►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission - 6/1/2020
Description
Please visit the following link for information on how to testify during virtual public hearings:
https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/finance-and-administration/city-clerk/virtual-meetings/
A
C
D
No,
he
forwarded
me
the
link,
is
he
still
gonna
be
able
to
sign
in
well,
since
I
stole
his
link
boom,
it's
really
more
important
than
I
am.
F
B
B
Okay,
great
all
right
good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
virtual
boise
city
planning
and
zoning
commission
public
hearing
a
few
things
to
start
out
with,
for
the
good
of
the
order.
B
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
has
automatically
been
muted
and
cannot
speak
as
the
item
eventually
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you'll
be
called
upon
and
unmuted.
We
will
ask
if
you
have
slides
to
share
if
you
can
use
the
planner
slides
for
your
visuals.
If
you
have
your
own
slides,
your
role
will
change
to
panelist.
This
may
log
you
off
for
a
moment
and
log
you
back
in
and
then
you'll
have
the
capabilities
to
show
your
screen
quick
overview
for
zoom.
B
The
capabilities
and
options
are
a
little
different,
depending
on
which
device
you're
using
if
you're
on
a
smartphone
you'll
be
limited
to
only
speaking
sharing
your
camera.
If
you're
on
a
computer,
you
can
show
your
webcam
if
you
have
one
or
should
share
your
screen
when
called
upon
some
laptops
might
not
have
microphone
capabilities.
If
you
wish
to
speak
over
the
phone
but
watch
on
the
computer,
the
phone
number
for
the
hearing
is
listed
on
the
email
you
received
when
registering
for
tonight's
hearing,
for
both
smartphone
and
computer
participation.
B
B
B
After
that,
we
proceeded
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
sign
up
on
the
electronic
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
We
will
provide
a
30-second
warning
and
then
stop
you
at
three
minutes.
B
H
We
are
citizen
volunteers
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
the
city
council.
We
make
final
decisions
on
conditional
use,
permits,
variances
and
appeals
and
recommendations
to
the
city
council
on
subdivisions,
rezones,
annexations
and
code
or
comprehensive
plan
amendments.
Any
decision
made
tonight
may
be
appealed
to
the
city
council,
provided
that
the
appeal
is
filed
within
10
days
of
this
hearing.
In
order
to
file
an
appeal
you
must
have
given
written
or
oral
testimony
at
tonight's
meeting.
So
that's
why
it's
important
that
you
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
testify
tonight.
H
We
utilize
a
consent
agenda.
This
means
that,
if
the
applicant
agrees
and
with
the
staff
report
and
if
there
is
no
public
opposition,
the
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
motion.
Without
further
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
consent
agenda,
we
will
hold
a
full
public
hearing
in
the
order
just
detailed
a
few
minutes
ago
with
staff,
applicant
neighborhood
association
and
then
the
public
testimony.
I
I
I
H
Without
objection,
I
will
place
item
two
on
the
consent
agenda.
If
the
applicant
is
present
sorry
item
two
is
cva
20-18,
frank
coulson
at
615
north
pierce
street.
This
is
a
variance
to
encroach
into
the
sides
the
street
side
and
we're
set
back.
And
if
the
applicant
is
present,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
H
H
Okay,
I
heard
a
yes
for
that.
One
is
there
anybody
present
tonight
to
testify
in
opposition
of
this
item.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
H
C
H
We
have
a
second
from
commissioner
bratton
over.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote?
Oh,
is
there
sorry?
Is
there
any
discussion?
K
C
H
E
E
Madam
chair
commissioners,
the
first
item
on
tonight's
agenda
is
a
rezone
of
2.33
acres
at
8306
west
state
street
from
r1a
to
r3d.
A
planned
residential
development
for
85
multi-family
units
is
also
included.
The
parcel
was
recently
divided
from
the
parcel
to
the
south.
The
remaining
parcels
adjacent
to
state
street
are
vacant
or
undeveloped,
parcels
transitioning
to
commercial
uses
along
the
corridor.
E
Development
of
these
future
commercial
uses
will
also
require
rezone
applications
with
the
opportunity
for
detailed
reviews.
At
this
time,
state
street
is
community
gateway
with
plans
as
a
transit
corridor
to
the
north
is
a
three-story
180
unit.
Multi-Family
residential
project
to
the
west
is
a
56-unit,
two-story
town
home
style
development.
E
Although
a
variety
of
other
zones
could
be
allowed
here,
the
r3
zone
best
supports
many
of
the
principles
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
This
is
because
r3
zone
supports
the
compact
walkable
development
pattern.
Envisioned
along
state
street
a
planned
transit
corridor,
in
addition,
because
the
land
is
designated
as
suitable
for
significant
new
development,
a
project
of
this
size
will
seamlessly
fit
within
the
surrounding
area.
E
The
proposal
includes
construction
of
85
multi-family
units
at
36.5
units
per
acre,
which
is
below
the
allowed
density
of
43.5
units
per
acre
site.
Access
will
be
provided
by
internal
service
drives
off
both
limelight
and
row.
Curved
gutter
and
detached
sidewalks
with
street
trees
are
proposed
along
both
limelight
and
row.
All
setbacks
shall
be
measured
from
the
final
lines
once
the
right-of-way
dedication
is
completed,
on-street
parking
is
available
along
both
sides
of
limelight
and
row
feature
across
access
to
the
west
and
south
are
shown
in
the
arrows
here.
E
E
E
E
Some
neighborhood
comments
were
received.
A
few
are
here
tonight
and
can
elaborate
further
concerns
focused
on
the
anticipated
traffic
volumes
impact
on
the
road
network
cut
through
traffic
within
the
neighborhood
and
inadequate
parking.
Favorable
reviews
of
architecture,
size
and
type
of
units
were
also
included.
E
Regarding
traffic
volume
concerns
itd
commented
on
the
application
this
morning,
stating
additional
analysis
was
necessary,
but
there
may
be
impacts
to
highway
44
and
the
rose
street
intersection.
Discussions
will
continue
as
the
project
goes
before.
City
council,
achd
verified.
The
adjacent
roadways
have
capacity
for
the
anticipated
traffic
generated
from
the
project.
E
E
The
applicant
has
included
bull
belts
at
the
entrance
to
limelight
in
an
attempt
to
calm
potential
traffic
along
the
street
regarding
inadequate
parking
being
provided.
It
is
true.
The
development
code
typically
requires
96
parking
spaces.
However,
the
code
also
allows
parking
reductions
for
multi-family
development
based
on
these
standards,
the
true
minimum
requirement
in
68
vehicle
spaces.
E
It
could
be
said
this
project
exceeds
the
minimum
multi-family
parking
standards
of
the
development
code
as
a
total
of
93
vehicle
parking
spaces
are
provided
with
85
best
bicycle
parking
spaces
conclusion
with
the
recommended
conditions
of
approval.
The
proposed
development
complies
with
the
standards
of
approval.
As
such,
the
planning
team
recommends
approval
of
the
re-zone
and
conditional
use
permit.
The
planning
and
zoning
commission
makes
a
recommendation
to
city
council
on
the
rezone
and
a
final
decision
on
the
pud.
Thank.
H
M
Hi
there,
scott
mccormack,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
great
hi,
now
good
evening,
madam
chair
and
commissioners,
I'm
scott
mccormick,
I
live
at
5321
western
springs
drive
in
boise.
I
am
the
managing
director
managing
development
partner
for
the
proposed
limelight
village
and
it's
nice
to
meet
all
of
you.
M
I
wanted
to
point
out
our
appreciation
for
the
planning
development
staff,
who
have
been
very
thorough,
professional
and
prompted
assisting
us
through
the
application
process
and,
as
I
go
through
some
points
I
want
to
make,
I
also
want
to
introduce
some
team
members
that
we
have
available
tonight.
If
there's
any
technical
questions,
we
have,
karen,
graham
from
civil
sight,
works
who's
our
civil
engineer,
and
we
also
have
walter
hughes
from
humphries
and
partners.
Who
is
our
architect?
M
I
have
a
presentation
that
I
want
to
put
up
and
I'm
trying
to
see
how
I
can
do
that
nicolette.
Can
you
help
me.
M
M
Yeah,
can
you
hear
me,
and
can
you
see
it
yes,
great?
Thank
you
for
the
nod,
so
just
real
briefly,
I
want
to
just
touch
on
a
few
slides
here.
This
is
our
rendering
of
our
building
type
number
one
off
of
rose
street,
and
we
really
wanted
to
try
to
create
an
attract.
M
Oh
sorry,
come
back
we're
really
trying
to
achieve
an
attractive
mountain
west
design
and
we're
going
for
high
efficiency
units
that
you
can
really
get
a
good
depiction
of
hearing
that
also
we
focus
on
a
transient-oriented
development
that
is
really
very
close
to
state
street
targeted
singles
and
couples
and
in
our
design.
What
we
did
is
we
really
focused
on
studios
and
one
bedrooms.
Almost
77
percent
of
them
already
mentioned
surrounding
properties
are
high
density.
M
M
Oh,
I
did
also
want
to
point
out
real
quickly
that
valley,
rapid
valley,
regional
transit
is
working
on
a
new
proposed
bus,
stop
here
in
the
bottom
right
corner
at
bogart
and
state,
and
hopefully
that
the
new
urban
renewal
district
will
help
to
move
that
along
faster
than
they
they
are
currently
planned.
The
other
thing
I
want
to
point
out
is
just
the
proximity
to
all
the
infill
here.
It's
just
a
it's.
A
really
good
project
for
stepping
up
density
and
urban
housing.
Here
talking
about
vrt's
commitment
to
serving
the
area.
M
They've
recently
increased
the
service
for
the
peak
periods,
to
every
15
minutes
and
on
saturdays
30
minutes
until
9
00
pm,
and
they
also
have
this
great
program
for
people
that
are
a
little
further
away
from
the
bus
transit
for
these
two
dollar
rides
with
lyft
they're,
enhancing
a
bunch
of
other
things
and
then
the
other
other
thing.
If
you're,
not
I'm
pretty
sure
you
guys
are
familiar
but
support.
We
support
share
the
ride,
idaho,
which
has
great
resources
for
people
to
look
into
being
what
we
call
single
single
car
households.
M
This
is
just
a
rendering
of
our
other
building
type,
which
shows
the
amenity
area
that
shows
where
we
have
some
outdoor
barbecue
pavilions.
Some
outdoor,
seating
and
kind
of
gives
a
flavor
for
the
kind
of
the
intimate
courtyard
feel
that
we're
trying
to
get
by
the
way
that
we
place
the
buildings
on
the
site.
M
This
is
a
re.
This
is
a
summary
of
the
unit
mix
just
emphasizing
our
two
studio
apartment
floor
plans,
three
one
bedrooms
and
two
bedrooms,
and
we
have
no
three
bedroom
units.
M
This
slide
is
shows
you
how
the
units
are
laid
out
in
each
of
the
buildings
building
type
one
has
22
units
per
building.
M
There
are
three
student
units
in
here
and
a
total
of
13
one
bedrooms
and
six
two
bedrooms.
The
design
that
humphries
and
partners
has
done
for
us
here
is
what
they
call
their
eastax
units.
It's
very
efficient.
There
are
three
covered
garages
each
building
and
the
yellow
shows
you
that
each
of
the
units
has
some
outside
private
spaces
or
balcony
space
for
their
own
privacy
and
for
their
own
quite
enjoyment.
M
What's
interesting
about
these
floor
plans
is
that
there
are
a
number
of
split
level
units
you
can
see
here
with
the
l
show
lower
level,
and
then
they
go
to
the
upper
level.
There's
an
internal
staircase,
and
so
you
either
come
in
where
you
have
your
living
in
kitchen
and
then
you
go
to
the
bedroom
or
vice
versa.
M
This
is
building
type
2,
which
we
looked
at
a
little
recently,
and
this
one
has
the
amenity
area
here
on
the
south
portion
of
the
building.
This
building
has
19
units
in
it
and
similar
points
about
the
private
space.
All
of
them
have
some
private.
I
M
M
M
We
have
a
cool
little
fitness
area
that
has
roll-up
doors
for
indoor
outdoor
use
when
weather
permits,
and
then
we
have
the
club
room
space
with
a
kitchen,
a
nice
club
room
area,
a
little
reception,
and
then
we
have
a
management
leasing
office
here
in
the
corner,
there's
a
covered
deck
with
seating
and
then
right
beyond.
That
is
the
two
barbecue
pavilions
nicolette
showed
this
earlier.
This
is
our
site
plan.
M
This
is
just
sort
of
a
reiteration
that
shows
you
what
the
current
condition
is
in
the
report,
but
this
diagram
here
shows
you
real
briefly.
Here's
the
subject
site
here
and
outlined
in
red.
These
are
the
proposed
cross
accesses
and
the
three
properties
to
the
west
are
owned
by
the
entity
that
owns
the
retreat
at
silver
cloud.
We
understand
they're
planning
to
do
more
multi-family
there,
and
maybe
some
mixed-use
development,
but
you
can
see
by
these
red
indicators.
They
have
legal
access
on
bogar.
They
have
the
potential
to
connect
their
existing
project.
M
Here,
they've
got
access
on
limelight
in
the
corner
and
also
here,
and
they
have
internal
access
opportunities,
and
we
understand
they're
talking
to
idt,
currently
about
doing
a
traffic
impact
study
to
see
if
they
could
get
an
access
on
state
street.
So
we
believe
they
have
ample
opportunities
for
access
and
they
don't
really
need
to
bring
vehicles
through
our
property.
M
With
respect
to
the
south
piece
of
property
to
to
the
south,
that
will
be
redeveloped
in
time.
They
also
have
a
legal
access
per
our
conversation
with
acht
across
from
cary.
We
think
that's
adequate
for
their
vehicle
access
and
we
would
like
to
propose
that
we
just
do
the
restriction
there,
and
this
is
the
language
that
we
currently
propose.
M
H
Great,
thank
you
first,
we'll
see
if
there's
anybody
present
representing
the
northwest
neighborhood
association.
If
so,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
H
Okay,
I
do
see
two
hands
raised
are
either
I'm
either.
It
looks
like
erica
or
lenny.
Are
you
representing
the
neighbor,
the
neighborhood
association,
and
will
both
of
you
be
speaking
or
just
one.
H
H
Okay,
great
lonnie,
there
will
be
another
opportunity
for
you
to
speak
in
a
little
little
while
here,
but
let's
we'll
give
erica
ten
minutes
to
start.
Please:
okay,.
N
Erica
schofield
7363
west
limelight
court.
I
do
have
a
slideshow
presentation
that
I
practiced
earlier
today
with
celine
and
nicolette,
so
I
probably
need
some
help
walking
through
getting
that
up
onto
the
screen.
Yep.
B
N
N
B
B
B
Okay,
there's
a
it
looks
like
there's
a
on
the
bottom
right
hand:
side
where
it
says:
100
percent.
You
can
move
that
bar
just
a
little
bit
better.
N
N
Safe
infrastructure
is
fundamental
for
the
success
of
transit,
orion
development.
All
the
documents
say
that
the
lack
of
infrastructure
doesn't
support
transit
choices
when
it
works
against
it,
because
you're
not
likely
to
walk
bike
or
use
transit
when
it's
not
safe,
comfortable
or
enjoyable,
and
I'm
going
to
show
you
photos
that
actually
document
that,
in
addition,
our
northwest
neighborhood
plan,
which
is
completed
but
waiting
in
the
queue
to
be
adopted
and
go
through
the
process
addresses
infrastructure
to
safely
support
the
increased
density,
especially
along
the
corridor.
N
So
when
rose
street
meets
the
intersection
of
state
street.
This
is
what
you
travel.
You
travel
a
loose
surface
that
has
erosions
and
cut
through
tracks
if
you're
heading
eastbound
on
state
and
traffic
backs
up,
people
just
drive
right
through
that
mud
puddle,
that's
rather
deep
and
kick
the
water
and
gravel
everywhere.
N
If
you're
going
to
try
to
come
out
ontario
and
make
a
right
turn
on
the
state-
and
you
don't
want
to
wait
for
the
person
who's
trying
to
make
a
left,
which
is
nearly
impossible,
they'll
just
cut
through
right
here,
it's
not
eligible
for
a
signal
with
achd
due
to
spacing
so
that
will
never
be
fixed.
It
can't
safely
accommodate
increased
traffic
right
now
until
at
least
the
widening
project
for
state
road
is
completed.
N
It's
unsafe
for
non-motorized
users,
if
you're
going
down,
rose
street
towards
state
right
now,
we're
looking
at
parking
on
both
sides,
which
is
going
to
leave
no
space
for
bike
lanes.
If
you
see
there,
you've
got
townhouses
for
road
street,
and
then
these
are
the
cars
for
silver
cloud
which
will
just
continue
here.
N
The
corridor
transitory
and
development
plan,
the
latest
version
that
is
also
currently
being
used
on
the
city's
website
for
the
bus
routes
that
are
nearby
that's
bus,
9
and
12.
The
plan
says:
drive,
aisles
and
setbacks,
create
unpleasant
and
unsafe,
walking
conditions.
You
have
to
navigate
large
parking
lots
with
fast-moving
traffic,
it
creates
an
intimidating
environment
and
it
outright
says
it's
dangerous
for
non-motorized
users.
N
N
Can
you
see
my
cursor
by
the
way?
Okay,
the
hot
pink
line
is
the
only
way
you
could
safely
walk
sidewalks
to
reach
the
two
buses
at
about
a
1.25
mile
distance,
yet
increasing
ridership
generally
is
based
on
a
quarter
mile
to
a
half
mile
is
what
people
are
willing
to
walk.
If
you
come
down
limelight
no
sidewalks,
you
have
a
massive
storage
unit
and
that
grassy
gravel
area.
I
showed
you
the
other
side
of
the
street.
N
You
can't
even
access
with
a
crosswalk,
so
no
sidewalks
and
you
get
into
a
sidewalk
when
you
reach
kensington
challenging
and
the
infrastructure
is
not
there
and
then.
Finally,
the
corridor
development
plan
says
it's
for
state
street
and
adjacent
to
state
street,
and
it
says
in
land,
use
and
design
principles.
Streets
should
provide
spaces
where
people
feel
safe
and
welcome
with
a
list
of
elements
here
on
the
side
which
I'm
not
going
to
read
out
loud.
N
We
also
lack
safe
routes
to
school
again.
Looking
at
the
map,
I
just
circled
in
pink
the
places
where
there
are
gaps
and
sidewalks
and
if
you
were
walking
those
routes,
you're
jumping
crisscross
across
the
road
constantly
to
keep
yourself
on
a
safe
on
a
safe
sidewalk
and
if
you're,
a
child
going
to
the
elementary
school
up
here,
you've
got
neither
way
to
get
there.
N
This
street
right
here
is
bogart,
and
this
is
what
you're
looking
at.
You
barely
have
anything
right
now
with
the
bushes
and
if
you
decide
to
just
cross
it
in
the
morning
to
walk
on
the
other
side,
which
is
slightly
wider,
you
could,
but
you
still
don't,
have
sidewalk.
So
we
have
major
missing
gaps
for
safe
routes
to
school.
Yet
at
the
same
time,
that
particular
stretch
was
the
top
safe
routes
to
school
requests
for
the
boise
school
district
in
2015..
N
At
current,
it
shows
that
it's
scheduled
to
possibly
take
place
in
2022.,
so
meanwhile,
children
will
be
driven
to
schools
and
parks
which
increases
traffic,
fuel
consumption
and
air
pollution,
because
our
neighborhood
simply
doesn't
have
the
infrastructure
to
support
the
increasing
density.
At
this
time,.
N
And
the
planning
division,
and
now
I'm
going
to
move
on
to
a
totally
different
topic
and
I'm
going
to
go
a
little
fast
because
I
don't
want
to
run
out
of
time,
because
this
is
important.
The
standards
of
conditions
for
approval
say
that
swale's
retention
and
detention
areas
shall
not
be
located
along
streets
unless
it
can
be
shown
that
landscape,
berms
and
trucks
will
screen
the
swales.
This
is
to
comply
with
the
boise
development
code,
which
says
basically
the
same
thing
and
offers
an
alternative
compliance.
N
Why
is
that
the
case?
This
is
what
you
get
when
you
have
infiltration
swales.
This
is
roastery
on
the
right.
You
have
silver
cloud.
I
took
these
measurements
this
weekend.
You
end
up
with
a
curb
and
a
slope
and
a
20
foot
depth
of
storm
water
to
trach
through
in
front
of
the
rose
street
townhouses,
which
is
just
across
from
limelight
village.
You
still
have
curb
and
slope
and
a
15.5
inch
depth
to
trade
through.
This
is
the
kind
of
outcome
that
happens
once
whales
are
next
to
the
street.
N
What
happens
to
the
passenger
they
park
away
from
the
curb?
Because
it's
not
safe
to
exit
out
of
your
car
onto
an
unslope
or
a
sloped
surface,
you
want
to
exit
out
of
your
car
onto
a
flat
surface.
You
can
see
that
each
of
these
cars
here
is
parking,
a
distance
from
the
curb,
even
parking.
The
wrong
way
like
I
said
you
trudge
through
the
storm
water
or
you
can
choose
to
walk
in
the
road
down
to
the
corner,
to
reach
the
sidewalk.
N
Regarding
this
swale
issue,
hchd
says
it's
an
option,
which
means
that
it's
not
the
only
method
to
deal
with
stormwater,
it's
unusual
that
they
allow
them,
and
it
says
if
a
different
way
of
treating
the
storm
water
is
designed
to
meet
our
policies.
That
is
acceptable
as
well,
so
you
can
do
an
attractive
landscape,
internal
swale,
the
rose
street
townhouses
across
the
street
did
this
in
their
inter
green,
open,
barbecue
pet
space.
N
N
I
asked
that
you
do
not
approve
the
recommendation
in
the
conditions
of
approval
for
this
drainage
swale
system,
it
doesn't
meet
code,
it's
not
aesthetically,
pleasing
or
attractive.
I'm
going
to
say
this
as
an
advanced
master
gardener
from
the
university
of
idaho
extension.
It's
simply
ugly
as
a
master
gardener.
You
would
never
recommend
this
to
anyone's
landscape.
It
doesn't
achieve
a
safe
environment
either
it
does
not
meet
the
purpose
and
standards
for
alternative
compliance.
N
In
addition,
high
water
use
in
this
area
or
high
water
issue
is
known
in
this
area.
Silver
cloud
was
approved
by
ada
county
approval
prior
to
annexation,
so
they
probably
have
different
standards.
It's
difficult
to
mow
for
landscape
workers.
It
requires
frequent
herbicides
seeping
into
the
groundwater
to
keep
the
grass
from
continually
growing
into
the
bottom
of
the
drainage
area,
and
essentially
this
sacrifices
citizen's
safety
for
an
increased
roi.
N
N
No
storm
water
retention
on
the
street
in
east
boise,
no
storm
water
retention
along
the
streets
in
the
arboretum,
no
storm
water
on
the
streets,
but
they
have
an
internal
storm
water
retention
area
and
on
barber
valley,
drive
no
storm
water
in
the
streets.
They
have
inset
parking
with
designated
bike
lanes
and
a
wide
sidewalk
with
real
planters.
H
P
Nicolette,
I
have
some
questions
for
you.
Can
you
turn
your
video
on?
Is
that
is
that,
okay
to
ask
it
seems
strange
to
just
stare
at
your.
J
P
Okay,
gotcha
well
at
least
now.
I
can
hear
that
you're
there.
So
I
wanted
to
know
there
is
a
chart
related
to.
I
have
a
series
of
questions
about
parking
and
there's
a
chart
on
page
three
of
the
staff
report
and
there's
some
asterisks
at
the
bottom
of
that
chart
that
say
that
that
there
are
some
conditions
that
the
applicant
would
have
to
meet
for
the
code
to
allow
for
a
reduction
in
in
parking.
P
So
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
walk
us
through
what
those
requirements
are
and
whether
or
not
the
transit
oriented
development
requirements
are
were
part
of
that
sort
of
calculation.
E
I'm
chair
commissioners.
Definitely
so.
Development
code
allows
parking
reductions
for
multi-family
development
as
long
as
you
meet
detailed
criteria
and
the
analysis
for
that
criteria
is
found
on
page
seven
of
your
project
report.
It
says
that
let
me
pull
this
up
just
real
quick.
E
It
says
that
the
available
on-street
parking
applies
to
allow
the
parking
reduction,
so
the
minimum
parking
requirement
can
be
reduced
by
one
space
for
each
on-street
space
located
immediately
adjacent
to
the
site.
E
It
also
allows
a
parking
reduction
for
developments
within
1
320
feet
of
existing
or
planned
transit
allows
a
10
percent
reduction
in
terms
of
the
available
transit.
E
Again,
the
code
says
that
existing
or
planned
transit
qualifies
there
is
it
was
it's
planned.
Transit
in
valley
connect,
2.0
along
this
section
of
state
and
then
there's
existing
transit
further
down
state
street,
as
that
was
already
covered.
P
Please,
commissioner
stevens
thank
you
nicolette,
so
I
have
a
couple
of
follow-ups
related
to
that.
So
from
reading
the
packet,
I
understand
that
ach
does
not
have
any
concerns
with
the
on-street
parking.
Is
that
correct?
Do
I
understand
that
correctly.
P
Commissioners,
that's
correct,
okay
and
then
my
ques.
My
second
question
is
related
to
the
second
requirement
to
get
that
reduction
and
that
is
related
to
the
transit.
So,
as
I
understand
our
code
right
now,
we
don't
have
anything
other
than
a
number
of
feet
to
actually
assess
whether
or
not
this
should
qualify
for
that,
in
other
words,
1320
feet
that
has
detached
sidewalks
on
both
sides
of
the
street
is
equal
to
walking
along
state
street,
where
it's
you
know
incredibly
fast
and
there's
zero
sidewalks.
Is
that
correct.
P
Sure
so,
there's
no
place
in
our
code
or
in
our
guidelines
that
help
us
make
a
distinction
between
a
street,
a
1320
foot.
You
know
distance
between
a
development
and
a
bus,
stop
say
that
has
detached
sidewalks
on
two
sides
of
that
1320
feet
versus
a
1320
feet,
distance
that
is
along
state
street,
with
zero
zero
walk,
zero
sidewalks.
Is
that
right?
There's,
like
I
mean
basically,
those
two
things
are:
are
the
same
in
our
code,
correct.
E
P
Okay
and
madam
chair,
can
I
can
I
have
one
more
follow-up
on
this
line
of
questions.
Yeah,
please,
commissioner
stephen.
I
guess
my
my
last
question
on
this
point
is
other
than
the
parking.
Then
was
there
anything
about
this
development?
Any
sort
of.
P
Other
than
the
you
know,
the
few
well
other
than
the
parking
that
the
developer
received
a
positive
recommendation
from
staff
for
that's
related
to
this
bus,
stop
or
related
to
the
transit
oriented
development.
Or
was
it
just
the
reduction
in
the
parking.
E
Madam
chair,
commissioner
stevens,
I
believe,
you're
asking
if
any
other
sections
of
the
review
hand
john
the
bus
stop
being
present.
Yes,
thank
you
and
the
answer
would
be
no.
It
is
justification,
I
think,
for
the
higher
density
zone,
but
there
is
not
specification
that
the
transit
stop
needs
to
be
existing
before
we
rezone
there's
multiple
principles
in
blueprint,
boise
that
discuss
the
classic
cart
before
the
horse
scenario
of
transit
and
multi-family.
E
P
Okay,
great
I'll
leave
it
at
that
for
now
meredith
and
let
somebody
else
get
a
chance.
I've
got
a
bunch
of
other
questions
that
somebody
else
may
ask
them.
So
thank
you.
C
C
And
so,
and
so
in
reality,
what
we're
looking
at
here
in
terms
of
a
parking
I
mean
it
would,
this
would
be
the
equivalent
of
asking
for
a
variance
of
three
spaces
you
come
in
with
93.
Is
that
correct.
C
H
You
questions
from
other
commissioners,
madam
chair
was
that
commissioner
moore,
yes
yeah,
please
go
ahead.
J
I
have
a
question
about
nicolette
mentioned
the
an
achd
saying
that
they
might
need
more
study
needed
or
they
might
have
more
study
needed
in
an
email
this
morning.
Are
there
any
more
specifics
about
that
study
and
what
they
might
want
to
study.
E
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
moore
itd
was
routed
the
application
months
ago.
They
were
unable
to
comment
until
this
morning
on
the
application.
E
H
G
Okay,
thank
you.
There
was
a
comment
that
was
made
that
there
was
a
condition
for
future
cross
access
to
the
project
to
the
west
and
the
applicant
wants
to
remove
this
condition.
Can
you
further
elaborate
what
the
concern
may
be.
E
E
M
Hi,
madam
chair
commissioner,
squires
yeah,
we've
worked
closely
with
the
planning
and
development
staff
on
this
and
we're
in
agreement
that
it
would
be
helpful
in
the
future
for
pedestrian
bike
access.
But
all
we're
asking
for
is
so.
We
agree
that
having
cross
access
is
good,
but
we
believe
that
the
vehicular
access
into
our
property
would
be
detrimental
to
the
safety
of
people
walking
in
and
out,
and
that
it's
really
not
necessary
because
both
of
the
other
parcels
have
legal
access
for
vehicles.
P
So
I
actually
would
like
to
know
what
what
staff
thinks
about
that,
because
cross-access,
in
my
mind,
is
inherently
vehicular.
So
in
my
mind,
that
would
be
changing
the
condition
entirely
and
removing
it.
So
I'd
like
to
hear
staff's
thoughts
on
that.
E
E
It
is,
as
the
applicant
stated,
it
is
possible
to
achieve
and
access
off
of
row
for
their
own
development.
However,
if
it's
a
commercial
development,
it
might
need
additional
access
points
depending
on
the
use,
so
we
like
to
preserve
this
option
for
the
future
regarding
to
the
west.
It
further
assists
with
preventing
future
access
along
state
street
and
it
allows
especially
for
pedestrian.
It
allows
you
know,
ease
of
access
to
access
different
spots
around
the
neighborhood.
P
So
nicolette,
if
this
is
commissioner
stevens,
if
if
we
were
to
limit
the
west
access
through
the
site,
does
that
meet
then
the
goal
and
and
if
not,
if
staff
feels
like
we,
we
do
need
vehicular
access
to
the
west.
Are
you
concerned
about
pedestrian
safety
through
the
site
through
the
subject
site.
E
Madam
chair,
commissioner
stevens
pedestrian
safety.
Through
the
site,
there
is
wraparound
sidewalks
the
turnaround
for
existing
parking
spaces
that
can
continue
on
westward
it's
important
as
we
phase
development
that
each
piece
leaves
the
opportunity
for
connections
through
the
next
piece.
So
say
we
were
not
to
require
it
today
and
we
saw
the
development
come
in
to
the
west.
Later
we
would
hate
to
be
facing
a
situation
where
we
didn't
ask
for
cross
access
today,
and
then
we
don't
have
the
option
later.
P
So
I
guess
what
I'm
asking,
though,
is:
if
we
limit
it
to
pedestrian.
Only
will
it
achieve
the
goals
that
the
city
has
for
that
cross,
access
that
you're
recommending.
E
Madam
chair
commissioners,
it
would
not
achieve
the
most
goals
that
we're
trying
to
achieve
with
our
condition.
Okay,
great.
K
I
had
a
couple
of
follow-up
questions
for
nicolette
on
the
same
topic
and
nick
I
did
look
through
fires
comments.
I
don't
specifically
remember
anything
relating
to
the
cross,
access
and
fire
and
their
approval
is
there.
If,
if
we
were
to
eliminate
that
cross
access,
this
fire
does
that
create
an
issue
with
the
fire
department?
In
your
mind,.
E
Madam
chair,
commissioner
shaffer,
it
does
not
create
an
issue
with
fire.
As
the
service
drive,
widths
are
wide
enough
to
service
the
buildings
in
the
rear.
K
E
K
Okay,
so
at
this
point
with
with
regards
to
the
the
slide
that
the
applicant
shared
with
us,
showing
multiple
cross
access
and
excuse
me
access
points
for
those
parcels
to
the
west,
we're
just
essentially
to
take
his
word
for
that.
At
this
point,.
E
Madam
chair,
commissioner
schaefer
you
might
want
to
hear
from
the
applicant
and
find
out
where
that
came
from,
but
no
development
has
been
approved.
So
any
comments
are
still
preliminary.
M
Thank
you,
commissioner
stead
and
commissioner
schaefer.
I
would
just
state
that
I
did
make
phone
calls
to
both
idt
and
to
achd,
and
I
talked
to
stacey
yarrington
there,
and
I
did
review
with
her
what
the
legal
accesses
were
available
to
the
land
owner
adjacent
to
us
to
the
west,
which
owns
all
those
parcels
together,
and
she
confirmed
the
accesses
that
I
did
show.
M
She
verbally
confirmed
with
me
that
these
were
legal
accesses,
the
one
on
bogart,
the
one
that
they
could
connect
between
their
project
and
the
property,
the
one
on
the
corner
at
limelight
and
then
the
other
one
at
limelight.
Now
the
ones
on
state
street
are
definitely
those
are
negotiable,
with
idt
based
on
their
traffic
study.
I
K
Actually
had
another
follow-up
question
for
the
applicant
on
a
separate
topic.
If
I
may.
K
Mr
mccormick,
the
the
neighborhood
association,
made
some
good
points
in
regards
to
the
swale
design
along
the
streetscapes
along
row
and
limelight.
Could
you
just
walk
us
through
why
you're
proposing
those
did
you
you
know?
Is
there
a
reason
why
you
want
to
use
the
swales
in
that
particular
instance?
Or
do
you
have
some
other
options
there.
M
Yeah,
in
this
case,
we
meet
the
requirement
of
the
fact
that
there's
a
high
water
table
there
and
therefore
that
was
the
point
which
we
needed
to
create
the
swales.
In
addition
to
it's
an
existing
condition,
that's
being
used
at
the
adjacent
project,
the
retreat
at
silver
cloud.
We
worked
closely
with
the
planning
and
development
staff.
P
So
I
have
two
sort
of
area
two
last
areas
I'd
like
to
just
ask
that
I
think
are
pretty
quick
questions.
The
first
is
there
was
some
concern
from
the
neighborhood
nicolette
related
to
design
features.
Yes,
there
was,
you
know,
praise
for
the
architectural,
but
there
was
some
concern
about
the
natural
materials
and
and
wanting
greater
use
of
natural
materials
like
stone
and
wood.
P
Is
there
I
don't
think
there's
a
design
review
overlay
in
this
area?
Is
that
right
and
so
does
the
design
ultimately
rest
with
whatever
decision
we
make
tonight.
E
Madam
chair,
commissioner
stevens
there
will
be
a
design
review
overlay
put
on
this
free
zone,
so
it
does
have
an
associated
design
review
application.
We've
worked
closely
with
the
planner
casey
fab
for
the
design
of
the
application
she's.
Given
preliminary
comments
to
make
sure
the
project
is
as
close
to
acceptable
as
possible
before
the
designer
be
hearing,
but
there
will
also
be
a
design
review
hearing
where
they
go
into
greater
detail
about
the
types
of
materials.
E
P
That's
great,
thank
you
so
much
and
then
meredith
just
one
last
question.
If
I
could
yes,
commissioner
stevens,
I
am
concerned,
I
mean
the
the
applicant's
done
a
great
job
of
including
detached
sidewalks.
So
I
I
think,
can't
fault
him
for
this,
but
we
are
dealing
with
a
neighborhood
or
an
area
that
I
mean,
and
I
think
that
the
neighborhood
association
did
a
great
job
with
their
slides
of
showing
just
how
much
of
a
gap
there
is
in
this
neighborhood.
P
With
regard
to
connectivity
for
pedestrians-
and
I
guess
you
know
I'm
I
I
really
I
you
know
this
neighborhood
is
under
so
much
pressure
development
pressure
right
now
and
I
do
really
I'm
very
concerned
with
the
safety
of
the
residents.
P
And
so
when
we
look
at,
I
know
that
achd
is
responsible
for
sidewalks
on
their
streets,
but
when
we
look
at
highway
44,
I'm
just
curious
whose
jurisdiction
that
is-
and
do
we
as
a
city
as
a
municipality
have
any
ability
to
you
know
require-
or
you
know,
require
that
some
sort
of
sidewalk
be
in
place
so
that
this
is
a
safe
route
to
walk
to
the
bus.
Stop.
P
E
Madam
chair,
commissioner
stevens
this
section
of
state
street
or
highway
55
is
within
itd's
jurisdiction.
Itd
clarified.
They
do
not
have
an
adopted
plan
at
this
time
for
implements
along
this
section
of
state
street.
There
are
many
things
in
the
work
that
the
applicant
talked
about:
the
urban
renewal
district
transit-oriented
development
plans
that
discuss
the
importance
of
the
section
of
state
street
in
terms
of
it
once
a
bus
stop
comes
at
bogart.
There
are
attack.
E
There
are
sidewalks
available
to
get
to
that
bus,
stop
regarding
actual
state
street
there's
an
existing
canal
adjacent
to
state
street,
which
requires
significant
coordinated
work
to
improve
that
street
frontage.
It
will
be
very
important
on
the
adjacent
development
when
they
do
develop,
that
we
sort
out
a
coordinated
vision
to
making
this
a
more
pedestrian
friendly
place.
C
I
have
one
question
for
the
applicant,
so
in
some
of
the
testimony
that
we've
received
in
our
packet
I
came
across,
one
was
talking
about
plans
to
rent
the
garages
separate
from
the
units.
M
Take
me
off
there,
you
go
thanks.
Yes,
madam
chair
commissioner
brad
nober.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
The
current
plan
is
to
have
a
separate
garages
that
are
rented
to
whichever
units
would
like
to
rent
those,
and
then
we
would
just
have
a
a
device
on
the
garage
that
you
would
use
as
a
code
and
you'd
also
have
a
clicker
to
open
that
garage
up,
but
they
are
not
like
tied
back
into
the
units
that
are
adjacent
to
it.
M
C
Pardon
my
dog
second,
please.
C
Sorry
squirrel
anyway,
okay,
so
in
effect,
if
people
don't
want
to
rent
those
because
of
cost
considerations,
we're
kind
of
seeing
the
number
of
available
spaces
go
down
in
effect
is
what
might.
C
M
Yeah,
I
would
say
to
you
that
that
income
is
not
sufficient
enough,
that
we
would,
you
know,
not
allow
those
to
not
be
used.
I
mean
clearly,
we
are
looking
at
a
a
transition
development
here
that
is,
you
know,
going
to
be
using
the
improvements
that
nicolette
was
referring
to
along
state
when
they
get
the
new
bus
transit
and
that
so
our
goal
here
is
to
create
a
vibrant
project.
H
Okay,
seeing
then
we
don't
have
anybody
signed
up
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight?
Is
there
anybody
present
that
didn't
sign
up
that
would
like
to
testify
tonight?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
I
do
see
one
a
couple
there.
So
we'll
just
start
at
the
top
and
work
our
way
down
the
list,
and
we
can
start
with
mr
kohl's.
Q
Thank
you.
My
name
is
brent
coles,
I'm
at
6780
casa,
real
boise,
idaho,
I'm
in
the
northwest,
neighborhood
association
area
and
want
to
one
compliment
the
developer.
It's
a
beautiful
design
it
someday
in
the
future
would
be
very
appropriate
at
that
location.
Q
Q
This
project
could
be
very
supportive
of
the
neighborhood
in
the
city's
comprehensive
plan.
But
currently
we
recommend
that
this
project
be
denied
also
would
indicate
that
the
overall
idea
and
concept
of
allowing
development
first
in
hopes
that
we'll
have
transit
along
state
street
is
just
really
reverse.
Q
The
opportunity
for
the
city
of
boise
to
partner
with
private
development
occurs.
When
you
withhold
the
approval
of
a
development
project
and
development
projects,
the
developers
will
come
together
with
the
city
with
the
state
and
they
will
be
a
third
partner
in
helping
you
provide
the
transit
oriented
or
the
transit
systems
that
we
all
want
in
the
city
of
boise
it.
Q
When
I
heard
the
developer
say
there
were
two
safe
routes
to
the
bus
stop.
I
could
hardly
believe
my
ears
state
street
is
45
miles
an
hour
along
that
area.
Boise
city.
Currently,
we
do
not
see
any
traffic
enforcement
along
state
street,
it's
divided
with
garden
city
they're
on
one
side
of
state
street.
We
see
city
on
the
other
side,
but
there
is
absolutely
no
traffic
enforcement
along
there.
Q
Cars
are
going
50
to
55
even
up
to
60
miles
an
hour
along
that
area
and
to
think
that
someone
could
walk
safely
from
rose
street
down
to
that
bus.
Stop
is
just
absolutely
ridiculous
and
the
credibility
factor
goes
away
when
someone
says
something
like
that.
So
again
recommend
that
you
deny
the
planned
unit
development
and
the
rezone
until
you
actually
have
transit
in
that
area.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you,
mr
coles.
We'll
move
on
to
mr
luellen
and
again
start
please,
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
three
minutes.
R
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
I
think
yeah,
okay,
richard
lewellen,
9170
hill,
road
boise.
So,
first
of
all,
I
submitted
comments
about
air
quality
and
a
lot
of
scientific
evidence
showing
that
if
we're
gonna
have
tod,
unfortunately,
the
planning
community
seems
to
have
completely
overlooked
the
reality
on
the
ground
and
so
either
you're
going
to
pay
attention
to
that
or
we're
not.
I
should
say
we
because
you
know
when
I
weighed
in
on
some
of
this
transit
oriented
development
stuff.
R
I
I
overlooked
that,
but
we
shouldn't
and
one
way
of
beginning
to
mitigate
that
would
be
to
require
safe
routes
to
clean
air.
We
need
to
do
that
moving
forward
infrastructure
before
development.
I
wholeheartedly.
Second,
mr
cole's
comments
on
that.
R
Forty
years
ago
I
was
a
sixth
grader
at
pierce
park
elementary,
my
little
sister
was
in
fourth
grade
and
she
was
lucky
enough
to
be
the
first
cohort
to
have
the
modular
classrooms
there.
Now
I
remember
at
the
pta
meeting,
which
was
widely
attended
because
nobody
wanted
to
be
putting
their
kids
in
the
modular
classrooms
promised
you
know.
Oh,
it
would
happen.
All
we
needed
was
more
students,
five
years
max
and
pierce
park
elementary
would
be
expanded.
You
get
the
infrastructure
40
years
later
is
happening.
R
Now,
that's
the
history
of
our
neighborhood
32
years
of
promised
fire
stations,
two
fire
stations
in
the
northwest,
in
which
multiple
developments
and
annexations
were
permitted.
Based
on
these
promises.
It
just
simply
doesn't
happen
unless
you
require
the
develop
the
developer,
either
phase
their
project
to
the
required
and
the
necessary
infrastructure,
or,
as
cole
said,
you
generate
the
momentum
and
the
political
will,
because
clearly
we
as
residents
have
no
political
power
to
enforce
this,
or
this
kind
of
pattern
would
not
have
happened
so
that
bus
stop
on
bogart.
R
We
need
that
and
this
was
going
to
come
up
again.
It
came
up
with
the
project
at
9000
west
state,
and
it
will
continue
to
come
up.
Let's
require
that
these
developers
get
together,
call
their
state
senator
or
whoever
they
need
to
call
and
make
sure
that
happens.
Valley,
transit,
2.0
is
is
essentially
a
pipe
dream.
As
we
all
know,
it's
unfunded
could
be
10
15
years
from
now
before
we
actually
get
a
bus
stop
there.
So
also,
if
I
looked
at
the
plat
correctly,
we're
talking
about
three
more
parking
spaces
being
lost.
R
If
the
connection
goes
to
the
south,
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
I
like
little
parking.
Personally,
I
think
it's
great,
but
we
need
to
have
the
transit.
We
can't
just
live
in
a
make-believe
world
here.
We've
been
doing
that
too
long
and
that's
the
way
you
break
neighborhoods.
It's
not
the
way
how
you
create
better
neighborhoods,
so
let's
just
ensure
that
we
actually
have
the
phasing
at
least
to
a
actual
bus,
stop
on
bogart.
R
That
being
said,
you
know,
is
it
fair
to
the
applicant?
Well,
I
don't
know
I
mean
okay.
I
can't
quite
hear
that
the
other
thing
is.
Did
you
read
the
letter
from
the
limelight
or
sorry
retreated
silver
clouds
saying
they
didn't
want
access
to
the
west,
so
I
think
that
might
be
important.
Thank
you.
I
I
wasn't
sure,
were
you
saying
my
time
was
up.
O
Yes,
three
minutes.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you,
mr
lewellen.
Next
on
the
list
is
miss
schofield
again,
please
again
start
with
your
name
and
address.
N
Okay,
so
I
will
speak
for
myself
this
time,
erica,
schofield,
7363,
west,
limelight
court.
I
would
like
to
take
a
peek
at
the
other
sides
I
had,
although
I'm
not
sure
how
to
get
there.
So
can
we
pause
the
timer
for
a
minute.
I
have
nicolette's
screen
up.
N
So
I'm
going
to
move
quickly
again,
so
we
already
have
on
street
parking
hazards,
because
people
like
to
park
the
wrong
way
in
this
neighborhood
and,
as
in
destiny,
increases
we're
absolutely
going
to
need
to
somehow
mark
the
fire
hydrant
signs.
I
managed
to
get
photos
without
cars
in
front
of
them,
and
I
walked
this
route
quite
often,
but
when
it
gets
crowded,
people
don't
care
and
they
park
in
front
of
those
fire
hydrants.
In
addition,
this
application
shows
two
more
fire.
N
I
want
to
address
the
undue
burden
and
adverse
impact
issues,
we're
not
looking
at
actual
response
data
for
fire
fire
service
when
we
do
these.
In
these
analysis,
it's
not
included
the
entire
city
is
being
placed
at
risk
and
I'll
show
you
those
numbers
shortly.
Eagle
fire
district
was
not
solicited
for
comments,
even
though
they
regularly
provide
service
to
our
area,
and
the
adopted
level
of
service
is
a
standard
adopted
by
ordinance
in
the
master
siting
plan
and
the
impact
fee
ordinance.
These
are
all
really
critical
issues.
N
N
We
met
our
response
time,
which
was
four
minutes,
we're
at
408
by
2019,
we're
at
7
minutes
and
12
seconds.
We're
not
keeping
up
with
growth,
we're
not
expanding
capacity
to
meet
increased
demand.
We
built
one
station
harris
ranch
in
2011.,
that's
it
does
it
adversely
affect
other
properties.
The
fire
department
actually
said
so
at
the
prominence
hearing.
N
H
L
Thank
you.
My
name
is
dennis
dunn.
I
live
at
89
40
duncan
lane
in
boise,
idaho.
Just
to
confirm.
Can
you
hear
me
just
okay,
great
we're
all
getting
used
to
this
new
world
and
new
way
of
doing
business?
I'm
I'm
not
there
yet.
So
I
would
actually
echo
a
couple
of
comments
earlier
by
mr
coles
and
and
by
ms
schofield.
L
I
I
am
when
I
look
at
this
development
and
where
it's
proposed
the
location,
it's
if
we're
gonna
put
density
anywhere.
This
is
an
area
where
density
makes
sense
and
when,
when
the
infrastructure
is
there
to
support
this
level
of
density,
I
would
support
this
project.
That
is
currently
just
not
the
case.
One
specific
about
this
development.
I
just
have
to
make
a
comment
about
the
assumption
about
cars
per
per
houses
and
per
unit.
L
The
reality
is
it's
hard
for
people
to
to
make
a
goal
of
it
and
to
think
that
we're
not
going
to
have
folks
doubling
up
and
tripling
up
and
having
lots
and
lots
of
cars
in
these
relatively
small
living
spaces,
I
think,
is
just
not
realistic
and
also
commissioner
stevens.
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
the
recognition
that
our
neighborhood,
you
didn't
use
the
words
under
siege,
but
but
I
I
will
the
the
amount
of
pressure
and
the
amount
of
development
that's
being
proposed
in
our
neighborhood
is
really
staggering.
L
It's
really
every
week
and
every
month
that
that
we
are
on
deck
to
to
try
to
navigate
what's
going
on.
So
I
really
appreciate
that
recognition
and
miss
schofield
is
not
someone
who
speaks
lightly.
L
So
for
the
items
that
I
first
of
all,
thank
you
for
your
service
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
and
I
would
respectfully
recommend
denial
of
both
the
the
rezone
and
the
pub.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
the
time.
H
Thank
you,
mr
dunn.
That
was
the
end
of
the
virtual
hands
I
saw
if
anybody
else
is
looking
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight
last
chance
to
please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
H
Okay,
seeing
none
we
will
move
on
to
the
rebuttal
from
the
applicant.
Please
and
again,
ten
minutes.
B
That
I'm
sure
rebuttal
is
five
minutes.
M
M
You
know
we've
listened
to
these
concerns
and
points
made
by
the
neighborhood
association
and
neighborhood
folks,
and
I
think
what
we
recognize
here
is
that
this
is
a
transition
neighborhood
and
that
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
need
for
housing
in
the
area
is
very
important
and
we're
at
a
point
now,
where
we're
proposing
a
project
that
fits
within
the
guidelines
fits
within
the
code,
we're
paying
the
appropriate
impact
fees.
We've
worked
with
all
of
the
different
agencies.
M
We've
worked
very
closely
with
the
planning
and
development
staff,
and
we've
really
gone
through
the
checklist
of
these
items.
We
know
that
it's
not
ideal
in
terms
of
the
access
to
bus
transit,
but
we
do
know
that
there
are
major
commitments
by
different
agencies,
including
the
city
of
boise,
to
create
more
housing
to
create
better
transit.
There
are
options,
and
with
technology
and
a
lot
of
things
that
are
available
to
us
today
that
they
weren't
available
20
years
ago.
M
It's
our
sincere
belief
and
opinion
that
those
bus
stops
and
those
other
options
will
get
better,
including
as
redevelopment
occurs,
which
is
being
proposed.
We
understand
that
the
silver
cloud
folks
will
be
submitting
a
plan
for
their
properties.
There'll
be
additional
sidewalks,
we're
putting
in
the
appropriate
sidewalks
the
appropriate
landscaping,
the
appropriate
drainage
all
of
those
items.
We
have
worked
very
closely
to
make
sure
that
we
met
all
of
the
codes
and
we're
not
responsible
for
fire
response
times.
M
We
know
that
the
appropriate
amount
of
money
will
be
going
to
that
and,
as
it
gets
closer
that
they
will,
they
will
improve
that.
But
for
the
most
part
I
would
just
like
to
reiterate
that
we
are
very
proud
of
this
project.
We
think
it
fits
within
what
the
city
is
looking
for,
and
we
would
disrespectfully
ask
your
approval
with
the
conditions,
as
the
staff
has
recommended.
H
Thank
you,
mr
mccormick,
so
that
ends
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing,
and
the
item
is
now
before
the
commission.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
the
resident's
concerns
over
the
impacts
on
their
neighborhood.
A
However,
you
know,
most
of
us
have
been
around
long
enough
that
we
know
there
have
been
plans
to
improve
state
street
for
over
20
years
now,
and
this
is
the
unfortunate
situation
that
we're
in.
Is
that
really
the
only
thing
that
pnz
or
the
city
of
boise
controls
here
right
now
is
the
land
use
decision
and
we
simply
don't
have
control
over
curb
cuts
and
improvements
to
state
street
and
the
appropriate
venue
for
those
issues
for
the
neighborhood
association
is
frankly
with
itd
and
achd
who
own
those
properties
so
well.
A
I
think
we
probably
all
sympathize
with
the
neighborhood
over
the
disconnects
between
land
use
and
transportation
planning,
there's
just
simply
nothing
that
we
can
do
about
that
here,
except
lend
a
sympathetic
ear,
but
I
will
be
supporting
the
development
because
again,
what
we
can
do
here
is
support
the
land
use
decision,
and
this
is
a
valley
that
is
in
desperate
need
of
housing,
and
I
think
the
applicant
has
taken
the
time
to
do
his
homework
and
I
concur
with
staff
on
approval.
P
P
So
I
guess
none
of
this
is
I'll.
Surprise
you
guys,
because
it
is
in
line
with
the
questions
I
asked,
and
I
think
that
staff
put
it
really
well
as
simple
as
it
is,
but
it's
sort
of
a
chicken
and
egg
discussion
we're
having
here,
and
I
think
commissioner
blanchard
is
exactly
right-
that
we
have
a
land
use
to
make.
One
thing
I'll
disagree
with
commissioner
blanche
or
not
disagree.
P
That
makes
it
sound
like
an
oppositional
which
it's
not,
but
I
do
think
that
the
city
has
been
doing
a
really
good
job
of
state
street
planning,
and
I
think
I
I
was
sitting
here-
you
may
have
seen
me
kind
of
over
here.
I
was
scrolling
through
our
plan.
It's
a
it's
a
71-page
plan.
It's
available
on.
P
You
know
on
the
internet
that
you
can
anybody
can
find
and,
of
course,
has
been
adopted
by
the
city,
and
you
know
I
was
reminded
just
how
much
planning
has
gone
into
a
vision
for
state
street
and
I'm
quite
heartened
as
much
as
it
has
pained
me
over
the
last
few
years
to
have
to
drive
down
state
street
past
through
and
to
collister.
P
You
know
we've
actually
been
making
some
progress
and
I'm
really
pleased
with
the
plans
that
are
in
place,
and
I
am
concerned
that
we
don't
have
a
date
for
when
bogart
the
bogart
bus
stop
is
going
to
go
in,
but
I
do
agree
with
staff
that
it's
really
a
chicken
or
egg
sort
of
question,
and
you
know
it's
not
that
it's
the
thing
that's
nice
is
that
there
is
actually
a
plan
and
we've
seen
it
starting
to
be
implemented
in
the
city.
P
So
that
makes
me
feel
not
great
about
this,
particularly
with
regard
to
the
safety,
but
it
does
make
me
you
know,
I
feel,
like
the
state
street
problem
is
gradually
being
addressed.
I
I.
I
also
want
to
say
that
you
know
if
this
was
an
application
that
was
asking
for
60
parking
spots
because
they
were
taking
advantage
of
the
not
taking
advantage
in
a
negative
way,
but
that
they
were
using
the
code
to
sort
of
ask
for
a
really
huge
reduction
in
parking.
P
I
would
be
much
more
concerned
about
those
issues,
but
I
don't
really
think
that
that's
the
issue
here.
We
are
talking
about
a
three
three
spot.
Three
parking
spot
difference
between
what
code
would
just
normally
require.
So
I'm
comfortable
with
that,
and
I
think
this
is
not
a
you
know.
This
is
not
necessarily
a
family
type
development.
This
is
really
geared
toward
young
professionals,
considering
the
the
number
of
units
that
are
or
the
number
of
bedrooms
in
the
units.
P
So
the
last
thing
I
want
to
say,
or
actually
there's
two
more
things
I
want
to
say.
First,
I
think
that
we
need
to
keep
the
cross
access
and
the
conditions
the
way
it's
written
now.
So
I
my
motion
does
not
include
any
changes
to
that
and
then
I
just
I
want
to
say
that
I'm
concerned
that
our
code
doesn't
differentiate
other
than
just
in
distance.
P
I'm
really
concerned
that
you
know
we
do
have
lots
of
different
policies
that
tell
us
we
need
to
be
concerned
about
safety,
and
this
is
clearly
an
extremely
unsafe
situation,
but
we
don't
currently
have
anything
in
our
code
to
help
us
and
make
any
sort
of
assessment
between
1320
feet
on
state
street
versus
1320
feet
on,
say,
20th
street.
Those
are
two
totally
different
situations
and
our
code
doesn't
really
permit
us
to
make
any
sort
of
distinction
between
that.
P
So
I
think
that's
something
we're
going
to
need
to
take
up
in
the
in
the
near
future
at
our
you
know,
in
our
in
our
work
sessions
and
with
staff
to
see
if
we
can
address
that,
because
I
think
it's
going
to
become
more
and
more
important
as
we
continue
to
develop
out
state
street
on
this
transit
corridor,
so
I'll
be
supporting.
Obviously,
the
project.
I
K
K
Commissioner,
stevens
is
a
tough
act
to
follow.
I
think
she
she
dotted
all
the
eyes
and
crossed
all
the
teas
for
a
lot
of
the
notes
that
I
had
as
well
just
a
couple
of
quick
follow-ups
yeah.
This
is
very
much
chicken
and
egg
situation
in
a
lot
of
ways.
I
agree
with
everyone
that
spoke
tonight.
K
There
is
motion
to
improve
state
street
and
while
this
project
might
be
a
little
bit
behind
or
a
little
bit
ahead
of
those
plans,
I
feel
like
we
shouldn't
punish
the
applicant
for
putting
forth
a
good
project
right,
just
because
state
street
remains
a
little
bit
of
a
question
mark
right
now
and,
having
said
that
as
well,
you
know
this
applicant
is
improving
the
streetscapes
that
his
property
fronts
on
and
he's
actually
not
responsible
to
make
any
improvements
to
state
street.
K
So
obviously,
I
think
he's
done
everything
or
the
team
has
done
everything
that
they
can
to
make
a
positive
impact
on
the
site
and
again
the
state
street
question
is
is
problematic,
but
I'm
in
favor
of
the
motion,
because
there
is
movement
on
improving
state
street
and
I
think,
as
we
continue
to
see
more
developments
come
along
on
this
corridor.
That's
going
to
continue
to
put
more
pressure
on
making
those
improvements,
a
reality
along
state
street.
So
I
am
also
in
favor
of
the
motion.
C
Thank
you
so
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion
as
well.
I
think
the
applicant
has
done
a
responsible
job
in
terms
of
covering
a
lot
of
issues.
As
commissioner
stevens
pointed
out,
the
the
parking
I
mean
it
looks
like
a
basically
a
three,
a
three
slot
variance.
There
are
a
couple
of
things,
though,
that
while
we
shouldn't
settle
the
applicant
with
them,
I
think
they
need
to
be
in
the
record,
and
the
first
and
most
important
in
my
mind,
is
emergency
services,
which
falls
in
that
general
bucket
of
infrastructure.
C
That's
not
prepared.
We've
been
down
this
road
as
a
commission
several
times
before.
When
you
look
at
emergency
response
times
in
that
part
of
town-
and
I
I'd
like
to
see
more
motion
in
terms
of
addressing
these
kinds
of
these
kinds
of
shortfalls,
because
it
will
sure
bite
us
someday
and
it'll
be
the
results
will
be
tragic,
and
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
looking
at
that-
and
the
second
is
better
coordination
between
our
departments.
C
And
I
you
know
I
I
don't
hesitate
to
say
this,
because
I
know
we're
all
living
with
it,
but
just
in
terms
of
understanding
the
sequences
of
when
bus
stops
will
be
going
in
when,
when
curb
gutter,
sidewalks
will
be
installed.
C
We
have
plans,
but
it'd
be
nice
to
be
able
to
coordinate
development
with
how
those
plans
are
actually
being
executed
and
along
what
timeline.
Thank
you.
H
Commission:
okay,
we
have
a
motion
to
recommend
approval
for
car
20-2
and
to
approve
pud
20-4.
K
S
I
H
Okay,
we're
going
to
take
a
five
minute
break
before
we
return
for
item
three.
So
let's
convene
again
at
7.
H
H
H
O
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
before
you
as
a
development
agreement,
modification
request
to
increase
building
heights
that
include
multi-family
residential
uses
on
8.7
acres
of
land
located
at
3635
west
elder
street
also
included,
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
84
multi-family
dwelling
units
on
the
northern
3.9
acre
portion
of
that
same
property.
This
is
located
in
an
lod
with
development
agreement
zone.
The
property
shown
here
in
red
is
located
on
the
north
side
of
I-84
just
across
from
the
airport
and
between
the
orchard
and
vista
interchanges.
O
To
the
north
and
west
of
the
property
is
an
established
single-family
residential
neighborhood,
it's
owned,
r1c
and
to
the
east
is
owahi
park,
and
hotel
and
office
uses
airport
owned
properties
by
approximately
275
feet
to
the
south.
On
the
other
side
of
the
interstate,
the
subject
property
does
lie
within
airport
influence
areas,
a.
G
O
O
Of
r1c,
the
associated
d.a
and
conceptual
site
plan
shown
here
provided
for
the
development
of
three
office
buildings
with
limitations
on
building
heights,
the
closer
residential
properties-
they
are
other
conditions,
included
the
installation
of
a
30-foot,
wide
landscape
buffer
and
limiting
the
access
between
the
neighborhood
and
office
development
to
emergency
access.
Only
the
proposal
for
you
tonight
requests
to
modify
the
da
to
allow
for
a
multi-family
development
comprised
of
84
units.
O
These
are
distributed
among
four
three-story
buildings,
as
shown
here,
resulting
in
a
density
of
approximately
21
dwelling
units
per
acre,
the
30-foot,
wide
landscape,
buffer
and
emergency.
Only
connection
to
the
residential
neighborhood
are
proposed
to
remain
the
same.
While
elder
street
is
proposed
to
terminate
in
a
cul-de-sac.
O
No
conceptual
plans
have
been
provided
for
the
southern
portion
of
the
property
closest
to
the
interstate,
as
mentioned
before,
the
property
is
quite
close
to
the
boise
airport
shown
here
from
the
proposed
location
of
the
southernmost
multi-family
building.
An
active
taxiway
lies
approximately
1
000
feet
away,
while
the
closest
active
runway
is
approximately
2
000
feet
away.
O
Due
to
this
close
proximity,
comments
received
from
the
boise
airport
recommend
denial
for
the
proposed
residential
use
on
this
property.
This
recommend
recommendation
of
denial
is
supported
by
the
planning
team
for
reasons
which
can
generally
be
categorized
into
two
groups.
So,
first,
the
environmental
noise
impacts
present
at
this
location
from
the
day-to-day
operations
of
the
airport
are
not
compatible
with
long-term
residential
dwellings.
O
G
O
Now,
I'm
sure
you've
noticed,
but
the
boundaries
of
the
airport
influence
areas
on
the
left.
Don't
quite
line
up
that
well
with
the
actual
levels
of
noise
generated
by
the
airport
on
the
right.
So
just
a
little
bit
of
history
here,
the
airport
influence
areas,
as
we
see
them
today
were
originally
mapped
based
on
noise
studies
conducted
back
in
the
mid
1990s.
L
I
I
O
To
concerns
over
noise
levels
for
future
residents,
the
planning
team
finds
that
the
development
of
residential
uses
on
this
property
could
have
severe
impacts
on
the
operational
capacity
of
the
airport
itself
and
the
ability
for
the
facilities
to
continue
to
act
as
one
of
the
main
economic
drivers
for
the
city
as
a
whole.
Most
concerning
is
the
potential
for
this
development
to
jeopardize
federal
funding
that
the
airport
receives
and.
I
O
Upon
without
getting
into
too
much
detail
here,
there
are
a
number
of
assurances
that
the
airport
has
to
meet
in
order
to
receive
this
funding.
One
of
these
is
faa
grant
assurance
21,
which
restricts
the
development
of
non-compatible
uses
in
the
nearby
vicinity
to
the
airport,
so
by
faa
definition
shown
here
from
the
part
150
noise
study
residential
uses
are
not
compatible
in
areas
within
the
65
decibel
and
higher
range
such
as
this
property.
G
I
I
H
Thank
you,
mr
holmes.
We'll
next
move
to
the
applicants.
Fees
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
we'll
start
with
10.
U
U
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
this
evening
to
present
elder
street
apartments
and
we
believe
and
can
show,
through
some
of
our
team-
that's
with
us
tonight
that
this
is
a
good
location
and
under
current
city
code
and
current
airport
guidelines.
As
far
as
well
as
the
regulations
we
meet
and
exceed
any
of
the
current
adopted
city
code
tonight
with
me,
we
have,
as
far
as
the
presenting
team,
josh
leonard
with
clark
ordle.
We
also
have
tim
day
the
property
owner.
U
B
So
we
can
see
you,
but
we
can't
see
your
screen.
You
need
to
share
your
screen.
U
U
U
The
development
agreement
that
is
in
place
specifically
states
that
it
was
approved
this
site
was
rezoned
and
the
development
restricts.
The
development
agreement
restricts
access,
design
as
well
as
buffering,
and
so
as
we
prepared
our
plan
and
approved
and
drew
our
plan,
we
kept
buffering
on
the
perimeters
to
exceed
30
feet,
which
was
called
for
in
the
development
agreement.
In
addition
to
that,
in
the
development
agreement,
the
previous
plan,
it
had
some
buildings
that
were
right
up
to
that
30-foot
line.
U
So
we
wanted
to
pull
all
of
our
buildings
as
far
away
as
possible
from
this,
and
it's
also
important
to
note
that
this
property
is
truly
a.
We
talk
about
infrastructure
needing
to
be
ready
before
development
happens
with
streets
and
with
the
sewer
and
the
utilities
there.
This
property
is
truly
a
infill
project.
The
sewer
has
been
running
through
this
property
for
many
years.
It
has
developed
on
all
sides,
and
this
is
the
last
piece
of
property
in
that
area
to
be
developed,
so
it
certainly
does
not
exceed
the
infrastructure.
U
The
infrastructure
is
in
place
and
it
also
somewhat
restricts
the
way
we
can
develop
this
site
due
to
the
fact
that,
through
here,
through
the
center
of
the
site,
is
where
the
sewer
currently
runs.
So
we
have
situated
the
buildings
in
a
fashion
that
they
can
use
that
internal
courtyard
area
to
provide
an
additional
open
space.
The
site
itself
also
has
a
clubhouse
as
well
as
some
other
amenities
that
clubhouse
will.
L
U
The
site
consists
of
84
total
units
on
the
on
the
apartment
project
we
had
submitted
to
josh
and
I
will
pull
it
up,
I'm
sorry
to
kevin
and
we
I'll
pull
it
up
later,
a
future
concept
to
the
south.
So
I
can
show
how
that
circulation
will
will
play
out
and
we'll
look
in
the
future
or
could
look
in
the
future
as
we
come
back
with
additional
uses.
U
Currently,
there
are
62
bedroom,
2
bath
units
and
24
one
bedroom,
one
bath
unit,
these
units
lease
for
just
over
a
thousand
dollars
a
month
to
just
over
1300
a
month.
So
we
feel
like
it's
a
good
addition
to
the
area.
We
know
from
previous
projects
that
we
have
developed
in
here
in
this
area
within
a
few
hundred
feet
of
this
project.
Specifically,
it
is
in
high
demand,
we've
never
had
vacancy
in
the
other
project
and
we
have
such
a
great
amount
of
influx
of
people
coming
into
this
area.
U
Just
due
to
the
the
massive
amount
of
work
and
offices
that
are
in
this
area
and
the
limited
amount
of
residential,
that's
in
this
area,
so
the
traffic
balance
is
drastically
out
of
balance.
There's
a
much
traffic
that
comes
in
in
the
morning
and
leaves
in
the
afternoon
just
simply
due
to
the
fact
that
there
is
no
there's
not
good
opportunity
for
for
living
in
this
area.
U
U
Achd
is
we're
in
compliance
with
their
stop
report
and
we
will
meet
their
recommendations
as
they
require
some
of
the
things
that
they
suggested
and
is
important
to
us,
as
we
heard
from
the
neighbors
is
making
sure
this
act
suit
access,
I
believe
the
road
is
called
saint
andrews
will
be
restricted
to
emergency
access.
Only
the
neighbors
did
not
want
additional
traffic
to
go
through
there,
and
neither
do
we.
H
We
will
take
questions
after
we
hear
from
the
neighborhood
association,
so
please
continue
with
your
with
your
testimony.
If
you'd
like.
O
O
T
Thank
you,
my
name
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
commission.
My
name
is
joshua
leonard.
My
address
is
251
east
front
street
here
in
boise
83702.
T
The
first
thing
I
wanted
to
touch
on
is
what
exactly
was
covered
by
the
development
agreement.
I
wanted
to
clarify
that
the
that
the
application
that
was
submitted
isn't
to
permit
additional
uses.
I
want
to
selena.
Am
I
still
sharing
the
screen
in
here.
T
In
the
existing
development
agreement
it
only
had
to
do
or
it
only
dealt
with
buffering
and
design,
as
kevin
mentioned
a
moment
ago.
As
far
as
uses
that
were
permitted
under
that
agreement,
they
were,
and
it's
quoting,
that
development
agreement
from
section
one
those
uses
principally
permitted
and
conditionally
permitted
as
listed
for
the
lod
zone
and
multi-family
residential,
is
one
of
those
conditionally
permitted
uses
in
the
lod
zone.
T
So
the
the
amendment
to
the
development
agreement
isn't
necessary
for
the
use
it's
it's
there
because
of
a
couple
of
changes
in
what's
being
proposed
in
terms
of
the
form
and
and
I'm
going
to
pull
up
a
quick
comparison
to
show
you
what
I
mean
the
2000
da
mentioned
that
the
uses
were
those
principally
permitted
and
conditionally
permitted
as
listed
for
the
lod
zone
as
revised,
it's
multifamily
residential,
which
is
again
conditionally
permitted
in
that
lod
zone.
T
The
circulation,
building
placement
and
buffering
under
the
2000
da
were,
as
shown
on
that
preliminary
site
plan.
There's
no
change
to
vehicular
ingress
and
egress
the
site
plan
or
excuse
me.
Building
placement
obviously
is
modified.
Instead
of
three
buildings.
There
are
four
plus
a
a
club
house
and
then,
as
far
as
buffering
as
kevin
covered,
there
is
no
change.
T
This.
The
the
height
of
the
buildings
is
one
of
the
reasons
for
we
need.
We
need
to
amend
the
development
agreement.
You
can
see
here
in
the
existing
development
agreement,
one
two
and
three
stories
for
each
of
those
three
buildings.
A
Sorry,
we
were
10.
T
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
You
can
see
here
that
under
the
existing
development
agreement,
the
two
stories
was
proposed
at
38
feet.
The
three
stories
that
are
proposed
under
the
under
the
new
revisions
to
the
development
agreement
are
at
that
38
foot,
height,
vehicular
access,
unchanged,
limited
to
emergency
uses
and
pedestrians.
Only
and
then,
as
I
mentioned
above
the
buffering
six
foot
tall
with
mix
of
fencing,
landscaping
and
berms.
There
is
no
change.
T
Jumping
to
the
to
the
conditional
use
permit
the
planned
unit
development,
I'm
going
to
show
you
a
quick
area
overview.
I
believe
that
kevin
holm's
city
staff
showed
this
similar
similar
picture
a
moment
ago,
zoom
just
a
little
bit.
The
x
marks
the
spot
where
this
look
of
this
location.
As
you
can
see
it's
surrounded
by
what
what
is
office
on
the
to
the
east
and
then
single-family
residential
to
the
west
and
north.
You
can
also
see
up
through
here.
There
are
a
lot
of
of
multi-family
development.
T
Mostly
it
looks
like
those
are
town
homes,
but
but
a
lot
of
those
around
and
also
along
the
hillcrest
golf
course
over
to
further
to
the
west.
T
As
as
kevin
showed
a
few
minutes
ago,
the
proposed
project
is
depicted.
The
reason
I
show
this
again
is
because
it's
it's
important
with
regard
to
the
air
airport
influence
areas
that
we're
gonna
discuss
in
just
a
minute,
and
the
the
zoning
map
shows
the
entire
parcel
as
lod
with
the
development
agreement
airport
influence
areas,
though,
are
you
can
see
just
barely
in
here
the
outline
of
the
parcel.
It
appears
to
split
that
northern
half
off
between
the
a
in
influence
area
and
the
b1
influence
area.
T
I'm
going
to
zoom
in
this
is
one
that
we
a
slide
that
we
created
to
show
where
that
lies,
and
that
dotted
line
is
the
approximate
location
and
it's
pretty
accurate.
Based
on
the
the
city's
gis
of
where
that
influence
area,
splits
between
influence
area
a
and
influence
area
b.
B1
excuse
me,
you
can
see
that
all
of
the
project
is
within
that
airport
influence
area
a
which
in
which
multi-family
residential
is
permitted
subject
to
noise
mitigation
standards.
T
If
you
look
down
here,
though,
the
dotted
line,
only
one
half
of
one
of
the
buildings
is
in
that
stricter
airport
influence
area
b1.
T
That's
extremely
important
to
the
to
the
development,
because
by
far
the
majority
of
the
development
is
is
permitted
within
within
that
airport
influence
area.
A.
T
The
staff
report
includes
several
references
to
to
federal
aviation
administration,
grant
assurances
and
in
fact
it
lists
the
the
federal
aviation
administration
grant
assurances
as
one
of
two
reasons
to
deny
it
recommends
denial
of
this
application.
T
However,
the
if
you
read
the
the
grant
assurance
closely
that
faa
grant
assurance
21,
it
doesn't
say,
with
regard
to
specific
applications,
it
it
deals
with
the
zoning
that's
prescribed
for
particular
areas.
It
says
that
the
city
is
to
is
to
comply
with
the
noise
studies
by
implementing
zoning,
not
by
denying
specific
applications.
T
Again,
the
first,
the
first
of
those
issues,
the
noise
impacts
that
would
occur
in
this
area
are
easily
is,
is
mitigatable
a
word
if
it
isn't,
I'm
still
going
to
use
it,
but
it
are
easily
mitigated
by
including
additional
noise
mitigation
standards
in
construction,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
that
biltmore
construction
include
their
standards
are
higher
than
what
is
required
in
the
city's
zoning
zoning
ordinance
and
I'd
like
kevin.
If
he
has
a
few,
doesn't
mind
just
to
mention
what
those
are.
Those
standards
are
for
sound
reduction.
U
So
that
would
be
double
what
is
required
between
the
units
and
the
units
that
are
side
by
side.
I
can
get
into
the
specifics
if
you
like,
but
we're
at
a
60
decibel
reduction
from
the
roof,
we're
at
a
48
decibel
reduction,
and
so,
with
all
of
this,
we
far
exceed
any
requirements
allowed
the
airport
influence
area.
A
again
has
a
has
a
25
decibel
reduction,
even
in
the
airport
influence
area
b
per
the
adopted
airport
guidelines.
U
T
Josh
leonard
again,
one
of
the
things
that
that's
important
to
take
into
consideration-
and
I
know
most
of
most
of
the
commissioners
have
well
I
shouldn't
say
most
several
of
the
commissioners
have
been
on
the
commission
for
some
time.
One
of
the
the
truest
standards
of
in
considering
these
applications
is
that
you
can't
hold
an
applicant
to
a
standard
that
hasn't
been
adopted.
T
The
staff
report
mentions
several
actually
12
different
land
use
guidelines.
T
It
only
quotes
one
of
them.
It
says
city
of
boise
and
ada
county
to
maintain
commercial
and
industrial
zoned
areas
within
the
aia.
As
such,
the
aia
being
the
airport
influence
area.
The
primary
intent
of
this
measure
is
to
preserve
this
land
for
compatible
future
development
and
to
avoid
rezoning
of
these
areas
again
to
maintain
commercial
and
industrial
zoned
areas
and
to
avoid
rezoning
of
the
areas.
This
isn't
an
industrial
and
it
isn't
a
commercial,
commercially
zoned
area.
There's
we're
not
asking
for
a
rezone.
T
It
is
hello
and
we're
asking
that
it
stay
that
way,
we're
just
taking
advantage
of
the
the
density.
That's
that's
allowed
under
that
also
we're
not
rezoning
it
out
of
commercial
or
industrial
so
that
that
one
of
the
12
guidelines
that
was
quoted
in
the
staff
report
just
doesn't
apply,
as
acknowledged
by
staff
by
the
staff
report.
The
airport
influence
area
boundaries
have
not
been
updated
since
1996,
with
the
last
noise
update
occurring
in
2004,
there
also
is
no
airport
overlay
zone.
T
That's
one
of
the
ways
that
the
airport
could,
if
it
shows,
influence
the
city
to
adopt
an
airport
overlay
zone
that
prohibits
the
type
of
development
that
that
is
being
proposed
here.
That
just
isn't
the
case
there.
How
this
type
of
development
is
allowed
in
that
airport
influence
area
a
and
in
airport
influence
area?
B1,
although
multi-family
is,
is,
is
not
allowed.
T
T
The
the
staff
report
also
admits
that
it
applies
standards
that
don't
govern
the
subject
property.
Although
the
subject
parcel
is
only
adjacent
to
the
airport
planning
area,
which
is
different
than
the
airport
influence
area
adjacent
to
this
adjacent
airport
planning
area,
the
the
staff
report
quoted
the
the
planning
team
finds
it
appropriate
to
also
review
this
proposed
development
under
the
goals
and
principles
of
the
airport
planning
area,
in
other
words,
applying
a
standard
to
it
that
isn't
adopted.
T
With
regard
to
that
property
and
and
I'd,
ask
you
to
think
about
what
that
means
for
the
applicant.
It
goes
through
the
cost
and
expense
in
both
time
and
money
to
submit
a
quality
application
in
good
faith,
only
to
learn
that
it
will
be
held
to
an
unadopted
airport
standard
regarding
noise,
and
then
it
will
also
be
held
to
standards
that
govern
adjacent
properties,
not
this
property
but
adjacent
properties.
I'd
submit
that
that's
the
definition
of
arbitrary
and
capricious
holding
the
applicant
to
standards
that
are
not
contained
in
cities.
T
Zoning
code
with
regard
to
this
property
time
and
I
can
wrap
up
I'm
less
than
a
minute
away.
Staff.
I
T
That's
why
noise
mitigation
standards
exist
in
the
zoning
code
and
it
takes
it
below
that
65
that
they
say
they
meant
that
they
say
was
measured
in
that
unadopted,
2018
or
2016
study
and
knocks
those
down.
I
I
I
would
submit
that
this
application
complies
with
all
of
the
currently
adopted
standards
for
development,
on
these
on
this
property
and
and
is
entitled
to
to
be
approved,
and
with
that
we
would
stand
for
questions.
H
Thank
you
first,
we'll
see
if
there's
anybody
present
representing
the
hillcrest
neighborhood
association.
If
so,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
H
Okay,
seeing
none
we
will
move
on
to
questions
from
the
commission
for
the
staff
and
the
applicant.
G
I
don't
know
if
this
is
for
staff
or
for
perhaps
legal.
I
guess
my
question
is
the
applicant
has
stated
that
these
standards
were
in
place
in
2000,
but
if
they're
asking
to
amend
the
development
agreement,
doesn't
that
open
this
back
up
to
the
current
standards
and
require
to
be
brought
back
up
to
all
the?
I
guess,
studies
and
conditions
that
would
be
applicable
today?
O
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
I
may
have
to
defer
to
legal
on
the
specifics
of
what
exactly
you're
asking
there
about
what
can
be
entertained
when
you
reopen
up
a
development
agreement
there.
I
don't
know
james
if
you're
available.
S
And
madame
commissioner,
I'm
a
little
bit
unclear
on
the
question.
Also,
perhaps
you
could
clarify
it
and
and
maybe
it
might
be
cleaner
to
just
ask
a
question
and
ask
staffs
and
applicants
positions
and
their
relative
positions
on
whatever
your
question
is
and
then,
if
you
need
further
clarification,
maybe
we
can
go
from
there.
G
T
Yeah,
I
I
wanted
to
clarify
this
is
josh
leonard
with
the
applicant,
we're
not
saying
that
we
only
we're
not
saying
that
we
only
comply
with
the
2000
standards,
we're
saying
we
comply
with
the
standards.
Today
we
comply
with
2020
standards
that
are
in
place
right
now.
We
just
don't
comply
with
standards
that
haven't
yet
been
adopted.
I
H
Commissioner
steven,
oh
I'm
sorry,
was
that
commissioner
squires
again.
P
This
is
a
question
for
staff
kevin.
Can
you
explain
why
we're
reviewing
this
and
you
analyzed
it
as
a
re-zone.
K
O
If
you
can
forgive
me
for
a
beard
and
a
not
getting
a
haircut
in
a
while,
but
I
can
I
can
take
a
stab
at
your
question
there.
So
the
the
criteria
with
which
it's
reviewed
under
those
rezone
criteria
are
what
is
listed
under
the
specific
procedures
in
code
that
we
are
supposed
to
take
a
look
at
these
da.
P
C
So,
if
I'm
interpreting
them
right,
which
is
that's
probably
part
of
my
question,
it
sounds
like
there's
a
concern
that
putting
this
kind
of
housing
in
that
area
would
restrict
normal
operations
of
the
airport
and
hence
the
funding
would
not
be
available
in
that
grant
and
I'm
not
sure
who,
among
staff,
legal,
etc.
I'm
addressing
this
to.
O
I
think
matt
there,
okay,
madam
sure,
commissioner
grant
over.
I
think
matt
may
be
best
equipped
to
answer
that
question:
okay,
okay,
great.
F
Madam
chair
and
members
of
the
commission,
as
part
of
our
receiving
federal
aid
federal
grants
each
year,
the
grant
assurances
are
part
of
that
and
it
wouldn't
affect
our
operations,
but
it
would
immediately,
but
it
would
affect
the
they
could
withhold
funding
from
us
future
funding,
because
we
did
not
abide
by
the
grant
assurances,
and
this
is
something
the
city
adopts
and
basically
we're
required
to
ensure
that
non-compatible
development
doesn't
hamper
the
future
airport
operations
or
ability
to
expand.
F
And
the
our
recent
noise
study
and
an
independent
one
done
by
the
air
force
show
that
our
future
development
is
going
to
severely
impact
or
will
impact
this
area
with
noise
and
I'll
point
out
that
people
are
not
in
their
house.
24
7
they're
outside
there's
play
areas
they
won't
be
able
to
enjoy
their
patios.
F
We've
had
public
meetings
with
master
plan
and
such
where
we've
had
a
lot
of
neighbors
from
these
surrounding
areas
expressed
concerns
about
the
noise
and
the
impact
to
children
and
development
of
children,
and
it's
just
in
our
our
best
interest
to
address
this
issue.
C
Okay,
which,
which
sort
of
leads
me
to
another
piece
which
is
there's
a
there's,
a
fair
number
of
residences
close
by
some
that
appear
to
be
even
closer
than
some
of
the
things
in
this
proposed
development
closer
to
the
airport.
So
I'm
assuming
that
that's
a
grandfather,
thing
they've,
been
there
a
long
time
and
said.
Is
there
any
history
on
that?
We
could
know
about.
F
Madam
chair
and
the
members
commission,
the
most
of
those
housing,
went
in
in
the
early
70s
before
the
when
the
airport
was
much
smaller.
Smaller
operation
quieter,
aircraft,
yeah.
Yes,
it
was
before
any
of
these
standards
were
put
into
place
and-
and
we
do
have
a
lot
of
concerns
about
those
neighborhoods
and
the
neighbors
have
expressed
concerns
with
the
airport
impact
on
them.
F
O
Madam
sure,
commissioner
moore,
I
would
have
to
look
that
up.
I
actually
don't
know
off
the
top
of
my
head
what
the
development
code
had
20
years
ago.
O
I
assume
that
there
was
some
provisions
for
conditionally
allowed
residential
back
then
in
the
lod,
but
but
I
would
have
to
confirm
that
with
you.
H
T
It's
actually
a
response
to
an
earlier
question
by
commissioner
stevens.
I
I
believe,
there's
some
misunderstanding
about
why
this
was
considered
under
the
rezone
specific
procedure,
because
the
rezone
specific
procedure
is
listed
on
a
page
in
the
in
the
code.
That
includes
development
that
still
talks
about
development
agreement,
but
there's
nothing
in
the
code
that
says
a
development
agreement.
Modification
needs
to
go
through
a
zoning
and
now
a
rezone
analysis.
T
If
you
look
at
page
35
of
the
of
the
zoning
code,
where
it
has
figure,
11-03.2
development
agreement
procedure
and
then
two
pages
later
is
the
rezone
procedure,
but
there's
no
link
between
the
two
of
those,
I
think
that's
a
mistake
and
that
it
shouldn't
that
a
development
agreement
modification
doesn't
get
treated
as
a
rezone
or
it
shouldn't
under
the
city's
code.
There's
nothing
in
there
that
says
that.
N
S
Hello,
so
the
I
referred,
the
commissioners
to
the
development
agreement
procedure.
That's
section:
11-03-04,
2
and
application
processing
requires
review
by
planning
and
zoning.
S
And
requires
public
hearing
by
by
council
modification
requires
public
hearing
by
city
council
and
a
recommendation
from
planning
and
zoning.
The
rezone
findings
are
essentially
incorporated
in
the
development
agreement
finding
in
that
the
development
agreement
is
put
in
place
so
that
the
rezone
findings,
so
that
the
rezone
criteria
could
be
met,
and
so
the
commission
might
to
to
further
develop
the
point,
might
inquire
as
to
staff
for
the
applicant's
positions
on
why
the
rezone
criteria
wouldn't
be
relevant
or
what
what
kind
of
disconnect
there
is
there.
C
I
manager,
commissioner,
I
raised
my
hand,
I
should
have
just
spoke
out
spoken
up,
so
I'm
still
trying
to
wrap
my
hands
around
this
grant
and
so
I'll
direct
this
question
back
to
matt.
Do
we
have
confidence
that
the
funds
would
be
pulled
if
this
development
was
allowed
to
go
forward
or
what?
What
are
the
the
swing
factors
in
this
thing?.
F
Madam
chair
and
members
commission,
it
is
not
an
automatic
thing
it
would
be,
it
puts
it
at
risk
is
all
it
does
the
it's
up
to
the
local
community
to
police
this
stuff
and
protect
their
local
resources.
Airports
such
and
they
are
putting
that
on
us
to
be
responsible
and
protect
our
our
airport,
resource
and
infrastructure,
and
I
just
say
it
just:
we
agree
to
it
as
a
city
as
for
the
funding,
and
they
take
it
seriously.
C
Okay,
even
even
though
excuse
me,
madam
chair.
C
Continuing
sorry,
so
it's
it's
not
clear
to
me,
based
on
where,
where
the
noise
standards
are
what
we
would
be
violating
with
respect
to
the
the
grant
outline,
and
so
that's
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
wrap
my
hands
around.
D
So
if
I
could
chime
in
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
commission
rebecca
hub
airport
director
to
answer
the
commissioner's
question
about
the
grant
assurance
grant,
21
is
really
we
have.
As
matt
mentioned,
we
have
a
series
of
assurances
that
we
as
a
city
that
we
agree
to
do,
and
one
of
them
is
to
ensure
that
we
secure
and
protect
the
future
operation
of
the
airport,
including
proper
zoning
and
zoning,
is
a
local
issue
in
a
local
item
and
therefore
it's
directed.
D
Basically,
the
faa
is
directing
the
city
to
ensure
proper
zoning
and
the
city
because
it
accepted
the
grant
says
that
it
will
do
that,
and
the
previous
noise
studies
show
that
this
area
is
noise,
impacted,
meaning
it
has
65
decibels
or
more,
in
which
case
residential
housing
is
not
a
compatible
land
use.
Even
with
mitigation.
C
It
seems
like,
after
all,
is
said
and
done,
the
lod
zoning,
which
currently
applies
regardless
of
the
outcome.
It's
still
going
to
remain
lod
and
we're
using
the
zoning.
The
rezoning
analysis,
but
the
zoning
is
not
going
to
change.
Is
that
correct.
I
C
O
Madam
chair
commissioner,
bratton
over
the
the
multi-family
use,
is
a
conditionally
allowed
use.
So
it's
it's
at
your
discretion.
So,
by
approving
that
conditional
use,
in
effect
the
it
wouldn't
be,
it
would
hit
those
it
would
be.
A
residential
use
in
an
area
with
which
the
faa
and
the
city
has
the
airport
operations
have
concluded
that
it
would
not
be
appropriate
in.
C
So
as
you
look
at
it
as
you
look
at
complaints,
because
I'm
assuming
or
interpreting
from
what
I
read
that
level
of
complaints
are
that's
one
of
the
metrics
that
you
have
of
how
good
or
bad
our
decision
was.
Are
you
seeing
a
high
rate
of
complaints
from
the
other
residences?
Nearby
I
mean?
C
F
Madam
chair
and
members
commission,
we
really
don't
use
that
type
of
metric
because
you
can't
look
at
the
current
condition.
We've
got
to
look
at
the
future
condition
as
the
airport
expands
in
the
future,
which
it
will
with
it'll
grow
with
the
city
as
air
force
or
military
missions
change
to
a
more
louder
aircraft.
F
It
will
have
a
bigger
impact,
and
this
is
what
we're
comparing
it
to
is
those
future
conditions.
Currently
we
have
the
a-10,
which
is
a
very
quiet
military
aircraft,
that
we
know
that
it's
going
to
be
retired
in
at
some
time
in
the
near
future,
and
the
next
mission
will
be
louder
and
it
will
have
an
impact,
and
so
I'm
just
when
I
say
the
noise
complaints
is
when
we've
had
public
outreach
and
public
meetings.
Both
talking
about
the
master
plan,
growth,
the
airport
and
our
noise
study.
We
had
a.
F
Tremendous
outpouring
from
the
public
into
that
area
expressing
concerns
about
airport
noise
and
growth
and
its
impact
to
that
area,
and
so
these
are
the
things
where
we
specifically
the
airport,
where
the
faa
wants
to
prevent
is
to
create
those
situations
where
we
got
this
adversarial,
where
we
can't
grow
the
airport
with
the
community.
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
for
the
record
that
was
matt
again.
I
see
the
applicant
has
his
hand
raised.
Was
that
in
replied
to
this
question.
U
We're
trying
to
figure
out
the
unmute.
Yes,
that
wasn't
specific
an
answer
to
that
specific
question.
Madam
chair,
we
built
and
manage
a
project
within
100
yards
of
this
location.
It's
called
the
owyhee
park
apartments.
U
We
have
a
waiting
list
of
people
that
want
to
live
there
and
we
specifically
ask
them
if
the
noise
from
the
airport
was
a
deterrence
of
them
living
there,
and
it
was
from
everyone
that
answered
no,
not
at
all.
So
we
know,
although
there
may
be
some
arbitrary
data
that
we
may
have
to
live
up
to
in
the
future,
the
impair
empirical
data
that
we
have
from
current
residents
that
live
in
apartments
that
we
recently
built
under
these
standards.
H
Thank
you,
and
actually
I
have
a
question
I
think
for
staff,
but
would
the
rezone
have
had
still
been
required
if
the
new
noise
information
had
not
come
out,
would
they
still
require
a
reason
for
this
project.
O
That
we're
using
to
examine
this
application
through
it's
not
part
of
the
criteria
per
se
of
the
rezone.
It's
basically
like,
if
achd
would
have
said
that
the
roads
were
too
busy.
This
is
the
airport
saying
that
the
the.
O
Too
high,
so
it's
a
lens
through
which
we're
analyzing,
hopefully
that
answers
your
question.
H
Yeah,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
questions
from
the
oh,
I
see,
miss
hup
has
her
hand
raised.
Do
you
have
an
answer
to
that
question?.
D
I
do
have
just
one
answer
to
the
commissioner's
question
about
the
number
of
complaints
and,
as
matt
mentioned,
we're
not
necessarily
tracking
the
number
of
complaints.
Although
I
would
mention
that,
in
response
to
our
master
plan
and
the
noise
study,
we
received
hundreds
of
comments
about
noise
level
from
the
airport,
primarily
from
the
areas
adjacent
to
this
area.
But
the
metric
that
faa
directs
us
to
use
is
the
65
decibel
level,
which
is
the
metric
that
we're
using
here,
because
noise
is
very
subjective.
D
It's
very
emotional
and
some
people
are
very
sensitive
to
it
and
then
some
people,
quite
frankly,
don't
care
about
noise.
So
it's
more
about
how
a
person
perceives
noise
than
the
actual
noise
itself.
So
that's
why
we
use
the
65
decibel
standard
and
not
the
number
of
complaints
that
we
receive
and
it's
very
clear
that
the
65
decimal
standard
faa
has
said
it's
not
compatible
with
residential
use.
J
O
Our
our
website,
as
well
as
the
airports
website,
it's.
H
H
H
Teresa,
I
see
the
hand
raised
you
are
able
to
speak.
Can
we
hear
from
you.
H
Okay,
having
not
heard
from
theresa,
I
will
move
on
to
the
other
attendees
and
we'll
try
teresa
one
more
time
before
we
move
on
from
public
comment.
So
if
you
are
here
but
have
not
signed
up
to
speak
and
would
like
to
speak,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand
and
we'll
start
first
with
my
name
is
blocked,
but
the
person
who
has
their
name
their
hand
raised.
H
To
now
so,
let's
start
with
yeah,
let's
start
with
with
kubick,
please.
V
Okay,
my
name
is
sharmil
cubic.
I
live
at
3914,
west,
st
andrews
drive
and
I
basically
have
a
question
form.
I
want
to
know
if
they've
taken
into
consideration
the
impact
on
the
traffic
on
elder
and
hawaii
and
what
it's
going
to
do
to
all
of
our
side
streets,
because
when
they
started
putting
the
offices
in
there,
people
would
come
up
roosevelt
and
hit
all
of
our
side
streets
and
they
would
speed.
V
Our
street
itself
is
very
narrow,
so
we're
very
concerned
about
the
traffic
when
I
was
going
to
and
from
work
with
the
office
buildings
and
the
hotels
there
elder
became
almost
impassable.
So
if
they're
going
to
put
that
many
more
units
in
there
that
many
more
cars,
what
is
the
impact
going
to
be
on
those.
H
Streets,
thank
you.
We'll
move
on
next
to
miss
holly.
W
We
are
the
large
multi-tenant
building
just
after
the
hotel
and
then
I
also
represent
the
building
owners
at
3130
owyhee
street,
which
is
across
from
oahu
park
and
a
little
further
down
at
3301.
Oh
he's
elder
street,
which
is
a
little
bit
further
down
elder
street.
W
W
Well,
what
I
was
meaning
is
it's
it's.
I
haven't
seen
a
report
from
achd,
so
I
just
didn't
know
if
they
had
responded
to
to
the
the
application,
as
we've
only
been
discussing
the
airport
requirements.
H
Okay,
so
if
that's
all
that
we
will
move
on,
then
is
there
miss
holly
was
at
the
end
of
your
testimony,
just
to
clarify
that's
fine!
Yes,
thank
you.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
don't
see
any
other
virtual
hands
raised.
Now
is
your
last
chance
if
you
would
still
like
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight,.
H
Okay,
no
teresa
cirelli.
Are
you
available
to
testify
on
this
item.
T
Commission,
commissioner
said
this
is
josh
leonard.
We
actually
have
one
member
of
the
public
here
in
our
that
didn't
want
to
do
it
at
home,
so
he
came
to
our
office
here.
To
testify.
Can
we
let
him
test?
I
apologize.
I
just
didn't
want
to
interrupt
earlier,
but
he's
he
has
public
testimony.
H
Okay,
please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
three
minutes.
X
I've
been
in
ownership
over
20
years,
and
I
realize
it's
an
important
piece
of
property
and
I
always
consider
this
an
ins
density
infill
as
far
as
meeting
the
needs
of
the
depot
area
and
behind
it
as
far
as
identifying
boise
living
opportunities-
and
I
think
this
is
a
quality
development
that
will
achieve
this.
X
There
are
successful
townhouse
within
a
stone's
throw
successful
apartments
within
stone's
throw
and
a
lot
of
people
want
to
live
here,
because
the
proximity
and
advantages
it
has
to
boise
and
that's
my
main,
my
main
reason
for
liking
this
project
to
go
forward
because
the
quality
and
what
it
can
do
for
the
tax
base
of
boise
and
the
infield
needs
of
boise
in
the
bench
area.
So
thank
you.
H
B
Madam
chair
is
having
audio
issues.
I've
suggested
she
tries
try
calling
in
on
the
phone
number,
so
she
can
get
testimony.
We
might
just
give
her
a
second
to
do
that.
I
B
Theresa,
I
can't
find
that
phone
number
for
you.
I,
the
only
phone
number
I
have
is
for
a
host
link,
which
is
what
I'm
playing
right
now.
So
I
can't
give
that
one
to
you
exactly.
B
P
B
I
B
B
B
Okay
teresa
said
the
meeting
id
didn't
exist,
so
she
said
thank
you
for
the
time
for
the
commissioners
and
just
have
them
review
the
comments
that
were
submitted
teresa,
we'll
make
sure
to
reach
out
prior
to
the
council
hearing,
because
this
will
go
to
city
council.
B
So
if
you
registered
for
tonight
we'll
have
your
contact
information
and
we'll
reach
out
to
you
tomorrow.
With
that,
madam
chair,
I
believe
we
can
do
rebuttal
from
the
applicant.
H
Yeah
and
then
we
just
also
add
that
we
definitely
read
every
comment
that
is
sent
to
us.
We
read
the
entire
staff
packet,
which
includes
the
public
comments
that
are
sent
in
advance.
So
we
appreciate
that
written
testimony
just
as
much
and
if
that
is
what
you
are
testifying
on
tonight,
it
has
definitely
been
received
and
noted.
H
T
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
of
the
commission.
This
is
josh
leonard
again,
I'm
going
to
speak
for
a
couple
of
minutes
and
I'm
going
to
let
kevin
amar
close
it
out.
One
of
the
things
I
wanted
to
touch
on
was
this:
people
keep
referring
to
a
65
decibel
rating
for
this
property.
That's
actually
incorrect.
The
the
last
approved
noise
study
for
this
parcel
was
60
decibels,
not
65.,
and
also
I
I
appreciate
what
mr
pattaya
said
about
that.
T
This
is
for
future
conditions
that
will
exist
at
the
airport,
not
existing
conditions
and
the
the
to
to
me
to
hold
an
applicant
in
a
land
use
hearing
where
a
property
right
is
at
stake
to
what
may
or
may
not
happen
in
the
future,
based
on
a
future
condition
is,
is
improper
also
just
really
quickly
to
commissioner
brad
nova's
point
a
few
minutes
ago.
He
made
it.
T
He
made
a
really
good
point
that
I
hadn't
necessarily
I
hadn't
caught
to
the
extent
that
any
to
the
extent
that
any
violation
of
grant
assurances
occurred
in
this
matter,
it
occurred
when
the
property
was
left
as
lod
zoning,
not
as
not
as
a
basis
of
this.
This
application.
T
As
I
said
earlier,
it
isn't
one
application
that
causes
one
of
those
causes
a
a
violation.
It's
it's
zoning.
The
airport
agreed-
and
I
caught
a
word
that
ms
huff
said
that
was
important
there.
She
said
that
the
airport
or
the
city
agrees
to
uphold
standards,
meaning
that
they're
contractual
and
that
those
standards
that
are
in
federal
guidelines
when
the
when
the
city
accepts
that
money
they
contract
with
the
federal
government
that
they
won't
violate,
that.
T
I
would
also
argue
that
that
the
airport's
written
objection
to
the
application
likely
qualifies
as
the
and
I'm
going
to
quote
the
federal
federal
regulation
here
that
grant
insurance
21
likely
qualifies,
as
quote
taking
appropriate
actions
to
the
extent
reasonable.
That
would
protect
that
that
grand
assurance.
T
As
required
by
those
grand
insurance,
I
I
I
would
put
something
out
there
with
regard
to
noise,
I
I
would
put
to
the
commission
consider
adopting
an
additional,
maybe
a
little
bit
creative
condition
of
approval,
for
example,
requiring
or
imposing
a
requirement
if
we're
worried
about
complaints.
If
we're
worried
about
people
complaining
and
as
you've
heard
from
kevin.
T
Mr
his
his
development,
that's
100
feet
away,
doesn't
get
noise
complaints,
but,
to
the
extent
you
want
to
add
another
level
of
protection
against
against
those
complaints
require,
as
a
condition
of
approval,
that
a
a
restrictive
covenant
be
entered
against
the
property
requiring
all
rental
agreements
for
these
units
to
be
to
to
to
notify
them
that
that
the
airport's
nearby
and
it
can
get
loud-
and
I
know
that
sounds
silly,
because
we
know
the
airport's
nearby
and
it
can
get
loud,
but
but
to
make
sure
that
it's
in
there
I
I
think,
that's
a
key
way
to
get
that
done.
T
I'd
also
respectfully
disagree
with
the
interpretation
of
specific
procedures
to
call
this
a
you
know
to
look
at
the
rezone.
It
just
doesn't
say
that
in
in
the
code
and
and
besides
that
in
this
case
we're
not
asking
for
an
amendment
of
the
zoning
we're
asking
for
a
non-substantive-
I
take
that
back.
It
is
substantive,
it's
just
non-substantive
with
regard
to
the
zoning
and
the
use,
it's
it's.
It's
substantive
with
regard
to
the
design,
which
is
what
that
development
agreement
covers.
I'd,
also
I'd
turn
it
over
to
kevin
for
a
minute.
U
U
We
are
making
at
this
application
under
the
guidelines
of
the
current
city
code
and
the
current
development
agreement,
one
of
the
limitations
of
the
development
agreement
and
it's
item
number
10
specifically
states
that
this
agreement
is
related
to
design
and
buffering
items
and
does
not
relate
to
the
use
of
properties
permitted
in
the
lod
zone,
and
this
is
important.
The
owner
may
submit
applications
for
use
as
permitted
and
conditional
uses
as
listed
in
the
lod
zone.
So
as
we
made
this
application,
we
looked
at
the
noise
buffering.
U
We
looked
at
the
surrounding
areas,
we
looked
at
the
site
buffering
and
we
really
try
to
complete
a
project
and
provide
a
project
that
will
meet
all
those
criteria
and
we
feel
like
we've
done,
that
we
know
it's
a
high
quality
project.
We
know
through
construction
standards,
we
can
meet
any
notice
mitigation.
U
H
Thank
you.
We
will
now
close
this
portion
of
the
hearing,
and
the
item
is
before
the
commission.
The
chair
will
entertain
a.
H
H
So
maybe,
let's
start
what,
if
we
look
at
these
separately,
if
we're
not
getting
a
second
and
maybe
talk
about
each
individually.
H
That's
my
understanding.
Yes,
the
motion
has
died
for
lack
of
second,
so
commissioner,
stephens
I'd
like.
P
I
have
codes
and
plans
up
and
recommend
denial
of
pud.
I'm
sorry
deny
pud
20-3
and
recommend
denial
of
car
20-3.
H
Yeah:
okay:
let's
start
with
discussion,
commissioner
stevens.
P
I
find
this
to
be
a
fairly
straightforward
denial,
I'm
very
comfortable
with
why
we
use
the
rezone
criteria
for
this
particular
application.
Having
looked
at
the
code
and
the
code
chapters
that
were
pointed
out
by
legal
and
by
staff-
and
I
think
staff
did
a
very
good
job
of
explaining
in
the
staff
report
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
why
this
project
does
not
meet
the
criteria
of
a
rezone.
P
Now
I
understand
that
we're
not
really
rezoning
this
we're
maintaining
a
zone,
but
I
think
it's
really
important
to
recognize
that
they
also
have
to.
This
is
not
an
allowed
use
in
the
zone.
It
is
a
conditional
use
in
the
zone
and
therefore
we
also
have
to
look
at
the
criteria
for
plan
unit
development,
again,
which
I
think
that
staff
has
done
an
excellent
job,
showing
why
this
does
not.
P
I
think
for
us,
as
commissioners
to
question
airport
staff
about
when
we
will
or
will
not
put
our
city
in
jeopardy
of
faa
funding
is
probably
sort
of
a
fool's
errand.
We
probably
shouldn't
do
that.
We
have
an
airport
staff
here
who
does
nothing
but
deal
with
the
airport
and
airport
policy
and
the
city's
relationship
with
the
faa
all
the
time,
and
I'm
certainly
not
comfortable
questioning
any
of
that
myself.
P
With
regard
to
the
question
about
whether
or
not
we
the
city
can
or
cannot
quote,
unquote,
take
actions
that
are
reasonable
to
protect
the
grant.
I
think
that
that's
exactly
what
we're
doing
here
because
of
the
and
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
but
because
we
are
looking
at
this
as
a
this-
is
basically
a
zoning
question
that
we're
asking
here:
it's
not
just
simply
an
application.
P
It's
a
zoning
question
because
again
we're
dealing
with
conditional
use
and
therefore,
in
my
as
I
understand
this
whole
application
and
the
entire
discussion
that
we've
had,
we
are
doing
exactly
what
that
grant
asks
us
to
do,
which
is
to
use
the
city's
power
of
zoning
to
make
and
to
take
reasonable
actions
to
protect
the
use
of
the
airport,
which
is
a
municipal
use
that
is
critical
to
our
city's
continued
growth
and
development.
P
So
I
think
we're
complying
with
everything
that
the
various
plans
and
codes
are
asking
us
to
do,
and
I
do
not
think
that
this
is
the
place
for
a
multi-family
development.
I
don't
think
it
has
really
anything
to
do
at
least
according
to
airport
staff,
with
whether
or
not
we're
getting
complaints
or
not
it's
much
more
clear-cut
than
that.
It's
much
more
objective
and
therefore
I
I
really
strongly
believe
it's
very
clear-cut
and
we
need
to
deny
this
application.
K
Thank
you,
I'm
in
favor
of
the
mor
the
motion,
obviously,
and
I'm
gonna.
Second,
all
of
commissioner
steven's
comments
and
just
that
feedback
on
on
those
comments
a
little
bit.
I
think,
where
I'm
coming
down
with
it
too,
is
that
there's
a
lot
of
other
things
they
can
do
under
this
zoning
with
this
piece
of
land
right,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
residential
development.
K
The
lo
zone
permits
many
uses.
You
know
from
office
space
to
other
services,
so
I
feel
like
we're
not
by
any
means
putting
them
in
a
position
where
they
they
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
have
a
successful
project
on
this
piece
of
property
under
this
zone,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
at
a
high
level,
I
agree
with
commissioner
stevens.
K
You
know
we
shouldn't,
I
don't
think
we
should
it's
our
place
to
question
the
airport
management
staff
and,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
don't
really
want
to
put
another
85
families
in
a
position
where
they're
uncomfortable
with
the
noise
that
the
airport
creates.
So
again,
I
think,
with
the
other
allowed
uses
in
the
yellow
zone,
I
think
they
have
the
opportunity
to
create
a
successful
project
on
this
piece
of
property.
So
therefore,
I'm
in
favor
of
the
motion.
C
So
my
reasons
for
wanting
to
approve
are
based
on
a
couple
of
things.
C
We've
talked
a
lot
at
length
about
the
zoning
piece,
but
just
to
reiterate
briefly
zoning's
not
going
to
change,
no
matter
what
we
do
here,
it
will
stay
lod
and
so
from
that,
I'm
I'm
trying
to
be
quite
literal
about
what's
actually
going
to
happen
to
the
zone
and
what
those
outside
of
boise
I.e
faa
would
see.
When
they
look
at
this,
they
would
not
see
a
zoning
change.
C
Notes
that
was
made
to
the
issue
of
gee
we're
going
to
send
these
85
families
in
to
be
bombarded
with
noise
and
they're
totally.
You
know
they
don't
know
what
they're
getting
into
I'm.
Not
I'm
not
sure
I
buy
that
one
of
the
things
that
was
actually
proposed
in
the
rebuttal
I
did
like,
which
is
full
disclosure.
Let's
make
sure
that
there
there
is
full
disclosure,
so
people
understand
what
they're
getting
into
we're
talking
about.
C
85
dwelling
units
that
qualify
at
the
lower
end
of
the
housing
cost
spectrum
which
we
sorely
need
in
this
city.
As
regards
questioning
airport
officials,
frankly
speaking,
that's
what
we
did
here
was
we
asked
them
questions
about
these
things.
C
So
again,
I
think,
while
it
may
be
that
some
pieces
are
out
of
sync
in
terms
of,
are
we
looking
at
lod
with
some
kind
of
conditional
use,
because
it
is
not
an
allowed
use,
it's
a
conditional
use,
etc,
etc.
C
I
would
be
interested
in
understanding
if,
if
a
different
approach
makes
sense-
or
if
we're
saying
you
know
just
can't
put
dwelling
units
in
that
area,
even
though
substantial
parts
of
it
do
fall
within
the
a
the
a
zone
of
less
than
six,
I
believe
it
was
less
than
65
db.
I'm
trying
to
look
at
the
map
here
and
it's
really
sketchy
in
terms
of
trying
to
zero
in
on
that
particular
place.
So
I'll
have
to
take
the
applicant's
word
for
it
on
that
one.
J
Manager
can
we
share
more.
I
also
want
to
say
I
will
be
supporting
the
denial
for
this,
but
I
would
like
to
challenge
the
the
planning
and
zoning
staff
and
then
in
the
staff
report.
A
A
Our
our
role
at
pnz
is
to
interpret
city
code
and
comprehensive
plan,
and
what
what
has
been
shown
here
is
that
there
are
clearly
gaps,
as
commissioner
moore
noted
and
we're
being
asked
to
interpret
a
gray
zone
here
with
city
policy,
and
I
think
it's
only
right
that
this
get
kicked
up
the
city
council
and
let
them
decide.
A
You
know
what
what
what
they
think,
what
what
they
intend
with
their
policy,
and
I
think
it's
just
not
clear
for
us
to
interpret
code
and
the
comp
plan
at
this
time,
and
I
think
it
I'm
gonna
recommend
denial
as
well,
so
that
it
can
get
kicked
up
and
let
the
elected
policymakers
weigh
in
on
how
they
feel
about.
H
H
Okay,
seeing
no
more
questions
from
the
commission,
we
will
the
so
we
have
a
motion
in
front
of
us
to
recommend
denial
of
car
20-3
and
deny
pud
20-3.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
I
C
H
And
we
are
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Everyone
and
thank
you
for
your
patience
with
our
ever-changing
technology.
Have
a
great
night,
nice.