►
From YouTube: Design Review Committee
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
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
boise
city
design
review
committee
meeting
a
few
things
to
start
out
with
for
tonight's
proceedings,
everyone
entering
the
hearing
via
zoom
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak.
As
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you
will
be
called
upon
and
unmuted
you'll
be
promoted
to
panelists
and
will
rejoin
the
meeting
after
a
slight
delay.
A
A
A
After
that,
we
proceed
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
signed
up
on
the
online
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand.
Virtually
anyone
from
the
public
present
in
person
will
be
asked
to
raise
their
hand
and
approach
the
diocese
if
you're
attending
through
the
telephone.
You
can
type
in
star
9.
A
B
Great
thank
you
josh
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
call
the
august
11th
2021
designer
review
committee
meeting
to
order
in
victoria.
We
please
call
the
roll.
B
Next,
I'd
like
to
take
a
motion
on
the
july
14th
2021
minutes.
B
B
B
Its
location
is
521
west
front
street,
it's
to
construct
a
new
19-story
mixed-use,
building
with
ground
floor
commercials,
209
residential
units
and
five
floors
of
structured
parking
with
associated
site
improvements
in
a
c5
dd
zone.
B
This
item
was
previously
deferred
to
july
14,
2021
hearing.
Is
there
any
one?
Member
of
the
audience
wishing
to
speak
to
this
item,
who
cannot
meet
next
month's
date.
B
E
C
B
B
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
to
this
item?
B
Josh
if
you
are
online,
please
raise
your
hand
if
you're
wishing
to
see
none
next
item
to
be
considered
on
the
scent
agenda
is
item
number
three:
it's
drh21-00234.
B
Location
is
311
east
barber,
barber
valley
drive
to
construct
a
new
athletic
training
facility
campus
consisting
of
eight
buildings.
Totaling
approximately
68
000
square
feet
with
associated
site
improvements
and
spods
zone
is
the
applicant
present
tonight.
Is
that
direct
show
the
applicant
is
present?
Are
you
in
agreement
with
the
recommended
conditions
of
approval?
Yes,
let
the
record
show
the
applicant
is
in
agreement.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
to
this
item?
B
See
none
virtually
none
present.
This
item
will
be
moved
forward
to
the
consent
agenda.
B
Next
item
to
be
considered
for
our
consent
agenda
is
item
number
four
location
is
777
8th
street
to
construct
a
new,
approximately
6,
580
square
foot,
two-story
office
building
and
education
building
with
associated
site
improvements
in
an
rodd
zone
is
the
applicant
present
tonight.
Is
that
the
making
sure
the
applicant
is
present
starting
an
agreement
with
recommended
conditions
of
approval?
Please
let
the
records
show
the
applicant
is
in
agreement,
so
any
member
of
the
public's
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
to
this
item.
If
so,
virtually
please
raise
your
hand.
B
The
non-virtually
or
present
this
item
will
be
moved
to
the
consent
agenda.
B
B
B
B
You
are
virtually
please
raise
your
hand,
the
applicant
is
online.
Are
you
in
agreement.
E
B
B
B
E
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
number
one
is
that
added
to
the
consent
agenda
as
well.
It
is
a
time
extension,
although
the
applicant
wasn't
here,
I'm
assuming
that
they're
in
agreement
with
the
time
extension
since
they
requested
it.
Yes,
that's
true,
okay,
sleep
out
for
one,
yes,
okay!
Thank
you.
B
E
B
B
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
commission.
The
item
before
you
is
an
appeal
of
an
administrative
approval
to
construct
a
parking
lot.
The
applicant
was
not
in
agreement
with
the
conditions
of
approval
that
were
issued
on
july,
2nd
2021
that
included
a
condition
to
provide
a
10-foot
landscape
setback
from
the
property
line
on
both
idaho
and
29th
street,
and
an
appeal
to
that
approval
was
submitted
on
july
9
2021
within
the
10-day
appeal
period.
A
The
applicant's
proposal
includes
a
simple
parking
lot
next
to
an
existing
business
at
the
corner
of
29th
and
idaho.
This
would
extend
their
outdoor,
vehicular
and
equipment
storage
area
for
that
associated
business.
You
can
see
on
the
site
plan
that
it
was
a
proposal
for
a
paved
storage
area
and
then
some
landscaping
within
the
right-of-way,
along
both
idaho
and
29th
streets.
A
With
this
approval
and
app
condition,
was
included
that
required
a
10-foot
landscape
setback
on
both
idaho
and
29th
streets
to
comply
with
the
zoning
ordinance,
which
does
for
front
yard
and
side
yard
street,
which
both
idaho
and
29th
would
be
considered.
There
is
a
10
foot
requirement
for
paving
parking,
drive,
aisle
setbacks.
A
A
Secondly,
any
exception
to
setbacks
must
be
approved
through
a
variance
application,
which
is
a
specific
type
of
application
which
goes
to
planning
a
zoning
commission
and
that
neither
planning
and
development
services
staff
or
the
design
review
committee
have
jurisdiction
to
pro
to
approve
a
variance
without
going
through
the
proper
process.
A
The
second
grounds
for
appeal
were
that
the
taste
rents
property
to
the
west
has
a
10
foot,
has
a
fence
that
is
10
feet
off
of
sidewalk
and
they'd
like
to
continue
that
on
this
property
line,
without
that
fence
taking
a
jog
again
without
a
variance
application,
that
landscape
setback
must
be
maintained,
the
existing
property
line
and
fence
to
the
west
is
not
subject
of
the
of
the
current
application
and
that
the
new
parking
and
storage
law
is
required
to
comply
with
ordinances
in
place
at
the
time
of
application.
A
B
A
Mr
chairman,
that
is
correct,
and
that
would
you
know
that
would
also
explain
the
absence
of
any
interior
landscape
requirements.
If
this
was
a
vehicular
parking
lot
for
customers
or
employees,
we
would
have
requirements
for
some
interior
landscaping
at
the
end
of
parking
rows.
You
know,
and
also
no
more
than
10
parking
spaces
in
a
row
with
the
simple
equipment
and
and
vehicle
storage
slot.
That
is
not
required
and
just
those
perimeter
landscaping
environments
have
to
be
met.
B
Great
thanks
and
then
by
providing
the
extra
10
feet
of
landscaping,
then
it
isn't
jeopardizing
required
numbers
of
parking
or
anything
else
from
them
proceeding.
Would
that
be
a
true
statement.
A
E
Mr
chair,
for
simple
josh
on
on
this
site
plan,
it
looks
like
there's
a
an
existing
approach
coming
off
of
idaho,
I
guess
and
then
maybe
a
asphalt
line
that
runs
diagonally
through
that
fence
line.
Is
that
the
case
where
it
looks
like
it's
further
back
from
the
property
line
where
it
goes
into
that
existing?
E
I
don't
know
if
I'm
explaining
it
correctly
from
the
northwest
corner
of
where
the
end
of
the
red
line
on
the
northwest
corner
just
below
that
there
appears
to
be
a
edge
of
pavement
line,
just
trying
to
determine
where
there's
some
existing
pavement.
That's
hitting
this
area
too.
That
appears
to
be
10
feet
or
more
from
that
property
line.
A
Committee,
member
simple,
I
do
not
know
what
that
line
is
depicting
on
that
site.
Planet
it
could.
I
may
have
the
applicant
address
that
we
can
also
bring
up
some
site
photos
too.
If
that
helps.
B
Any
other
questions
for
staff.
No
great
this
time
is
the
applicant
present.
Would
they
like
to
present
testify
tonight?
If
you
would,
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
when
able.
G
Hello,
I'm
ryan
lofthouse,
I'm
representing
tate's
rants
this
location.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
great
yeah,
there's
two
approaches:
there's
one
in
north
and
one
on
the
east
side
there
existing,
which
won't
be
used
to
answer
your
question.
E
Mr
chairman
yeah
it
it's
more
has
to
do
with
the
existing
pavement.
That's
on
to
the
west
of
the
proposed
parking
lot
and
where
that
hits
the
west
side
of
this
proposed
parking
lot.
I
guess,
if
you
had
some
pictures
or
something
I
just
trying
to
get
a
clear
idea
of
what
is
existing
on
this
site,
that
you're
proposing
a
parking
lot,
if
it's
just
vacant
or
or
what's
kind
of
going
on.
G
G
B
I
guess
last,
I
guess,
is
there
any
other
reason
you
can
go
through
a
variance
process
to
request
a
reduction
reduction
in
the
landscape
setback
on
those
two
streets.
G
B
Any
other
questions
hearing
none
are
there
any
members
of
the
public
wishing
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight
and
then
in
person.
I
see
anybody
virtually
josh,
no
one,
virtually
any
last
words
from
the
applicants
before
we
close
the
public
portion
of
the
testimony
bringing
back
to
the
committee
for
discussion
and
emotion.
B
F
E
B
Anybody
want
to
entertain
a
motion,
mr
chairman.
Yes,.
D
It
would
appear
that
our
authority
and
limitations
are
pretty
clearly
spelled
out
by
staff
in
the
report,
and
the
applicant
obviously
has
a
couple
of
options
on
how
to
proceed.
D
One
just
indicated
by
mr
semple,
as
far
as
putting
in
the
10-foot
landscape
strips
on
the
north
and
the
east
side,
the
other
applying
for
the
variants,
if
that
were
to
be
approved.
If
the
applicant's
concerns
about
the
viability
of
the
landscape
at
this
time
of
the
year
could
probably
be
conditioned
to
where
that
item
would
be
bonded
or
somehow
conditioned
so
that
it
could
be
installed
at
the
more
favorable
time
in
in
the
weather
and
the
season.
D
So
with
that,
I
I
find
that
the
conditions
of
approval
placed
on
the
project
comply
with
sections
11-03
dash,
04.12
c
parenthesis,
seven
presence
d
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
would
recommend
denial
of
the
appeal
subject
to
the
original
conditions
of
approval.
Okay,.