the opposite side and created more of that entrance focal point. So I just wanted to highlight that that was a big part of of the benefits of going to this plan. Um on the there also is a we are proposing a new fence uh along that. I realize that's a a six-foot fence. It doesn't fully address the concerns but u that is part of the plan. Uh the landscape plan if I can time me out on this here [clears throat] if I can go to that real quick here. Yeah. So here again you know we have 35

foot trees all along the eastern boundary full you know 25 foot canopies 40 foot trees in the northeast corner and then 40 foot trees on the north side. So this is a very heavily densified from a a landscape perspective. Also when you're looking at the existing an existing photo here on the lower right so actually Mr. Clark's uh residence is I believe the arborite there on the on the right. So there's already uh intense screen uh currently existing. So that is not something we're providing obviously is just an existing condition. That's worth worth noting. I'd also like to note that in the R1C zone, which is what is surrounding this property, three stories is allowed and you're never going to put in most cases, you're not going to have a 60 foot buffer on an R1C zone in a three-story structure. So I mean the fact that we're providing that much of a a buffer in the at the smallest portion when we have 109 ft to you know 93 feet and we're being very sensitive to uh those adjacent uses. I think we're addressing the concerns uh as best as we're able. Uh any infill project is going to have some contentious issues with nearby residents. Um, and we're looking at serving the the greater good of the city and doing our best to mitigate the challenges that it's imposing on on neighbors in the in the surrounding area. And our intent is fully to to be good neighbors and to provide a great project. So, it is not to to simply shove this project uh down anyone's throats by any means. Um, the trash enclosure uh there is a mitigation measure that we could do that may help. You can see here that the trash enclosure is tucked pretty far back here. uh you know our our radius for that fire would would kind of roll about here. So we could probably you know push

that trash enclosure a little bit further away. You know get another 5t maybe 8 feet uh from there just to increase that buffer and potentially increase some know heavier landscaping around that as well.

Mr. Chair Mr. Sh I know it's unusual to ask a question at this time but I just it's Germaine to his presentation right now. So I was hoping to just make one clarification. Okay. Whoever Germaine is just kidding. Go ahead Mr. Wheeler. I just want to make sure the um the parking canopies. Are they flat roofed? Is this a It might just be a graphic representation. It looks like a hip roof in the plans, but I think that might just be more to show that there are covered parking is the and then the the rendering show a flat roofed canopy. Is that the intention that there are flat roof canopy?

Mr. Commissioner, Commissioner Schaefer. Yes. Good eye. That Okay. Yes, that uh is shown graphically as a hip roof. Uh we likely will do them as a flat roof. Uh we are open to either option. Uh, you know, I mean, I think a flat roof, especially on the east end, is going to be a better fit. So, yeah, we definitely do that. And we would make them all the same for just simplicity. Sure. Sure. And that's where I was going with it, right? The gable or a hip roof structure is much more visually intrusive, right? Correct. So, high side on the west, low side on the east. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah.

Or, Mr. Chair. Okay. We good. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you very much. That concludes the hearing portion and the item is before the commission. Um bear with me. We have four different things here uh that we need to decide on or suggest uh to council on one or the other. So let's see. We have comprehensive plan amendment and a reszone both of which would be recommendations to council. We have a modification to a conventional use permit that would be us and then the preliminary plat uh which is also going to be recommendation to council. So one of us one is deciding CP25-21 the other three are recommendations to council. I say you have an I second [laughter] with the first [clears throat]

Commissioner Schaefer.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to approve CUP25-21 and recommend approval of CPA2-4, C25-14, and SUB25-42 with all of the terms and conditions as stated in the staff report. Uh, Matt, do we have to have any specific language with regard to the extension of the sidewalk? I think we've got that in our terms and conditions. Okay. Just making sure. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer. We have a recommendation uh to approve CP25-21 and recommend approval for the other three that would go to council. Is there a second?

Second. Thank you. But thank you, Commissioner Seahas. We have a second by Commissioner Tor or Seha. Is there any comm any uh discussion?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Safer. Uh, yeah, I'll be brief. Um, Mr. Wheeler, appreciate the presentation and and ownership. Appreciate the presentation tonight. Um, yeah, I have very little very little concerns honestly about the project. I think the site plan and the arrangement of everything looks really uh really positive. Um, you know, the the amenities to the west side I think are an appropriate move. Um, just given a bit more active, you have a little more noise activity. Pickle ball is a very loud activity. So, I think pushing those amenities to the west side and creating that entrance into the development is a good move and I think it protects the neighbors to the east with some more privacy. Um, to that end though, um, of course, as you mentioned, Mr. Wheeler, there are always impacts to surrounding neighborhoods um, with developments like this and, um, you know, I think when I look at it, I understand Mr. Clark's concerns and I appreciate those. But um you know the buildings are set you know well beyond the minimum setback for either the R1A the existing zone or the proposed R2 zone. So we're um I think that you've done a nice job creating separation for the main structures to the adjacent developments and existing homes. Um, and I think at the end of the day that uh parking on that east boundary is more appropriate than some of those more active uses like the dog park which could create some more noise on a regular basis and or the pickleball court. So, um I appreciate also the efforts to uh study and maybe potentially push that trash enclosure a bit further from that property line. I think the neighbors would appreciate that. So, I would encourage you guys to really encourage to explore that in greater detail. Uh but all in all, I think the use is appropriate for the ground. This is an infill development that the city is supportive of and um in support of the motion. Thank you,

Commissioner Schaefer. Any other comments? Ready to go? Very good. Okay. I'm just going to make a quick one. I appreciate you coming out, Mr. Clark and and I don't normally address anybody specifically, but I think given the circumstances, I think it's important to do so. I think um what the applicant [clears throat] pointed out and also what Commissioner Schaefer pointed out is is important. This ground is zoned right now R1A, right? And so as per our existing code right now, anybody could come in, including the applicant, the land owner, and build standard homes, right? standard single family home up to 35 feet. And the rear yard setback in that zone is 20 feet. Which means that from your fence line to basically the end of where they're proposing to put the the the the parking stall would be roughly 20 feet could be the beginning of a 35- ft structure. Right? that's per code right now could be done which would be right a lot closer to what's being proposed and so um I agree with Commissioner Schaefer I I think that the project is a good one we clearly need the product in the age and place notion of things um so I commend you on that I I understand your concerns I hope this at least helps a little bit with the explanation I think that your your arriva their landscape plan and the setback should be a pretty good thing. And they're not going to have a bunch of parters unless they're Commissioner Schaefer in their 60s playing pickle ball. So, all right. Anyway, all right. Will the clerk please call the role?

Danley, I Schaefer. Yes. Deha. I. Torres, I don I Dings. Yes. Stefanic. Yes. All in favor? Motion carried. Great. That concludes this evening's meeting. Thank you.