Planning & Zoning Commission - City of Boise · Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes ......

Planning & Zoning Commission

Hearing Minutes of October 10, 2011

COMMISSION MEMBERS

PRESENT

Brandy Wilson: Chair, Doug Cooper, Anne Barker, Jennifer Stevens, Karen Meyer, Steve Bradbury and Rob Wallace (Student Appointee)

STAFF MEMBERS

PRESENT

Scott Spjute, Cody Riddle, David Moser, Josh Johnson, Sue Cummings, Susan Riggs, Mary Watson (Legal) and Pam Baldwin (Staff Support)

CONSENT AGENDA CUP11-00067 / T & N PROPERTIES, L.C. Location: 2919 W. State Street CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW TO AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED IN A C-2D ZONE. The applicant is present and is in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report and there is no opposition to this item. CUP07-00006 TIME EXTENSION CUP11-00064 / PUENTES LANGUAGE PROGRAMS Location: 5405 W. Overland Road CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFF-PREMISE ADVERTISING SIGN LOCATED IN AN N-OD ZONE. The applicant is present and is in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report and there is no opposition to this item. CUP11-00065 & CVA11-00045 / CLOVERDALE ANVENTIST CHURCH Location: 1115 N. Cloverdale Road CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FREE-STANDING SIGN WITH AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY LOCATED IN AN A-1 ZONE. A VARIANCE TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE SIGN AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN HEIGHT BY 12’ IS INCLUDED IN TH REQUEST.

Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 10, 2011

The applicant is present and is in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report and there is no opposition to this item. CUP11-00060 & CVA11-00042 / MCKIBBEN + COOPER ARCHITECTS Location: 515 W. Hays Street CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME INTO A DUPLEX ON A +0.21 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN AN L-OHD/CD ZONE. A VARIANCE FROM THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK IS INCLUDED IN THIS REQUEST. The applicant is present and is in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report and there is no opposition to this item. Commissioner Cooper – My vote for the consent agenda will not include item 9. My wife and I are the applicants. COMMISSIONER BRADBURY MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONER STEVENS SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Wilson – We have a reconsideration request in our packet from Hoyle Investment for the Boise River Ranch project. Although, the reconsideration request did meet the deadline for submitting that request, it didn’t make it into the agenda. The Commission has decided to hear that item at our hearing on November 7, 2011, when it has made the agenda and we have had an opportunity to look at it in a little more detail. DEFERRAL AGENDA ZOA11-00004 / LENIR LTD FOR HARRIS FAMILY LP AMENDMENT TO THE HARRIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (BBC 11-23). CHANGES INCLUDE SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS, AND AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AS IT RELATES TO HARRIS RANCH. COMMISSIONER MEYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL TO A DATE CERTAIN OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 2011 HEARING. COMMISSIONER BARKER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CAR11-00012 / ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Location: 3212 – 3280 N. Maple Grove Road and 8820 W. Ustick Road REZONE OF 2.15 ACRES FROM R-1C TO L-OD ZONE.


COMMISSIONER BARKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL TO A DATE CERTAIN OF THE DECEMBER 5, 2011 HEARING. COMMISSIONER COOPER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REGULAR AGENDA CUP11-00059 / PUENTES LANGUAGE PROGRAMS Location: 1600 S. Milwaukee Street CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFF-PREMISE ADVERTISING SIGN LOCATED IN AN N-OD ZONE. David Moser (Staff) – The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for an off-premise advertising sign located at 1600 S. Milwaukee Street in an N-OD zone, as seen on the aerial photograph. This conditional use permit meets all of the required findings for an off-premise sign. A special exception or circumstance for this off-premise sign is that the self storage center is situated on a local street and set back about 180 feet from Overland Road. The location of the proposed sign is compatible with other signs along Overland Road and based upon correspondence received from commenting agencies and the recommended conditional approval, the proposed use will not place an undue burden on the transportation, or other public services in the vicinity. The proposed sign is in compliance with and supported by the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. As you can see by the diagram, the background area of the sign has no electronics at all; it’s just the basic sign. It’s about 40½ square feet of background area. It’s eight feet high and meets the standards for a sign in an N-O zone. Finally, the sign height and location will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. I would like to note staff did receive a letter of opposition from the Southwest Neighborhood Association. They suggested the sign be lowered by 2 feet and lights turned off during evening hours. These suggestions would lower the signs impact on the adjacent neighbors to the south. Staff considered these and believes the sign distance, which is about 70 feet from the nearest residential neighbor to the south, will reduce impacts on the adjacent residents. In addition, existing mature trees separates the sign from these adjacent properties. As you can see from the site plan there are a lot of mature trees to the south, very large trees. The sign is located right on the edge of the irrigation easement, but is located outside of it. There is also a condition of approval that requires a sign to be located outside of that irrigation easement. Based on these standards, the sign is also located on Overland Road and surrounded by large scale commercial developments. Right across the street to the north on Overland is a Walmart store and I think a little bit down the way is Lowes, so it’s in a fairly commercial zone. Based on these standards, we believe the suggestions submitted by the neighborhood association in this circumstance are not required. The existing conditions are more than enough to reduce the adverse impact on the neighbors, as such staff recommends approval. NO OPENING STATEMENT BY THE APPLICANT


Commissioner Stevens – If I recall correctly from reading this earlier this weekend, there doesn’t have to be a hardship, is that correct, to be approved for this? I’m curious, being far in or far off of Overland, if we approve this, what prevents every business that isn’t on a main thoroughfare like Overland from wanting a sign like this, and getting one? That’s where I’m going with this. David Moser – The ordinance does state off premise signs are allowed provided some type of special circumstance that justifies it, such as location of the property, lack of street frontages and things of that nature that allow for it. Any sign that came in for this would still have to meet that type of criteria. In this circumstance, the condition that justified this is that the property is located on a local street, a great distance from Overland Road, obscured from site from Overland Road and surrounded by residences. The only type of car activity that would be generally found or going in front of that would probably be associated with residential neighbors surrounding it. That was the justification to meet that basic standard in the ordinance. It doesn’t have to come up to the standard of a hardship. NO REBUTTAL COMMISSIONER MOVED TO APPROVE CUP11-00059. COMMISSIONER COOPER SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Barker – Although, I can understand Commissioner Stevens’s concern, we have approved off-premise signs for businesses in similar situations in the past. I can understand the circumstances we have here. Therefore, I think the reason for the decision founding the staff report is sufficient justification to allow for this sign. ROLL CALL VOTE COMMISSIONER BARKER AYE COMMISSIONER COOPER AYE COMMISSIONER MEYER AYE COMMISSIONER BRADBURY AYE COMMISSIONER STEVENS AYE COMMISSIONER WILSON AYE ALL IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED, MOTION CARRIES. CUP11-00066 / AVEST COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES Location: 1113 E. Parkcenter Boulevard CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW LOCATED IN A C-2D ZONE. Josh Johnson (Staff) – I would like to start by mentioning we received a letter of opposition, which I gave to you in the work session, from Mr. Tad Blank. He is here tonight to further elaborate on that letter.


The project is located at the southwest corner of Southshore and Parkcenter Boulevard. Staff finds this project meets all required criteria for a conditional use permit. The drive-thru is compatible with surrounding use as it’s already located in a general commercial development with some other auto-oriented uses. A bank and a Pizza Hut are also located on the site, as well as a large grocery store and other strip commercial uses. The project also meets the standards of not placing a new burden on the transportation system in the area. The highway district first responded with comments they weren’t going to send anything to the City, but we had asked for some more traffic work as one of the neighbors contacted city staff with concerns regarding traffic. The highway district sent back detailed traffic counts and outlined what impact the drive-thru would have, verses the historical use of that property as a restaurant. Their letters indicate the traffic system has the required capacity for this project and ingress and egress could be done safely. The project meets setback and parking requirements of the ordinance, greatly exceeding any parking required and being set back far enough from the road. Also, to kind of horseshoe that into adverse impact, staff has required some additional landscaping along the street frontage on Parkcenter to screen headlights that are traveling north along the drive-thru from residences across Parkcenter. The applicant has agreed to that condition for some upright evergreen plantings and that will be finalized tonight with your approval, as we are not in a design review zone. We feel the project also meets requirements of the Comprehensive Plan regarding ease of access to services and commercial uses for residents in the area. This project is compatible with its surroundings and provides an adequate buffer to surrounding uses as well. To touch on some opposition staff has received. I specifically asked the highway district about capacity and what the PM level of traffic would be. They provided comment they thought it wouldn’t be a concern. I also had a member of our staff run accident data for the area around this intersection and there have been about four accidents since 2004, to this summer. John Brecken (Applicant) – As we have gone through the design documents and worked out the grading and drainage of the site, I would like to add that the lower area you see, the northeast corner of the site is actually the low point of the site. We’ve created a swale there to accommodate the runoff drainage of the new drive-thru area on the east side of the existing building. I will try to explain a cross section through there. It slopes away from the building towards Parkcenter into a swale area with a grassy berm between the swale and the sidewalk. The way the drive-thru will work is people will drive through and come to the east side of the building, then make a turn movement to drive around the building. I believe part of the concern is the headlights as they swing around and go across Parkcenter. The headlights will actually be pointed down towards a grassy berm as they make that motion and drive around. I believe one of the other concerns was the hours of operation the drive-thru is open. I do not believe the owner would have a problem having the hours of business limited to 10:30 PM. Commissioner Wilson – I wanted to clarify with the applicant. I think it’s limited to 10:00 PM, Sunday through Thursday and 10:30 PM on Fridays and Saturdays. Is that your understanding?


John Brecken – I believe that’s fine. Josh Johnson – I did forget one thing in my presentation. My memo had an error, and I forgot to put Sunday through Thursday. I believe I just put Monday through Thursday, so if you do decide to approve, please note that. PUBLIC HEARING Tad Blank – My wife and I live in Southshore Subdivision, about two houses north of the intersection of Southshore Way and Parkcenter. I appreciate the effort the developer has made toward this proposal. I submitted a letter with some concerns, which was late. I apologize. I understand it will be made part of the record, so I will rely on that for the most part. I want to highlight a few concerns and one of my concerns was going to be with the hours of operation. If I understand correctly there is now an agreement the hours of operations will be on weekdays no later than 10 PM and on weekends no later than 10:30 PM. That seems agreeable and is consistent with, more or less, what’s been imposed in an adjacent storage business whose hours of operation have been limited to no later than 10 PM for every day of operation. We went through this same thing with a business adjacent to a residential area. I’ve noted other concerns. The important thing I am concerned about is not just about my property. I’m concerned about Southshore in general. As the bridge goes in the traffic increases and the businesses come in, so we want to be careful. I’m sure you are also concerned with not having death-by-a-thousand-cuts to the adjacent residential area, and turn these into a place that nobody wants to live and we have urban ghettos. That’s not going to be preferable for the businesses or the City, but it’s the traffic that is the big concern. I really don’t think the Ada County Highway District gave you any relevant information in regards to this development. They said Parkcenter can take a lot of traffic. That’s a given. Before, when Parkcenter was a dead end, you had another business that had people trying to access Parkcenter as they left their businesses. That doesn’t tell us anything about what’s going to happen now that Parkcenter is a major thoroughfare, and we are going to put in a business that is going to have all that traffic trying to enter the intersection of Southshore Way and Parkcenter. They didn’t give you any information, or try to quantify that in any respect, so we don’t know what it’s going to be like. The other thing they didn’t address, because I guess they aren’t aware of it, is the present problem we have on the east side of the Southshore Subdivision, with u-turns from people who are leaving the present businesses at the north exit of that commercial property and are forced to turn right when they want to go to the left, or to the west. They take the first convenient turn to make a u-turn to the west, which is at that very intersection that will be the exit point for this development. You put all of that together and I think you are going to end up with a stop light, which is the last thing we want to do because it’s going to force more traffic through Southshore as people turn to the right to avoid the stop on their way down Parkcenter. It seems to me that we should plan at this point for what could be in eventuality, if we don’t address these traffic concerns right now. I’m not sure what the answer is, but the experts haven’t weighed in on it. I think it’s only appropriate that you get the experts to really address and quantify this before it’s approved.


NO CLOSING COMMENTS BY STAFF REBUTTAL John Brecken – Josh, is it possible to go back to the overall view of the property? I would like to clarify the overall traffic flow of the site and how it was originally designed for the shopping center. Just to point out, the road on the east side also circles back down to the south, to the east and over to Apple. There is a stop light where Apple intersects Parkcenter. Additionally, at the middle of the site there is another building, there’s another exit point from the overall site plan. I would point out that the building and the site itself, as it is being designed right now, I believe it’s for parking stalls of 14 and loading in the drive-thru of 7 or 8 vehicles. In the grand scheme of things, you look at the parking and the traffic load that would be presented by the overall shopping area and it’s a very small percentage in the overall scale and the functionality of the traffic flow. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSIONER COOPER MOVED TO APPROVE CUP11-00066 WITH THE REVISISION OF THE TIME OF OPERATION FROM 11 AM TO 10:30 PM ON FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS. COMMISSIONER BARKER SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Wilson – I would like to note on that same condition that Monday should actually read Sunday. Commissioner Cooper – You are correct. I tend to side with the applicant on the traffic issue. The size of this development or the size of the applicant’s project in relation to the size of the development is quite small and will probably have a very small effect on what happens with traffic on Parkcenter. I appreciate the discussion of the grading and how it’s been designed to make sure the headlights point down with the vegetative screening. Commissioner Bradbury – I tend to agree with Mr. Blank. As it turns out I am familiar with that intersection. Occasionally, we have applications that happen to be in our own neighborhoods where we live and drive. That really is a tough intersection, especially for vehicles that are trying to enter Parkcenter from the residential neighborhood to the north. As I say, I tend to agree with Mr. Blank that this is a tough spot and additional maneuvering of traffic in that intersection is going to present a problem there. Having said that, Commissioner Cooper is probably right, in spite of the potential for the death-by-a-thousand-cuts, I’m not sure this project is going to particularly effect that intersection. If it were something more I think I’d be considerably more concerned. With that I expect I will probably support the motion.


Commissioner Barker – I wanted to say thank you to the resident who came and presented information. I felt your information was presented very concisely and it gives us a lot to think about because I suspect we are going to see additional development on the site. It’s an older shopping area and we have seen changes in the tenants, so we need to keep it in line, especially as Parkcenter has changed. ROLL CALL VOTE COMMISSIONER COOPER AYE COMMISSIONER BARKER AYE COMMISSIONER MEYER AYE COMMISSIONER BRADBURY AYE COMMISSIONER STEVENS AYE COMMISSIONER WILSON AYE ALL IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED, MOTION CARRIES. CUP11-00061 / HODGES ENTERPRISES Location: 1590 S. Vista Avenue CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW LOCATED IN A C-2D ZONE. VARIANCES FROM THE REAR AND INTERIOR SIDE-YARD SETBACKS AND A WAIVER TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REQUEST. Cody Riddle (Staff) – This application is a request for a conditional use permit and variances to construct a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru window on the property. The site is located on the northeast corner of Vista Avenue and Overland Road in a General Commercial zone. As noted in your report, the project includes 16 parking spaces, which actually exceed the current maximum allowance of 10 spaces. As a result that is part of your Conditional Use Permit this evening. As stated in the report, staff has recommended denial of this request. I would like to briefly go through the reasons for that recommendation. Staff has met with several prospective applicants over the years regarding this site, including a couple of meetings with the current applicant. Staff consistently expressed the importance of design on this property. A proposal for a drive-thru coffee shop in this location was actually withdrawn in 2006, I believe, after a similar recommendation from our planning staff. Unfortunately, the current proposal shares many of the same issues. The primary concern is really the layout and configuration of the site, rather than the use itself. As you can see on the screen, it is located at a very prominent intersection of two arterial roadways and Vista is designated as a gateway street. As detailed in your report, there are very specific elements of the Comprehensive Plan that specifically apply to this segment of Vista Avenue. There is a clear emphasis on this segment of Vista regarding concepts of new urbanism and design. Those concepts have been applied to each of the projects on the opposite corners of this site, as you can see on the aerial. While those concepts influenced the design of those projects, they clearly didn’t disallow auto oriented uses. One corner is occupied with an Albertsons C store. You can see the parking and the auto oriented uses have been located behind the building.


The other corner is occupied by a DL Evans Bank with the same thing; the drive-thru has been located behind the building, along with parking. As I mentioned, staff did emphasize importance of building placement and design in pre-application conferences with the applicant. We understand it is challenging, especially with a drive-thru facility on such a small site. While the building hasn’t been placed at the corner in this instance, the applicant has made attempts to compromise with staff. Parking has been placed behind the building. As you can see, a substantial landscape buffer with a trellis feature has been proposed as a buffer from the drive-thru lane. I would note the drive-thru itself does substantially comply with the ordinance standards for drive-thru facilities. Unfortunately, staff feels the features they have provided only mitigate aesthetic impacts, but there is still really no pedestrian interface between the street and the building. Pedestrians would still be forced to cross from the sidewalk through the drive-thru lane, or around the building to enter. The seating area proposed at the corner, while it has a nice aesthetic feature, really is probably not the most appealing environment for pedestrians to sit. As I mentioned in the report, the project also includes a couple of variances, which I don’t think we need to go into great detail. The variances are from the north and east setbacks. It’s pretty clear minor adjustments could be made to the site to accommodate these setbacks. Should the Commission elect to approve the application tonight that could be a potential condition of approval. Also, as I mentioned there is a request to exceed the parking maximum as outlined in the report. We feel that request is justified as well. Really, the issues are primarily with the layout of the project. We think it is compatible in terms of land use. It’s the layout that creates compatibility issues and could negatively impact the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. As far as the Comprehensive Plan, Policy 7.2.7.2 specifically lists Vista Avenue as a gateway street from the freeway to Capitol Boulevard. It actually indicates it is the highest priority gateway street in the City. Policy 8.1 12.3 promotes the principles of new urbanism along this segment of the street. The ideals we are talking about have not only been applied to the immediately adjacent properties, but as you can see here, also to sites further up Vista at the intersection of Kootenai. This very Commission required, with a recommendation from staff that the building be placed at the corner, with the drive-thru facility behind. Finally, the project is also within the boundaries of the Depot Bench Neighborhood Association. There neighborhood plan includes a similar emphasis for a commercial development like this. It states that site and building design should be designed to accommodate pedestrians and that on-site parking should be located behind, or to the side of buildings where possible. In conclusion, while we are not necessarily opposed to the use, we really don’t want to undo the progress we’ve made to date on the Vista Corridor. Within your packet was the sketch you see here, just a real quick concept sketch from staff. It wasn’t intended to be the ultimate solution. I believe the applicant has some concerns and they will get into that. We are simply trying to illustrate there may be alternatives that would meet both of our desires.


Jeff Likes (Applicant) – We will go into our site plan first. One of the variances is for setbacks on the north and east sides of the site. We revised our site plan to fall within the required setbacks. Everything on the east fits nicely, so that is no longer a concern of ours. It seems the only concern we have would be the layout of the site, and the way the building is pushed to the corner. We have looked at staff’s recommendation and there are a few examples of our site working in the City. Cody and I have talked quite a bit about the site and we laid this site plan out based off of staff’s recommendations. There are a couple of things we don’t agree with on the site. One would be stacking to pretty much allow this. Here is the menu board and order board. It pretty much only allows two or three cars in there before you are out into the alleyway. Another quick thing to point out about this site is the very limited access. ACHD (Ada County Highway District) is basically allowing us to have a right-out on Vista Avenue. Off of Overland we are only going to be allowed to have a right-in, right-out off of the existing alleyway. You can see that if we were to back up cars more than two in line, we would be blocking our only access to the site. From there you would be blocking traffic on Overland, or even stacking into the alleyway if you could get by. In Boise, current sites like ours would be the Starbucks at Veterans Parkway and State Street. They have a very similar layout where the building is pushed back, as you can see on the overhead. This is a view looking across the street. The building still appears to be at the corner. There are still pedestrian amenities there. It isn’t pushed back off of the corner. The other example is Wendy’s, which is actually kiddy-corner from Starbucks. You can see how Wendy’s still appears to be on the corner and still allows for pedestrians to interact. In fact, this was taken at noon and you can hardly tell there are any cars in the drive-thru with the way it is landscaped. Our site has an upgraded landscape built into it. We have increased the landscape to help with the pedestrian amenities and to help bring the building further to the corner, as you can see in our rendering. They also brought the Jack in the Box further up at Kootenai and Vista. This actually works very well on this site, but the reason this does work is you can actually access the site further north than where it is. To access the site to the east of it, this isn’t a right-in, right-out full access, but the drive-thru aisle actually backs up this way. If it were to be pushed to the corner, our stacking again would stack out into the alley, blocking public access and then back down Overland. One more perspective of what that is going to look like, standing basically in the middle of Vista and Overland, it has a nice pedestrian appeal to it with the landscape and brings it back out to the corner, in our opinion. Commissioner Stevens – Could you put up your sketch of the traffic flow, if it was done the way staff is recommending? I don’t want to get into a Design Review thing but this really is a, can’t this be done question. Couldn’t you turn right into the alley and then come back the other way, instead of going into the site and backing out. Jeff Likes – Coming back down? There’s really not enough turning area in here to get it back around. It would still allow stacking to come back out here and then we are really blocking up our only other exit out of the site. It also puts you on the wrong side of the car to go through the drive-thru window. Again, with our plan we do have enough stacking for about 10 cars in there before you are pushed back out of the alleyway.


Commissioner Meyer – Cody, I thought you had mentioned there was going to be some outdoor seating for this restaurant and that the access for pedestrians would have to cross in front of traffic. Is that what I heard you say? Cody Riddle – That is correct. As it’s designed now the seating area is here, the entrance to the building is here, so it’s separated from the drive-thru. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY Jeff Likes – We have a letter from the owner that could be read in. Commissioner Wilson – You could either leave it to be part of the record, or if questions come up and you feel it would be pertinent, then we could go ahead and take that step. Jeff Likes – Matt Hodges has that letter. NO REBUTTAL COMMISSIONER MOVED TO DENY CUP11-00061. COMMISSIONER STEVENS SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Barker – Unfortunately, the applicant showed his examples, which are two of my least favorite designs, that being Starbucks and Wendy’s. The examples point out exactly what I would prefer not to see on this corner and that is that the designs we have, essentially have built barriers between pedestrians and the facility. They have to build barriers because you have a stream of traffic going through that drive-up lane. I’m not saying staff has suggested the only solution. I think there is enough opportunity on this site that we could see a solution which would bring the building to the corner. This would eliminate the conflict between the seating area and the drive-up traffic, and could solve the applicant’s requirement for having the number of vehicles in the lane. Commissioner Stevens – I think staff made a very compelling case for why we need to deny this. I think the staff report told us everything we really need to justify denying this. I agree with Commissioner Barker that the creativity on this site hasn’t reached its end yet. Part of this application is for a parking variance for the number of parking spaces. They want more than they need. Obviously, one of the solutions in my mind is to take some of that parking out and regain some space so they can get the stacking they need to keep the drive-thru and also put the building on the corner. It’s not our job to redesign that, but it seems to me there is some space availability there and probably some other options. That’s the reason I will be voting to deny the project.


ROLL CALL VOTE COMMISSIONER BARKER AYE COMMISSIONER STEVENS AYE COMMISSIONER BRADBURY AYE COMMISSIONER MEYER AYE COMMISSIONER COOPER AYE COMMISSIONER WILSON AYE ALL IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED, MOTION CARRIES. CUP11-00063 / DILLON LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Location: 2713 S. Hilton Street CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 9,900 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE BUILDING ASSOCIATED WITH AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT LOCATED IN A C-4D ZONE. Commissioner Wilson – I want to note we received an e-mail in opposition to this application from Jeremy Fritten earlier today, and it looks like we have someone signed up to testify. Susan Riggs (Staff) – The site before you is located on the west side of Hilton Street, just north of Interstate I-84. The dealership and sales lot are located along Orchard Street and the Interstate. The two back parcels, which are the subject of this application, are primarily used for vehicle storage; however, there are cars parked along the frontage for display only. Additionally, there are two buildings on the parcel (formally single-family homes), one which is vacant and the other used for document storage. It is important to note that access to this site is taken from the main dealership off Orchard and also an access on Malad Street. There is a gated and locked entrance, which has been a bone of contention in the past. This entrance is locked at all times and according to the applicant is only used rarely; for instance, when they need to do some landscape repair. In this instance, they will bring a truck in through that back entrance; however, employees are not using that entrance anymore and it does remain locked and gated. That is also reiterated in a condition of approval tonight. There is ample parking on this site, approximately three quarters of the lot is vacant. The site plan in front of you is a proposal for a 9,900 square foot storage building. According to the applicant, this will be used for storage of parts only. No vehicles, or other equipment, will be stored in this building. Behind me on the overhead are some photos of the site. This is the existing parking lot which is the back portion of the area we are talking about. This is one of the single-family homes that is either vacant, or being used for document storage. There is some landscaping along the sidewalk and along Hilton Street. Finally, the area of construction will be over here, in the northwest corner of the lot. As you can see, there is some dense landscaping which is sporadic throughout this side of the parcel. Vinyl fencing separates the use from the adjacent residential area. This is the elevation of the proposed storage area.


Staff has received one letter, as Commissioner Wilson mentioned, from a neighbor. They are questioning the integrity of the dealership and the willingness of Dennis Dillon to follow the rules of past conditional use permits. The gentleman states Dennis Dillon has not been a good neighbor. The only way he will support the application is if they construct a sound wall all the way around the dealership, replacing the vinyl fencing which he states is dilapidated. I was not able to get back into the site close enough to see the condition of the fencing, so I can’t comment on that. Dennis Dillon has had Code Enforcement violations in the past. However, complaints have been ratified and to the best of staff’s knowledge, there are no outstanding complaints at this time. Again, the back entrance is the nemesis; the gate has been permanently locked. Staff finds the single-story building compatible with the adjacent residential homes based on the nature of its use, the 150 foot plus separation between the building and the adjacent homes, and existing landscaping and fencing. These are homes on large lots. Several of them have out- buildings along the fence line, which will provide further screening of the one-story storage building. Also, there’s existing landscaping and fencing in that area. This application is in a C-4D zone which requires the highest integrity of architecture. This is a use that has been there for quite some time. The Design Review Committee will review the design of the building on October 16th. Staff believes the C-4 zone is a bit of a misnomer, as the use does not reflect a comprehensively planned development. However, the zone was likely chosen to provide a level of protection for the surrounding properties should the dealership expand. This structure meets all of the dimensional standards, with no variances being requested. It is important to note, the use is a conditionally allowed use in the zone. If this were a C-2 or a C-3, it would be an allowed use. The building will not generate any noise and no additional outdoor lighting is proposed. Staff finds this is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and it is also in the Airport Overlay Zone, which discourages any residential development in this area. Commissioner Barker – Could you go back to the site plan? Would you point out for me the permanently locked gate? Susan Riggs – Yes, this is Hilton Street and I believe the gated entrance is in this location. The applicant can correct me if I’m wrong. Commissioner Barker – Does that permanently locked gate provide concerns for the Fire Department? I noticed in their response, it said fire lanes would be available for this building, but I wonder if that is going to cause some problems. Susan Riggs – The Fire Department comments indicated they can approve the project. Again, the primary access is located off of Orchard Street, or Malad and fire trucks can get to the back lot from these entrances. Joe Thompson (Applicant) – I’m representing the applicant as Dillon Limited Partnership and we are fine with the staff report as presented, and the conditions of approval. I did want to address a couple of items brought up, one regarding the fence and the condition of it.


When I was out there taking photos of the fence, which is a vinyl six-foot fence, it looked like it was in good repair. Actually, to take the photos I had to reach up and over because it obscures the site pretty well. On top of that, the landscaping is fairly dense and in good condition. Regarding the gate location, you can actually see it drawn about there, which is where the gate location is. According to my client, the Fire Department does have a key to access through that fence and that same key will work for any obstructions, or gates on their site. Other than that, we are fine. Commissioner Stevens – This question is for staff. Just so I understand the procedure, this will be going to Design Review after we hear it tonight. Susan Riggs – That is correct, it goes to Design Review next Wednesday night. PUBLIC HEARING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY NO REBUTTAL PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COMMISSIONER BRADBURY MOVED TO APPROVE CUP11-00063 BASED ON STAFF’S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. COMMISSIONER MEYER SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL VOTE COMMISSIONER BRADBURY AYE COMMISSIONER MEYER AYE COMMISSIONER STEVENS AYE COMMISSIONER COOPER AYE COMMISSIONER BARKER AYE COMMISSIONER WILSON AYE ALL IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED, MOTION CARRIES.


CFH11-00022 / BOISE CITY PARKS AND RECREATION Location: 3400 W. Pleasanton Ave., between the Boise River and Quinn’s Pond BOISE RIVER SYSTEM PERMIT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RELOCATION AND REPLACEMENT OF THE THURMAN MILL DIVERSION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST PHASE OF A RIVER RECREATION PARK LOCATED IN AN A-1 ZONE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF TREES AND VEGETATION FROM CLASS A LANDS, RIVER BANK AND DIVERSION STRUCTURE STABILIZATION, SEATING AREAS, PATHWAY AND VIEWING PLATFORM CONSTRUCTION, REVEGETATION, THE TEMPORARY DIVERSION OF THE BOISE RIVER THROUGH QUINN’S POND AND A CLOSURE OF THE GREENBELT FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. Cody Riddle (Staff) – This application is a request for approval of a Boise River System Permit for improvements associated with the replacement of the Thurman Mill Diversion. It is also the first phase of a river recreation park. As you can see on the screen, the site is located between Quinn’s Pond and the Boise River. All improvements associated with this phase are scheduled to be completed by March of 2012. I would also note that the majority of the overall project is actually located in Garden City, which includes all of the work within the river itself. Boise City’s jurisdiction is essentially the high water line of the Boise River to the east. This project is actually one phase of a much larger park system plan for the area. The pedestrian bridge connecting Boise to Garden City was recently completed just north of the proposed diversion structure, and then Esther Simplot Park is planned just north of Quinn’s Pond. It’s going to include a variety of passive and active use amenities along with water features, riparian plantings and other improvements like that. The primary purpose of this phase is to relocate the Thurman Mill Diversion. To avoid an interruption in service to water users in the spring, the project does need to be complete prior to the next water season. The window of time to complete the project is actually narrowed even further by above average carryover in the reservoir system. To ensure the project is completed in a timely matter, the applicant is proposing a temporary diversion of the river through Quinn’s Pond. The applicant has carefully coordinated this work with a variety of public agencies and as of today we have received no opposition to this request. I would also note the applicant has already received approval of a Flood plain Development Permit which indicates no net rise in flood waters, either as a result of the complete project or during the construction process. They actually included a pretty extensive Emergency Management Plan that will be in place while construction occurs, which is included in your packet. In addition to the diversion structure, the project does include amenities which include a viewing platform adjacent to the Greenbelt, a stone seating area on the riverbank and pathway access to the river. These improvements are going to require the removal of vegetation between Quinn’s Pond and the river. I would note the removal of that vegetation actually has been anticipated for a number of years. In fact, everything on the east side of the Greenbelt was actually approved along with the Boise River System Permit for the pedestrian bridge. All of that vegetation wasn’t removed at that time. The applicant is proposing a combination of on and off-site mitigation to address the removal of that vegetation.


I need to clarify, when talking about off-site mitigation, the size of this phase of the project is so small that all of the mitigation can’t occur in that tiny area. Regarding that, Parks and Recreation actually have a future park site immediately adjacent to the site, where there is ample room to provide mitigation for the vegetation being removed. On-site mitigation is going to consist of a variety of grasses combined with Alder, Willow and Cottonwood plantings. Again, the remaining mitigation is going to occur on the adjacent Esther Simplot Park, which has always been in the plan. From a planning perspective, I think it is important a detailed mitigation plan be worked out before any further phases of this work are permitted. In your packet we have included a very detailed condition of approval, site specific condition number four, a through h, is going to require that in addition to plan reviews, the applicant obtain comments from public agencies, a phasing plan and a monitoring plan to ensure adequate mitigation is achieved. We also required an emphasis be placed on providing those mitigation plantings along the river and adjacent to the Greenbelt, rather than interior to the park. There will be some of both and manicured landscaping should not count towards the mitigation objectives. Staff recognizes this project is actually quite different than any on the river in the past, but both the Comprehensive Plan and the Boise River System Ordinance contemplate both diversion structures and recreation facilities. I think it’s important to note both are actually allowed uses. Based on the proposed mitigation measures, staff finds the project is consistent with the findings required for approval. Upon completion, the park complex as a whole will improve the ability of the site to convey and store floodwater. It will also result in the overall increase in both the quantity and quality of habitat in Class A Lands and provide bank stabilization for over 500 feet of eroding river bank. We understand there may be some uneasiness with the project. I would note the applicant has actually carefully coordinated the work, including the diversion portion, with public agencies. There were a number of e-mail exchanges included in your packet this evening discussing that very issue. This includes the Army Corps of Engineers, Idaho Department of Water Resources, Department of Lands, Boise River Water Master, Department of Fish & Game, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the irrigation companies. I would also note the Parks Commission approved this request on October 15, 2010. Before we conclude, I would note we received one letter this morning from Chris Jones who is with the local chapter of Trout Unlimited. He didn’t appear to indicate opposition to the request, but seemed to share some of the same concerns as staff that mitigation occur on the river itself, not in another location in the county and that it be focused on the actual river, not out in the park. Again, staff feels our conditions do address that. In conclusion, I would mention the applicant is here this evening and has brought staff from Parks and Recreation and Public Works, who can probably better answer some of the technical questions you might have. Cheyne Weston (City of Boise Parks and Recreation/Applicant Team) – We have assembled a team tonight to help you make your way through questions you might have for this project. I wanted to reinforce the idea that the Thurman Mill relocation and reconstruction accentuates the resource values of the river system by promoting the banks stability that is there, and the overall diversion structure being reinforced.


I want to emphasize the safety features that will be completed through this construction project will benefit all of the citizens of the valley when this gets completed. I realize you probably have some concerns with mitigation and the team will address those points. The purpose of mitigation is to bring back the equivalency of the land area that is disturbed. We are going to be able to demonstrate the immediate area will be fully mitigated, and our mitigation efforts at the nearby Esther Simplot Park will be as close as possible to the river environment adjacent to it. We have about 19,000 square feet that are mitigated as part of this project, and another 6,000 square feet that will be extremely close to this same particular area. We have staff here who can answer any specific questions you might have. Commissioner Barker – I’m curious to know what we might expect to see as a number of phases for this project and when we might see the next phase, because in our conditions of approval it says we will have a detailed mitigation plan prepared by the next phase. Wendy Larimore (City of Boise Parks and Recreation/Applicant Team) – This is the first phase of the river recreation park. The second phase is anticipated to be the Esther Simplot Park, which is currently under master planning. We are hoping to have a date on that construction, hopefully this winter, once our permitting is in place. They are hoping to have that completed before the 30th Street Extension is complete and I believe that is slated to be built in 2013. The additional river recreation park on the river would follow. Commissioner Barker – When might we expect to see a detailed mitigation plan? Wendy Larimore – We have a detailed revegetation plan you could consider as a mitigation plan for the on-site improvements. This is what we can get back in this construction zone. The rest will be in the future Esther Simplot Development. We won’t know until we have more of an idea of what’s going to happen in the Master Plan. One thing we know is on that Master Plan there is going to be extensive shoreline, so we will be able to mitigate the same kind of plant materials. It won’t be like turf-and-trees mitigation. It will be the same riparian habitat. Commissioner Stevens – I’m hoping you can tell us a little bit about the fish salvage plan. Wendy Larimore – Our contractor, McAlvain Construction, requested assistance from Trout Unlimited to help them with their salvage plan. Once we drain the water from the construction area inside the river, they will have crews out there with nets and then throw the fish back into the river. Commissioner Stevens – Is that common practice? Is that what a fish salvage plan is, scooping up fish with a net and then throwing them into the river? I don’t know much about fish salvage, but that strikes me as sort of odd. Wendy Larimore – I thought so too. When we were going to dewater Quinn’s Pond, Fish & Game’s plan was to come out and net fish as we dewatered the pond. We never got that far down so we didn’t have to worry about it, but it’s the same thing when we dewater that section of river. Hopefully, most of them will get flushed down, but as they shut off those port-a-dams they will go out with nets and throw the fish back in.


Commissioner Meyer – In addition to the fish, there are other wildlife that live along the banks. Are we anticipating we are going to get that wildlife back, or once it’s gone will we reintroduce birds and the other animals that live along that bank? Will we reintroduce that? Is there a plan for that, or do we just hope they will come back to the neighborhood after the disruption? Wendy Larimore – I know there are mink down there and various birds, but I don’t think they are going to move too far away. When we revegetate and replant, it’s actually going to provide much better habitat in the long run. Commissioner Meyer – Is that part of the plan we might see that shows how all these things will come together? As a mitigation plan, I would like to know who is keeping an eye on all of that. Wendy Larimore – Part of the mitigation plan, as Cody designated in his conditions, was 18 months. I believe following installation we will have to have a report. We have a really good Horticulture Department within the Parks and Recreation Department. Commissioner Wilson – I have a follow-up question you might be able to clarify. With respect to your permit from the Corps of Engineers for off-site mitigation, as part of the permit did they put time constraints, acreage locations and other conditions like that, or are they saying by a certain date you need to have the plan to them for the park? How does that work with your permitting with the Corps of Engineers? Wendy Larimore – Actually, we got an exemption from the Corps of Engineer permit because it is an irrigation structure, so they didn’t require anything. Cheyne Weston – Adding to what Wendy just spoke to, I would like to call on the Community Forester to come up and talk about a long term plan, because once we complete our particular plan, I think you will find the natural resource values and functions come back to an even better state within about a ten year period. Brian Jorgenson (City Forester with Boise City Parks and Recreation/Applicant Team) – The objective and purpose of mitigation is to restore the vegetation that was there and the function of that vegetation can only be restored through growth, of course. We are proposing at this point to provide mitigation along with the initial phase one of construction. In terms of overall tree canopy over some specified period of time, probably five or ten years. In other words, we will plant small trees, probably five gallon Cottonwoods, Willows and Alders in order to restock, or replenish the tree canopy that was lost during construction. We will basically figure out what the square feet of area the canopy is, and based on our experience with tree growth, and how big are they going to be in ten years, we will plant the adequate number of trees to restore the canopy that was there. Once that growth has begun, the wildlife will begin to return to the area. It’s all about the habitat. In this case, we don’t have the opportunity to reintroduce animals. They will actually reintroduce themselves as the habitat begins to restore.


Commissioner Bradbury – Do you have a slide that depicts the on-site revegetation? I have a sense maybe the lack of visual cues might be making it difficult to fully appreciate what you’re proposing. Maybe somebody can walk through it and explain what it is and what we are looking at. Wendy Larimore – The top graphic designates what is getting removed. Those were already approved in the permit, but our new construction area only allows for good spacing for 34 mature trees. As Brian was saying, we are proposing to over plant that area with 5 gallon trees and the canopy will be replaced and restored. Can you see the graphics for trees on there? Commissioner Bradbury – Maybe you can talk to us a little bit about what is proposed along there. Wendy Larimore – Right now the existing Greenbelt runs right through here. This will be our observation deck and this will be the kayak path. The new Greenbelt will run right through here. What we have left for planting areas is along the bank through here. We can’t plant anything here because that is our flood conveyance for the overflow from when we have a high water event. This is an access road the irrigation company has requested to their existing diversion. So we can replant all of this area between the access road and the Greenbelt, and all along the edge of Quinn’s Pond. Everything above the high water mark will be planted with trees, as spacing allows for shrubs and groundcovers. Anything below the high water mark will pretty much be planted with shrubs. Commissioner Bradbury – Does your revegetation plan consist of the entire 540 feet of area where vegetation is proposed to be removed? Wendy Larimore – This is the downstream end of the dewatering channel and this is the upstream end. Commissioner Stevens – I would like to go back to the wildlife question Commissioner Meyer posed earlier. I have to admit I wasn’t very comfortable with the answers and my sense was there is a horticulturist in Parks and Recreation, but the question was specifically about wildlife. I’m not sure I understand who is keeping track? The sense I am getting is the animals will probably all go away and within ten years they will probably all come back. Correct me if I’m wrong. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t get the sense anybody is tracking what is being lost, or tracking what’s coming back and doing anything to ensure that happens, other than a shot in the dark and saying, I hope the trees we plant makes it all come back. I’m hoping you can add some color to that and flush it out for me a little bit. Brian Jorgenson - I don’t believe there has been any wildlife inventory in the area at all. In terms of the habitat, that will be recreated to the best of our ability. We are going to plant trees and ensure they survive, most likely with at least a temporary irrigation system. There will be several different species of trees, various shrubs and ground cover, as much as we can fit in there and allow adequate room for those trees and shrubs to grow back. There will be a little bit of over planting.


We are looking at replacement of the existing canopy lost, in 10 or 20 years and in another 30 years we will see a much greater restoration to actually end up having a net growth in terms of vegetation and canopy cover. Commissioner Stevens – When is the initial planting going to start? This is going to be a two part question. I think I heard Cody say the construction is going to be over by the end of March. Will planting start at that point? Brian Jorgenson – I believe that’s the plan exactly. Wendy Larimore – If the construction on the bank extends longer, we probably wouldn’t plant until fall. Brian Jorgenson – We might not plant until fall, given the weather patterns are more favorable to tree growth. However, if we do have irrigation systems available in some places, they could still plant in the spring season. Commissioner Cooper – I have a question regarding the letter from Trout Unlimited about mitigation. If you mentioned this, I missed it. There was a comment; The mitigation plan is based on tree canopy, rather than the standard practice of caliper replacement, which is what I’m familiar with. Can you address that? Brian Jorgenson – The standard method of caliper that has been used on other sites is basically an inch-per-inch caliper loss. In other words, if we lose 612 inches of tree caliper, we are going to replace 612 inches of tree caliper immediately. Due to the restrictions of the site, there is nowhere near the amount of space we would need to have in order to put it back in this phase one area. We can mitigate elsewhere, but the opportunities for planting elsewhere may not be very high in the immediate area and we might have to go some distance to start planting additional trees. I believe in this case the objective is not to plant caliper inches. Caliper inches from an ecological standpoint are fairly meaningless. What we are looking for is the benefit the tree canopy and groundcover can afford, rather than woody stems. In other words, within ten years we will see a full canopy replacement of what we have. Commissioner Cooper – I recently had this situation on a project where we had to do caliper replacement. If this was a private applicant, would a plan like this be acceptable to the City? Cody Riddle – This is a unique situation. Caliper-for-caliper replacement is typically something we look at in a manicured landscape situation. This is obviously very different. We do want the canopy to be restored, at a minimum, so I think we do have some discretion given the unique characteristics of the site. In the conditions of approval I had talked about a caliper-per-caliper replacement, or equivalent, based on comments and recommendations from Forestry. That might be diameter at breast height or tree canopy, but basically in the mitigation plan we wanted to see additional analysis. If it was going to be based on canopy, we would want measurements; some supporting data we could show in the end that the canopy had actually been replaced.


It’s a good time to mention, in the conditions of approval I tried to lay out a pretty extensive list of things we wanted to see in the mitigation plan. I would remind the Commission these are allowed uses. It’s really the mitigation, from the planning staff’s perspective, that we have to get it right. Rather than deny, defer, or approve and set this out with an uncertain date for mitigation, it’s definitely within you discretion to say come back. You can set a date tonight for that mitigation plan to come back. You can agree, or disagree with what staff has recommended and also come up with your own list of things you would like to see in the mitigation plan. We did list as a requirement that the mitigation plan include detailed comments from the various public agencies so Fish & Game, and folks like that, could comment on actual science. I spoke with Fish & Game, but that’s nothing in writing we have for you this evening. Commissioner Wilson – Cody, I was thinking about that very topic and it was mentioned that a lot of mitigation may occur at the Esther Simplot Park and that the Parks Department is currently in the master planning process. From a timing perspective, where is Parks at with the Master Plan and would the mitigation be included as baseline conditions for that Master Plan? Cody Riddle – I’ll let Parks and Recreation speak to the actual schedule, but in the Master Plan that Parks include lands that are subject to the Boise River System permitting process. Before any construction could occur they would need to come before you with that plan. Commissioner Wilson – One thing I’m kind of concerned with here is that we usually end up seeing things at the tail-end, after everybody has all the designs and everything worked out. Then folks come to us and say, Is this okay? We would like to start construction tomorrow. What I would like to see is a little more proactive approach where we can go ahead and come up with some mitigation plans, knowing we’ve got this coming, knowing we have this construction right now and that be incorporated in the earlier parts of the planning process, instead of at the last possible second. That’s really what I’m getting at. Is that possible? Would that be included in the master plan if we came up with some mitigation measures? Wendy Larimore – Once we have the conceptual master plan for Esther Simplot Park would be a great time for us to come to one of your worksessions. Commissioner Wilson – Would the mitigation measures currently in the staff report, any additional ones we may come up with this evening, or in a future worksession, would those be incorporated in that master planning process? Wendy Larimore – We could absolutely do that. Rob Wallace (Student Commissioner) – Regarding this whole area, you said the canopy will be fully restored by ten years, right? With that amount of years, was that taken in by the disturbance of construction that will be taking place, because as that construction goes on in the area, wouldn’t it be hard for the animals to fully restore themselves? My understanding of this project is it will take a long time to complete, and construction in this area won’t be fast. It will take a very long time for the animals to come back, or how long do you think it will take for all of those animals to return?


Brian Jorgenson – I want to make it clear that I’m not a wildlife biologist. I’m an arborist. In order for wildlife to return to a place there has to be quality habitat for them to return to. Given the construction that will go on over time, I’m sure there will be a delay. During that delay the trees, plants and seeds planted next spring are going to be starting to grow, so we should have reached our canopy restoration in full. Whatever period of time, and I’m using ten years as an example of what we have used in the past. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Robert Blurton – I’m really in favor of this project. I’ve watched these river parks go in all across the country and they are always a big success. They are a hit with everyone, different users and wildlife. I’m especially excited; I’ve been kayaking at this dam for 18 years. I’m glad to see the dam go because it’s what we, in the white water community, refer to as a drowning machine. You want to get rid of those and the habitat this is going to provide is going to be tremendous. It’s going to provide pools for fish. There are no pools there and I can assure you there are no animals there now, except maybe a couple of mink. That’s about it. In fact, it is a very heavily used area and right across from a place where people swim all summer long. People have their dogs in there and there’s basically no wildlife there, so I wouldn’t worry about that. I’m just happy to see this happen and I hope it can be expedited. Every city that has put one of these in has had a payback in about two years. It’s really crazy we haven’t done it yet. Richard Boule – I live about a half a mile, as a crow flies, from the work site. I want to say I am 100 percent in favor of this project. We are talking about Boise Parks and Recreation here. They are hardly known for their scorched earth policy. We are not talking about Boise Cascade. Mr. Jorgenson is with Community Forestry. They come to the neighborhood every five years or so and do tree pruning. They also offer tree pruning classes and I have taken the class with Mr. Jorgenson, at least I think it was him. He knows every tree in the neighborhood. We’ll be talking about a tree down the street on 26th and Pleasanton, and he’ll say, Oh, I know that one. The lady who lives there hates it. So I get the feeling they know what they are doing and as far as vegetation mitigation, I wouldn’t worry about Boise Parks and Recreation’s Plan. I would like to backup what Mr. Blurton said about the wildlife down there. I have probably spent more time down in that area than anyone in this room. I have only seen one or two mink in 10 years of hanging out down there. Also, what are we talking about, 500 feet; one-tenth of a mile? How long is the Boise River through the City of Boise, what 10 miles? We’re talking about one percent of the Boise River being affected by this construction project. I don’t have a problem with any wildlife or vegetation concerns. Commissioner Meyer used the word destruction and I find that odd. Have you been down there? The area is already destroyed by years, no decades, of use and neglected by the previous owners, the gravel pit miners. There’s riprap and there are culverts. Go walk on the bank. There are culverts, chain link fence and there’s garbage. I’ve found hypodermic needles in there. The sooner the City of Boise can clean this project up, the better. I’m in favor of this project and I would be shocked if you denied the Boise River System Permit.


Commissioner Bradbury – You claim to spend a lot of time down there. In the staff report I read there is no known eagle roosting or perch trees in the area of this project. I want to know if that is consistent with your personal observations. Richard Boule – I’m not aware of any roosts of any birds. I’ve seen eagles, herons and I’ve seen osprey in the area, but not very often. They do fly around in the area, that’s for sure. But once again, we’re talking about one-tenth of a mile and there’s tons more river downstream and upstream from this project. Tom McCabe – I bike through this area on a daily basis. I see the wildlife and I would love to address the proposal in this whole stretch of area. This path that connects the Greenbelt to the rest of Boise is going to be closed off until next January, possibly later. The detour is to go along the west side of the river, then cross at the bridge and continue on. This isn’t the same map they currently have up on the signs. The ones they have posted simply show the detour starting down here at Main Street, actually further down here, and then going on the other side of the river and coming back in. Commissioner Wilson – Could we pause for a minute so they can pull up the Greenbelt Closure Plan so we are all looking at the same map? Page 20 is what Commissioner Cooper is telling us. Tom McCabe – This is Main Street right here, between Main Street and Veterans Parkway, a distance of about two miles or so. The only access point to the Greenbelt is this access point right here. That is the only way to get onto the Greenbelt. I am not the only person in the North End who rides that Greenbelt. I do it on a daily basis. I come through the back streets so I can avoid the main drags. I cross State Street with the light and when I get to this point here, I finally reach my destination. What they propose is that instead I will have to go around and get on Main Street and ride the sidewalk there, or take my life in my hands and ride along the curb to get onto the Greenbelt. My desire is not to get onto the Greenbelt down here, or up at Veterans. I would love to get on at a closer point, right up here, in this vicinity of 31st and Stewart Street, if in fact they could do a path directly across. In this vicinity there is a chain link fence that runs along the Greenbelt. The chain link fence has a gate already in it just before you get to the next diversion, which is the ditch going off to the east. I don’t know what the name of that ditch is, but just before that ditch there is a gate that’s chain link fence. If in fact they could put a path across what is going to be Esther Simplot Park someday, then in fact people coming from the North End wouldn’t have to go all the way around Main Street to get to the Greenbelt, or where they wouldn’t have to go all the way around Veterans Parkway to get to the Greenbelt. For me the detour starts way up here in the North End which means I have to either go down 27th Street to get over to Main Street, or I have to go along State Street to get to Veterans Parkway, either of which is a much more dangerous route than what I usually do on a daily basis. I can explain what I’m talking about. I ride the Greenbelt on a daily basis. I bird watch on a daily basis. I have a list I keep on a daily basis. I see the animals that apparently no one else in this room sees when I am on that Greenbelt.


Kerry Wirkus – I spend a lot of time on the Greenbelt. I’m there every day. I just want to make the comment there is wildlife there. On the diversion dam, Blue Heron spend the winter there, fishing and living. I know it’s a small stretch and hopefully they come back, but it’s a little upsetting they are not recognizing these animals are there and doing something about it like Commissioner Stevens pointed out. They are there in that specific little stretch they are talking about. Downriver there are eagle, beaver and mink but in just that little stretch there are heron and mink seen daily. David Wouto – I live right next door to Kerry. I am one of the wildlife, or domestic life, that lives down there. First, I would like to commend Boise Parks for an exciting and innovative way to use the river. In general, I am in favor of this. What I am most worried about is the lack of details in the plan and the inability of the people who live down there to be able to get details. It’s not around the dam, it’s not around mitigation. The report shows no demolition, or removal of trees on the west side of the river, but I can’t be sure there is no intent. It actually shows some trees that are being preserved and I want to make sure that is the intent of the plan. The report shows no insertion of water deflecting and noise producing boulders in the river. I want to make sure that is part of the plan. The report says 8,000 cfm (cubic feet per minute) will flow through the overflow into Quinn’s Pond. I want to ensure that when this project is done that is actually what happens, instead of coming toward my house. The dumping of rocks in the proposed new park has already been a very high noise problem for those of us that live right across the street from the new dump. We expect adherence to the Garden City Noise Ordinances, which I know is very strict because my church had a difficult time with them during construction. I have access to a meter and I will be measuring it. The report gives no indication of future phase disruptions which seems very short sighted. You were talking about it with regard to the mitigation plan. I am particularly concerned about it with regard to any other demolition, or removal of trees on the west side of the river, particularly right in front of where I live. We wish the features of the park to encourage ingress and egress on the Boise side of the river, and not in our backyards on the Garden City side of the river. Lastly, with regard to other testimony given, there are lots of dead crags in the area that are being removed. They are particularly conducive to the osprey and other birds that live in the area. The mitigation plan talked about would not replace that and will leave 36 little sticks in an area where there are currently 620 caliper dimension of trees. That will be for along time and if you have any desire to see that, go to the present mitigation plan right by the bridge, where there are a bunch of little dying sticks where they removed all the existing trees. Piper French – I like to go down to the river. My dad and I float the river a lot, and we would like to be able to continue floating the river down there. I haven’t really seen much wildlife there for awhile and I am 100 percent in favor of the project. Commissioner Stevens – I would like to get a couple more questions on the record, if I could. Cody, this question is for you. Since our meeting last week I heard if we don’t act on this tonight, the money for the park goes away.


I want to know officially whether that’s true and if you could tell me more about it because I asked last week what the rush was. For the audience’s benefit, I’ll say for myself that I am not opposed to this project in general. I think everybody in Boise is excited about the park and excited about what is happening in the 30th Street area. However, we as a Commission were faced with an urgent hearing last week because of some changes in the plan to create this park, which included changes to how much land was being cleared, how many trees were being cleared and how the water was diverted. We’ve been asked to make a fair decision and it is our job, as a Commission, to make sure the due diligence is done and that everything possible to preserve the species, the river and the habitat is done. That’s where the questions are coming from; just so you have the benefit of understanding that. Cody Riddle – The funding is something I am unfortunately unable to answer. The folks from Parks may be able to, but I am not aware of that information. Wendy Larimore – I can address the urgency, but not really the funding. We have a really short window of construction to be done by December 31st. It was important to get in the river as soon as possible to shorten our window of risk. After January 1st it becomes proportionately more risky to be in the river as more water from the dam can be released. That was really the underlying urgency. Commissioner Meyer – I was curious, some of the material in our information packet implies the diversion is in very bad disrepair. Can someone speak to that and if that is affecting this sense of urgency at all? I mean, is it going to fall apart this winter? Commissioner Stevens – It looked like someone was stepping up to answer my other question. Could we get the answer to my question and then Commissioner Meyer’s question? Jim Hall (Director of Parks and Recreation) – Regarding the question about the funding, we have a 1.7 million dollar commitment from the Albertson Foundation. We were to have acquired mechanical devices, which are the wave shapers, by October 1st. The Albertson Foundation has given us a deadline to complete the project by April 1st. That is part of the funding requirement they gave us. Commissioner Wilson – Now, onto Commissioner Meyer’s question. Wendy Larimore – I was going to address the condition of the existing diversion. As one of the kayakers mentioned, the wave, the drowning machine, is a terminal hydraulic. The dam is over 100 years old. There has been severe undercutting underneath it. When we had our surveyor out in the wintertime several years ago, they had a piece of rebar that was 5 feet long and they could stick it all the way underneath there and they were way below it. So, it is severely undercut. It has also caused severe erosion on our side of the river bank because of the way it’s situated in the water. I might also throw in that they have tried to fill in those holes with chunks of concrete with rebar in them. If somebody was swimming in there, they could get hurt.


Commissioner Cooper – I wonder if anybody on the applicant team would be interested in addressing Tom McCabe’s question about an alternate Greenbelt access that is a little bit more convenient. Wendy Larimore – These signs got printed before we came up with the alternate plan. We want to make sure everybody knows that. I know he had mentioned a spot up here. What we are going to do is cut a temporary path that will start from that parking lot, and go around to that gate. We’ve had tons of calls from people that commute there, plus there is a Safe Route to School that uses the bridge from the Pleasanton Neighborhood. Commissioner Wilson – Since we heard from our last member of the public, we’ve talked about three new things. We have talked about the condition of the dam itself that is there right now. We have talked about the funding constraint and we have talked about the timing. Are there additional comments regarding any of those three issues? Richard Boule – I wanted to add that every year the Boise side of the river, the bank just downstream from the diversion, is eroding a little more and a little more. You can see where it is dropping off right at the edge of the Greenbelt. Maybe not this year, but next year or the next year, you are going to have to go in there and riprap it at some point in an emergency flood repair situation. It’s eroding and is getting worse and worse every year. Cody Riddle – I would like to reiterate, should you approve the application this evening, you could add a specific timeline as well as your own list of things you would like to see addressed in the mitigation plan. Please keep that in mind as you deliberate. REBUTTAL NO REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COMMISSIONER BARKER MOVED TO APPROVE CFH11-00022. COMMISSIONER MEYER SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Barker – It always makes me a little nervous for any project that comes along making alterations to the Boise River and the habitat along the river. Certainly, this is extensive. However, I think tonight we have had a good perspective on this and it’s a relatively short section of the river. Also, it’s an area where repairs and improvements need to be made in order to maintain the river habitat in the area. My concern is that we don’t have any idea really. We know a lot of the vegetation is going to be taken out, but we really don’t know when it is going to be revegetated. We’ve heard this evening it might be in the spring, or it might be in the fall. I would certainly encourage the applicant to put as much emphasis on that as other mechanical parts of the project.


I was pleased to hear we don’t have a turf-and-tree response to this revegetation. Although, I don’t have anything in front of me that says that won’t be the case, I think I’m willing to have some faith in this project. It certainly has been reviewed by a number of organizations that know more about the issues than I do, and that’s why I’m willing to go ahead and vote to support it. Commissioner Stevens – Before I have any discussion, I’m wondering if the maker of the motion, based specifically on those comments you just made, would be willing to add a condition of approval to require the replanting of trees by October 15, 2012, or some other date we can possibly discuss. It would be good to have that in place and we know they are going to be held to that timeline. It’s certainly within our purview. Commissioner Barker – I have no problem with that at all. I think that is especially generous. Commissioner Wilson – Does the seconder concur? Commissioner Meyer – I concur. I am also wondering if we might want to put some language in there that we are going to have some kind of a mitigation plan in writing by some time next year. Just a phased plan so we know if we are going to have things planted, because there is going to be on-going activity in this area for a few years it sounds like. Commissioner Cooper – I believe staff’s conditions ask for that, but it doesn’t have a date. Commissioner Barker – As the maker of the motion, I am more than willing to suggest, or agree to a date specific for that plan. Commissioner Wilson – Commissioner Meyer, do you have a suggestion for a date? Commissioner Meyer – Since we are talking about wanting to see some plantings happening by next fall, I would like to actually see something in the spring, at least a preliminary plan since they have to be done by the end of March. Commissioner Barker – Are you suggesting maybe April 1, 2012? Commissioner Wilson – We will add a condition of approval that the written mitigation plan needs to be complete by April 1st, and I believe it’s the on-site tree replacement that must be done by October 15, 2012. Commissioner Cooper – I appreciated Wendy Larimore’s presentation of the actual mitigation plan. I think I understand a lot better now. I do realize it’s difficult to replace caliper-by-caliper, very mature trees with equal caliper, and I think the idea is maturity caliper will approach more like what is there now. I appreciate that. I also wanted to mention there was some testimony from Garden City residents who live on Prospect Way. I guess the answer to their questions about work on the west side of the river, this is a Boise project and the west side of the river is in Garden City.


Commissioner Stevens – I’ve asked some tough questions tonight, at least they felt tough coming out about the wildlife. I just want to say I think it’s a great project and I think the Parks Department is doing a great job. What I would like to see in the next iteration of this is some attention to the wildlife. To me, if I’m still up here making votes, that’s going to mean an actual plan that takes inventory and indicates whether it is working with Fish & Game, Fish and Wildlife Services, or whatever it is. I would like to see that next time around. The next phase is going to be really big and I think it’s important we pay attention to this. For the benefit of the audience and those of you who don’t see the mink and other animals, those little guys don’t like to be seen. They don’t want to be seen. I think we can all agree they are probably there. When we see this come to the next phase, that’s going to be absolutely critical for my vote to go forward, and I’m also going to say I hope we don’t get another urgent request. I’m sure that has been tough on staff as well. There’s no doubt in my mind it’s as hard on you as it is on the Commissioners. I appreciate you’ve had to scramble as well as we have, and I know it’s been hard. I think you’ve put some really good thought into it and have done some very quick fire drill discussions with the agencies. I appreciate all of those being put into the staff packet. I think in this particular case, even though I’m not happy about the amount of trees being taken down, I think if you take a look at the whole package, there is ample justification for doing it. I believe it’s a good project for the City. I think it’s a good project for our 30th Street Master Plan and what’s going on there. I think it’s important and I am going to be really happy to see it come to fruition. But please, in the next iteration, put something in there about the wildlife. I will be supporting the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE COMMISSIONER BARKER AYE COMMISSIONER MEYER AYE COMMISSIONER COOPER AYE COMMISSIONER BRADBURY AYE COMMISSIONER STEVENS AYE COMMISSIONER WILSON AYE ALL IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED, MOTION CARRIES.


Hearing is adjourned. Approved: _______________________________ Doug Russell, Chairman Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Date: __________________________

Planning & Zoning Commission - City of Boise · Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes ......

Documents

Transcript of Planning & Zoning Commission - City of Boise · Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes ......