►
From YouTube: Planning & Zoning Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right,
commissioners,
happy
monday,
we'll
go
over
the
agenda
here.
Real
quick
we've
got
minutes
to
approve
from
june
7th
and
june
14th.
We've
got
two
time
extensions
for
letter
a
and
letter
b
both
should
be
approved
on
consent.
Those
aren't
public
hearing
items.
A
A
A
A
So
we
will
not
be
hearing
that
one
tonight,
just
deferral
to
september
13th
number
two
ped
21-19
and
cva
21-27
at
1805
overland,
it's
a
pud
for
12
units
and
a
variance
couple
variances.
We
are
recommending
approval,
but
there
is
some
neighborhood
opposition.
So
we
will
hear
that
one.
A
Number
three
cp
21-12
a
cup
for
a
child
care
center
on
vanilla
way.
We
are
recommending
approval,
we're
not
aware
of
any
opposition,
so
we
will
try
for
consent,
number
four
car,
21-17,
pd,
21-18,
sub,
21-24,
rezone,
pd
and
subdivision
on
shamrock
street.
We
are
recommending
approval
and
we
can
try
for
consent
because
we're
not
aware
of
any
opposition
number
five
cp
21-30
is
a
parking
reduction
on
barber
valley
drive
for
a
proposed
athletic
facility.
A
We
are
recommending
approval,
but
there
is
neighborhood
opposition.
So
we'll
hear
that
one.
A
A
A
A
A
A
Okay
and
then
number
12
pd
21-20
is
a
pud
for
76
units
on
coal
road.
We
are
recommending
approval,
so
we
can
try
for
consent.
A
A
C
C
D
A
Everyone
attending
the
public
hearing
virtually
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak
because
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion.
You'll
be
called
upon
and
unmuted.
There
is
a
chat
function
in
zoom.
It
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
A
A
After
that
we
proceed
to
public
testimony
with
those
who
are
in
person,
then
who've
signed
up
on
the
online
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually.
If
you
are
attending
to
your
telephone,
you
can
type
in
star9.
To
raise
your
hand
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
A
E
E
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
you
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
testify
tonight.
We
utilize
a
consent
agenda.
This
means
that
if
the
applicant
agrees
with
the
staff
report
and
if
there
is
no
public
opposition,
the
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
E
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
and
the
order
just
detailed
a
few
moments
ago,
with
staff,
applicant
neighborhood
association
and
then
the
public
testimony.
E
Okay,
before
we
build
the
consent
agenda,
we
have
a
couple
requests
for
deferral,
so
we're
going
to
start
with
that.
The
first
referral
request
is
item
number
one.
This
is
drh21-144
for
better
change
for
east
downtown,
I'm
requesting
referral
to
september
13th
2021
at
200
north
fourth
street.
This
is
an
appeal
to
the
design
review
committee's
approval
of
a
new
13-story
mixed-use
building.
E
So
is
there
anybody
present
wanting
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight
that
could
not
return
to
the
september
13th
2021
date.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
do
so
here
in
person.
E
Okay,
german
commissioner
claspy.
E
Great,
we
have
a
second
from
commissioner
shaffer.
If
there
is
no
discussion,
then
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote
stan.
E
Great,
the
next
item
for
requesting
deferral
is
item
number
ten.
This
is
cva
21-21
for
michaela
todd,
requesting
referral
to
august
2nd
2021
at
715
north
17th
street.
This
is
a
variance
to
encroach
into
the
rear
yard
setback
for
an
expansion
of
an
existing
accessory
structure.
Is
there
anybody
present
that
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item
that
could
not
return
to
the
august
2nd
2021
date.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
in
person
here,
okay,
seeing
no
hands.
I
will
entertain
a
motion.
Madam.
F
E
E
Okay,
great
next,
we'll
move
on
to
the
consent
agenda,
so
item
a
pud,
19-19
and
cva
19-24
for
professional
engineering
services
is
a
time
extension
to
august
5th
2023,
and
we
will
place
that
on
the
consent
agenda.
This
is
not
a
public
hearing
item
that
was
a
request
for
a
two-year
time.
Extension
on
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
plan,
residential
development
item
letter
b
is
also
requesting,
or
as
also
time
extension
pd
19-17
for
ethan
helmer
at
5571,
north
eagle
road.
E
This
is
a
request
for
two
year
time:
extension
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
46
multi-family
units,
and
so
that
is
to
september
17,
2023,
and
that
will
also
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
E
The
next
item
for
consideration
of
the
consent
agenda
is
item.
Oh
commissioner,
shafer
do.
E
June,
7th
and
14th.
Thank
you.
I
will
also
love
to
add
the
minutes
to
the
consent
agenda
for
june
7th
2021
and
also
the
minutes
for
june
14th.
2021.
E
Next
item
for
consideration
is
item
number
three.
This
is
cop
21-12
for
kids
in
rhythm.
This
is
south
final
way.
A
conditional
use
permit
for
child
care
center
for
20
children
on
0.64
acres
is
the
applicant
present.
E
E
Okay,
see
none.
We
will
place
item
number
one
on
the
I'm.
Sorry
item
number
three
on
the
consent
agenda.
E
The
next
item
for
consideration
is
item
number
four.
This
is
car
21-72,
pod,
21-18
and
suv
21-24
at
911,
north
shamrock
street
for
rodney,
evans
and
partners.
This
is
a
rezone
of
3.25
acres.
A
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development
and
a
preliminary
and
final
plan
for
residential
subdivision
is
the
applicant
present
great.
I
see
mr
simple
online
and
mr
semple
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
Yes,.
C
E
Great,
do
we
have
anybody
in
attendance
tonight
that
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
of
item
number
four.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
do
so
here
in
person.
E
Next
item
is
item
number
seven.
This
is
pud21-21
for
south
back
and
baird
at
one
zero,
eight,
zero,
five
west
franklin
road,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
plane,
residential
development,
comprised
of
eight
attached
single-family
homes,
and
also
suv
21-25
for
franklin
townhomes
at
10805,
west
franklin
road.
A
preliminary
platform
residential
subdivision
is
the
applicant.
A
E
And
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
Let
the
records
show
that
they
are
and
is
there
anybody
present
tonight
that
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
of
this
item.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
in
person
I'm
still
warming
up
to
having
people
back
in
person.
E
Okay,
great,
then
item
seven
will
be
seen
on
item.
Seven
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
The
next
item
is
item
number
eight.
This
is
cva
21-25
for
image
national
at
5015
north
pierce
park
lane.
A
variance
to
install
two
freestanding
signs
is
the
applicant.
E
G
E
Great
and
is
there
anybody
present
that
would
like
to
speak
in
opposition
of
this
item
tonight.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
E
I'm
sorry
item
eight
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
The
next
item
for
consideration
is
item
number
nine.
This
is
cup
21-29
for
lay
solely
child
care
llc
at
302,
west,
idaho
street.
A
modification
to
previously
approved
conditional
use
permit
to
expand
a
child
care
center
to
43.
Children
is
the
applicant
present
and
are
you
in
agreement
with
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
E
E
Okay,
seeing
none
then
item
nine
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
The
next
item
for
consideration
is
item
number
11..
This
is
cva
21-26.
E
First
at
architects,
at
777,
south
8th
street
ovarian
stream
coach
onto
the
street
side
backs
is
the
applicant
present
and
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
Let
the
record
show
that
they
are
and
is
there
anybody
in
attendance
that
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
of
this
item
tonight.
Please
raise
your
hand.
E
B
B
E
E
Okay,
the
next
item
for
consideration
of
the
consent
agenda
is
item
number
12..
This
is
pd
21-20
for
alc
architecture
at
709,
north
coal,
road,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
76
multi-family
units
is
the
applicant
present
and
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
E
F
H
H
H
Madam
chair,
it's
important
to
recognize
and
celebrate
the
positive
things.
I
firmly
firmly
believe
that
we
hear
a
lot
of
negativity
in
the
last
year.
It's
been
a
tough
road
in
in
certain
instances,
locally,
nationwide
etc,
and
one
of
our
particular
items
item
number
11..
I
hope
I
pronounce
this
correct.
Is
it
the
wasmith?
H
Yes,
all
right,
the
wasp
center
for
human
rights?
That's
going
to
be
co-located
with
the
anne
frank,
human
rights
memorial.
I
think
that's
a
pretty
big
deal.
I
think
that's
a
pretty
amazing
achievement
and
I'm
sure
it
took
many
many
years
to
actually
come
to
fruition
a
lot
of
fundraising,
a
lot
of
time
and
energy
and
frustration.
But
it's
here
it's
moving
forward
and
it's
something.
I
think
that
we
should
take
the
minute
just
to
celebrate
and
and
recognize
it's
a
really
wonderful
thing
to
add
to
this
great
city
of
boise.
E
Thank
you,
commissioner
danley.
So
we
have
a
motion
from
commissioner
schaefer
and
a
second
from
commissioner
danny
to
approve
the
consent
agenda.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote,
said.
E
Okay,
so
the
first
item
up
for
hearing
is
as
item
c.
This
is
sub
21-23
for
kiwano
estate
subdivision
at
4601,
north
mountain
v
drive
a
preliminary
platform
residential
subdivision
combined
comprised
of
10
buildable
lots.
Let's
can
I
can
I
double
check.
I
guess
that
the
applicant
is
present.
Do
we
know
that
the
applicant
is
here-
and
this
is
dan
larney
levitt
and
associates?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
if
you
are
online
or
come
on
up
if
you're
in
person-
oh
great,
okay,
you'll
be
up
next.
Thank
you.
So
much
so.
I
The
applicant
requests
a
preliminary
plot
for
10
buildable
lots
that
range
in
size
from
approximately
5
000
square
feet
to
7
600
square
feet.
Access
to
the
subdivision
includes
a
new
private
street
north
tax
place.
As
proposed.
The
subdivision
complies
with
the
density
requirements
of
the
r1c
zone.
The
subdivision
will
be
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area,
as
the
proposed
lots
will
be
similar
in
size
to
the
surrounding
properties.
I
Late
correspondence
was
received
detailing
concerns
regarding
preservation
of
a
mature
tree
along
the
eastern
boundary,
and
also
preservation
and
concerns
regarding
the
use
and
location
of
the
irrigation
lines
on
the
site.
Planning
staff
does
recommend
approval
with
conditions,
and
the
motion
needed
tonight
is
a
recommendation
to
city
council,
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
J
Madam
chair
dan
lardy
levin
associates
1324
first
street
south
nampa
83651.
J
I
did
pick
the
farthest
chair.
I
think
almost
to
make
my
way
up
make
an
entrance
so
this
evening,
do
you
have
a
powerpoint?
Thank
you.
J
It's
a
really
brief,
powerpoint
and-
and
I
don't
want
to
restate
a
bunch
of
stuff
that
delaney
already
stayed
in
so
next
slide.
J
Please
so
it
is
currently
zoned
r1c
surrounding
a
residential
property
is,
is
the
same
zoning
resub
division
of
lots,
six
and
seven
of
valley
view
heights
and
it
is
approximately
1.8
acres
proposed
subdivision.
10
lots
density
comes
out
to
be
5.4
lots
per
acre.
J
So
this
is
the
scientist,
an
aerial
view
of
the
site.
You
can
see
the
tree
near
view
lane
it's
actually
not
near
cedar
view
lane.
I
don't
have
a
pointer,
I'm
sorry
can
do
you
know
where
the
tree
is.
J
J
So
this
existing
dream,
the
the
neighbor
registered
their
concern
that
they
that
it
might
be
damaged
during
construction
and
there's
a
good
chance
that
it
may
be,
and
they
would
like
to
your
gravity,
irrigation
line,
repaired
or
abandoned
in
place.
The
existing
tree
is
approximately
50
years
old,
so
it
does
have
some
historic
value.
Mr
cuano
enjoys
that
tree,
the
owner
of
the
property
he
enjoys
that
tree
and
has
enjoyed
that
tree.
I've
spoke
to
a
landscape
architect
and
the
arborist
do
believe
that
it
can
be
pruned
at
the
boundary
and
be
saved.
J
Mr
cuano
is
also
willing
to
work
with
the
neighbor
he's
actually
had
several
discussions
since
he's
been
neighbors
with
these
folks.
For
a
long
time
he's
had
discussions
with
them
about
trying
to
save
the
tree
and
he's
willing
to
work
with
them
within
reason.
Without
you
know,
subgoing
or
foregoing
his
private
property
rights
he
understands
the
tree
is
is
valuable
and
it
is
important
and
it
can
be
pruned
and
then
the
gravity
irrigation
line
upon
development
will
will
be
abandoned
in
place
and
he
is
the
last
user.
On
that
particular
run.
J
Oh
there's
there's
another
picture
of
the
tree
and
there's
a
preliminary
plot,
and
so
hopefully
we
get
your
approval
tonight.
Thank
you.
E
E
K
B
L
B
C
E
Okay,
seeing
no
further
questions,
we
will
next
move.
Thank
you
we'll
move
to
the
public
testimony.
M
E
So
do
we
have
anybody
that
would
like
to
test
find
this
item
tonight?
I
have
a
couple:
people
signed
up
I'll
call
them
if
I
have
to
if
you're
online
would
like
to
testify,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand
great,
let's
start
with
fred
or
nalas,
just
give
us
a
minute,
please
fred.
While
we
switch
you
over
to
a
speaking
permission.
E
N
We've
we've
spoken
with
casey
about
it
we're
kind
of
amenable,
but
this
this
is
an
old
tree
and
it's
encroached
on
both
properties
for
its
nourishment,
and
we
would
just
like
to
see
it
preserved,
particularly
through
the
construction
phase.
That's
that's
our
primary
concern.
Now
we
are
going
to
have
it
pruned
and
this
fall
and
we
will
work
with
casey
to
you
know
kind
of
accommodate
him
as
we
can
so
so
we
want
some
protection.
N
I
guess
from
the
construction
perspective
of
that
root,
the
root
ball
underneath
it
we've
had
an
arborist
look
at
it
and
make
some
suggestions
that
we've
already
presented
to
mr
kuano
and
then
with
respect
to
the
irrigation
line.
If
that
line
is
to
be
abandoned
with
new
irrigation
supplied,
is
there
any
chance
that
it
can
be
terminated
more
or
less
at
the
source
because
it
runs
through
our
entire
community
here,
and
it
would
be
nice
if
it
was
gone,
not
ripped
out
but
turned
off?
N
I
think
that's
it,
although
the
the
designation
of
the
property
has
changed,
and
our
letter
rever
referred
to
lots
us
being
adjacent
to
lots,
10
and
11,
and
the
numbers
currently
are
9
and.
N
N
And
that's
that's
pretty
much
it
we.
We
would
just
like
some
protection
in
order
to
preserve
this
tree.
E
Thank
you,
mr
o'nealis
would
judith
like
her
own
time
to
speak
or
is
that
are
you
finished.
E
Okay,
thank
you
great.
Is
there
anybody
else
that
would
like
to
test
find
this
item
tonight?
Please
raise
your
hand
or
virtually
raise
your
hand,
okay,
seeing
none
then
we'll
move
to
a
rebuttal
by
the
applicant.
J
E
Great.
Thank
you
at
this
point.
We'll
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing,
and
the
item
is
before
the
commission.
F
E
Great,
we
have
a
second
from
commissioner
blanchard.
Is
there
any
discussion.
F
I'll
be
quick,
I
think
the
the
layout
here
the
prepa
looks
good,
I'm
sorry,
it's
a
recommendation
for
approval.
C
C
F
Recommendation
for
approval
to
council
density,
you
know
aligns
well
with
surrounding
neighborhoods.
It
meets
all
of
the
requirements
for
the
zone.
All
supporting
agencies
are
in
agreement
as
proposed
and
then,
as
a
side
note.
I
want
to
commend
the
applicant
and
the
neighbors
for
speaking
and
working
together
collectively
to
come
to
an
agreement
and
a
plan
of
action
regarding
the
tree
in
question.
F
It
sounds
like
the
tree
is
not
necessarily
you
know
on
the
boundary
per
se,
but
we've
had
similar
projects
in
the
past,
where
we've
had
applicants
and
neighbors,
not
communicating,
and
it
just
creates
difficulty
moving
forward.
So
again,
I
want
to
command
commend
everyone
for
working
together
cooperatively
to
resolve
any
confusion
and
make
this
a
good
project.
F
E
Okay,
so
we
have
before
us
a
motion
to
recommend
approval
for
suv
21-23
at
4601
north
mountain
view
thrive.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote
dan.
D
E
The
next
item
is
item
number
two.
This
is
pud
21-19
for
trial,
architects
chartered
at
1805
west
overland
road
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
12
multi-family
units
and
also
cva
21-27,
a
variance
you
include
encroach
on
the
side,
yard
setback,
we'll
start
with
staff.
Please
again
miss
garlic.
Thank.
I
I
I
The
project
site
will
include
perimeter
landscaping,
open
space
areas
as
well
as
individual
patios
and
balconies.
Each
unit
is
one
to
two
bedrooms,
provides
a
patio
and
balcony
with
the
maximum
height
of
the
proposed
apartment,
complex
at
33.6
feet,
which
is
under
the
maximum
allowed
height
of
45
feet
in
the
yellow
zone.
E
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
10
minutes
if
the,
if
you
both
want
to
speak,
no
problem
just
go
ahead
and
start
again
with
your
name
and
address,
and
your
name
again,
if
you
switch
back,
sounds.
L
Good,
thank
you.
Steve,
trout,
trout,
architects
chartered
our
address
is
2504
west
kootenay
83705,
I'm
here
representing
the
family
of
brian
schuller
and
then
joining
me
tonight.
We
have
lisa
schuler
brian's
sister
and
alanda
schuler,
his
widow
brian
passed
away
last
year,
so
we're
kind
of
in
the
flux
of
getting
the
property
turned
around.
So
you
probably
saw
some
extra
papers
within
the
submittal
on
that
miss
garlic
has
pretty
much
pre
represented
our
project
correctly.
There's
a
few
things
we
want
to
bring
up
and
a
few
things
we
would
like
to
add.
L
I
want
to
say
that
this
project
is
a
local
family.
Developing
it's
not
an
out
of
out
of
towner.
That's
flipping
they're
building
it
in
memory
of
brian
to
support
his
family.
So
there's
some
special
care
that
we're
going
into
for
maintenance
and
pride
of
ownership
too.
This
is
a
long-term
hold
for
the
family,
so
for
parking.
When
we
had
our
neighborhood
meeting,
we
had
learned
of
the
concerns
of
the
neighbors
that
we
weren't
parking
enough
on
the
property
we
went
back.
L
L
The
fire
hydrant
there
are
two
fire
hydrants
actually
quite
close
to
us,
but
that's
kind
of
a
point,
because
the
fire
department
wants
a
new
fire
hydrant
closer
to
our
neighbors,
so
we
will
be
putting
in
a
new
fire
hydrant
at
the
direction
of
the
boise
fire
department,
the
location.
I
think
we
still
need
to
work
out,
because
if
we
put
it
where
it's
easy
to
get
to,
it's
really
close
to
the
other
fire
hydrants.
So
we'll
have
to
kind
of
figure
that
out,
but
we'll
work
through
that
in
design
review.
L
The
traffic
on
a
net
is
a
an
issue
to
our
neighbors.
It
is
a
technically
a,
not
even
technically,
but
it
is
a
dead
end.
Street
it'll
go
down
and
loop
and
that
you
have
to
come
back.
There
is
no
out
other
than
where
you
came
in
on
overland.
L
L
Miss
garlic
kind
of
talked
about
the
old
growth
trees.
We
are
working
to
save
one
of
the
siberian
elms.
It's
like
got
a
41
inch
diameter.
L
Unfortunately,
it
kind
of
seems
like
it's
going
to
hit
right
at
the
curb
and
gutter,
so
we
have
notified
achd,
that's
our
intent
to
save
the
tree.
We
have
not
heard
back
on
their
ruling
of
that,
and
I'd
also
like
to
say
I
don't
think
the
fire
department
has
looked
at
it
either
for
aerial
access
to
the
property.
L
So
those
two
issues
we're
going
to
need
to
work
out
and
I
would
propose
we
just
get
those
worked
out
in
design
review,
but
as
our
intent
to
save
that
tree.
It's
kind
of
out
of
our
hands
with
other
agencies,
now
there's
a
an
irrigation
canal.
Actually
it's
an
irrigation
ditch!
L
It's
only
about
this
big
that
flows
on
the
wet
on
the
southern
side
and
then
up
over
to
our
western
neighbor
and
then
back
to
overland,
it's
probably
fed
from
the
new
york
canal,
but
we
will
be
maintaining
that
ditch,
actually
we'll
be
improving
it
by
tiling
that
ditch
and
maintaining
making
sure
that
our
neighbors
always
have
irrigation
water.
L
So
we'll
be
working
with
the
neighborhood
to
maintain
that
we
also
need
to
improve
it
where
it's
on
achd
right
away.
It's
a
little
funky
there
in
the
corner,
so
we'll
be
taking
care
of
that
at
the
same
time.
L
Concerning
the
staff
comments,
we're
pretty
much
in
agreement
with
them.
There
was
one
issue
that
I
don't
think
made
it
into
your
packet
concerning
the
trash
enclosure
and
trash
collection.
L
L
The
the
other
item
that
I
want
to
kind
of
bring
up
is
that
we're
proposing
an
18-foot
drive
back,
usually
it's
the
fire
department
that
requires
a
20-foot
drive,
but
we
would
like
to
work
that
out
in
design
review
with
the
fire
department.
Also,
because
there's
no
ladder
access,
the
property
is
too
small
and
you
can't
you
can't
set
up
your
apparatus.
L
L
E
Thank
you
before
we
get
to
questions.
I
will
just
call
to
see
if
we
have
a
representative
from
the
central
bench,
neighborhood
association.
E
Like
you're
doing
great
just
stay
tight,
okay,
if
we
don't
have
a
representative,
then
I
will
move
to
questions
from
the
commission
and
I
see
commissioner
class
be
all
cued
up
there.
B
B
So
first
question
is,
since,
since
mr
trout
presented
a
different
theory
of
how
the
garbage
will
make
it
to
the
street,
do
we
still
have
to
have
a
trash
enclosure?
There.
B
L
N
B
Thank
you
next
question,
so
I'm
reading
your
your
argument
that
there
is
in
fact
a
hardship
and
I'm
a
little
bit
confused,
so
you're,
basically
saying
that
the
hardship
is
they
have
to
put
in
a
service
drive
and
the
there's
so
much
building
that
they've
applied
for
that
it
squeezes
it
too
far
down
south,
but
I'm
missing,
like
a
hardship,
is
usually
an
unusual
shape
or
a
big
old
rock
or
a
cliff
or
a
crick
or
a
tree.
That's
what
the
idaho
courts
tell
us.
B
I
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
the
hardship
in
this
case
when
we
initially
looked
at
the
proposal,
the
location
of
the
service
drive
where
it
takes
access
off
of
south.
The
net
was
dictated
by
achd.
Originally
the
site
did
take
access
off
of
overland
road
when
it
functioned
as
a
office.
I
Use
with
this
change
in
use,
achd
did
require
that
service
drive
to
be
located.
As
far
from
the
intersection
as
possible,
pushing
that
service
drive
into
that
side.
Setback
on
the
south
additionally,
that
irrigation
ditch.
We
were
unsure
if
that
could
be
tiled
or
not.
So
if
that
remained
open,
the
surface
drive
could
not
be
located
over
the
irrigation.
Ditch.
B
L
You're
asking
for
yeah
we're
asking
to
anyway,
so
achd
has
pushed
us
far
to
the
south.
L
That's
the
way
you
maximize
your
property
so
to
maximize
the
property
we
needed
to
push
the
building,
besides
being
for
achd,
closing
off
overland
for
us
as
far
to
the
north
and
hard
to
the
east
as
possible
and
then
trying
to
get
reasonable
units
on
there
with
those
conditions
in
the
drive
pinched
us
pretty
hard.
We
have
pretty
small
units
right
now
to
make
this
work,
we're
counting
fractions
of
an
inch
to
get
this
to
fit.
B
I
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
I
think
the
site
is
constrained
based
on
its
corner
location
and
yes,
looking
at
the
density
of
the
site.
That's
you
know,
they're
meeting
the
maximum
density,
so
there
are
some
kind
of
design
requirements
here
to
make
this
fit.
K
B
Chairman
commissioner
gusby,
but
the
city
acknowledges
this
is
basically
a
flat
square
piece
of
ground
without
any
complicating
geography
or
ditches
or
anything,
and
essentially
this
variance
request.
This
hardship
is
being
created
by
the
number
of
units
the
applicant
wants
to
put
on
it.
If
the
applicant
reduced,
you
know
the
number
of
units
and
created
a
little
more
space
at
the
south
end
of
this,
we
wouldn't
need
this.
B
I
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
in
this
case
I
think
what
we
looked
at
was
we
did
foresee
a
hardship
with
that
irrigation.
Ditch
that
runs
the
whole
southern
property
line
and
we
did
see
the
hardship
of
you
know.
The
service
drive
location,
being
kind
of
dictated
based
on
that
intersection,
location.
H
I
Madame
chair,
commissioner,
in
this
case
our
forestry
folks
did
provide
the
comment
for
the
tree
mitigation.
I
think
at
this
current
time,
they're
still
developing,
whether
which
trees
they
can
preserve
and
which
ones
are
going
to
have
to
be
removed
if
they
can
work
with
achd
on
that
curb
and
gutter
issue.
I
H
C
F
C
F
E
H
I
Madam
chair
commissioners,
I
would
say
this
is
not
quite
my
realm.
I
would
defer
to
the
agency
comment
letter
on
how
that
gets
calculated.
H
Okay,
fair
enough,
madam
chair,
follows
okay,
so
on
page
255
of
our
application,
the
landscaped
buffer
space-
that's
in
question,
it
shows
that
the
potential
is
there
for
this
one
particular
tree
to
to
remain
in
place,
but
the
rest
of
the
trees
that
are
in
that
general
area
are
not,
and
so
my
question
is:
we
have
a
landscape
buffer
with
the
potential
for
no
landscape,
because
if
that
tree
is
removed,
then
it
doesn't
show
anything
being
replaced
in
that
space.
Is
that
correct.
L
Commissioner
dangling
they
in
through
design
review,
we
have
presented
a
landscape
plan
that
shows
plants
within
it's
actually
a
later
landscape
plan,
but
we
will
be
updating
it
to
show
the
landscape
that
is
required
within
that
parkway,
which
are
some
additional
trees
that
will
go
in
there.
So.
F
Have
a
question
for
staff
on
that
same
note,
so
the
siberian
element
question.
I
don't
see
any.
I
may
have
missed
it
in
the
packet.
I
don't
see
any
site-specific
condition
that
should
the
siberian
illness
need
to
be
removed
for
construction,
is
it
noted
in
the
plan
or
in
the
document
here
that
they
will
replace
it
as
required
per
the
treaty
mitigation
plan?.
I
Yeah,
madam
chair,
commissioner
schaefer,
the
the
staff
report
does
have
conditions
of
approval.
The
conditions
do
require
the
applicant
to
abide
by
the
agency
comment
letter
which
does
identify
these
street
trees
in
question.
So
if
the
applicant
is
able
to
preserve
those
trees,
we'd
ask
them
to
work
with
forestry
on
recalculating
that
mitigation,
if
necessary,.
K
K
F
P
F
Commissioner
schaefer
well,
I've
got
the
floor
sort
of
for
the
applicant,
so
mr
trout,
you're
you're
you're
asking
for
this
variance
to
encroach
into
the
south
step
back
and
you're,
showing
an
18-foot,
dry,
vial
and
you've.
You've
noted
that
fire
yourself
to
negotiate.
That's
a
very
narrow
drive
aisle
right.
You
all
are
aware
of
that.
So
it's
your
intention
that
this
is
the
as
we
are
seeing
our
packet
now
that
this
would
be
the
minimum
that
you
would
need
to
encroach
into
the
setback.
F
L
L
L
F
Follow-Up
perspective
delaney,
I'm
just
curious,
as
the
site
plan
shows
now
they're
meeting
the
setback
requirements
on
overland
road.
Was
there
any
discussion
about
maybe
encroaching
into
that
setback
rather
than
encroaching
to
the
south
and
my
question
there
is
kind
of
relating
to
the
fact
we
have
neighbors
to
the
south
of
this
property,
so
was
that
ever
discussed
or
proposed
at
all
to
move
north
rather
than
south.
I
Madam
chair,
commissioner
schaefer,
I
don't
know
that
we
explicitly
discussed
about
encroaching
the
structures
into
the
setback
along
overland
as
designed,
the
the
yellow
zone
does
require
a
larger
setback
for
the
parking
area.
So
that's
where
we
get
that
10
feet.
Typically,
it
is
a
5-foot
setback.
I
So
it's
the
zoning,
that's
kind
of
creating
this
larger
distance
of
10
feet
to
the
south,
because
the
south
property
is
a
residential
zone.
While
this
is
a
lo
zone.
So
in
this
case,
if
the
applicant
could
redesign
to
make
it
fit
without
encroaching
into
setbacks,
that
would
be
preferred,
but
we
did
not
specifically
discuss
encroaching
north.
L
L
The
northern
setback
is
10
feet
from
property
line
to
the
building.
We
are
also
taking
advantage
of
the
code
and
expanding
our
decks
five
feet
into
that
so
physically
and
visually.
We
are
pretty
tight
to
overland
as
it
is,
then
there's
also
some
high
powered
lines
right
there
too,
that
we
have
to
pay
attention
to
so
our
desire
to
move
north
is
probably
not
a
good
move.
E
Okay,
see
no
more
questions
we'll.
Thank
you
at
this
point.
We'll
move
to
the
public
testimony.
I
do
have
two
names
here
on
the
sign
up
sheet:
do
you
both
want
to
just
come
up
and
we'll
cue
everybody
and,
if
you're
online,
and
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand,
okay,
go
ahead
and
pull
the
microphone
down
to
reach
you,
and
please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have.
O
My
name
is
deanna
mcmahon,
1691,
south
the
net
street
boise,
idaho
150
yards
from
the
corner
and
our
we
have
lots
of
concerns,
and
I
have
more
and
more
questions.
After
listening
to
mr
trout-
and
I
wish
I
had
more
time
to
I'm
just
new
to
this
anyway,
our
main
concern
is
trap.
Is
traffic
and
parking
so
even
mathematically,
your
formula
is
1.25
cars
for
one
bedroom,
two
cars
for
two
bedroom
that
averages
out
to
20
cars
and
they
initially
had
11
parking
lots.
O
Now
I
think
the
parking
slots
now
I
think
they
say
they
have
15
13..
I
don't
know
if
you've
been
buying
that
street.
I
don't
know
what
they're
going
to
have.
Please
talk
into
the.
O
What
is
what
direction
is
that
east
and
there's
just
no
place
to
park
and
plus
that
delaney
forgot
to
mention
ours
are
concerned
about
school.
There's
a
school
down
in
south
and
street
up
close
to
the
dead
end
that
they
walk
along
there
frequently
and
also,
if
you
turned
into
a
net
street
from
overland
you're,
going
to
turn
right
around
into
there
many
times
the
people
are
slow
and
you're
coming
off
of
overland.
If
you
don't
hit
somebody
you're
lucky,
I
just
I
appreciate
them
wanting
to
build
an
apartment
complex.
O
I
appreciate
them
wanting
to
have
a
revenue,
but
I
really
think
they
need
to
consider
making
it
smaller.
It's
just
pushing
all
the
boundaries,
it's
pushing
safety,
it's
pushing,
trees,
it's
pushing
water,
it's
pushing
the
parking
and
for
we're
going
to
be
really
constrained
there.
When
we
have
the
parking
there
is
just
no
parking.
If
anybody
ever
went
down
on
that
street,
there
is
not
one
slot
open
on
hole
in
that
street.
O
We
live
in
that
condominium,
there's
19
units
and
we
drive
in
there,
but
that
street
is
busy
and
there
is
no
parking
people
that
live
along
there
use
that
to
park.
I'm
really
really
concerned
about
the
parking
and
I
really
really
wish
that
they
would
consider
fewer
apartments
for
that
small
area
and
and
that's
I'm
a
little
nervous.
O
That's
mostly
what
I
wanted
to
you
talked
about
the
tree
which
thank
you
I'm
worried
about
those
children
that
are
walking
up
and
down
that
street
and-
and
I
guess
I
talked
fast
and
hope
I
understood
you
understood
me
and
thank
you
for
your
time
and
and
I'm
sure
you
don't
hear
thank
yous,
but
thank
you.
E
Thank
you
very
much,
sir.
Come
on
up.
Please
adjust
that
mike.
So
we
can
hear
you
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
three
minutes.
R
R
I
have
five
different
kinds
of
grapes.
All
around
my
property,
my
grapevines
are
165
years
old
that
irrigation
ditch,
that
is
in
question,
that
they
want
a
variance
for
they
want
to
tile
over.
That
is
what
feeds
my
grapes
on
the
on
the
entire
south
side
of
the
property
and
there's
another
ditch
on
the
south
side
of
my
property
that
feeds
the
grapes.
R
You
know
on
the
other
side
and
in
the
rear.
There
is
also
a
we
just
heard
a
issue
about
a
tree
that
was
a
shared
property
border
tree.
R
R
I'm
concerned
that
they're
going
to
tile
that
over,
I
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
with
that
tree.
I
understand
that
the
elm
tree
that
they're
going
to
replace
is
another
point.
You
know
question
and
I
think
they're
going
to
put
sidewalks
down
on
net
street
to
that
tree.
I
don't
know
what
goes
beyond
that,
but
the
the
variance
that
they
seek
is,
I
agree
with
mr
gillespie.
I
don't
see
the
hardship
variants
there,
they're,
calling
it
a
hardship
variance
because
they
want
to
be
able
to
get
a
a
garbage.
R
Bin
or
disposal
area
in
the
back,
which
puts
that
18
feet
from
my
kitchen
door
that
goes
into
my
property
and
my
bedroom
door.
So
I'm
concerned
about
the
smell,
I'm
concerned
about
them
tiling
this
I'm
concerned
about
my
165
year
old
grapes
getting
the
water
that
they
need
for
me
to
pursue
my
hobby
of
making
wine.
E
Okay,
seeing
none
then
we'll
invite
the
applicant
back
up
for
a
five
minute
rebuttal.
Please
start
again,
just
with
your
name,
so
we
have
it
for
the
record.
L
I
will
start
kind
of
at
the
end
of
the
conversation
there
that
gilbert
proposed
this
is
the
first
he
wasn't
at
our
neighborhood
meeting
and
I'm
sure
we
would
be
talking
to
him
shortly
anyway.
But
if
he
has
grapes
and
we
can
keep
that
canal
open,
my
initial
design
was
to
keep
that
canal
open.
Until
I
talked
to
my
civil
engineer,
so
I
I'm
thinking
we'll
go
back
to
keeping
that
canal
open
keeping
those
grapes
watered
for
him.
L
L
So
the
sidewalk,
the
the
tree,
we're
trying
to
save
the
siberian
elm
is
not
in
the
parkway.
It's
like
right
on
the
edge
of
the
street
in
the
curb
and
gutter
the
sidewalk
will
be
removed,
so
the
sidewalk
is
going
to
dead
into
gilbert's
property.
L
L
There's
there's
not
much.
We
can
do
as
as
kind
of
returning
back
to
the
hardship
conversation.
L
L
And
it
would
be
nice
to
be
able
to
use
the
property
as
it
has
been
zoned
and
that's,
I
think
our
concern
with
the
variance
in
our
position
for
hardship
coming
off
of
overland
was
an
easy
design.
We
could
have
maxed
the
maximize
the
site
coming
in
south.
It
has
pushed
us
really
hard
to
get
12
units
or
maximize
the
site.
H
Let's
get
this
party
started
so,
for
the
sake
of
conversation
for
certain,
let's
make
a
motion,
I
move
that
item
number
two
pud
21-19
a
conditional
use
permit
and
cba
21-27
a
application
for
pud
both
be
approved,
along
with
the
terms
and
conditions
in
the
staff
report.
Q
E
We
have
a
second
by
commissioner
blanchard.
Is
there
any
discussion.
E
H
I
think
what
I
what
I'm
hearing
and
I'm
sure
there'll,
be
some
debate
on
this,
which
is
good,
is
ultimately,
this
happens
once
in
a
while,
where
the
relationship
between
achd
and
the
city,
butt
heads
and
our
code
and
their
code
don't
always
comply
work
together,
and
I
think
this
is
evidence
in
front
of
us,
as
in
in
terms
of
the
application
and
as
an
lod
and
and
trying
to
do
what
we're
asking
them
to
do,
which
is
pull
things
closer
to
the
street
and
put
the
parking
in
back
behind
the
units
which
I
think
is
commendable,
especially
given
this
general
area
and
what's
the
over
the
overview
or
the
overlay
of
the
mixed
use.
H
I
think
that,
with
respect
to
the
children
that
are
walking
to
school
valid
point,
but
the
applicants
being
required
to
put
in
what
isn't
there,
it's
curb
gutter,
sidewalk,
so
they're
actually
improving
safety
as
much
as
they
can,
and
they
don't
have
the
ability
to
go
any
further.
That's
something
that
achd
would
have
to
do
with
their
community
program.
H
With
regard
to
the
trees,
I
think
there's
a
couple
question
marks,
hoping
that
those
kind
of
things
can
be
resolved,
and
certainly
my
my
hope
in
design
review
is
that
that
landscape
plan
is
is
solid
and
hearing
from
the
applicant
that
additional
street
trees
would
be
added
is
important.
I
wish
that
I
wish
we
would
get
to
the
discussion
of
a
difference
between
street
trees
and
shade
trees.
H
However,
there
is
a
difference
and
we
keep
seeing
street
trees,
which
is
great
but
big,
canopied,
shade
trees
is
a
different
deal,
which
is
thus
the
question
about
the
value.
A
lot
of
things
other
commissioners
have
their
chance
to
to
weigh
in.
But
for
that,
for
those
reasons
I
will
be
supportive
of
the
motion.
Q
I'm
also
support
of
the
motion,
obviously,
and
commissioner
danley,
I
think,
covered
most
of
the
important
points.
I
will
go
back
to
the
fact
that
I
think
we
heard
it
pretty
clearly
that
staff
was
had
stated
twice
that
the
irrigation
canal
on
the
back
really
was
a
piece
of
this
hardship.
So
I
was
comfortable
with
the
plan
as
submitted.
So
I'm
happy
to
support
this.
I'm
glad
to
see
the
development.
N
B
I
still
haven't
decided
just
I'll
just
go
through
that.
What
I
thought
were
the
key
issues,
the
ones
that
I'm
I'm
not,
I
think,
can
go
forward
as
they
are
and
the
one
that
I'm
still
scratching
my
head
about.
So
with
respect
to
the
trees,
there's
two
different
groups
of
trees:
one
are
the
trees
that
are
public
trees,
as
defined
by
our
coat
and
with
those
the
treatment
of
those
is
clear.
There's
mitigation.
B
B
So
it's
clearly,
you
know
on
the
aurelius's
property
and
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
law
around
like
what
happens
if
in
construction
they
damage
those
roots
and
the
tree
hurts
or
dies
like,
but
that's
a
whole
there's
a
whole
chunk
of
civil
law
on
that.
So
it's
really
not
our
problem
tonight.
That
particular
issue.
So
for
me,
so
that's
the
trees,
I'm
not
worried
about
the
parking,
I'm
not
worried
about
the
traffic.
I
I
think
it's
all
sort
of
normal
for
what
we're
doing
here.
B
I
still
can't
get
my
head
around
like
why
we
can't
just
abide
by
setbacks
on
a
square
flat
piece
of
property.
We've
had
testimony
that
the
irrigation
ditch
is
not
an
issue
because
it
can
be
covered,
and
so
the
irrigation
ditch
is
not
is
almost
by
definition,
not
a
source
of
hardship.
So
we
have
a
square
flat
piece
of
property
achd,
probably
correctly.
If
we
all
step
back
and
think
about
it,
doesn't
want
to
curb
cut
on
over.
B
That
is
probably
the
right
answer
from
a
public
policy
point
of
view,
so
they
want
the
curb
cut
on
the
net.
Okay,
fine,
but
we
all
knew
that
going
in
and
we
still
couldn't
design
a
site
on
a
square
flat
piece
of
ground
that
honors
all
the
setbacks,
and
I
just
don't
like
that.
The
reason
I
don't
like
it
is
because
in
this
neighborhood
we're
putting
in
a
you
know
for
these
folks
who
live
there.
This
is
a
lot
of
density
and
a
lot
of
building
mass.
B
F
I
am
basically
a
complete
agreement
with
milt
on
this
one.
I
like
the
project.
I
like
the
density.
I
like
the
location.
In
my
mind,
the
pud,
you
know,
gets
my
vote
for
approval,
it's
the
variance.
I'm
hung
up
on
as
well
and,
to
be
quite
honest,
I
you
know
I'm
struggling
a
little
bit
to
understand
fully
what's
happening
on
that
south
property
line.
I
think,
if
you
know,
maybe
if
the
drawings
in
our
packet
could
give
us
a
little
more
detail
to
understand
exactly
where
you
know
that
ditch
is
falling.
F
F
The
tree
issue,
you
know,
I
think
I
mean
I
commend
the
effort,
my
opinion,
you
know
other
than
being
a
mature
tree.
A
siberian
elm
is
not
necessarily
a
you
know:
a
valuable,
beneficial
species.
I
don't
think
you
know
you
don't
see
it
being
planted
in
the
landscape
plants
that
come
across
these
desks
right.
So
other
than
the
size
of
that
tree,
I
don't
think
there's
a
lot
of
value
in
that
particular
tree.
F
So
if
they
can
save
it
terrific
you
know
if
they
can't
that's
fine,
it's
in
the
mitigation
plan
and
I
think
the
city
will
get
you
know
the
value
for
that
tree
if
it
is
removed.
So
again,
I'm
just
kind
of
struggling
with
that
variance
piece
like
like
milk
mentioned.
S
Manager,
commissioner,
moore
yeah,
I'm
I
think,
I'm
on
the
same
page
pud
with
all
the
conditions
totally
supportive
of
that.
The
variance
based
on
the
site
plan
that
I'm
looking
at
it
looks
like
the
drainage
ditch
is
within
the
easement,
so
I
don't
see
within
that
10
foot
buffer,
even
within
this
reduced
7
foot
buffer.
S
So
I
don't
see
a
hardship
there.
The
only
hardship
that
I
can
find
is
just
the
requirement
to
put
your
the
access
on
the
lesser
street,
but
this
is
a
requirement
that
is
fairly
typical
kind
of
for
achd,
so
not
in
my
mind,
an
unexpected
requirement
or
or
something
that
would
be
uncommon
for
a
similar
property
or
a
similar
project.
You
know
I
I
hate
designing
from
the
dice.
I
don't
think
it's
the
great
way
to
go,
but
we
are
arguing
over
you
know.
S
We're
seeing
three
feet
is:
is
really
the
difference
between
our
thought
processes,
and
I
don't
know
you
know
if
that's
gonna
completely
change
this
building
over
a
maybe
a
200
foot,
property
plus
or
lose
a
unit
or
if
it
can
be
picked
up
somewhere.
You
know
that's
something
to
kind
of
study
further,
but
you
know
I
think
I
can't
see
a
hardship
either,
I'm
just
seeing
that
ditch
where
it
is
and
knowing
that
this
is
a
standard
condition
for
adhd.
E
Okay,
I
think
I'm
going
to
call
for
a
vote
on
this.
Oh
commissioner,
gillespie.
B
I
mean
what
I'm
wondering
is
if
we
would
like
to
ask
mr
trout
and
his
client
if
they
would
enjoy
a
deferral
and
had
a
chance
to
really
think
very
hard
about.
Can
we
get
within
the
setbacks
and
can
we
play
around
with
any
additional
height
to
add
units
that
if
we
have
to
make
that
set
back,
and
it
pushes
that
you
know
it's
only
three
feet
and,
like
I
said,
I'm
sort
of
on
the
fence?
I
really
am
on
this
one.
B
C
H
So
two
points
one
sure:
I
don't
think
that
that's
necessarily
a
problem
for
me.
I
I
would
entertain
the
option
to
ask
the
applicant.
H
That's
for
access
management,
and
you
know
in
particular,
but
what
is
interesting
is
that
if
you
know
there
again
here's
this
relationship
had
that
request
not
been
made.
That
requirement
not
been
made,
then
this
would
decide.
This
decision
would
be
within
this
completely
wooden
city
of
boise's
hands
and
ultimately
there
wouldn't
be
even
an
issue,
but
because
it's
out
of
their
our
hands
and
it's
in
another
entity's
hands
the
requirements
changing
and
thus
the
site
plan
isn't,
is
changing
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
H
So,
just
a
bit
of
a
point
of
clarity
on
that,
but
to
your
point
yeah.
If
we
want
to
ask
the
applicant
for
a
deferral,
I
would
support
that
motion
so
legally
in
terms
of.
E
Yeah,
I
am
your
call
time
to
devote
on
the
motion,
that's
on
the
table
and
we
can
see
where.
L
E
M
E
F
H
D
H
E
So,
okay,
so.
E
Yeah,
so
that
fails,
so
we
can
ask
the
the
applicant
if
you
would
be,
if
you
would
consider
a
deferral
or
would
you
like
us
to
you
know
or
the
other
option
is
we
will
make
another
motion.
H
E
C
E
C
E
H
B
B
So
so
I
guess
I
mean
my
inclination
is
still
to
let
the
professional
go
back,
work
really
hard
to
see
what
they
can
do
and
if,
in
the
end
the
applicant
wants
to
bring
this
very
one.
Back
again,
like
I
said
I
I
it's
a
close
call,
it's
three
feet
out
of
200
and
by
the
way
we
heard
nobody
testify
about,
you
know
privacy
or
impact
on
that
south
property
line.
So
we
didn't.
Have
anyone
stand
up
really
and
say.
B
This
is
a
disaster
for
me
and
my
family,
because
there's
a
building,
that's
going
to
be
looking
in
my
backyard,
which
we
you
know
frequently
get,
and
the
reason
is
because
there's
you
know
it's
40
or
50
feet
from
the
wall
of
that
building
to
the
property
line
that
that
service
drive.
So
so,
in
some
sense
we
don't
have
anything
specifically
on
the
record
that
says
that
this
encroachment
is
is
itself
needs,
mitigating
vis-a-vis,
the
people
in
the
south
part
just.
E
Okay
about
that,
okay,
thank
you.
Madame
commissioner
blanchard.
Q
Just
back
on
commissioner
danley's
point
of
that,
the
the
access
is
now
currently
on
overland
and
again
playing
where
it's
still
the
case
that
we
could
build
off
of
overland
we'd,
probably
end
up
with
the
worst
site
plan,
because
then
I'm
imagining
that
we're
going
to
end
up
with
a
slot
development
right
where
you
just
have
you
know,
so
I
mean
I
like
the
fact
that
we're
getting
a
new
urbanism
development
out
of
this
vis-a-vis,
two
buildings
stacked.
You
know
parallel
and
you're.
E
Yeah,
you
know,
okay,
because
we're
doing
what
ifs
motion,
though
we
I
would
perf
yes,
I
would
really
prefer
to
have
a
motion
on
the
table
for
further
discussion,
but
if
there's
something
imperative,
please
go
ahead.
S
Just
to
clarify
there
was
a
comment
for
public
about
impact
for
that
the
proximity
to
the
property
line.
It
was
the
the
trash
and
closure
proximity
to
their
house.
Thank
you.
B
L
G
L
Separate
motions
great:
we
could
move
forward
with
some
security
on
on
the
project
with
the
pud
we
can
go
back,
reconsider
the
variants
and
maybe
not
even
come
back
or
we
come
back
with
a
divert
or
new
site
for
that.
But
I
also
want
to
say,
like
commissioner
gillespie
was
talking
about,
I
think
he
was
talking
about
we're
only
talking
about
three
feet
of
asphalt
and
the
parking
lot
is
going
to
be
up
against
the
five
foot.
So
it's
30
feet
of
asphalt
three
feet
wide.
L
E
Okay,
sorry
just
to
stop
here
so
yeah,
so
we
are,
you
were
you
would
rather
us
vote.
Thank.
E
Now
I'm
looking
for
a
motion
then,
for
this,
the
items
separately.
E
F
E
Great
commissioner,
thank
you,
commissioner
schaefer,
and
is
there
discussion,
madam.
B
K
E
B
It's
either
deferred
and
I
you
are
meeting
on.
B
So
the
the
deferral
gives
time
for
the
applicant
to
either
withdraw
their
variance
request,
come
back
with
the
current
variance
request,
as
is,
or
you
know,
come
back,
they
can
withdraw
it
if
they
can
fit
the
development
in
I'm
not
sure
procedurally,
if
they
change
the
shape
or
position
of
the
building.
If
they
need
to
come
back
on
the
pud
but
I'll,
let
other
people
figure
it
out.
So
I
think
the
deferral
route
gives
us
maximum
flexibility
just
to
see
how
the
applicant
responds
now
that
they
have
a
pudding.
A
Oh,
I
like
that,
can
we
just
confirm
that
the
applicant
can
make
august
2nd.
E
Great
thank
you.
They
can,
commissioner,
shaver.
F
F
What's
republic
services
need
what's
happening
with
the
canal,
so
I
think
that
you
know
this
gives
the
applicant
and
the
owners
time
to
kind
of
vet
all
of
those
issues
and
questions-
and
I
agree
with
commissioner
gillespie
if
you
work
it
out
and
there's
no
variance
and
you
can
move
forward
right
into
design
review
terrific,
if
not
we're
here
and
we'll
help
you
work
through
it.
So
I
appreciate
your
patience
as
we
work
through
this
tonight.
We
got
a
little
muddled
along
in
the
process
there.
I
think
we
got
there.
F
So
thank
you
to
everybody.
E
Okay,
I'm
I'm
actually
not
gonna,
be
supporting
the
motion.
I
still
am
not
finding
a
hardship
on
this
property.
I
understand
that
the
zoning
would
allow
it,
but
just
because
you
have,
the
zoning
doesn't
mean
you
get
to
maximize
that.
E
If
you
don't
have
the
space
for
it,
most
developers
would
kill
for
this
kind
of
plot
to
develop
on,
and
I
think
that
it
can
be
done,
and
I
think
that
we've
even
maybe
heard
from
you
tonight
that
it
could
probably
be
done
so
I
don't
see
a
reason
to
defer
but
yeah.
So
that's
how
I'll
be
voting
but
will
the?
If
there's
no
further
discussion
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
F
H
H
E
F
E
No
wonder
you've
been
so
helpful
with
the
trees.
Thank
you
we'll
first
start
with
staff,
and
please
go
ahead.
Mr
moser.
P
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission.
The
application
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
conditional
use
permit
for
parking
induction
associated
with
a
proposed
athletic
training
facility
on
6.79
acres
in
the
sp
spo2
zone,
the
properties
adjacent
to
the
east,
west
and
north
of
the
subject.
Property
are
comprised
of
residential
commercial
and
office
uses.
In
addition,
adjacent
properties
to
the
west
and
north
will
be
developed
with
commercial
and
office
uses
as
specified
within
this.
P
Within
the
specific
plan
adjacent
to
the
south
is
marian
williams
park
and
the
green
belt
along
the
boise
river,
the
athletic
facility
and
associated
uses
are
allowed
within
the
barber
valley,
specific
plan
and
design
review.
Approval
is
required
with
this
development
buildings
and
parking
lots
on
the
campus
comply
with
all
the
setbacks
of
the
specific
plan
and
are
located
outside
the
flood
plain
and
floodway
at
the
boise
river.
P
As
noted,
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
parking
reduction
since
they're,
proposing
102
60
parking,
62
parking
spaces
and
225
spaces
are
required.
Based
on
the
parking
standards
of
the
specific
plan
to
support
the
parking
reduction,
the
applicant
is
proposing
38
bicycle
parking
spaces
on
the
site
which
exceed
the
required
amount
by
14..
P
Also,
there
is
additional
parking
spaces
within
the
surrounding
neighbor
that
could
surrounding
neighbor.
That
could
support
the
project,
which
include
on-street
parking
and
surf
rust
parking
within
the
surrounding
properties.
P
The
planning
team
received
a
letter
from
a
neighborhood
or
from
a
neighbor
expressing
concerns
with
the
site
design,
which
basically
means
their
main
concern.
Is
that
the
parking
that
the
parking
lot
is
located
adjacent
to
the
residential
development
to
the
east.
However,
I
would
note
that
the
application
is
for
parking
reduction
and
the
use
is
allowed
within
the
specific
plan.
Also
design
review
application
is
required
of
the
project
which
could
address
additional
landscaping
and
screening
between
the
parking
lot
and
the
residential
uses.
P
K
K
So
we
have
a
presentation
yeah
pulling
up
again.
The
application
is
requesting
a
parking
variance
for
the
project,
which
is
the
idaho
outdoor
field
house,
which
is
a
training
and
rehab
campus
for
mission,
43
members
and
caf,
idaho
members.
K
The
program
of
the
campus
is
an
athletic
facility,
short-term
housing
and
a
wellness
facility
for
innovative
rehab
treatments
to
accommodate
the
specific
groups.
We
are
providing
oversized
parking,
so
specific
users
being
more
adaptive.
Athletes
we're
trying
to
design
in
larger
parking
spaces
to
accommodate.
You
know,
ease
of
getting
in
and
out.
K
K
K
K
K
In
addition,
as
was
mentioned,
we
are
providing
38
bicycle
parking
stalls
which
is
almost
half
or
almost
double
what
was
required,
and
that
again
is
because
of
the
user
groups
that
are
going
to
be
likely
utilizing
alternate
modes
of
transportation
and
due
to
the
proximity
of
the
green
belt
and
the
availability
of
public
transportation
within
a
five
minute
walk.
So
that
concludes
what
I
have
to
present
today.
Thank.
E
H
Danley
good
question:
can
you
give
me
a
sense
of
your
general
hours
of
operation
as
well
as
the
neighbors
that
you're,
also
considering
with
respect
to
the
shared
parking
arrangement.
K
Yeah,
so
the
typical
hours
of
operation
will
be
around
anywhere
from
six,
am
to
six
pm
now
there'll
be
people
staying
in
the
short-term
housing
they
will
be
there
throughout
the
night.
Wellness
facility
is
looking
at
being
also
almost
an
eight
to
five
kind
of
operation
system,
but
and
then
the
neighbors,
the
adjacent
properties
within,
if
you
can
jump
back
to
the
site
plan.
K
So
we
have-
and
I
think
christopher
knows
a
little
bit
more,
but
we
have
the
adjacent
properties
right
right
within
that
space
right
below
barber
valley,
there's
19
surplus
parking
spaces
within
that
alone,
but
then
we're
also
talking
about
shared
parking
within
this
campus
itself.
So
if
you
consider
the
square
footage
for
housing,
the
wellness
facility
and
field
house
combining
the
shared
parking
within
those
because
people
attending
one
of
these
may
be
attending
all
three.
E
Okay,
seeing
no
further
questions.
Thank
you
we'll
then
move
to
public
comment.
So
if
you
are
like
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight,
please
come
on
up.
D
P
Madam
chair,
remember
the
commission.
That
is
the
person
who
wrote
the
letter,
I'm
not
sure
if
they're
going
to
attend.
E
Okay,
seeing
none
it
would
be
the
applicant's
chance
for
a
rebuttal,
but
there
was
no
opposition
that
we
heard.
Are
you
happy
to
wave
that?
Okay,
great,
please
note
that
the
applicant
has
waived
the
rebuttal,
and
at
this
point
the
item
is
closed
and
the
commission
will
render
decision.
Madam.
H
E
Second
great,
we
have
a
second
from
commissioner
moore.
Is
there
any
discussion.
H
Madam
chair
I'll,
be
brief.
There's
there's
nothing
about
this.
I
really
don't
like.
I
think
everything
in
it
is
great
harris
ranch
and
barber
valley
was
built
in
a
way
to
accommodate
active
transportation.
S
Manager,
let
me
show
more
and
in
addition
to
I'll
I'll
say,
of
course,
be
supporting
the
motion.
In
addition,
you
know
the
extremely
detailed
kind
of
analysis
of
parking
requirements
is
really
helpful
and
kind
of
assessing
the
appropriateness
and
the
extent
of
you
know
the
excess
parking
for
code
and
the
appropriateness
of
this
particular
number.
So,
for
those
reasons
and
the
reason
stay
in
the
staff
report,
I'll
be
supporting
motion.
E
Okay,
great,
if
there's
no
further
discussion,
then
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote,
I'm
sorry!
It's
we
have
on
the
table
of
motion
to
approve
cop
21-30
for
pivot
north
architecture
at
31,
11,
east,
barber
valley.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
E
Okay,
as
we
welcome
back
commissioner
schaefer,
we'll
hear
our
last
item
today,
which
is
item
number
six.
This
is
pd
21-22
for
patra
reid,
at
4141,
west
garnett
street,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
plain
residential
development,
comprised
of
a
single
family
home
and
a
duplex,
we'll
first
hear
from
staff.
Please
again,
mr
moser.
M
P
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
planned
unit.
Development
for
the
construction
of
the
single-family
house.
Behind
an
existing
duplex
1.34,
acre
parcel
the
site
is
located
at
4141
gardner
street
in
r2
zone
and
the
site
is
an
odd
l-shaped
parcel.
The
proposed
detached
single-family
house
is
located
behind
the
duplex
in
the
back
portion
of
the
lot.
The
surrounding
area
is
primarily
comprised
of
single-family
residential
and
duplexes
willow
lane
athletic
complex
is
adjacent
to
the
west
on
the
other
side
of
the
farmer's
union
canal.
P
As
you
can
see
on
the
aerial
photograph,
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
detached
single-family
house
behind
the
existing
duplex,
as
noted.
In
summary,
the
project
complies
with
all
the
required
findings,
as
per
the
development
code
and
all
the
required
setbacks
and
height
requirements
of
the
zone
are
being
met
and,
as
you
can
see
here,
the
house
design
is
configured
to
fit
into
an
odd-shaped
building
envelope.
P
However,
the
neighbors
concerns
can
be
summarized
into
these
basic
three
points,
and
one
is
emergency
access
along
the
driveway,
indicating
that
the
driveway
isn't
large
enough
to
provide
it.
They
had
concerns
regarding
whether
or
not
the
property
boundary
had
been
surveyed,
and
I
guess
there's
some
property
property
line
issues
and
they
had
also
concerns
with
the
proposed
five-foot
side
setback
along
the
north
property
boundary
adjacent
to
the
house.
P
To
address
these
concerns,
I
would
note
that
the
fire
department
has
approved
the
project.
This
includes
the
driveway
as
proposed
the
property
line
or
the
property
was
surveyed
to
address
the
property
boundary
issues.
The
property
was
surveyed
back
in
2004,
and
the
site
plan
matches
the
dimensional
requirements
of
that
record
of
survey.
Although
I
will
note
there
is
some
discrepancy
between
some
of
the
deeds
and
the
the
most
recent
record
of
survey
that
was
recorded
for
the
site.
P
E
Thank
you
great
at
this
time
we
will
ask
to
hear
from
the
applicant.
T
Madam
chairs,
commissioner,
I'm
petra
reid
and
my
husband
and
I
we're
the
property
owners
of
4141
west
garnett,
and
I
think
I
go
briefly
into
the
history.
We
first
met
our
neighbor
danielle
when
we
had
just
bought
our
property
in
2018
danielle
said
that
she
grew
up
in
the
house
and
that
the
triangle
part
of
the
property
in
the
back,
had
been
promised
to
her
father
and
that
she
had
a
promised
right
to
buy
it
at
the
time.
T
T
Since
we
own
the
property,
we
have
done
a
major
cleanup.
We
moved
all
the
junk
trees,
especially
a
number
of
cottonwood
trees.
We
cooperated
with
a
ditch
master
from
the
boise
canal
on
this
contained
many
of
the
weeds
excavated
the
blackberries
and
removed
the
woodchat
prior
to
our
pud
application.
We
found
very
familiarized
ourselves
with
the
requirements
by
the
fire
department
to
make
sure
that
we
can
meet
those
requirements
and
access
to
build
a
safe
rental
unit.
T
T
Our
direct
neighbor
I
like
to
mention
she
did
not
attend
the
public
meeting
the
zoom
meeting
or
she
did
not
inform
us
that
you
would
write
this
letter
and
she
saw
us
many
times
the
property
lines.
Regarding
danielle's
question
on
the
shared
property
line,
I
would
like
to
refer
her
to
I
like
to
refer
the
commission
to
the
survey
on
the
ida
county
record
6470
from
2004,
which
the
planner
mentioned,
and
we
used
this
property
layout
for
our
planning
and
design
for
our
project.
T
We
have
to
rely
on
the
other
county
county
information
on
record,
and
that
is
what
we
have
done,
and
I
also
would
like
to
request
a
copy
from
our
neighbor
to
see
what
survey
she
is
using
to
say
that
she's
concerned
about
the
sorry
about
the
shared
property
line.
T
So
we
have
no
idea
what
what
a
survey
she's
referring
to.
Regarding
the
setbacks,
we
knew
the
triangle:
shape
of
our
property
is
very
unique
for
a
building
and
rental
home
that
would
fit
the
lot
and
is
compatible
with
adjacent
neighbors
to
understand
the
requirements
for
the
triangle
we
reached
out
to
the
city
before
even
actually
starting
with
a
layout.
We
needed
to
understand
what
is
the
front,
the
back
and
the
side
starting
any
design.
E
City,
thank
you
great.
Thank
you
before
we
ask
for
questions.
I
will
just
see
if
we
have
a
representative
present
from
the
veterans
park,
neighborhood
association,
it
does
not
appear
as
such,
so
in
that
case
we
will
move
to
questions
from
the
commission,
for
staff
or
for
the
applicant.
B
David
with
respect
to
the
record
of
survey
question
just
to
be
clear,
so
the
city's
in
legal
or
essentially
position
is
that
the
last
record
of
survey
recorded
with
ada
county
is
the
operative
one
sure
commercial
glassbeat.
That
is
correct
and
if
I
might
follow
up
my
understanding,
david
is
anytime.
A
record
or
survey
is
filed,
there's
in
a
sense
that
a
procedure
where
people
can
contest
that
record
of
survey
and
that
when
ada
county
completed
that
process,
that's
when
they
recorded
on
the
you
know
as
the
final
record
of
survey.
B
P
Adam
chair,
commissioner
gillespie,
I
think
the
record
survey
from
2004
was
for
property
line
adjustment.
It
was
signed
by
the
the
planning
director
at
the
time
and
we
current
under
our
current
code.
There
is
a
actual
application
process
and
they
would
have
to
notify
the
neighbors
of
you
know
the
record
of
survey.
I
I
don't
know
what
the
process
was
in
2004,
but
under
current
code,
yes,
you're
correct.
Thank
you.
S
S
And
the
question
for
staff.
P
Let
me
just
that's
the
record
survey
in
question,
madam
chair,
commissioner,
moore
the.
P
Usually
we
just
go
with
the
most
recent
one.
This
is
the
only
one
that's
on
file.
I
believe
the
discrepancy
is
between
the
deed,
the
the
neighbor's
deed
and
its
meets
and
bounds,
and
the
record
a
survey.
That's
provided
here.
Normally,
the
city
doesn't
get
involved
in
these
there.
It's
a
property
line
dispute
between
neighbors
to
just
to
figure
out,
what's
actually
happening.
I
E
See
no
further
questions.
We
will
go
to
public
testimony
and
if
there's
anybody
I
see
one
hand
up
online,
but
if
the
other
hand
would
like
to
be
raised
to
speak
on
this
item,
please
do
so
now
and
we'll
start
with
danielle
kiefer
just
give
us
a
second
daniel.
While
we
switch
you.
M
The
property
line
is
not
the
same
as
where
the
fence
line
currently
stands
and
it
looks
like
the
2007
record
of
survey
is
or
the
2004
I'm
sorry.
The
2004
survey
shows
the
property
lines
as
being
on
the
fence
lines.
I've
actually
lived
in
this
house
since
1979,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
in
the
90s
there
was
a
shared
well
between
the
two
properties
and
that's
why
the
fence
line
was
built
two
feet
over
was
to
allow
for
easy
servicing
of
that.
M
Well,
there
is
no
longer
a
shared
well,
my
husband
and
I
didn't
buy
this
property
until
2017.
At
that
point,
we
discussed
and
had
an
agreement
with
the
property
owners
to
move
the
fence
back
to
the
original
property
line.
We
had
an
agreement
to
do
so.
However,
a
few
weeks
later,
my
husband
was
diagnosed
with
cancer
and
it
got
put
on
the
back
burner.
M
He
then
passed
last
year,
and
since
then
I
have
taken
out
the
chain
link
fence
in
preparation
to
move
the
fence
over.
My
main
concern
is
that
the
driveway,
when
I
move
my
fence
line
to
the
actual
property
line,
the
driveway
will
no
longer
have
15
feet
of
access.
It's
already
been
moved
from
20
to
15
and
if
it
needs
to
be
down
to
13,
it's
just
not
safe.
M
E
Okay,
I
see
last
call
for
testimony
on
this
item.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
if
you'd
like
to
speak
on
this
item.
E
Okay,
seeing
none,
then
it
would
be
back
to
the
applicant
for
rebuttal
if
you'd
like
to
please
again
just
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
then
you'll
have
five
minutes.
T
Madam
chair
commissioners,
I
have
not
been
aware
that
there
was
action
before
our
neighbor's
husband
passed
away,
that
they
were
trying
to
move
the
fence.
That
is
new
for
me.
I
am
not
aware
of
it,
so
I
cannot
make
any
statement
to
it.
T
E
Okay
with
that,
the
item
is
closed
and
it
is
now
before
the
commission.
Q
S
Me
share
more
so
with
regards
to
the
comments
you
know,
I,
in
agreement
with
everything
in
the
staff
report.
With
regard
to
the
comments,
however,
emergency
access
on
the
driveway,
the
driveway
with
you,
know,
that's
regulated
by
the
fire
marshal
and
there's
a
letter
in
from
the
fire
department
they're
in
agreement
with
the
site
plan.
The
property
is
surveyed.
You
know
first
staff
we're
using
the
record
of
survey,
that's
on
file,
so
you
know
if
there's
a
dispute
there.
S
E
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
pud
21-22
for
petra
reed
at
4141,
west
garnett
street
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote
sen,
aye.
C
E
Thank
you
and
the
meeting
is
adjourned.