Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening everybody 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. So the item you're interested in comes up for discussion. You'll be called upon and unmuted. There is a chat function in Zoom. However, this is not part of the record and should only be used if technical difficulties arise. Our procedures for public hearings begins with a presentation from the planning team. Then we'll go to the applicant and then the reg representative of the registered neighborhood association followed by questions from the commission. After that we proceed to public testimony starting with those who are in person, then who sign up on the signup sheet in advance and then anyone else who raises their hand virtually. If you're attending through your telephone, you can type in star9 to raise your hand. Each member of the public is allowed up to three minutes for testimony and we are strict at this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal after which the hearing will be closed and the commission will deliberate and render a decision. Madam chair, you have the floor.

Good evening. We are citizen volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. We make final decisions on conditional use permits, variances, and appeals and recommendations to the city council on subdivisions, 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's important that you 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 there's no other opposition, the item will be placed on the consent agenda. All items that are placed on the consent agenda are approved with one motion without further public comment. For items not on the consent agenda, we will hold a full public hearing in the order just detailed a few minutes ago with staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and then the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please call the role?

Stanley Moore here. Schaefer. Deha here. Torres here. Don here. Stallings Stefons here.

Five present, three absent. Sorry, my uh deal is not muted. Moving through the consent agenda. Look like we don't have any minutes. So, we'll move right on to new business. Number one, we will be hearing. Number two, we have SUV 26-11. Um, this is Denidge Bench subdivision at 5309 West Denton Street. It's a prelim preliminary and final plat for a residential subdivision comprised of two buildable lots on 39 acres in an R1C residential traditional zone. Um, is the applicant present and are you in agreement with terms and condition of staff report? Perfect. Let the record show that the applicant is and is there anybody in chambers or online that wishes to testify in opposition to item number two SUV 26-11? Please raise your hand um either in person or virtually. Seeing none, I move that we place item number two on the consent agenda. And next up is item number three, SUB26-7 for Vernon subdivision. It's at 92 or 1910 South Leadville Avenue. It's a preliminary and final plat for a residential subdivision comprised of two buildable lots on point 22 acres in an R1C residential traditional zone. Uh is the applicant present tonight?

And are you in agreement with the parents and condition staff report? Yes, we are. All right. Great. So, let the record show the applicant is present in agreement with the staff report. And is there anybody in chambers or online that wishes to testify in opposition to item number three SUV 26-7? Please raise your hand either in person or virtually. Seeing none, move that we place item number three on the consent agenda. And item number four, we are hearing. So with that, I will will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, Commissioner Stefonic. Um,

can I motion to approve the consent agenda? and a second. Second. So, I have a motion to approve the consent agenda consisting of items number two and three. Will the clerk please call the role? Moore, yes. Deha, yes. Hores, yes. Don, yes. Stons, yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Great. Um, good luck with your projects. Moving on to item number one, SUV 25-52 for Eastport industrial subdivision. Uh 2392 East Windco Court is preliminary plat for an industrial subdivision comprised of seven buildable lots on approximately 78.2 2 acres in an I1 AIO WUIO FPO industrial light with airport influence overlay wildland urban interface overlay and floodplane protection overlay zone. Mr. Moser,

thank you Madame Chair, members of the commission. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plant for an industrial subdivision comprised of seven buildable lots on 78.2 2 acres located at 2392 East Wind Cohort in the I want AIO WIO FPO which is uh translates into light industrial within the airport area wland urban interface and flood plane overlays. The central property is approximately 78 acres located on the west side of Eisman Road within an industrial area. However, the Blue Valley community is located adjacent to the north. Windco distribution center is is located to the south and there is vacant land and railroad tracks to the west. Fivemile creek runs along the northeast corner of the property and land use designation is industrial and is located within the airport planning area and the airport airport influence area B. This slide shows the site plan and the plenary plant which is a seven lot industrial subdivision which will contain seven large warehouses totaling approximately over 1 million square feet. The overall industrial development and site plan was approved with designer review application back in 2022. This includes a large large landscape buffer along the north property line. Since the overall development was approved with designer view application, the overall site grading and construction of the warehouse located on the north side of Windco have already started along with general site grading. The subdivision includes the construction of a new public roadways, private service drives, service parking lots and landscaping. The project will dedicate rightaway to extend Windco Court through the property intersecting with warehouse way. Warehouse way will be constructed utilizing the existing rideway. The proposed public street design will include 41 ft roadways as measured from back to back from back to curb back to curb within 71 ft of rideway street sections. The street design will also include 5-ft detach sidewalks, 8oot landscape buffers along both sides of

warehouse way and Windco Court. The planning team did receive a letter of opposition from from the public expressing concerns of the grading and draining issues associated with the ongoing and future grading and construction on site. However, this letter was received after the deadline and was not a was not able to and the planning team was unable to transmit it to the commission. In summary, these concerns are genally are not directly related to the proposed subdivision at hand and involve storm water and drainage concerns. Boise City Public Works is working with the applicant to address the neighbors concerns on this matter. In conclusion, the project complies with the dimensional standards of the I1 zone and the planning team recommends approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we will hear from the applicant. Come on up. Um, state your name and address and you'll have 10 minutes.

All right. Good evening, Madam Chair, commissioners. My name is Jeff Bower. My address is 601 West Banic and Boisey here tonight on behalf of the property owner and applicant. Uh we do only have one application before you tonight. That's for a seven lot subdivision and we are requesting your recommendation of approval. We've reviewed the project report at length. We agree with staff's analysis that we meet all of the applicable subdivision standards and we also agree with all of the staff recommended conditions of approval. Don't want to belabor the point. staff did a great job, but we are on 78 acres um right across I 84 from the Micron campus. There are three existing parcels there today and we are seeking again subdivision of those three parcels into seven lots. On the west side of the property running north to south, you have the existing warehouse way and coming in from the east of the property is the public road court. In 2022, we did re receive a design review approval for the Eastport uh industrial project. This is sort of the culmination of that application. This is the approved site plan. It does have seven buildings totaling roughly 1.2 million square ft of industrial. You can see that we are extending warehouse way from it the current stub at the southwest corner of the property north uh through the site towards the blue valley community there. And we're also extending WCO Court from the east side of the property uh through the through the center of the property and ultimately intersecting with warehouse way. We are dealing with uh a large pipeline easement for the Marathon pipeline that runs diagonally through the property. So

we are preserving that easement. It's just north of the diagonal section there of Windco Court running through the property. As staff mentioned, um we have sought building permits already for this project. So buildings A, B, C, and D, those are those in the northwest, I'm sorry, northeast corner of the project. So everything north of WCO Court, those structures are all underway pursuant to a building permit, building permits I should say, where we have worked with city uh planning staff, engineering, public works to obtain approvals Here is uh sheet one of the preliminary plat we're requesting approval of. Again, seven lots in conformity with the light industrial zone. You can see the additional rideway being dedicated for the two public roads. Each of these lots and the orientation does meet the city standards. We are expecting this to be a phased project. Phase one, everything that's currently being constructed, and phase two will be the three buildings um on lots six, seven or five, six, and seven. Here's our landscape plan. We do have some enhanced landscape uh and that's a product of the design review. So conditions of approval were attached by city council through that process for enhanced landscaping on those uh industrial collectors. So we will have detached 5-ft sidewalks with 8 foot landscape buffers and class 2 trees spaced at 40 ft. And as staff mentioned, we do have a 50-foot landscape buffer on the north

boundary of the property uh up against the Blue Valley community. So, with that, uh, I'd stand for any questions, but we are asking for your approval tonight. This plat doesn't change the entitlements of this property to be used for an industrial project. It's only to put these buildings on separate lots. So, we're asking for your approval. Thank you. Thank you. And if you'll just hang tight for a minute, we'll move on to the neighborhood association, who is Linda Denelli. And I see a sign up, so I think you might be here tonight. All right, come on up. And um we'll just need your name and address and those 10 minutes.

Good evening. My name is Linda Puchinelli. I live at 2247 Blue Lake Lane. I am president of the Blue Valley Neighborhood Association and have lived in the Blue Valley mobile home park for many years. Our manufactured housing community is immediately moment. Sorry to interrupt. Can we I think she's signed up as the South Eisenman Neighborhood Association. Is that on our Are you the representative of the South? I am the I'm the president of the South Eisenman. Yes. Okay.

Okay. Perfect. Perfect. All right. Go ahead. Just for that clarification. Uh so anyway, uh our manufactured housing community is immediately adjacent to the proposed development area of Lincoln Properties. Blue Valley is not a vacant land. It is an existing residential community with longterm residents and families of approximately 450 who are directly affected by what occurs along this shared boundary to the south. Our concern tonight is not opposition to the development itself. Our concern is making sure that the storm water drainage safety, aesthetics, and long-term maintenance issues are fully addressed before construction proceeds further. We have previously experienced significant storm water impacts associated with Lincoln property construction activity and major disruptions to our lives. During prior storm events just this last year, runoff entered portions of Blue Valley and ultimately flowed into FiveMile Creek and muddied our lake. You and city staff have been provided over a long period of time pictures and news articles in the past showing and discussing these events. The area surrounding Blue Valley is sensitive from both a drainage and flood management standpoint. Because of that, we respectfully ask the city to ensure that complete drainage

plans are finalized and approved, that storm water is adequately retained and managed on site. that maintenance, easements, and access uh comply with city standards and that reasonable protection exists between the drainage and infrastructure and the homeowners at Blue Valley. Our goal is not to stop the project or create unnecessary delay. We simply want to ensure that existing residents are protected and future drainage and m or maintenance burdens are not shifted to our neighboring property owners. There are two more additional projects in the pipeline just south of uh Lincoln for approval that also could drain into FiveMile Creek and add additional silt and grime into our lake. At this point, we don't feel that guarantees are in place to prevent the recent issues from reoccurring. Thank you for hearing me out.

Thank you very much. And there may be some questions from the commission. So I wouldn't go too far, but next we'll have questions from the commission. So any questions? I don't chair. Commissioner Sea,

I have a question for planning staff. Can you I know that the application before us is the um approval of the preliminary plan, but can you just uh for some background, can you speak to storm water and how the city uh addresses um storm water? Madam Chair, members of the commission, with each building permit, a erosion control and storm water and drainage plan would be required. Um, it would be handled through the public works department, our drainage department, and they would review this. Um, and um, it would have to meet their appendix J of their storm water master plan or sections of their code. Um, I believe they even submitted a uh a comment report into this stating pretty much that a comprehensive um storm water plan must be submitted to them and approved and a drainage plan u prior to building permits. Um, which I believe did happen there and there was an incident I you know that happened last year. Storm public works is aware of it and is currently working with the applicant to address these issues.

Thank you very much. Other questions? Other questions? Yes, madam commissioner. Madam chair, commissioner stons.

Um, yeah, this is a question for staff. Is so is I see on our in our packet it says five mile creek and in the picture it's like a blue line. Is that an active perennial waterway or is that is it just a drain? I'm just like where does it start? Madam chair, members of commission, five mile creek in itself technically starts on the other side of the freeway. Um, and it flows through and down by micron crosses under the freeway and then flows underin this little section. and cuts up the corner of this parcel into uh blue the blue valley community kind of like where their pond is and then continues out. It there's not necessarily water in it year round. It's it takes in storm water or like rain water as needed, but there are times of the years it could definitely be dry. Um it doesn't pop in or it doesn't come in as an actual designated flood plane by FEMA standards until you get on to the west side of the freeway. So, but where Micron is, it may exist over there, but FEMA doesn't recognize it as a as a flood plane. It's not a regulated flood plane. Um, but it does does kind of wind through this area and it does cut a portion a very small portion of the subject property at at the corner, northeast corner.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Um, I have a question for for you, Mr. Moser. So um erosion and sediment control plan that's kind of intended to handle during construction right handle erosion sediment that happens during construction. Madam chair man commission that is correct my that's my understanding.

Okay and so that would kind of take care of kind of part one of concerns and then part two would be afterwards. I mean I think if I understand correctly city's drainage stand standards is to kind of retain all drainage or handle all drainage on site ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra rather than you what may be happening now which may not be compliant exactly madam chair members of commission that is also correct. Well I think I believe even in the sto the public works um comments it says that all drainage must be handled on site and that's a standard.

Perfect. So in um so based on this approval the drainage conditions any flow on site into five mile creek would actually improve after development um compliant madam or madam chair members commission that is correct this is you know this all the site is currently under construction so um when it gets completed then it'll it will it will have it will comply with all of these standards and they'll and the storm water will be retained on site.

And then um in relation I remember this DR uh this DR hearing or the DR appeal a couple years ago. It's complying with all the conditions of DR approvals and all that stuff. We're just looking at the property lines and things like that at this point. Madam Chair, members of the commission, that is correct. It's complying with all those requirements and it will have to comply still comply with all those requirements moving forward.

Perfect. Awesome. Well, thank you very much. One last over for questions. Awesome. Seeing none, um, we'll go to the signup sheet. I'm assuming that you are good. You don't want to speak on behalf of the public anymore. So, moving to the next person, I have Mark Redmond. If you want to come up, you'll have three minutes. I just Okay, perfect. Well, I have nobody else on my signup sheet. Uh but if there's anybody else in the chambers who would like to speak on this, please come on up. If you'll speak your name and your address, you'll have three minutes.

So Mike Walker, uh 5808 West Little Feather Eagle, Idaho, and I am uh part owner in Blue Valley Mobile Home Park. And I'd like to read the letter that was sent by our managing owner of Blue Valley. It was the one that was referred to earlier. Um, Blue Valley is an existing residential community immediately bordering the the proposed development area. We remain concerned that the important storm water drainage and long-term maintenance issues may not yet be fully resolved as construct construction progresses along the shared boundary as reflected in the photographs. Unfortunately, I don't have the photographs, but I could point it out to you and I could explain some of the things that you guys were referring to with regards to the issues we've had during rain events uh and things that were not contained on site. Uh early the area is highly sensitive to storm water flow, drainage impacts. Um in the the the footage you'll you could see in the um pictures that were emailed. I'm sorry it missed the deadline. It was Friday. Um, if you look along that whole uh east border, I'm sorry, uh, south border. I don't know if they could pull up the map, but um, we had water going underneath trailers. We had water and sediment going into our lake. Um, and yeah, there's two different things you talked about. One was the sediment from, you know, pre uh, construction or during construction. Yes, they have to keep that water on their lot once it's built. Um, and we've got issues with other neighbors that do not do that, but it has not been kept on their lot during that. So, feeding into our lake, it's not a pond. Uh, has killed fish and other uh bird wildlife. Um, and no matter, we've had no, they tell us

they're going to stop it, but there's been no remedy, nothing to help the situation with our lake, which was used to be a nice clear lake. Um, so, you know, I what we're looking for, the same thing that Linda spoke about earlier, is to figure out some type of way to keep this water on their lawn. And if you look at that boundary that we we uh border with them, initially they had told us that that water is going to flow to the the the west. Sorry, getting my directions all messed up. But if you stand on that area there, there's a hump in the middle. That water is not going to flow. It's going to flow back to Five Mile Creek. Then some of it gonna some will flow to the the park. So it's it's difficult to see. And then the only thing they have for a drainage system there is a a dirt V that they put in the in the ground. So that would easily be washed away. Nothing in that V is going to contain it from going into the the residents that border that area. Um I'd be happy to answer more questions for you on it. Uh but I think I've I've covered as best I could. Um nothing has been done to remedy that situation. and looking at if you were to go walk that that area and just look at the boundary they've proposed

that boundary will not keep the water and that is the end of your time. Thank you very much. Um seeing are there any more people in person who would like to testify on this item? Seeing none, I'll move to online. I see two people online. If there's anybody online that would like to testify on this item, please raise your hand. All right, seeing none, um we will close the public or no, sorry, we'll have the rebuttal. Um so next you have five minutes to rebut and speak to those blams.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeff Bower, 601 West Banic. I'll just touch on the drainage issues. That seems to be the primary concern. We did have an unfortunate event during some mass grading. I think about a year ago where on-site water had been sort of retained via Burm and that burm collapsed essentially and we did have some water leave the site. As far as I know, that was a one-time event that was remedied. Um I think today we're here talking about a go forward solution. And so as part of the four building pit permits approved for A, B, and C, public works has required that we submit a comprehensive drainage plan for the entire site. So an engineered drainage plan has been provided that indicates how the entire site will drain. That was approved by public works prior to issuing us a building permit. The drainage plan for this project is a series I believe of 11 uh basins and infiltration. As part of our comprehensive plan, we did dig extensive test pits throughout the property to calculate infiltration rates. So we have done the engineering and there is a plan in place to deal with uh drainage for this project. Um I think the other question was who will maintain um the drainage facilities as well as the landscaping boundaries. This project will have a a essentially a a community HOA um industrial in nature, but all of our landscaping and the uh buffer areas will be maintained per city requirements uh by a management company employed by an HOA. So, with that, I'd stand for any questions if there are any.

Awesome. Well, no more questions at this time. Um, so we'll close the public hearing and the item is before the commission. And as a reminder, uh, we are the recommending body for this subdivision.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Seasic. Uh, yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve uh sub25-52 Eastport Industrial Subdivision on 2392 East WCO Port um with all the recommended conditions of approval um as stated. Perfect. And I also have a motion to recommend approval. Do I have a second? Madam Chair, just to clarify, he we need to recommend approval, not approve. Thank you. Was that a second? Sure. I'll second. Thank you. Perfect. So, I have a motion to approve or recommend approval and a second. Is there any discussion?

Um, yeah. I would just like to uh note that uh all of the conditions here were met and they're following the process uh necessary to address all of the concerns uh of the community and the u storm water runoff. um going through that process I think is is essential and and part of that and so um thank the the community for bringing that to attention and continuing to vocalize that so that these things don't um get overshadowed and looked at um and with the process that uh the city follows through with um it should address these situations moving forward um based on the concerns of the residents um just adjacent to this property. Perfect. Any other comments?

Madam Chair, I'll be supporting the motion. Um, I guess maybe I have a little heartburn. Um, but it went through design review. We're not engineers. Well, some of us on the dascese are not engineers. We're not here to evaluate the engineering components of this. So with respect to, you know, whether or not we recommend the preliminary plot to um city council, I feel like that is appropriate. I guess I would just note that um you know, if there is a a general storm water or general construction permit um involved in this and there is some incident that folks can always uh reach out to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. So,

Madam Chair, Commissioner Torres,

um I don't have much to add. I just would note kind of along with my colleagues that um public works is already involved in this. Um they've been required to submit a plan to deal with um storm water um and erosion control. So, the only thing we could really do is add a condition that essentially says the same thing that it's already required. So, I'm u due to those reasons, I will be in support of the motion. Thank you. All right. Any other? All right. Well, again, I'm I'm also in support of the motion. Um I think, you know, as stated in staff report, it meets the dimensional standards of the zone. Um boy code standards for the subdivision. Um it's meeting the design review requirements as well. Um so for those reasons, just looking at the particular subdivision itself, I'm I'm in support of the motion. So, will the clerk please call the role?

Moore, yes. Dehong, yes. Torres, yes. Don, yes. Defons, yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Thank you. Uh, moving on to item number four, we have CU26-9 and CVA26-12 for the land group. It's at 1102, 1108, and 1110 West Hay Street. This is a modification of a conditional use permit for a religious institution on 42 acres in an R3 MCO residential urban with near north end character overlay zone and a variance to deviate from the standards of the near north end character overlay is also included. Mr. Exon, we'll start with staff.

Good evening, commissioners. before you tonight is a request for modification of a conditional use permit for a religious institution located at 1110 West Hay Street on 0.42 acres in an R3 NCO zone. A variance to deviate from the standards of the near north end character overlay is also included. Subject area is located at the north corner of Hazen 11th streets across the street from the related religious institution. As shown on screen, the subject area is adjacent to mult multiple bus lines with the main street station 0.72 miles away. Additionally, the subject area is adjacent to multiple bikeways, including the recent 11th street bikeway. A new parking garage is also under construction on 11th in Jefferson, three blocks away from the subject area in the associated religious institution. The modification is to double the area of an approved surface parking lot. The result of the expansion would create one half of a block dedicated to a surface parking lot. The R3 zone prohibits surface parking lots as a primary use on the property, which would be the case here. Additionally, CU 6783, which was the initial CUP, references a parking policy in the analysis as shown on screen. No new parking lots larger than one quarter block area and no more than one per block. The analysis further found that in approving the surface parking lot, no additional surface parking would be allowed on the block under that policy. A variance is included to deviate from the standards of the near north end character overlay. The specific standard is shown on screen. As proposed, the surface parking lot is not incorporated within a new residential use or incorporated within the expansion of a historic institutional use. Furthermore, the surface parking lot is visible from both public street frontages as proposed. Section 110603 further defines a historic institutional use as shown on screen. The Cathedral of the Rockies's structure itself is not redeveloping or expanding and again is located across the public right of way from the subject area. The applicant cites a need for parking

in the growing attendance for the religious institution as a hardship. As summarized in the project report, demand or desire for additional parking is not necessarily a hardship and the property is a flat regularly shaped one quarter block area near multiple public transportation options. Further granting the variance would give a special right to the property as the proposal expressly prohibited in the development code. Lastly, surface parking in this location is not supported by the city's guiding documents either. Public comments were received in both support and opposition to the project shown on screen and summarized in-depth within the late correspondence memo. As a reminder, demand for surrounding on street parking along public rideways is not a hardship with the flat, regularly shaped one quarter block area. As such, the plan team recommends denial of CP 269 and CVA2612. Additionally, for the record, staff identified a typo within the draft reason for recommendation referencing CU 6384 when the correct reference is CU 6483, which was correctly referenced throughout the project report. With that, I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

Thank you very much. And next, we will move to the applicant. So, if you'll come on up, state your name and address, and you'll have 10 minutes. So, please don't start my time till I know if I need my glasses or not. Okay. Good evening. Um, I am Matthew Adams, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of the Cathedral of the Rockies, Boisee First United Methodist Church. I will go quickly to cover a lot of information. So, please know any questions you may have this evening. We are asking to expand the existing campus parking lot at Hayes and 12 to support the mission and ministry of the Cathedral of the Rockies. This parking will serve a critical need for the cathedral's ongoing community mission by providing accessible, organized, and reliable access for volunteers and recipients of the diverse programs and services offered by the c on the campus. This investment in the campus and community infrastructure is a response to the growing need for critical community services offered at the cathedral. In this image, you see the twob block church campus outlined in purple. and the parking lot location outlined in green. The project is centrally located. The parking lot is centrally located on the campus for safe and efficient access to the principal use of the cathedral to the south across Hayes. All current uses such as the garden are retained and protected. The project is limited to the undeveloped area that previously served on and off as parking over the past 20 years. The project includes 35 parking stalls, upgraded pedestrian routes, safety lighting, and perimeter landscape enhancements. Approval of this application comes down

to a few simple questions. Is this parking an accessory use to the existing and historic institutional use of the cathedral? Yes, it is. Is this parking consistent with the goals of Blueprint Boisey? Yes, it is. Is this parking good for the neighborhood and supported by community partners? Yes, it is. The application The application may feel complicated, but it is not. Prior to the 2023 code revision, parking was allowed at this location as an off-site accessory use. After the 2023 modern zoning code adoption, this is no longer the case unless, as the code reads, unless incorporated within a new residential use or within and as part of the renovation, redevelopment or expansion expansion of a historic institutional use. The cathedral is expanding through additional programs based on a reaction to need in the community. The proposed parking lot is not the principal use, but rather an accessory use to the cathedral, which has been at this location since 1960, and therefore this is not a special right. The 2023 code further states, "The enactment of this code shall not terminate or otherwise affect rights, variances, permits, and approvals acquired or authorized under prior code." I would also like to point out that code 110408 indicates parking may be located up to 600 ft from the lot containing the principal use. This lot is well within that distance. This application is for an accessory use to a historic institutional use and the variance requirement imposed on this application is not appropriate. Why are we asking for parking expansion? The community need for the unique services provided by the cathedral is

larger than ever and growing. The cathedral community is responding to need. The parking expansion is to allow volunteers and recipients of community services access to the cathedral for support. A missiondriven response to increasing need and investment in the community and social infrastructure. Who will park here? These the volunteers working to provide services and those receiving those services. These people already exist already are in the community and already come to the this location for services. This is not creating new trips this lo to this location but rather moving them off of street parking into this parking lot. An example, the care collective program. Volunteers and recipients of dementia care need safe and consistent parking. It is not reasonable to ask those with dementia and their caregivers to use multi multimodal transportation or to park in a public garage three blocks away. That is not reality. There are those among us that need special accommodation and the cathedral is willing to invest in these valuable people. The applicant is asking for a cup mod approval to pave the parking and that setbacks be approved as submitted. The staff report indicates that we are deficient. However, 11:04 1149 indicates that the minimum of 8 ft be for the landscape buffer setback. Also, the out the staff report assumes that the haze frontage is the front of our parking lot and apply to front setback. Based on the fact that the cathedral is addressed 11th, that's the principal use. We believe that the front of this project is also 11th.

All right, let's look at the quality of the investment that the cathedral would like to make on their property. This is campus context. The cathedral at the top of the image and the garden at the bottom. The gravel lot is near the center of the image. This is the same image, but now the parking lot has be been added. I'll forgive you if you didn't even notice that there was a parking lot there. This is a zoomedin view. It's a bird's eye view showing the relationship of the parking lot to campus programs. It is directly adjacent across the alley to the garden and it is across Hayes to the services that are provided in the spaces on the the south block. This is a twob block campus, one use on two blocks. This is the view on 11th looking south of that what that parking lot would look like when constructed after there's major uh landscape enhancements occurring and because it's paved no more dust. All right. It is important to acknowledge this is a unique application at a unique location. The Boyisey First United Methodist Church has a long history of service and thoughtful growth in the Boisee community. Established in 1872, predating the state of Idaho, and located on this site since 1960, the church has expanded over time to meet community needs, growing to become the twob block campus that we know today. Each past investment over the 154 history was made with community support. And that support continues today as evidenced by the overwhelming response in support of this application. The cathedral is now ready to make another responsible and thoughtful investment that is a necessary expansion of programs based on need in

the community. The Cathedral of the Rocky's practical service areas are strongly aligned with Blueprint Boisey's safe, healthy, and caring community principle. Blueprint Boyisee is reliant on nonprofit and faith-based partners to implement social infrastructure goals. The Cathedral of the Rockies is aligned in this principled approach. It is more than just volunteerism. It is mission. And this mission is aligned with Blueprint Boyisey. Blueprint Boyisey repeatedly emphasizes meeting basic human needs, supporting community services, and working with the public and private partners to promote safe, healthy, and caring community. While the plan does not single out nonprofit or faith-based organizations by name, they're clearly encompassed within the plan's reference to community service providers. Approval of this project is not special treatment. Rather, it is the implementation of Blueprint Boyisey. Implementation of the blueprint boyisey core principles occurs through partnerships, land use decisions, capital planning, and community- based initiatives, not city delivered services. The support for this application is strong. Local stakeholders have spoken through email and letters. The neighborhood and community partners are in support of this project. The need for the services that the Cathedral of the Rockies provides is growing and we need to be able to get our volunteers who are already coming here parked safely and efficiently. This proposal is for an accessory use to a 154 year long community cornerstone. It is clear that the adoption of the modern zoning code was not intended to

remove the rights that exist for this historic institutional use. It is clear that the parking presented today is an accessory to the cathedral as the principal use. A yes vote tonight is in support of over 154 years of service to Boisee. It's in support of mental health support, food security, housing assistance, space for nonprofits, recovery groups, community programs. The yes vote tonight supports a safe, healthy, and caring community. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great. Thank you very much. Um, hang tight for just a minute. We're going to go to the neighborhood association and I'm seeing Donna Llewellyn or Eric Hagen. Are either Donna or Eric present tonight?

You're representing the neighborhood association. You're not I'm so sorry, but it has to be the uh registered official person of the of the neighborhood association. Excuse me. I'm sorry, but it has to be the the person designated by us or to us by the board. And we have the two names, Donna Llewell and Eric Hagen. Okay. But you can speak as a as a citizen.

Yep. Okay. And moving to the next item. So there's questions for the commission. So are there any questions from the commission? Madam chair, I have a question for the applicant. Commissioner Sea,

um you shared a slide with the different um community contributions that the church is currently undergoing. Um are you are you then saying that they plan on increasing those services, hence why they need they're asking for the parking or yeah, can you can you provide a little clarification there? I'm just trying to understand because if the services are there and they're existing now, the the church is asking for a parking lot to reduce the amount of cars that park on the street.

Madame Chair, Commissioner Seha, thank you for the question. So the the services provided at the cathedral um the demand for those is increasing and there's more and more need for volunteers and there's more people that need the services that's for teens, unhoused people, people that are hungry, people with dementia, etc., etc. As those services and the demand for those increases, it is necessary to get more volunteers. And right now those volunteers do not have any place to park that is reasonable that they can physically make it to the church and so they are then in a position where they would need to turn people away who need those services. So this parking is necessary for that reason.

Thank you for the clarification. Any other questions? U Madam Chair Commissioner Spons. Um yeah uh this question I think is for the applicant but it might also be for um the city here. So the parking lot next to it you also own that madam chair commissioner. Yes the parking lot on 12th and hayes is also owned by the church and that was approved in the past cup. Yes. Is that correct? What I see here that's that parking lot. Okay. Um, and how is that parking lot being used currently?

Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioner, it's being used for parking for the many of the similar activities. It's also used on Sundays for the services that they have for it's really used for any activity at the church by church members. Um, and how many additional volunteers are you needing parking for in this new parking spot? Um, I do not have an exact count on that. Okay. And the folks that are utilizing the current services and potentially the new services, are they from within the area or does the congregation or the support extend outside of North End?

Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioner, um the the church had asked for many more than 35 parking stalls. That is all we were able to get dimensionally to meet the standards of the city. It's my understanding that the services provided by the cathedral uh reach far beyond the north end area and do not um align to like a political boundary of who goes there to receive services. And the services that you're offering, are they the only services being provided in this area or are there other organizations also providing these services? There's other organizations that are also working hard to provide ser services as well. Yes. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions,

Madam Chair? Commissioner Torres. Uh, this question is for staff. So, it sounds like the disagreement here is whether this is an accessory use for the existing site or whether it is a separate lot with cert with having to meet the criteria of the zoning code of the modern zoning code because it is a separate lot. Can you speak more to that and clarify?

Yes, madam chair. Commissioner Torres, within the development code under allowed uses, there is a section that does reference accessory and principal uses. That section does talk about it says any use allowed as a principal use in a zoning district is allowed as an accessory use to an allowed allowed or approved conditional use in the zoning district. In this case, a principal parking lot on its own law is not allowed. therefore would also not be allowed as an accessory use to the religious institution.

Followup, Madam Chair, please. Um, so to clarify, because it's its own lot, the primary use of this lot would be that it's a parking lot. It wouldn't be an accessory use because that is all it is. It's a parking lot. It's asphalt for cars to park at and nothing else on that lot. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. Additional questions?

Madam Chair, I do have a question. So kind of um along the same lines. So then if the church proposed constructing a structure on this parcel and building a parking lot on what is now part of the fruit orchard it looks like or trees just immediately to the north of it.

Then that would not be considered that would be considered a principal use. Um, Madam Chair, Commissioner Seha, the way the near north end character overlay is written is it has to be essentially set behind into the interior side setback from the ride ofway. So, if they did buildings along both street frontages and had the parking lot kind of really close towards that alley, then that could be something that a planning team would likely be able to support in a brew. However, because this is just a surface parking lot with no structures shielding it from the right of way, there's the variances at play. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Madam Chair,

push your sponsor. Yeah, sorry. One one other question here. In the time that uh this property has been developed, has there been any street parking changes? Madam Chair, Commissioner Stefons, I do know that there have been some changes just with the expansion of Boise High School, and I do believe there are some kind of permitting um street parking programs in the area, but nothing to my knowledge that would be um specifically unique to this area. Okay. So, that block, nothing has changed in around that block for park for street parking. Not to my knowledge. No. Thank you.

Question. other questions. So, I've got a few. I think a couple are for staff and I think I might have some for the applicant as well. Um, so some of what I was reading the staffer for in the applicant's narrative. Um, makes me think of the reasonable accommodation for accessibility, but this wouldn't fall under that because that's an FHA deal. So, that's more geared towards residential. Is that correct? Um, madam chair, commissioners, that is a separate application alto together and not before you tonight. So that have to be reviewed separately. So that but would that application even apply in this case? You think?

I don't believe so. No, I do believe it is geared more towards residential. Okay. And then um I think one thing that was mentioned is the front setback location. It sounds like there might be some disagreement as to which street is the front setback. So, I think the applicant was saying that the front setback should be the same as the front setback for the church, whereas I think the city is determining the front setback being the setback opposite the alley. Is that kind of how the city is taking it is the one that's opposite the alley because the alley would be the rear setback at that point.

Madam Chair, that is correct to this. It does have alley access by default. the alley becomes the rear because that is how our code anticipates alley loaded developments building out in general throughout the city. So, Hast Street is the front regardless of the address of the Cathedral of the Rockies. Um, additionally, I did want to point out that while the applicant has requested a variance at the hearing tonight for a front setback, that is not something that you as the commission are able to decide on tonight as this was not noticed um for a variance to set back. is only noticed as a variance to the north end standards. So if that was something you wanted to entertain approving, there would have to be a deferral, new noticing, new analysis as well with new findings um to review that request in addition to the request at hand.

Gotcha. Okay, understood. And then um I guess my my final question so just to understand because I think the big disagreement is you know whether this is accessory or not and I think if the church if there wasn't a alley there the church owned the whole block built something on part of the block that complied with the dimensional standards of screening and all that stuff then they could add more parking. But because it's not on the same lot, then it's not accessory and there's that street that cuts between the two, so you can't combine the lots. That's kind of where the city's coming from on that one because you could sell off this parking lot and it would just be a parking lot again.

Madam Chair, that is correct. Yes. Okay, that makes sense to me. Any other questions? Perfect. Well, moving on. We'll now go to the signup sheet. Um, first I have Susan Graham. If you'll come up and say your name and your address. You'll have three minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the commission. My name is Susan Graham. I have a home at 10005 West Fort and I have a business at 109 Westport. I've lived at my residence since the late 70s. And the church says that they need more parking for their church services on Sundays. I never see anybody park in front of my house or my office unless it's Easter or Christmas Eve. So, and I'm I'm on fort between 10th and 11th. I mean, that's two blocks at the most to walk over to the church. In addition, the church has another campus, an AMD campus. And if they want to have more services or excuse me, more activities, that would be an easy place to go because they have lots of parking. And if people have to drive to the and park on Hay Street, it seems to me they could park there. I have a dog. I've always had a dog. We walk the neighborhood and they put a light on, a flashing light on the corner of 11th and Fort and people sometimes stop and we just don't need more traffic down there. I mean, I have Boyisey High nearby and those children are entertaining, but um they've also provided parking for them as was mentioned with some permits. So, again, I just don't think they need a parking lot there. they don't need it for certainly their church services and uh they're you know their volunteers are managing fine up till now. I just don't see any reason to expand that. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to Wyatt Johnson. The same thing if you'll come on up. Say your name and address and you'll have three minutes.

All right. Is that picking up? Name and address, please.

Wyatt Johnson, 199 North Capitol, Fleet 200, Boise. Uh, Madame Chairman, members of the commission, I I I commend the analysis that was performed by staff in this report, and this is why. I'm a practicing lawyer. I've been practicing here in the state of Idaho for almost 30 years. The large majority of my practice has been real estate, including uh land use. And I've actually taken a case to jury trial on legal non-conforming uses. That is exactly what we're dealing with here is a legal non-conforming use. Specifically, the old parking lot that was previously approved in 1986. And the wellestablished understanding is that legally non-conforming uses which were legal at the time but no longer are legal cannot be expanded or well they can't be expanded they can be continued but not expanded. And the idea is if you allowed the expansion of all legal non-conforming uses it would make any present amendments of the code meaningless. I went through and I prepared an in-depth analysis of the city code as it applies to this project and it's included uh in the materials. It's my letter dated April 27th. When I read through staff's analysis on this, I can tell you I think staff's analysis is right on with the exception of two points. um I would have been far more aggressive and my analysis was very consistent with the staffs but my analysis came in the alternative. Point being one the conditional use that was applied was specific to they're trying to d to tack on to a conditional use that was applied for the neighboring lot. The lots that they're talking about were not part of or considered in the original conditional

use permit. So that's no different than somebody st moving into a house and saying, "Well, there's a legal non-conforming use next door because the next door neighbor is getting to do it. I should be able to do it." It's legally the same thing. I wouldn't even cross to the threshold of looking at a major modification. I think that staff is giving the church every benefit of the doubt. So I think that staff's been more than fair to the church in that analysis. Second on the variance, the way that I read it is variance request isn't even applicable here. Staff has again given the church the benefit of the doubt. So I think that staff has uh read the code correctly and I think at every opportunity that they gave that they had to give the church the benefit of the doubt they did and staff has still come come through with a recommendation of denial. I think that's the correct recommendation. You have 10 more seconds if you want them. Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. Um, next up I have Dwayne Anders. If you'll come on up and state your name and address, you'll have three minutes as well.

Thank you. Dwayne Anders, 863 East Hardcourt Road. Thank you for the privilege and time to speak. I'm one of the pastors at Cathedral of the Rockies and have been for the past 14 years. For more than 150 years, this congregation has served the people of Boisee, seeking to create a city for everyone. We live under the banner all means all. And long before many of us were here, this church began feeding people, caring for families, gathering neighbors, responding to the needs of the community, and working every single day to make a better city. This campus for over 66 years has been a place not where just people meet on Sunday mornings. It's been a place where folks come for recovery. Aa meetings, food distribution, counseling, diapers are given out, children and youth come. 50 children every day come for preschool, community gatherings, nonprofit partnerships, memorial services like the governor's service this weekend, worship services through the week, and support for people navigating many struggling moments, difficult moments, seasons of life. On an average day, there are 60 employees and 150 children and the parents of 150 children navigating our parking lots. That's before a program begins. That's before we give out a diaper. That's before there's an AA meeting. We do have three parking lots and they are well used every day, but not quite to the extent we don't quite have the the parking that we need for the ministries we currently do and that continue to expand. What we're asking for tonight's not expansion for the sake of expansion. We are asking for the infrastructure

necessary to continue to serve this city safely and effectively. The reality is simple. The needs of our community keep growing. More families, more food insecurity, more opportunities to serve. People come to us for help whether they're 85 years old or younger, seeking recovery, grieving loss, and volunteering their time. I'd like to share with you there have been some changes of parking in the neighborhood. When Boise High removed their parking near us as they built a new parking lot at the end, I always say they gave the Baptist parking, took it away from the Methodists. We lost parking on Sunday morning. And for 12 years of the last 12 years, we had parked on holidays. In the last two years, we parked every Sunday on that dirt lot with permission from the city. And when the code changed, we were no longer allowed to get permission. It was city employees that the last two years encouraged us, build a parking lot. Why don't you solve this and build a parking lot? And so we come to you seeking permission from city employees and from our church to continue to do ministries that make a difference here in the city. Thanks for your time. Thank you. And so that is the last on the signup sheet that I have. So, I'm going to go through anybody in chambers and then we've got two people online after we've heard from everybody in chambers, excuse me, we'll move to online. So, if there's anybody in chambers who would like to testify, please come on up and state your name and address and you'll have three minutes as well. My name is Nissa Jensen. I live at 1809 North 7th Street. I was originally going to be speaking on behalf of the North End Neighborhood Association tonight, of which I am a member of the board. So, I will still tell you what I was going to say from

that perspective, whether or not it's official, and then I will tell you a few of my own personal comments. Um, the North End Neighborhood Association at our April meeting after hearing comments from neighbors and from Pastor Dwayne voted to in favor of this application. We understand the need for additional parking spots at this location, especially during weekdays when the building operates many community programs, as you've already heard, such as the Care Collective for those with dementia, hospitality programs for those experiencing homelessness, and a host of additional community activities. Volunteers for these programs need parking and since they are often seniors with accessibility or mobility needs, it is important to have a parking lot close to the building. Nenina supports the community building nature of this program and we hope you will approve this application. In addition, as a resident of the North End and full disclosure, a member of the church, I want to uh reiterate what Dwayne said about the changes in availability of parking around the church in recent years. um including as he mentioned the Boisey High track area, but also as they've implemented those new corner signals, some um small amounts of parking have been lost on each corner. And as you probably know, during weekdays, street parking is completely taken over by Boise High students, which is fair. They're allowed to be there. We welcome them. All my kids went to Boise High, but that leaves little parking for um people who are coming to the church for programs and to

volunteer. Um one other comment. For the last 20 years, this lot has been a weed infestation and a pile of dog poop, if you don't mind my saying so. Literally, people go and play with their dogs there, which is all nice and well, but they don't clean up after themselves. Um, so I think a parking lot would be an improvement in that spot. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Uh, anybody else who would like to testify on this item in person? Please come on up. Seeing none, we'll move to online. We'll check back in one more time. Um, you look like you want to try. Come on up. State your name and address, please. And you'll have three minutes.

Hi, my name is Hi, Madam Chair. Um, my name is Daniel Forger. I'm at 1024 West Haze Street, directly diagonal from the Church or Cathedral of the Rockies. I have two toddlers, um, and a dog and use the field to throw my ball for the dog. Um, the church has things placed on the trees for bags to pick up your poop. They haven't been filled in a while, but drop off um, and leave extra bags for other people to use. uh uh every day during the week with programs. I'm really grateful for everything the church puts on. However, there are spots that are in front of my house and to the side of my house that are not used. Um I think that there's an availability for parking uh that already exists and isn't being maximized. Uh my neighbor Susan who mentioned she doesn't have people park in front of her house and she's a block and a half two blocks away. I am directly diagonal and always have a space or two open. So there are plenty of parking spots that are available that aren't being used. And I think especially when people are being drove in from programs that are servicing people from outside of the community, there are other resources that they can use with their other two campuses. So, um I support the um evaluator in denying this application and think it's great to see people walking and saying hi on the streets. I think it still carries that cander of saying hi to your communication comm community and congregation and um I don't think there's a need for the parking lot at this time. So that's it. Thanks.

Thank you very much. All right. So, moving on to online. I'll check back in in person. There's several people still here. Um, I see Savannah Blake with hand raised. Um, Savannah, I think you can unmute and you should be able to talk if you'll give your name and address and you'll have three minutes.

Hi, my name is Savannah Blake. I'm at 1114 West Fort Street, apartment 3. So, again, two blocks uh from the cathedral. Um, I think I'm just going to basically be reiterating what my neighbors have said. Uh, I'm competing with both the Boyisey High students, which is fine as stated before, and on Sundays with all the people from the congregation. I always have a place to uh a spot to park. Um, I've always had the opportunity. I love that area as well. I do have my dog. Um, and we go over and play as well. Uh, for me, I guess I haven't noticed all the uh dog droppings. I try also to keep everything cleaned up. Um, but just as a re reiteration, I um I'll support the uh city with the denial of the uh of the proposal. Thank you very much. I surrender the rest of my time and chairman and the rest of the board.

Thank you. Um, one more person online. Please raise your hand if you'd like to testify. Otherwise, we will move on. Seeing no hands, I'm going to give one more opportunity for anybody here in person who has not testified and wishes to. Seeing none, you kind of looked like you were thinking about it. Come on up. If you'll state your name and your address, you'll have to be as well.

I'm TJ Harter, 410 North Pacific, Boise, Idaho. Um, I'm the facility manager for Cathedral of the Rockies, both locations. Um, just weighing in hearing both sides of the arguments from the neighbors um, and the city. I think it is very important to notice that it was used as a parking lot longer than it has not been. So all of the issues that have been argued against it are really something that derived of December of 23 24 when they changed the zoning codes. So people parking there is nothing new. People not parking there is something new. Um, aside from having someone a place for them to walk their dog, um, I invite any of you to come down there any day of the week and try to find a place to park. Maybe it's their work schedule, maybe it's because they know how to get in and out of there. I've worked there all the time, usually seven days a week. I've been attending this church since 1987 and I've been an employee for three years. Parking is a huge issue. If it wasn't and there was availability, we wouldn't be here talking to you guys. That's all. I surrender my time.

Thank you. All right, one last call. Seeing none in person and no hands up online. All right, we'll um rebuttal by the applicant. So, if you want to come back up, you've got five minutes. State your name and address.

Thank you, Matthew Adams. Again, um this campus is a twob block campus and operates as a single property in the way it functions. If code 110408 of the Boisee City Code allows parking to be within 600 ft from the principal use, how would that ever be applicable anywhere where you have a 300T block length? If that code is in if that's written in your code, why is that not applicable here? This is within 600 ft. street parking changes. The this chamber and city council when Boisey High rebuilt the track, they made it a condition of the proval of approval that the public be allowed to use the track. That has created increased demand, which is also parking on street and competing for parking stalls in addition to the other parking constraints that you've heard. Um, I'll close and I do want to say circling the block to find a parking space creates far more traffic than pulling into the alley and parking your car in the parking lot. I want to close with the reminder that this is private property. This is not a public park. It's not a city of Boisey dog park. And at the risk of sounding rude, it is private property. Many neighbors believe they know what is best for the Cathedral of the Rockies property, but they don't own that property. They don't pay to maintain it, and they don't provide the services that occur at this facility. Many neighbors opposed the previous effort to build housing at this site. In the early 2000s, this city denied an application to build

housing. Now, we're being told cannot park it because we don't have a housing component. So, this private property owner appears to be stuck in a position where the city is denying them the right to develop their property or use it in any fashion that would benefit them. I don't think that's the intent of city code. But if if we bring a proposal to do housing and the neighbors oppose it and it's denied and then we bring a proposal to do parking to support the services of the cathedral and the neighbors oppose it and it's denied, we need you to tell us what to do, what options are available on this property because right now the church continues to operate in good faith, but there is a major hurdle being thrown up that appears to me to be inconsistent with blueprint boyisey and inconsistent with what I hear the city of Boisey stands for. I will stand for any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Um no more questions at this time. uh we will close the public hearing and the item is before the commission and as a reminder we are the approving body for the cup and varants. So madam chair commissioner Torres um I move that we deny CU 26-9 and CBA 26-12 with all the terms and conditions in the staff report. Great. I have a motion to deny. Is there a second? Second. Right. I have a motion to deny by Commissioner Torres and a second by Commissioner Seha. Any discussion? Madam Chair,

Commissioner Torres.

Um, I want to just emphasize this denial in no way states any lack of appreciation for the Cathedral of the Rockies and what it does in our community. By all accounts, you're a great church. You do a lot for our community. This is also an application that puts pits kind of what I do in my day job against what I do up here. You know, I work serving a lot of the populations that were discussed in this in this um application. Having said that, we have to follow the code and I hear what the applicant is saying about how they tried to build housing here in the early 2000s and were denied. Um, now we're denying them over a part over parking. I want to note that that housing denial when it happened was under the old code. We have a new code that is it has different goals than were the goals of the city at the time of uh that the previous application was considered. Um I'm just going to read some excerpts from our staff report. So on page 195 um it says granting the variance would provide a special right to the subject property that is not generally applicable not only other properties in not only for other properties in the R3 zone but also other properties within the near north end character overlay. Lastly, approving the variance would create negative impacts by disrupting the predictable character of the near north end uh character overlay. On page 237, um the report says a surfing a surface parking lot as a principal use is prohibited in the R3 zone as indicated in table 11-3.1 uh table of allowed uses. The expansion of the existing surface parking lot within the R3 zone is therefore not supportable. Additionally, the the analysis of um CU64-83 discusses a justification by a potential policy drafted by the Boisee City Parking Commission. The proposed policy stated no new parking lots larger than a quarter block area and no more than one per block. It was mentioned in the

analysis how while the initial proposal aligned with the policy, no further parking lots would be permitted on the block. As such, the intent of the approval for CU64-83 is focused on the maximum quarter block size of the parking lot. Um, I'm reading a lot. I apologize. Um, on pages 238 and 239, the subject area is flat is a flat, regularly shaped site with no topographical hardships, which would warrant a variance from this section of code. Furthermore, granting the variance would grant a special right to the site not available to both other properties within the R3 zone but also the properties within the near north northern character overlay. A parking lot greater than 2500 square ft could be constructed on the property if it were part of a new residential development. We discussed that during our questions and not visible from the public street. Lastly, approval of the variance request is against public interest as the purpose statement for the near north end character overlay references preventing the construction of new surface parking lots to protect building and buildings and buildable area. Um, I'm not going to read everything else I have here. I'll just note that the expansion of the surface parking lot is not in alignment with blueprint boyisey or the downtown boyisey parks and public spaces master plan. Uh, blueprint boyisey contains multiple goals, policies, and objectives centered on reducing vehicle miles traveled by promoting active or alternative transportation options. Um, and the rest of what I have here kind of just repeats that stuff. Um, so I will not continue, but um, that's why I'm support I I move that we deny this. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Madam Chair, Commissioner, I will be supporting the motion. I don't have much to add. uh to Commissioner Torres's um comments or information. So, I I I will I do want to recognize that um you know, most of the parking is on Sundays. Um and we don't have a transit system that runs on Sundays. Um so, but we have a code in place. planning staff have provided information um on reasoning for the denial and I'm in support of the um planning staff's analysis. Thank you,

Madam Chair. Commissioner Don could I blanked that completely commissioner? Um um I'm going to be in support of the motion. Um, Commissioner Torres did a great job of, you know, outlining uh why we denied the application based on the staff report. You know, it's difficult because it it really is just a parking lot. I mean, come on, it's just parking lot. But, you know, based on all the things defined in the staff reports, it it is clear that we need to follow the code and deny. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Spons. I'll give you a chance if you want it. Madam Chair,

yeah, I'm going to echo what fellow commissioners have stated and um Commissioner Torres outlined very explicitly uh the direction here from the staff report and where we're following. Um and then uh you know just adding another parking lot next to another parking lot. Um I know there is available parking around there. It may not be always at the at the specific times. Um, and I think because of the coding code change here since the last time you submitted for housing, um, I think you could make um, some really compelling housing um, options or uh, arguments here in the future um, that may allow you to put some some parking underneath or adjacent to that um, if that meets meets your goal. Um, and that's really what we're we're here. We're trying to uh address the housing shortage here. um parking um is a hard one too um uh to approve um when it doesn't directly support housing here. Thank you.

Thank you. And I think we've all stated so um again I'm in I'm in support of the motion as well. It's it's always hard if this this lot has been kind of vacant for several years. you know, is it just going to remain vacant or is this, you know, what it needs to develop as? That's always the question. I think the code in this case is is pretty clear. I appreciate the kind of the creative thinking in terms of the two block use and things like that. I I totally understand where where the applicant's coming from on that one as well. Um, but yeah, I think the way the code's looking at it as a separate parcel because it could be sold, it makes a lot of sense to me. Um, and then with the 2000's approval that was denied, I feel comfortable denying this one because of the changed zoning code, because of the changed kind of conditions that there are still options available that have this kind of area's evolved and and the way the codes happening has evolved in those last 20 years. So, I feel comfortable that, you know, it's not just making it so you can't develop the property. I think things have changed and I think that especially the zoning code in particular um which is what has changed your ability to use this this lot as as you have been. So, um, with that, will the clerk please please call the role? And as a reminder, this is we are voting on the denial of CUP and CV CUP 26-9 and CVA26-12.

Moore, yes. Ah, yes. Torres, yes. Done. Stfans, yes. All in favor? Motion carries. Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.