►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission - 10/5/2020
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
A
A
Jim
ashley,
chris
and
janelle
should
be
virtually
attending
tonight.
Jennifer
stevens
won't
be
attending.
A
A
A
This
is
a
consent
item,
and
so
there
won't
be
a
public
hearing
on
that
number
or
letter
b
sub
20-42
has
been
withdrawn.
A
Letter
c
sub
20-44
on
warm
springs
avenue.
It
is
a
subdivision,
but
we
do
have
some
testimony
tonight
so
we'll
treat
it
like
a
public
hearing.
A
A
A
D
A
All
right
with
that,
I
think
we're
good
if
you
all
wanna,
mute
and
turn
off
your
cameras,
we'll
see
you
back
here
at
six.
A
E
E
E
E
A
A
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak
as
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you'll
be
called
upon
and
unmuted
there
is
a
chat
function
in
zoom.
This
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
tech
technical
difficulties
arise.
If
the
chat
function
isn't
available
for
you,
you
can
email
zoning
info
at
cityofboise.org.
A
Again,
that's
zoning
info
cityboise.org
with
any
technical
issues.
Our
procedures
for
public
hearings
begin
with
a
presentation
from
the
planning
team,
then
we'll
go
to
the
applicant
and
then
the
representative
representative
of
the
registered
neighborhood
association,
followed
by
questions
from
the
commission.
A
After
that,
we
proceed
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
sign
up,
signed
up
on
the
online
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
if
you're
attending
through
your
telephone,
you
can
type
in
star9.
To
raise
your
hand
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
We
are
strict
with
this
time
as
it
is
limited
in
code.
Finally,
the
applicant
is
allowed
five
minutes
for
rebuttal,
after
which
the
hearing
will
be
closed
and
the
commission
will
deliberate
and
render
a
decision.
A
C
Thank
you.
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.
C
So
that's
why
it's
important
that
you
give
that
to
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
excuse
me,
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.
C
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.
Thank
you
all
for
virtually
attending
tonight.
Will
the
clerk?
Please
call
the
roll.
H
I
H
H
C
Okay,
so
a
couple
of
agenda
notes
before
we
get
too
deep
item
b,
as
in
boy
has
been
withdrawn.
As
has
item
six
item,
six
has
also
been
withdrawn
and
then
number
three
has
been
deferred
indefinitely.
C
So
moving
on
to
the
consent
agenda,
the
first
item
for
consideration
on
the
consent
agenda
is
item
a
and
without
objection
from
the
commission.
I
will
place
item
a
onto
the
consent
agenda.
C
The
next
item
for
consideration
of
the
consent
agenda
is
item
two.
This
is
cva
20-43,
amy,
al
al-shurir,
architect,
inc,
sorry
at
1320,
north
fifth
street.
It's
a
variance
to
encroach
the
street
side
setback
is
the
applicant
present
great.
I
see
that
hand
virtually
raised
and
amy
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
the
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
C
C
Okay,
seeing
none,
we
will
place
item
two
on
the
consent
agenda
and
then-
and
I'm
sorry-
I
have
a
note-
I
have
to
go
back
to
the
deferral
for,
as
I
was
sorry,
I'm
going
to
jump
over
to
item
number
three
sos
20-26.
This
is
sawtooth
land
survey,
requesting
a
deferral,
so
we
will.
C
We
will
put
a
pin
in
that
and
come
back
to
vote
on
that
separately
after
the
rest
of
the
consent
agenda.
That's
confusing!
Okay!
So
item
number
two
has
been
placed
for
consideration
on
the
consent
agenda.
The
next
item
is
item
five
for
consideration
of
the
consent
agenda.
This
is
cup
20-31
for
dairy
gold
inc
at
618,
north
alma
conditional
use
permit
for
a
height
exception
and
is
the
applicant
present.
G
C
C
J
C
Great,
and
is
anybody
present
to
testify
in
opposition
of
this
item
tonight.
C
Okay,
seeing
none,
we
will
place
item
seven
on
the
consent
agenda
and
the
last
item
for
consideration
is
item
number
eight.
This
is
cop
20-34
for
imagenational.
This
is
5015
north
pierce
parkly
and
a
conditional
use
permit
for
an
electric
electronic
massage
display,
freestanding
sign
message,
display,
freestanding
sign.
F
K
C
And
is
there
anybody
present
tonight
to
testify
in
opposition
of
this
item
tonight.
L
L
C
Second,
from
commissioner
gillespie:
is
there
any
discussion.
I
C
Okay,
so
then,
I'm
just
to
re-address
item
number
three.
This
is
sos
20-26
from
sawtooth
land
surveying
llc.
They
are
requesting
a
deferral
indefinitely
and
the
I
will
entertain
a
motion
manager.
Commissioner
shaffer.
G
C
Great
second
from
commissioner
gillespie
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
H
C
N
Madam
chair
commissioners,
the
first
time
on
tonight's
agenda
has
a
request
for
a
preliminary
and
final
plot
on
42.66
acres
in
the
sp01
zone.
This
mixed-use
subdivision
is
comprised
of
four
buildable
lots.
The
proposed
lots
comply
with
the
dimensional
standards
of
the
spl1
zone
and
the
harris
ranch
specific
plan.
N
The
harris
ranch
specific
plan
designates
the
site
as
mixed
use:
commercial
and
high
density
residential.
A
portion
of
lot
four
block.
One
is
designated
for
public
facilities
elementary
school.
The
proposed
street
layout
matches
the
circulation
plan
for
the
area.
All
buildings
will
be
required
to
comply
with
the
dimensional
requirements
of
the
sp01
zone
and
will
require
design
review
approval
prior
to
receiving
building
permits,
block
2
lot.
1's
block
prototypes,
show
a
village
center
block
with
neighborhood
retail,
commercial
or
residential.
On
the
first
floor,
an
office
or
residential
above
block
three
lot.
N
One
and
twos
block
prototypes
show
a
village
center
block
with
neighborhood
retail,
commercial
or
residential
on
the
first
floor
office
and
office,
or
residential
above
as
well
block
four
lot.
One's
block
prototype
includes
the
west
portion
of
the
block
for
future
elementary
school.
Additional
reviews
will
be
conducted
by
the
boise
school
district
achd
and
harris
ranch
review
board
with
additional
opportunities
to
comment.
A
traffic
impact
study
will
also
be
required.
The
east
portion
of
this
block
includes
the
same
block
prototypes
as
the
previous
slots.
N
The
applicant
proposes
to
extend
barnside,
shadywood
and
millbrook
way.
North
south,
as
well
as
haystack
and
woodcutter
street
east
west
millbrook
way,
will
include
a
future
roundabout
at
the
intersection
with
warm
springs
ave
to
be
constructed
once
traffic
counts
warrant,
construction,
the
approval
of
dallas
harris
estate,
sub
number,
18
included
an
rrfb
at
warm
springs
and
millbrook
intersection.
N
Bike
lanes
will
be
constructed
along
barnside
way,
with
detached
sidewalks,
curb
and
gutter
proposed
along
warm
spring
dab
on
both
sides
of
the
daylight.
Creek
curb
gutter
and
detached
sidewalks
will
be
provided
along
all
adjacent
public
roadways
within
the
development.
In
compliance
with
the
circulation
plan
of
the
harris
ranch
pacific
plan,
worms
springs
is
classified
as
a
minor
arterial,
roadway
and
bard
sideway
is
classified
as
a
collector
roadway
other
than
the
accesses
specifically
approved.
With
this
application.
N
N
However,
it
was
determined
that
no
improvements
to
warm
springs,
ave
or
the
intersections
would
be
needed
at
this
time.
A
chd
did
require
additional
right-of-way
be
dedicated
to
accommodate
the
future
construction
of
the
dual
lane
roundabouts,
as
mentioned
in
the
project
report
bvna,
and
several
concerns
several
neighbors
have
concerns
with
the
expansions
of
warm
springs
to
four
lanes.
N
N
N
The
use
and
density
of
the
site
has
been
established
by
the
adopted
harris
ranch
pacific
plan
as
the
future
school
site
within
harris
ranch
has
planned
out.
Safe
routes
to
school
will
further
prioritize
these
improvements
and
will
continue
this
effort
specifically
to
accommodate
school
children
as
conditioned.
The
planning
team
recommends
approval
of
the
application
with
conditions.
N
C
You
nicolette
we'll
hear
next
from
the
applicant.
Please.
O
And
I
I
will
be
brief:
heath
clark,
251
east
front
street
representing
the
applicant.
We
appreciate
nicolette's
work
on
this.
I
think
that
she's
adequately
covered
all
of
the
dimensions
that
need
to
be
addressed
here.
This
is
just
a
matter
of
putting
lines
on
the
on
the
page.
There
will
be
subsequent
design
review
applications
as
the
projects
come
online,
but
this
does
meet
all
of
the
specific
plan
requirements
and
we
are
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
Thank
you
next,
we'll
hear
from
the
neighborhood
association.
Do
we
have
anybody
present
from
barber
valley
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item?
As
a
representative
of
the
neighborhood
great
mr
vc,
you
should
be.
C
You
should
be
clear
to
speak.
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address.
J
J
We
do
understand
that
there's
a
need
to
map
the
the
property,
so
it
can
be
conveyed
at
some
point
and
as
nicolette
mentioned
and
thoroughly
addressed,
we
did
have
some
neighbor
concerns
at
our
september
meeting,
primarily
around
the
development
of
the
school
and
the
fact
that
we
are
setting
and
finalizing
street
typologies
without
a
lot
of
certainty
around
what
the
improvements
of
the
school
will
entail
and
we
we
share
those
concerns,
but
we
trust
that
the
process
will
allow
us
to
address
those
in
further
in
future
applications.
J
J
There's
there's
a
shred
meeting
just
this
week,
so
we
we
hope
to
learn
more
about
what
the
plans
entail
and
a
little
bit
surprised.
I
guess
to
hear
that
the
that
the
boise
school
district
didn't
have
any
comments
on
this,
but
again
we're
not
into
the
design
phase
and
certainly
are
really
only
addressing
the
mapping
of
the
parcel
at
this
point.
J
So
looking
forward
to
future
dialogue
regarding
drop-off,
pickup
buses,
on-site
off-site,
safe
routes
to
schools
and
all
those
topics
that
will
be
associated
with
the
development
of
the
of
the
property,
because
our
neighbors
are
are
concerned
about
the
pedestrian
and
bicycle
connectivity,
both
for
school-age
kids
and
adults
and
and
and
as
we've
mentioned
before.
J
We
do
appreciate
the
city's
support
of
a
request
to
sort
of
dial
back
warm
springs
to
two
lanes
and
obviously
that
will
be
addressed
in
the
future
as
well
so
again
here
to
support
the
project
and
and
really
just
to
voice
the
concerns
that
we've
voiced
previously
and
in
our
and
on
our
letter
regarding
the
project
and
would
be
happy
to
stand
for
any
questions.
If
you
have
any.
C
Thank
you,
mr
bc.
Do
we
have
any
questions
from
the
commission
at
this
time
for
the
neighborhood,
the
applicant
or
the
staff.
C
Okay,
cnn,
I
don't
have
anybody
signed
up
to
comment
on
this
item.
Do
we
have
anybody
that
did
not
sign
up
that
would
like
to
testify
tonight?
If
so,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
C
Okay,
seeing
none
at
this
point
the
applicant
is
able
to
rebut
if
they'd
like,
but
since
there
was
no
test
of
testimony.
Mr
clark,
would
you
wave
that
or
would
you
like
to
have
another
moment
to
speak.
O
Madam
chair,
no,
we
will
wave
it
I
I
would
just
again
heath
clark,
251
east
front
street.
I
would
just
agree
with
gary's
point
that
the
school
is
doing
their
charette
process
and
in
the
meantime
you
know,
we've
provided
an,
I
think,
an
excellent
palette
for
them
to
work
from
with
15
foot
urban
sidewalks
and
a
grid
and
parking
lanes
that
could
be
used
to
be
modified
in
the
future,
so
I'd
leave
it
there.
Thank
you
great.
C
Thank
you.
We
will
now
close
this
portion
of
the
hearing
and
the
items
before
the
commission
madame.
C
Great
second
from
commissioner
schaefer,
and
is
there
any
discussion.
C
No
okay,
seeing
then
will
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
vote.
E
H
C
Okay,
moving
on
to
item
number
one,
this
is
cfh
20-70
eric
stormer
at
2115
north
heights
drive.
This
is
an
appeal
to
the
planning
director's
approval
of
a
hillside
permit
and
we'll
start
again
with
miss
womack.
N
Madam
chair
commissioners,
before
you
as
an
appeal
of
the
planning
director's
approval
of
a
hillside
permit
for
the
grading
associated
with
the
residential
edition
located
at
2115
north
heights
drive
in
an
r1ch
zone.
The
associated
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
the
project
was
approved
on
april
23,
2018.
N
N
The
appellant
argues.
The
approval
did
not
include
proper
due
diligence
addressing
geotechnical
concerns,
they
contend.
The
geotechnical
report
includes
conditions
which
can
lead
to
landslide
conditions
and
removes
the
engineers
responsibility
for
not
identifying
these
conditions
within
their
site.
Investigation.
N
Public
works
review
did
not
find
any
inconsistencies
within
the
reports.
The
geotechnical
engineer
is
responsible
for
determining
the
suitability
of
the
on-site
soils
to
be
developed,
as
indicated
in
the
construction
drawings.
The
project
includes
minimal
grading
and
does
not
pose
a
significant
concern
to
the
potential
of
flooding,
soil
stability
or
erosion.
N
The
planning
permit
provides
a
conceptual
approval
of
the
project
with
conditions.
Final
construction
and
technical
details
are
required
to
be
submitted
within
the
building
permit,
including
structural
engineering,
a
site
suitability,
update
letter
from
the
geotechnical
engineer
and
revisions
to
the
grading
and
drainage
plans
as
conditioned
by
public
works.
This
is
standard
procedure
within
health
side
development.
N
The
planning
director's
decision
was
not
made
an
error
as
the
applicant
is
revegetating.
The
slope
and
the
geotechnical
engineer
has
conducted
on-site
soil
evaluation
of
the
project
site
which
did
not
identify
any
soil
conditions
that
would
prohibit
development.
The
proposal
will
enhance
the
existing
landscape
and
minimize
concerns
for
flooding,
soil
stability
and
erosion.
N
C
P
Yeah
good
evening,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
eric
stormer
I
reside
at
21.
P
P
Present
our
slides
a
little
bit
of
background
information,
so
the
house
resides
at
21
15
or
the
project
resides
at
2115
heights
drive.
If
you
look
at
the
300
foot
radius,
that
was
that
was
established
to
send
out
the
notification
for
this
of
those
homes.
Only
two
exceed
two
stories,
and
I
mentioned
that
I
had
the
pleasure
of
living
in
mr
and
mrs
eason,
the
late
mr
mrs
easton's
house,
and
they
were
the
original
designers
of
the
neighborhood.
In
fact,
they
designed
and
built
most
all
the
homes
in
the
neighborhood.
P
It's
a
neighborhood.
It
kind
of
tears
up
into
the
foothills
with
single-family
single-family
homes,
single-story
single-family
homes.
Those
homes
can
view
out
over
each
other,
and
this
this
project
goes
quite
against
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
in
in
doing
such
has
raised
concerns
not
only
for
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
but
from
a
geotechnical
standpoint.
P
If
you
look
at
the
the
mailer
that
went
out,
there'll
be
some
additional
members
of
the
community
here
tonight,
we've
we've
kind
of
agreed
to
limit
it
to
just
a
few
of
the
members
of
the
neighborhood.
While
most
of
them
oppose
the
project,
we
thought
it
would
be
best
if
we
limit
it
to
the
immediate
neighbors,
I'm
at
2123,
2207
and
2213.
P
Mr
clayton
and
mr
tortino
will
also
join
us.
They
are
immediately
ordering
this
project
and
uphill
as
well,
so
we
all
have
a
vested
interest
in
ensuring
that
the
excavation
of
the
foundation
be
done
in
a
way
that
doesn't
potentially
cause
risk.
I
think
I
mentioned
in
my
appeal
after
this
earthquake.
In
the
past
spring,
we
noticed
some
some
foundational
cracks.
P
I
realize
that's,
perhaps
not
engineering
sound,
but
we
do
have
about
a
six-foot
retaining
wall
between
us
and
the
the
adjoining
project
property.
It
occasionally
requires
work
to
maintain,
because
parts
and
pieces
fall
out.
We
noticed
several
rocks
loose
and
and
dislodged
after
the
earthquake.
P
P
When
you
look
at
what
the
proposed
new
excavation
foundation
will
be
that
that
comes
in
at
around
3200
3209
cubic
feet.
These
are
takeoffs
from
the
the
drawings
found
on
on
the
pds
website.
So
again,
I
believe
they're
about
as
accurate
as
as
we
can
be
when
you
look
at
that.
That
per
percentage
comes
to
38
percent,
and
when
I
read
the
foothills
development
plan,
I
believe
it
says
projects
involving
modifications
to
pre-graded
lots
in
excess
of
30
percent
of
the
volume
of
previous
excavations.
P
That's
a
requirement
on
page
three
of
a
category
two
permit,
so
I
I
don't
think
it's
fair
to
say
it's
a
it's!
A
minor
grading
situation.
It's
it's
a
it's
a
structure!
That's
going
to
be
going
up
several
stories
in
addition
to
out
and
down
which
raises
our
next
concern
with
the
geotechnical
study,
which
is
the
depth
of
the
test
hole
they
they
didn't
do
a
board.
They
did.
They
did
a
test
pit
that
pit
ran
into
obstructions
and
difficulties
around
7.3
feet.
P
Now,
that's
great,
except
for
the
foundation,
as
you
can
see
in
the
drawing
here,
is
going
to
go
below
7.3
feet
from
the
point
of
the
depth
bore,
so
we're
actually
making
assumptions
as
to
whether
the
soil
is
or
isn't
sufficient
to
support
the
structure
based
off
a
depth
that
we
haven't
been
to.
So
they
compensated
for
that
in
the
report
by
referencing
a
location,
a
quarter
mile
away
to
the
southeast
of
the
project
site
and
reference
the
conditions
there
where
they
did
test
for
in
excess
of
15
feet.
P
Now,
while
I
think
that's
conceptually,
probably
not
bad
principle
to
the
homeowner
living
directly
uphill,
you
know
what
happens
a
quarter
mile
away
in
the
boise
valley
could
be
very
different
than
what
happens
in
the
foothills.
So
we
felt
the
need
to
raise
our
concerns
and
and
question
the
due
diligence.
P
I
think
the
final
clincher
for
the
decision-
and
I
appreciate
the
members
of
the
commission
hearing
us
this
evening-
was
when
you,
when
you
flip
through
the
the
geotechnical
report,
there's
there's
quite
a
lengthy,
almost
a
half
of
a
page
of
exceptions
in
there
relinquishing
the
geotechnical
company
from
any
responsibility
should
should
their
findings
be
inadequate
and
they
mention
a
major
limitation
to
the
report
as
the
depth
of
the
board.
P
So
that
is
that
is
our
concern,
and
I
again
I
appreciate
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
commission
hearing
our
our
case
this
evening.
C
Thank
you,
mr
stormer.
Mr
stormer
was
the
appellant,
and
so
now
we'll
go
to
the
applicant
and
robin
we'll
start
with
10
minutes.
Please,
and
please
start
with
your
name
and.
K
K
K
Yes,
sorry
robin
gates,
two
one,
one
five
heights
drive.
I
will
try
to
keep
this
really
really
short.
K
I
know
that
his
statement
started
off
with
compatibility
with
the
neighborhood
and
whatnot
and
I'm
not
going
to
deal
with
that,
because
we've
had
appeals
with
historical
and-
and
I
know
where
my
neighbors
strictly
above
me
stand
on
that.
So
I'm
just
going
to
address
the
hillside
portion,
which
is
what
I
believe
we're
here
for
the
standard
procedure
for
hillside
homes
and-
and
I
only
say
this
because
I
just
happen
to
be
an
architect
and
I
do
hillside
homes.
Is
you
have
the
mti
or
whatever
soils
engineering
company
come?
K
My
structural
engineer,
my
civil
engineer,
takes
care
of
making
sure
that
the
foundation
and
the
drainage
is
compliant
with
the
soil
type
and
when
you
go
and
actually
dig
the
hole
before-
and
I'm
just
saying
this-
I
don't
know
if
everybody
knows,
but
you
dig
the
hole
and
then
you
call
mti
back
out
and
they
actually
look
at
what's
down
there
and
they
test
it
for
compaction.
They
test
it
for
soil
type,
make
sure
it
drains
right
and
if
everything's
the
way
that
they
were
anticipating
we're
good
to
go.
K
K
So
we
we
are
doing
exactly
what
everybody
else
does
on
every
hillside
project
we're
not
anyway,
I'm
not
sure
what
else
to
say,
but
I've
hired
three
professional
engineers
to
do
their
jobs
and
mti
has
also
written
a
letter
saying
that
we're
compliant
and
the
hillside,
people
at
the
city
who
have
gone
through
the
drawings
do
this
every
day
and
they
know
what
to
look
for.
So
I
don't
know
what
else
I
can
say,
but
we
do
want
to
be
respectful
and
do
a
good
job.
K
G
N
Madam
chair,
commissioner
gillespie
this
is
a
category
two
hillside
permit
a
category.
One
is
handled
at
the
front
counter
when
they.
N
Permit
so
this
level
is
category
two.
I
would
recommend
we.
Let
melissa
janish
speak
to
the
the
more
technical
review
on
that
permit
and
why
she
categorized
it
as
a
category
two.
Q
F
You
I'm
melissa
johnish,
I'm
the
hillside,
engineer
for
the
city
of
boise
and
so
yeah
category,
one
and
category
two
nicolette
pretty
much
nailed
it
there
and
the
cat
too,
is
if
there's
any
significant
change
to
the
topography.
So
if
they're
doing
any
grading
any
retaining
walls,
long
driveways
or
additions,
and
so
this
one
is
definitely
in
that
category.
Category
three
hillside
permits,
which
would
be
like
the
next
level,
would
be
for
subdivision
development.
So
this
one
wouldn't
meet
criteria
for
a
category
three.
So
that's
why
it's
a
a
category
two.
G
Two
points:
first
melissa:
you
should
meet
jim
in
his
guitar
collection.
So
that's
good!
My
second
point
is
mr
stormer,
so
I
now
I'm
kind
of
have
lost
the
plot
on
why
you
spent
a
few
minutes
discussing
cat
one
versus
cat
two
permits.
P
Sure,
mr
mr
chairman,
I
I
was
under
the
impression
it
had
followed
the
category
one
proceedings
partially,
because
when
you
look
under
the
category
one
proceedings,
it
talks
about
notification
for
an
appeal
of
a
300
foot
radius.
That
is
the
process
that
was
followed
for
this
this
appeal.
So
that
is
what
led
me
to
believe
that
we
were
following
a
category
one,
not
a
category
two.
So
I
wanted
to.
I
guess,
take
the
time
to
make
the
point
that
it
does
fall
into
a
category
two.
L
F
Yeah,
so
that's
actually
the
typical
process
so
for
these
cfhs,
so
it's
actually
like
a
conceptual
floodplainer
hillside,
and
so
the
structural
calculations
are
not
put
forth
during
this
part
of
the
review.
That'll
come
during
the
building
department
review
where
we
have
you
know,
building
department
reviewers
who
are
looking
at
the
structural
engineering
a
lot
of
times.
You
know
they'll
kind
of
happen
concurrently,
but
for
the
for
the
planning
review,
we
don't
require
that
this
is
just
to
make
sure
it
meets
with
our
ordinance
requirements.
B
B
I
have
a
question,
I
believe
it's
from
mr
stormer,
you
had
mentioned
foundational
cracks
after
the
latest
earthquake
were
those
in
your
house
or
in
the
wall
or
in
the
house
of
the
appellant.
P
Yeah
so
those
were
both
in
my
house
and
then
the
retaining
wall
downhill
of
my
house
between
my
house
and
the
repellent.
B
Okay
and
as
you
said,
the
retaining
wall
requires
periodic
maintenance
anyway
correct,
correct
yeah.
Thank.
C
You,
okay,
seeing
no
further
questions
from
the
commission.
I
don't
have
anybody
on
a
sign
up
sheet
here,
but
is
there
anybody
present?
I
see
one
hand
up
so
is
there
if
there's
anybody
else
that
would
like
to
test
around
this
item
tonight?
Please
go
ahead
and
virtually
raise
your
hand
so
that
we
can
just
move
down
the
list
and
we'll
start
there
with
steve.
You'll
have
three
minutes.
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address.
Q
Q
My
neighbor,
dr
daniele
tonina
at
2213
north
heights
drive,
is
unable
to
testify
tonight
because
a
professor
at
university
of
idaho,
in
teaching
right
now,
both
of
us
are
opposed
to
approval
of
the
hillside.
Permit
I've
lived
in
this
house
since
2010
I
helped
rake
leaves
and
shovel
snow
for
mrs
easton,
she
told
me
how
her
family
constructed
the
rock
walls
throughout
our
neighborhood
to
restain
the
steep
slopes.
Q
Q
Q
Q
I
work
as
a
professional
civil
engineer
and
have
a
pe
license
in
the
state
of
idaho
I'm
confused
how
this
report
could
evaluate
the
stability
of
a
structure
without
knowing
the
grading
limits
delineating
the
position
of
the
project
number
three.
I'm
also
concerned
that,
for
a
project
of
this
magnitude,
only
one
test
pit
sample
was
collected.
Q
Q
Q
C
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
anybody
else
present
tonight
that
wanted
to
speak
on
this
item
tonight.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
C
Okay,
seeing
none
we'll
start
first
with
the
with
a
rebuttal
from
the
applicant.
K
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
all
right,
I'm
still
going
to
default
to
I've
hired
professionals
to
do
this
and
I'm
going
to
take
the
professionals
recommendations,
which
is
what
the
city
typically
does
as
well.
K
One
comment
that
steve
did
make
is
that
the
mti
soils
report
says
that
it
didn't
know
what
the
grading
plan
was
going
to
look
like
and
that's
because
when
you
go
and
do
the
soils
or
the
soils
testing
you
do
that
first
and
then
they
write
a
report
saying
what
type
of
soil
it
is
and
then
I
take
that
and
then
I
give
that
to
my
my
civil
engineer,
who
does
actual
grading
plan
so
when
they
actually
took
the
soil
sample,
there's
no
way
they
would
know
what
the
grading
plan
looked
like
because
it
doesn't
go
in
that
order,
but
the
city
is
requiring
a
letter
at
the
very
end
from
mti,
saying,
hey,
mti,
take
a
look
at
the
grading
plan
and
let
us
know
if
this
is
satisfactory
to
you.
K
C
Now
we'll
hear
a
rebuttal
from
the
appellant
and
you'll
have
five
minutes.
P
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
believe
our
concerns
have
been
heard.
I
want
to
respect
everyone's
time
this
evening,
so
I
appreciate
everyone's
time
hearing
out
our
concerns.
C
Thank
you,
mr
stromer.
The
we
will
close
now
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing,
and
the
item
is
before
the.
R
C
Great,
we
have
a
second
from
commissioner
moore.
Is
there
any
discussion.
D
Madam
chair,
mr
finfrock,
you
know
so
as
a
commissioner
with
very
little
experience
in
soil
analysis.
I
have
to
rely
on
the
technical
experts
and
in
this
case
both
public
works
and
the
geotechnical
engineer
determined
that
the
project
site
didn't
have
any
soil
issues
that
would
prohibit
development.
D
C
Great
okay,
so
is
there
so,
commissioner
finfrock
made
a
motion
to
deny
the
appeal:
is
that
correct
commissioner
finfrock?
Yes,
yes,
yes,
okay,
great
and
then
second
by
commissioner
moore
just
wanted
to
clarify.
Is
there
any
further
discussion.
R
Manager
more,
I
also
support
the
denial
as
well
just
because,
based
on
some
conditions
of
approval
before
any
footings
or
load-bearing
column
pads
are
poured,
the
soil
engineer
is
required
to
issue
written
approval
that
the
soils
are
suitable
for
that
foundation
and
in
the
staff
report.
It
notes
that
the
building
department
will
not
perform
an
inspection
unless
that
letter
is
is
present.
So
that's
just
kind
of
an
extra
check
that
anything
that
wasn't
caught
in
that
soils
report
will
be
caught
at
that
time
when
they
inherit
the.
B
I
agree
with
commissioners,
finferrock
and
moore.
It
appears
just
from
reading
through
this
that
there
are
a
number
of
waypoints
where
there's
going
to
be
additional
testing
and
inspection,
which
I
think
gives
us
the
safety
net
that
we
need
when
we're
doing
projects
like
this
as
the
complainant
pointed
out.
You
know,
there's
stuff,
you
don't
know,
and
I
think
that's
typical
when
you
get
into
these
kinds
of
projects
and
as
you
grade
and
you
work
on
it
more
more
becomes
apparent
and
we're
set
up
to
succeed
on
that
one.
L
I'm
in
support
of
the
motion
as
well.
These
hillside
applications
face
scrutiny
many
times
over,
and
I
believe
that
I
don't
see
anything
out
of
the
ordinary
in
this
process.
L
I
just
also
wanted
to
point
out
that,
while
the
appellant
made
several
points
about
the
geotechnical
report
being
deficient,
I
think
it
should
be
noted
that
the
geotechnical
report
also
makes
recommendations
regarding
the
foundations
and
repairing
any
unsuitable
soils
on
the
site
that
that
might
be
encountered
during
construction.
L
So,
in
my
expertise
this
this
geotechnical
report
is
it
does
the
job
it's
supposed
to
do
to
provide
direction
for
the
applicant
to
move
forward.
So
I'm
in
support
of
the
motion.
C
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
on
the
table
to
deny
the
appeal
and
uphold
the
approval
and
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote
stead
all
right.
H
H
B
C
Okay,
moving
on
the
last
amt
here
tonight
is
item
number
four.
This
is
cva
20-35
for
mark's
land
surveying
llc
at
1801
south
lead
bell
avenue.
This
is
a
variance
to
the
rear
setback
for
an
existing
single
family
home
and
we'll
start
first
with
mr
holmes.
S
All
right
so
before
you
use
a
variance
request
for
a
rear
residential
setback
located
at
1801,
south
leadville
avenue
in
an
r2
zone.
Property
is
located
at
the
corner
of
leadville
avenue
and
william
street
shown
here
in
red
just
to
the
northeast
of
the
intersection
of
boise
avenue
and
broadway,
which
is
a
designated
community
activity
center.
So
surrounding
properties
are
a
mixture
of
detached
single-family
homes,
town
homes
and
duplexes.
S
The
request
is
related
to
a
proposed
property
line,
adjustment
of
underlying
original
lots
of
record
and
the
construction
of
a
duplex
on
the
new
western
parcel.
The
variance
request
is
to
reduce
the
typical
15
foot,
rear
setback
down
to
10
feet.
This
would
allow
for
the
construction
of
a
specific
two
story:
1900
square
foot,
duplex
with
side
loaded
single
car
garages.
S
The
hardship
provided
to
justify
the
variance
is
the
existence
of
a
20
foot,
wide
sewer
easement
along
the
western
side
of
the
property.
So,
as
detailed
in
the
project
report,
should
all
the
setbacks
be
met
and
no
variants
be
granted,
the
new
parcel
would
still
exceed
the
size
of
the
minimum
lot
dimensions
required
in
r2
zone,
and
I
would
like
to
point
out
one
small
correction
to
a
table
that
was
in
the
project
report,
which
quoted
the
building
envelope
for
such
new
parcel,
without
a
variance
as
three
thousand
and
ten
square
feet.
S
The
correct
number
is
actually
twenty
six
sixty
square
feet,
but
which
is
still
very
comparable
to
many
lots
in
the
neighborhood,
especially
considering
that
many
homes
are
built
on
substandard
original
lots
of
record
late
correspondence
was
received
from
the
southeast
neighborhood
association,
expressing
opposition
to
the
granting
of
the
variants,
and
I
believe
mr
frichman
is
in
attendance
to
expand
on
that
position.
The
planning
team
does
agree
with
this
assessment,
as
the
applicant
is
dealing
with
new
construction
and
could
simply
modify
the
design
of
the
duplex
to
not
require
variance.
S
It
is
for
these
reasons
the
planning
team
is
recommending
now
the
application.
So
as
a
reminder,
these
variants
requests.
The
commission
is
the
decision-making
body
thanks.
C
Thank
you,
mr
holmes.
We'll
next
move
to
hear
from
the
applicant
and
we'll
start
with
10
minutes.
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address.
T
Hi,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
in
the
commission.
Thank
you
kevin
for
that
presentation.
We
are
asking
for
this
variance
to
the
existing
building,
be
so
that
there
is
an
adequate
building
envelope
for
the
remainder
of
the
lot,
which
is
encumbered
by
a
very
large
sewer
easement
from
the
large
pipe
sewer
running
through
that
west
side
of
the
parcel.
Mr.
C
Solomon,
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt,
but
can
you
just
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
T
Yes,
matt
solomon
1801
leadville,
the
existing
building
has
very
large
yard,
a
large
front
yard,
very
large
side
yard.
So
we
feel
the
request
for
changing.
The
setback
from
15
to
10
is
quite
reasonable
for
the
existing
parcel,
and
otherwise
it
would
leave
a
pretty
skinny
buildable
envelope,
even
though
the
square
footage
may
be
close,
although
it
sounds
like
kevin
did
change
the
calculation
for
the
the
the
building
envelope,
which
sounds
like
it
would
be
slightly
below
what
the
the
city
otherwise
would
would
might
allow.
T
But
again
that's
due
to
being
encumbered
by
that
sewer
easement.
So
it's
a
20-foot
sewer,
easement,
we're
asking
for
five
feet
on
the
one
side
still
leaves
ten
feet
of
a
rear
setback
there,
and
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
townhomes.
We
don't
think
it
would
be
out
of
character
with
a
neighborhood.
There
are
a
lot
of
townhomes
in
the
neighborhood.
T
In
fact,
you
know
some
folks
have
taken
a
lots
like
these
and
gone
down
to
the
very
skinny
original
parcels
and
made
really
skinny
long
town
homes,
and
you
know
we
were
not
interested
in
doing
that.
Just
want
to
be
able
to
build
a
a
nice
duplex
on
that
a
lot
and
have
a
buildable
envelope.
That
is
reasonable
and
that's
it.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
time.
C
C
Okay,
seeing
none
then
we'll
move
on
to
questions
from
the
commission
for
a
staff
for
the
applicant.
R
This
is
a
question
for
staff
too,
so
to
in
reference
to
comparing
the
the
townhouses
versus
this
particular
project,
to
decrease
kind
of
your
interior
side
setbacks.
You
could
go
through
the
pud
process
potentially
and
and
plan
it
that
way
with
that
duplex,
if
you're
looking
at
it
just
kind
of
in
relation
to
those
townhouses,
is
that
correct.
S
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
moore
yes,
there,
there
would
be
another
route
to
go
about
this,
which
would
be
a
pud
sub.
I
think
the
the
end
result
would
kind
of
be
the
same,
though.
The
findings
that
we
would
have
to
make
would
be
different
in
this
case,
with
the
variance
findings
staff
found
that
we
just
couldn't
make.
E
L
S
Madam
chair
commissioner
schaefer:
yes,
the
the
minimum
dimensional
standards
of
that
lot
would
still
exceed
those
of
of
the
r2
zone,
and
the
building
envelope
would
be
very
similar,
basically
you'd,
be
if
you
took
kind
of
a
standard
50
by
100.
Lot.
S
C
Thanks:
okay,
seeing
no
additional
questions
from
the
commission
and
we
don't
have
anybody
who's
signed
up
in
advance.
Is
there
anybody
online
tonight
that
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand,
we're
looking
at
you
either
danny
or
paul.
C
Yeah,
so
the
now
the
next
step
is
to
move
on
to
a
rebuttal
from
the
applicant,
mr
solomon,
so
you
will
have
five
minutes.
Please
again
start
with
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
T
Matt
solomon
1801
leadville,
the
the
staff
states
that
the
buildable
envelope
would
be
similar
to
other
lots
in
the
area,
but
again
there's
a
very
large
easement
on
the
west
side
that
cuts
off
a
large
portion
of
that
lot.
So
we
felt
that
you
know
due
to
that
hardship.
That
would.
T
Justify
the
request
for
changing
the
setback
slightly
and
could
would
you
mind
just
clarifying
kevin
the
the
change
in
the
report
that
you
mentioned?
S
Madam
sure
jump
in
there,
it
was
just
a
simple
math
math
error
on
my
behalf,
using
the
wrong
width
to
calculate
it.
So
I
was
five
feet
short,
which
changed
the
square
footage.
C
Okay,
thank
you
and
thank
you,
mr
solomon,
okay,
so
the
we'll
close
now
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing
and
the
item
is
now
before
the
commission.
Madam.
G
C
Second,
from
commissioner
schaefer
and.
G
So
going
to
the
diagram,
because
I
think
the
central
issue
here
is
when
you
take
out
the
20
feet
like.
What's
this,
you
know
what
are
the
dimensional
standards
of
the
slot
and
why
should
we
give
them
a
variance
if
they're
very,
very,
very
close
to
the
our
two
dimensional
standards?
And
you
know
without
that,
taking
out
the
20-foot
sewer,
easement
there's,
you
know
somewhere
around
48
45
43,
feet
of
of
width
and
there's
a
way
over
100
feet.
That
looks
to
me
of
of
length.
G
G
I
think
the
city
has
made
a
compelling
case
that
just
moving
that
line
five
feet
over
would
bring
them
would
eliminate
the
need
for
a
variance,
and
they
would
still
have
plenty
of
room
to
you
know
build
whatever
it
is
that
they'd
like
to
build.
So
I'd
like
to
deny
the
variance.
L
Yeah,
I'm
obviously
in
support
of
the
motion
and
I'll.
Second,
all
of
commissioner
gillespie's
comments
and
they're.
Looking
over
the
site
plan.
I
think
you
look
at
the
location
of
the
proposed
duplex
and
it's
probably
at
least
five
feet
from
the
easement
line
itself.
So
you
know
this
exhibit.
I
think
clearly
shows
that
there
is
room
to
put
the
duplex
as
it's
currently
designed
on
the
lot
within
with
without
the
easement
being
in
conflict.
L
Secondarily,
of
course,
the
easier
the
next
approach
would
be
to
make
the
duplex
smaller.
If
need
be,
so
I
agree
with
the
motion
and
I
think
I'll
even
leave
it
at
that.
C
Any
further
discussion,
okay,
seeing
none,
then
we
have
a
motion
to
deny
cba
20-35.
Will
the
clerk?
Please
call
the
vote.
E
C
Thank
you,
and
thanks
for
everybody's
patience
tonight,
as
I
got
back
on
the
horse
and
have
a
great.