►
From YouTube: Boise City Council - Evening Session
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
E
A
F
D
A
G
Mayor
members
of
council,
Tim,
Keane,
director
of
planning
and
development
services
for
the
city
of
Boise,
and
of
course,
two
weeks
ago,
at
your
hearing,
we
had
this
case
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
assisted
living.
It's
Arbor
Village
and
the
request
was
for
a
conditional
use
permit
to
use
the
property
for
apartments
redevelop
the
property
for
apartments.
We
would
have
been
here
tonight
with
you
to
present
findings
of
that
meeting
and
the
discussion
and
conclusion
the
council
reached,
but
the
applicant
has
withdrawn
that
application.
G
We
received
that
letter
from
the
applicant
last
week,
so
this
case
is
off
your
off
your
table
because
the
applicants
withdrawn
the
request
so
that
that
request
for
a
permit
to
redevelop
the
property
for
apartments
will
not
proceed.
B
If
I
could
for
just
a
comment
and
then
maybe
a
question
director,
Keane,
okay,.
B
Right
so
one
of
my
concerns
about
this
application
being
withdrawn,
as
it
kind
of
came
out
in
the
hearing,
is
that
the
current
residents
are
at
risk
of
being
evicted
on
these
month-to-month
leases.
Should
the
developer
decide
to
do
something
that
would
not
require?
Well,
you
can
just
do
it
anyway.
B
C
B
G
They
they're
not
making
any
rash
decisions
regarding
what
happens
next,
certainly
understand
the
community
and
the
city's
interests
and
ensuring
that
those
residents
of
Arbor
Village
are
taken
care
of,
and
they
have
not
made
a
decision
as
to
what
what
will
happen
next,
but
there
we're
not
feeling
that
a
decision,
anything
that
would
affect
those
residents
negatively
there
was
no
decision
was
imminent
and
that
they
would
have
an
open
line
of
communication
with
us
such
that
we've
got
plenty
of
time
to
step
in,
if
necessary,
to
help
residents
there.
G
But
so
an
answer
to
your
question,
the
answer
is
really
yes.
This
is
a
important
part
of
the
discussion.
You
know:
what's
the
zoning
that
would
be
best
for
the
property
and
is
it
what
it's
currently
zoned?
G
Is
there
some
other
permit
that
will
be
necessary
to
to
to
protect
those
that
are
there
and
and
yet
deal
with
the
realities
of
what
the
owner
is
facing,
so
we're
we're
talking
that,
through
with
them
and
and
when,
when
we're
able
to
come
back
to
council
with
a
full
picture
and
and
a
description
of
what
would
be
next
but
just
to
make
sure
Council
understands
everyone
understands
we're
in
direct
communication
with
them
about
anything,
that's
going
to
happen
next
and
we'll
have
the
time
we
need
to
work
through
that.
A
A
And
next
up
we
have
the
contract
extension
for
Steptoe.
This
is
under
special
business.
Just
so
that,
if
anybody
wants
to
say
anything
you
can,
it
is
an
extension
not
to
exceed,
and
this
will
be
the
final
extension
for
step
two
and
based
on
the
report
that
we
received
this
afternoon.
I
just
want
to
reiterate
what
I
said
at
the
end
that
I
appreciate
and
the
work
that
went
into
this.
The
robust
set
of
recommendations
that
were
developed
and
really
believe
after
talking
with
the
chief
as
well.
A
That
and
all
of
you
there's
clear,
marching
orders
for
what
ought
to
be
looked
at
places
to
start
and
we
can
handle
those
in-house
with
the
resources
that
we
have
and
staff
will
be
coming
back
to
us
for
that
discussion
and
to
ensure
ensure
not
only
that
they've
begun
as
we
as
we
directed
staff
to
to
look
at
the
recommendations
and
share
with
us
how
they
believe
they
could
meet
them,
but
to
also
take
into
account
any
questions
or
suggestions.
That
counsel
has
when
we
bring
this
back
to
you.
E
Yes,
I'll
be
voting
to
approve
this
for
a
couple
of
reasons.
First,
those
costs
have
been
incurred,
City
voice.
He
pays
his
bills.
We
always
have
the
right
thing
to
do.
Second,
there's,
obviously
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
cost
of
this
contract
in
general.
Understandably,
it's
a
large
contract,
but
you
know
what
is
the
cost?
What
is
the
number
you
put
on,
knowing
whether
in
a
vowed
and
self-proclaiming
white
supremacist
is
the
only
one?
What
is
the
dollar
number?
E
Have
you
know
I've
Heard
lots
of
criticism
about
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
I
I.
Guess
I
get
a
little
defensive
about
that,
because
I
never
hear
anybody
propose
what
the
right
amount
of
money
to
spend
is.
Is
that
it
ten
thousand
dollar
problem?
Is
it
a
forty
thousand
dollar
problem?
We
got
far
more
than
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
with
the
benefit
out
of
this.
We
got
a
road
map
for
where
we
should
look
and
how
we
should
tackle
problems
in
our
Police
Department
that
are
currently
costing
us.
E
E
I'm
glad
that
that
we
got
the
roadmap
that
we
that
we
received
and
that
we
are
in
a
position
to
end
that
expensive
piece
of
work
and
tackle
it
from
here,
but
I'm
supportive
of
the
money
that
was
spent
and
obviously
I'm
supportive
of
paying
the
bill
that
we
still
owe.
That's
that's
just
the
right
thing
to
do.
F
Madam
mayor
I
think
that
the
Steptoe
contract
overall
was
a
tremendous
value.
F
When
you
look
at
how
much
money
we
spend
in
this
community
on
public
safety
and
on
policing
what
that
budget
looks
like
compared
to
what
the
Steptoe
contract
ended
up
looking
like
is
it's
really
a
drop
in
the
bucket
and
as
council
member
agent
noted
it's
a
good
investment
in
how
we
run
the
police
department
better,
how
we
improve
processes,
how
we
make
sure
that
we're
promoting
good
people
and
how
we
exonerate
those
who
are
serving
day
in
and
day
out
from
the
terrible
and
egregious
comments
of
one
of
their
former
co-workers.
H
F
So
I
met
a
mayor.
What's
the
process
Madame
mayor
when
I
make
the
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda,
I
had
already
been
planning
to
remove
that
for
separate
consideration.
So
we'll
do
that
in
order.
Okay,
okay,.
H
I
think
at
this
time,
because
we
are
discussing
a
contract
and
obviously
the
motion
will
be
coming,
I'd
like
to
offer
some
different
views
on
this.
It
was
really
oh,
interesting
and
helpful
for
Michael
Bromwich
to
refresh
our
memories
on
just
how
horrible
the
statements
were
by
a
former
member
of
our
police
department.
They
were
ugly,
they
were
horrible,
they
make
my
skin
crawl
and
my
stomach
turn
and
I
was
very
supportive
of
an
investigation
because
it
needed
to
be
investigated
and
we
needed
to
know.
H
Was
this
an
isolated
insulin
incident,
or
was
there
widespread
racism
within
the
department,
and
we
also
needed
to
be
able
to
answer
for
the
trust
for
the
rest
of
the
good
men
and
women
who
are
serving
in
the
Boise
Police
Department
I
did
so,
and
cautioned
at
that
time
that
the
reason
that
there
was
sticker
shock
on
this
number
is
because
it
wasn't
bid.
So
we
never
knew
whether
this
was
a
good
deal.
H
If
this
was
the
going
rate
or
if
it
was
too
much
money
because
it
was
not
bad
and
now
we're
being
put
in
a
position
of
being
asked
for
forgiveness.
In
terms
of
paying
these
bills
then
permission
because
it's
already
gone
over
so
for
that
reason,
when
it
comes
up
I'll,
be
voting
no
on
the
extension
because
the
the
debt
has
already
been
incurred,
and
yet
we
only
authorized
500,
000
and
I.
Think
it's
important
that
those
authorizations
mean
something.
A
B
One
minute
mayor,
I,
just
wanted
to
speak
to
I,
was
very
impressed
with
the
presentation
and
I.
Don't
think
a
traditional
bidding
process
would
have
been
appropriate
in
this.
What
Michael,
Bromwich
brought
to
this
was
skills
and
expertise
that
are
probably
unmatched
with
the
work
that
he's
done
in
other
municipalities
across
the
country.
I
think
we
hired
the
right
guy
and
I
think
we
got
the
information
that
we
need
to
take
action
going
forward
and
I'm
glad
that
the
council
acted
decisively
when
this
information
was
presented
to
us.
A
All
right,
thank
you
all,
and
this
is
somewhat
clunky
we're
going
to
move
into
the
consent
agenda,
pull
that
and
that'll
be
the
first
vote,
and
thanks
council
member
Willits
for
pointing
that
out.
All
items
with
an
asterisk
are
considered
to
be
routine
by
the
council
and
will
be
enacted
by
one
motion.
There
will
be
no
separate
discussion
on
these
items
unless
a
council,
member
or
citizen
so
requests,
in
which
case
the
item
will
be
removed
from
the
general
order
of
business
and
considered
in
its
normal
sequence.
Madam.
F
E
E
E
A
You
next
up,
we
have
no
ordinances
or
unfinished
business,
which
is
good.
We've
got
new
business,
CVA
22-27
at
Fife,
Shire
Avenue,
so
we've
got
David
Mosher
presenting
for
the
city
Amy
George
welcome
is
here,
is
the
applicant
and
appellant
and
then
the
we
don't
expect
the
West
Valley
neighborhood
association,
but
I
just
wanna
I,
know
I,
don't
see
them
in
in
City
Hall.
How
about
online
nope?
Is
anybody
here
to
testify
on
this
item?
A
Yeah
great
anybody
online
alrighty
we'll
go
ahead
and
start
so
I
always
get
a
little
confused
when
we
have
the
applicant
and
an
appellant
be
the
same
person
but
since
you're
the
only
person
here
for
this
maybe
I'll
be
less
confused.
This
time
start
with
staff
and
then
I
imagine
you've
got
one
presentation
and
then
we'll
ask
questions
we'll
make
sure
nobody
wants
to
testifying
us
then
ask
for
their
questions.
You
get
a
bit
of
a
rebuttal.
If
you
need
it
and
then
we'll
close
the
hearing.
J
J
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
the
council.
The
item
before
you
tonight
is
an
appeal
of
the
planning
zoning
commission
denial
of
a
variance
request
for
a
detached
structure
to
encroach
into
the
rear
and
Street
side
setback
on
point
on
point:
one:
six:
acres
located
at
4355,
North,
five
sharp
Avenue
in
an
r1c
Zone.
The
item
was
heard
before
the
planning
is
winning
Commission
on
March
6
and
was
denied
because
it
did
not
comply
with
the
required
findings
as
per
code.
J
Basically,
the
commission
could
not
bind
a
hardship
to
justify
the
variants
and
on
March
16th,
the
applicant
appealed
the
commission's
denial,
and
this
item
was
initially
scheduled
before
City
Council,
on
May
on
May
2nd,
but
was
deferred
to
a
date
certain
to
May
16
tonight,
due
to
noticing
issues
and
as
you
can
see
from
the
aerial
photograph.
The
subject
property
is
located
within
a
residential
neighborhood,
comprised
primarily
of
single-family
homes.
J
This
aerial
photograph
shows
the
location
of
the
detached
structure
on
site.
The
building
is
basically
120
square
foot
built
or
a
shed
a
10
by
12,
Tough
Shed
and,
as
shown
on
this
slide,
it
encroaches
about
six
feet
into
the
required
20-foot
Street
side
setback
and
nine
feet
into
the
15
foot,
rear
yard
setback.
J
This
is
a
quick
summary
of
the
Project's
history
in
2021,
the
applicant
received
a
notice
of
violation
for
the
structure
located
in
the
street
side,
sat
back
so
actually
relocated
the
detached
structure
away
from
the
street
and
closer
to
the
house
on
the
south
side
of
the
property
and
installed
a
six
foot
fence
along
the
Streetside
property
line.
However,
the
building
was
still
located
in
the
required
setback
and,
as
such,
a
variance
was
requested
and
was
denied
at
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission.
J
In
response
to
the
decision,
the
applicant
submitted
an
appeal
based
on
the
following
grounds,
which
are
the
variants,
was
not
materially
detrimental
to
Public
Health
and
will
not
adversely
impact
the
surrounding
properties
and
also
that
there
are
no
locations
on
the
subject
property
to
relocate.
The
structure
outside
of
the
setbacks
in
regard
to
these
grounds
for
the
appeal,
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission,
found
that
the
varians
request
did
not
comply
with
all
the
required
findings.
J
As
for
the
development
code,
basically,
the
commission
could
not
find
a
hardship
to
justify
the
request
and
that
it
was
not
consistent
with
the
goals
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
The
planning
zoning
commission
did
not
consider
the
corner
lot.
Parcel
configuration
or
the
house
location
slightly
under
the
rear
setback
could
be
considered
a
hardship
or
an
exceptional
circumstance
related
to
the
intended
use
of
the
prop
intended
use
of
the
property,
and
that
is
not
generally
equal
to
the
district.
This
situation
occurs
on
residential
Parcels
within
neighborhoods
throughout
the
city.
J
The
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
also
noted
that
there
might
be
space
available
on
site
to
relocate
the
shed
and
comply
with
the
setbacks.
This
slide
was
this
slide
here
shows
the
possible
locations
along
the
north
side
of
the
house
and
that
the
shed
that
the
shed
could
be
relocated
to
that
comply
with
setbacks,
given
the
reduced
setbacks
allowed
for
detached
building
of
this
size
and
height.
J
I
Yeah,
so
I
was
looking
at
the
map
earlier
and
I
noticed
that
there's
other
sheds
on
other
pieces
of
property
in
the
photo
that
are
closer
than
six
feet
to
the
edge
and
then
I
just
started
kind
of
looking
around
Boise,
which
you
can
do
on
Google,
Maps
and
they're
everywhere,
closer
to
the
fence.
And
so
my
question
is
like:
are
every
single
one
of
those
illegal?
Are
every
single
one
of
those
like
not
able
to
be
that
close
to
defense?
Or
is
there
something
that's
letting
those
be
there,
but
not
in
this
situation?.
J
Amount
of
Mayor
council
members,
the
the
code,
does
allow
for
detached
accessory
structures
that
are
under
120
square
feet
and
whose
Wall
height
is
under
seven
to
be
to
to
be
located
within
the
side,
yard
and
rear
setbacks
right
against
the
property
lines,
provided
they're
six
feet
of
separation
between
it
in
the
house,
so
maybe
in
those
locations
or
some
of
those
locations
that
those
requirements
are
being
met.
J
I
J
Is
correct,
provided
it
there's
a
six
foot
separation
between
it
and
in
the
house
gotcha,
and
that's
for
the
just
to
clarify
that's
for
the
interior
side
and
rear
property
lines,
not
the
street
side
and.
I
Then
metamere
one
more
follow-up
question
there
are
there
any
other
circumstances
like
if
it
was
100
square
feet
and
seven
feet
tall?
Could
it
be
there
or
is
it
just?
Is
that
the
is
that
the
actual
guidelines
is
it
120
feet
or
less
and
under
seven
feet
tall?
That's
what's
in
code
for
everywhere
matter,.
J
A
D
K
All
right,
my
name
is
Amy
George
and
my
address
is
4355
North,
five
Shire
Boise
and
yeah
it's
my
case.
I
am
appealing
the
decision.
K
I
feel
like
there
was
a
complaint
because
the
shed
was
located
closer
to
the
sidewalk.
You
know
so
I
did
my
best
at
moving
it
closer
to
the
the
interior
part
of
the
property.
Now
it's
within
three
feet
of
guidelines
and
I
have
looked
at
the
other
side
of
the
house,
the
north
side
that
they
proposed
and
because
of
an
overhanging
tree
and
not
enough
space.
There
I
don't
know
how
to
move
it
over
there.
K
It
won't
fit
so
basically
I'm
just
requesting
that
it
be
left
there
and
I
have
screened
it
with
a
fence,
and
it
looks
a
lot
better
than
when
it
was
closer
to
the
sidewalk,
which
started
this
whole
issue
in
first
place.
K
H
Amy,
thank
you
for
coming.
Our
staff
does
a
great
job
of
outlining
these
things,
but
sometimes
sight
is
really
helpful.
So
I
drove
past
your
home
and
I'd
like
you
to
walk
us
through
two
areas
that
I
think
could
deserve
further
clarification.
One
is:
will
the
shed
fit
and
then
number
two?
Is
this
very
mature
tree
that
hangs
over
into
your
yard
and
it
really
is
straddling
the
fence
like
there's
no
space
there
and
it
basically
Shades
your
yard
versus
your
neighbor's
yard.
Could
you
talk
to
us
a
little
bit
about
that.
K
Well,
if
we
were
trying
to
propose
to
move
the
shed
over
to
that
North
Side,
it
would
be
very
tight,
like
the
door
wouldn't
even
open
to
the
shed
and
I.
Don't
know
how
to
get
it
in
under
that
tree
and
and
I
mean
we
have
to
jack
it
up
to
move
it.
We've
already
moved
it
once
so
I
kind
of
know
how
that
process
works
and
it
would
not
go
back
there.
K
A
E
Madam
mayor,
my
understanding
is
that
our
policy
is
not
to
enforce
this
type
of
thing.
Unless
there's
a
complaint
right,
then
there
was
a
complaint
where
the
shed
was
initially
right.
Has
there
been
a
now
the
shed
has
been
moved
and
fenced
in.
Has
there
been
a
complaint
about
the
new
location
of
the
shed.
J
Members
of
the
of
the
council,
the
the
code
enforcement
complaint
for
the
initial
it
it
still
opens
since
the
it
hasn't
been
resolved
yet
where
they
relocated
was
still
in
setbacks.
So
it's
the
code.
Enforcement
has
put
this
on
hold
pending
a
decision
from
pnz
and
Council,
so
there
hasn't
been
any
additional
complaints,
but
the
original
one
has
not
been
closed
out.
I.
E
E
I
Member
I've
got
a
terrible
question
for
you
in
our
zoning
co-rewrite.
Is
there
any
updates
that
we've
made
towards
sheds
in
people's
yards?
Here's?
Why
I
asked
this
question
when
this
was
written?
A
seven
foot
ched
was
like
every
single
one
of
those
tiny
little
metal
sheds
that
your
grandparents
had
in
their
backyard
that
you
had
to
like
duck
down
to
get
into
even
at
seven
feet
tall.
I
If
there
was
a
doorway,
there's
no
way
that
I
could
walk
into
the
shed
without
hitting
my
head
on
one
of
the
steps
on
the
top,
so
I'm
curious
like
if
this
is
up
to
date,
seven
feet
tall
is
that
is
that
realistic?
Or
is
that
something
that
you
know
we
anticipate
being
updated?
Do
we
know
anything
along
those
lines.
J
Members
of
the
council
I
believe
within
the
modern
code
rewrite
they
kept
the
the
same
wording
as
this
for
for
sheds
in
the
in
the
up
in
the
update.
It
is
my
understanding,
yeah.
I
Yeah
I
don't
know
the
tough
tough
shed
was
a
company
When
It
Was
Written,
originally
or
if
they
sell
a
seven
seven
foot
model.
Thank
you
for
indulging
that
question.
A
K
My
my
neighbor
did
call
in,
and
she
did
say
that
she
was
in
support
of
where
the
shed
is
now
she
couldn't
make
it
here
tonight.
She's,
an
older
lady
I,
have
talked
to
all
the
neighbors
around
and,
and
they
haven't
expressed
any
concern
since
I
have
moved
it
and
again
it's
just
within
three
feet
of
that
code.
So.
B
K
I
have
talked
to
all
of
them
and
they
they've
been
in
support
of
it
being
there
great
thanks.
Thank.
H
Promotion
and
we
may
need
attorney's
help
in
case
I,
get
this
wrong
I'd
like
to
approve
the
application
of
the
variance
of
4355
North
five
Shire
Avenue.
H
We
will
learn.
We
will
learn.
Okay,
like
a
radio.
Please
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
Grant
the
appeal
of
four
three
five:
five
north
five
Shire
Avenue
CVA
22-0027.
G
H
So
a
couple
of
things
that
really
struck
me
about
this
one
is
that
I,
you
know,
part
of
the
part
of
our
level
here
is
was
pnz
capricious.
Did
they
take
in
all
the
information
and
I
think
there's
two
areas
in
which
that
they
didn't
take
the
information
and
reading
the
record.
One
is
that
the
tree
canopy
is
a
value
that
we
hold
within
Boise
and
there
is
really
no
way
to
keep
the
tree
and
the
shed,
and
you
have
no
control
over
that
tree.
That's
in
your
neighbors
and
I
and
I
believe.
H
If,
if
you
were
to
look
at
it,
anyone
who
drove
his
Bible
see
that
it
is
hugging
that
fence
and
then
second
of
all,
there
was
conversation
at
pnz
and
even
tonight
that
it
might
fit,
but
it
doesn't
fit
and
because
of
those
two
things,
I
think
that
the
variant
should
be
not
granted
that
we
should
uphold
the
appeal.
H
E
I
will
vote
in
favor
of
the
motion,
but
for
a
little
bit
different
reason.
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
hardship.
That's
tough!
Under
our
code,
hardship
usually
means
something
unique
to
the
property
and
unique
to
the
property
means.
Not
the
kind
of
thing
that
happens
in
the
rest
of
the
city.
Corner
lot
happens
in
the
rest
of
the
city.
Trees
happen
in
the
rest
of
the
city.
More
and
more,
we
hope
there's.
E
E
Our
procedure
at
the
city
of
Boise
is
to
investigate
complaints.
We
don't
re,
you
know
we
don't
drive
around
looking
for
sheds
when
a
citizen
has
a
complaint
about
a
shed
code
enforcement
opens
up
a
file
and
resolves
the
complaint.
It
either
finds
a
code
violation
or
it
doesn't.
There
was
a
complaint
about
where
your
shed
was
code
enforcement
came,
they
said,
hey
that
can't
be
there.
It
violates
the
code,
you
moved
the
shed.
A
I
I
can't
find
error
in
the
decision.
The
Planning
and
Zoning
made
everything's
by
the
book
right,
and
so
this
is
similar
to
you
know
something
that
we
face
on
Council
before
that
in
order
to
vote
in
favor
of
something
to
not
set
a
precedent,
because
I
might
go,
buy
a
tough
shed
today,
get
it
get
it
in
place.
Now
that
I
know
I
might
be
able
to
squeeze
it
by
I.
I
Think
that
we
need
to
have
our
staff
go
back
and
take
a
look
and
make
sure
that
this
actually
makes
sense
and
I
know
that
we've
got
so
many
things
that
we're
looking
at
with
the
zoning
code.
Ordinance
but
like
is
this
really
realistic,
is
seven
feet
still
the
height.
I
You
know
that
we
put
in
place
and
whenever
this
was
originally
put
in
I,
don't
know
what
date
it
was
I'm
guessing
sometime,
pre-80s,
so
60s
this
one,
so
I
I
I'll
support
the
motion,
but
I'll
support
the
motion
with
taking
a
look
and
making
sure
that
this
is
actually
the
the
code
that
should
be
in
place
and
if
it
needs
to
be
updated
or
evaluated.
If
not,
will
be
the
only
time.
A
Metamere,
and
also
just
to
be
clear,
no
decision
ever
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
appeal
Etc,
creates
precedent,
so
this
you're
looking
at
this
one
we
can
bring.
We
can
definitely
look
at
the
Modern
zoning
code
to
make
sure
it
takes
into
account
modern
sheds.
But
when
you
make
a
decision
up
here,
you're
not
setting
precedent
for
a
similar
case.
F
I
agree
that
this
circumstance,
we've
gotten
out
of
out
of
line
with
our
procedure
on
responding
to
responding
to
complaints,
so
I'll
be
voting
in
favor
of
the
motion
and
also
agree
that
we
should
look
at
this
with
our
zoning
code
modernization
and
make
sure
that
our
standards
for
garden
sheds
still
make
sense.
Given
that
it's
not
the
60s
anymore,
we're
all
a
little
taller.
Maybe
sheds
are
a
little
taller,
maybe
the
standard's
a
little
different
and
make
sure
that
we
have
something
that
makes
sense
for
our
modern
day
yard
needs.
F
So
thanks,
I'll
be
voting
in
favor.