►
From YouTube: Planning and 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
Let's
see
so
first
up,
we've
got
minutes
from
February,
6th
and
February
13th
that
we
need
to
approve
and
then,
as
far
as
consent,
agenda
or
sorry,
we'll
just
go
down.
The
line.
Number
one
is
CVA
2227
from
Amy
George,
it's
at
4355,
North,
five
Shire
Avenue
and
it's
a
variance
to
encroach
the
rear
and
Street
side
setback
on
0.16
acres
in
an
r1c
single-family
Zone.
We
are
recommending
denial,
so
we
will
be
hearing
that
one.
This
evening
item
number
two
is
cup
2240
for
Idaho
electric
signs:
that's
at
2472,
North,
Milwaukee
Street.
A
It's
a
conditional
use
permit
for
an
off
from
a
sign
and
an
electric
message
display
a
freestanding
sign
associated
with
an
existing
Church
on
0.34
acres
in
an
LOD
Zone.
We
are
recommending
approval
and
we
have
not
received
any
objections,
so
we
can
try
for
consent.
On
number
two
item
number
three
is
cup
23-2
with
from
John
Balkan
and
that
is
at
5360
North
Eagle
Road.
It's
a
modification
to
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
for
personal
services
over
a
thousand
square
feet
on
0.98
acres
and
an
r1c
Zone.
A
We
are
also
recommending
approval
on
this
one
and
haven't
heard
any
oppositions.
We
can
try
for
content
on
three
as
well
and
then
the
last
one
was
item.
Four
is
cfh
2290,
PUD,
2268
and
sub
2269.
So
that's
a
category
3
Hillside
development
permit
associated
with
the
grading
for
a
residential
subdivision
and
that's
going
to
be
comprised
of
five
single
family
homes
on
5.03
acres
and
an
A1
open
lands
Zone.
A
We
are
recommending
approval
on
this
one,
but
the
applicant
is
in
an
opposition
to
conditions
number
two
three
and
six
that
require
curb
Gutter
and
detached
sidewalks
along
the
street
and
then
the
common
driveway,
and
also
prohibiting
a
gate
from
being
installed
across
the
driveway.
So
we'll
be
hearing
that
one
so
again
for
consent.
We'll
try
put
the
minutes
on
there
willing
by
the
commission
and
then
items
two
and
three
so
nice
and
easy
anybody
have
any
questions
on
any
of
those.
C
A
All
right
enough
of
that
quietness
good
evening,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
Boise
City
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
public
hearing
a
few
things
to
start
out
with
for
tonight's
proceedings.
Everyone
from
the
public
entry
in
the
hearing
virtually
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak.
As
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you
will
be
called
upon
and
unmuted
there
is
a
chat
function
in
Zoom.
This
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
A
Our
procedures
for
public
hearings
begin
with
a
presentation
from
the
planning
team,
then
we'll
go
to
the
applicant
and
then
the
representative
of
the
registered
neighborhood
association,
followed
by
questions
from
the
commission.
After
that,
we
proceed
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
are
in
person,
then
who
signed
up
on
the
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
if
you
are
attending
through
your
telephone,
you
can
type
in
Star
9.
To
raise
your
hand,
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
Testimony.
A
B
Thanks
Crystal
good
evening,
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.
B
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.
That's
why
it's
important
to
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
testify
tonight.
We
utilize
a
consent
agenda.
This
means
that
if
the
applicant
agrees
with
a
staff
report,
if
there's
no
public
opposition
data
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
motion.
B
B
Thank
you
all
right,
pretty
short
agenda.
Tonight
we
have
a
couple
items
eligible
for
consent,
so
we'll
start
there
to
kick
that
off
without
objection,
I'll
place
our
meeting
minutes
from
February
6th
and
February
13th
on
the
consent
agenda.
Thank
you
and
then
moving
to
our
new
business
tonight,
we'll
start
with
item
number
two
which
looks
like
it's
eligible
for
consent.
This
is
cup
22-40
Idaho,
electric
signs.
The
address
is
2472
North,
Milwaukee
Street.
B
B
Good
we'll
go
ahead
and
place
item
two
on
the
consent
agenda
and
we've
got
one
more
here.
Next
one
is
I'm
number
three.
This
is
cup
23-2
John
balcon.
The
address
is
5360
North
Eagle
Road.
B
This
is
a
modification
to
a
conditional
use
permit
to
allow
for
personal
services
over
1
000
square
feet
on
0.98
acres
in
r1c
zone
and
is
the
applicant
president
great
and
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
Okay,
great.
Let
the
record
show
the
applicant
is
present
and
agrees
with
our
staff
report
and
is
there
anyone
hoping
to
testify
in
opposition
to
this
item
tonight.
B
D
Danley
make
the
motion
that
the
consent
agenda
consisting
of
meeting
minutes
from
February
6th
and
February
13th,
as
well
as
item
number
two
cup
22-40
located
at
2472,
North
Milwaukee
Street,
a
conditional
use
permit
as
well
as
item
3
cup
23-2
located
at
5360,
North
Eagle
Road,
a
modification
to
a
conditional
use
permit
be
approved
with
a
respective
terms
and
conditions
in
their
staff
reports.
Second,.
E
B
C
B
F
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission.
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
for
a
detached
structure
to
encroach
into
the
rear
and
Street
side
setbacks
on
0.16
Acres,
located
at
4355
North
flashar
Avenue
in
our
r1c
Zone.
As
you
can
see
from
the
arrow
photograph,
the
central
property
is
located
in
a
residential
neighborhood,
which
is
comprised
primarily
of
single-family
residential
homes.
F
The
aerial
photograph
here
shows
the
location
of
the
detached
structure
on
site.
The
building
is
based
is
a
basic
120
square
foot,
Tough
Shed,
basically
10
by
12
and,
as
shown
here,
the
shed
encroach
is
about
six
feet
into
the
required
20-foot
Street
side
set
back
and
nine
feet
into
the
required.
15-Foot
setback.
F
However,
even
with
the
relocation,
the
building
is
still
located
in
the
required
setbacks
and
as
such,
the
requesting
a
variance,
the
planning
team
cannot
identify
a
hardship
or
an
exceptional
circumstance
to
justify
the
variance.
In
addition,
there
appears
to
be
a
location
on
site
where
the
shed
could
be
located
that
complies
with
the
required
setbacks.
In
particular,
the
development
code
allows
for
reduced
setbacks
for
small
detached
structures
and
sheds
to
qualify.
F
F
As
such,
there
might
be
space
on
the
north
side
of
the
property
to
relocate
the
shed
and
comply
with
these
setbacks.
As
seen
on
the
slide,
however,
the
plan
is
not
very
detailed,
so
these
measurements
would
need
to
be
confirmed
and
allowances
need
to
be
made
for
the
shed
Eve
not
to
overhang
the
property
line.
F
G
My
name
is
Amy
George
and
4355
North
five
Avenue
is
my
address
and
basically,
when
I
bought
this
property
I
purchased
it.
Knowing
that
there
was
not
an
HOA
and
before
purchasing
the
shed
I
did
investigate
whether
or
not
a
permit
had
to
be
purchased
or
not
to
place
the
shed,
and
there
was
no
permit
necessary.
So
I
did
have
the
shed
placed
and
at
the
time
of
the
complaint.
G
Yes,
the
shed
was
closer
to
the
street
and
closer
to
the
sidewalk
and
everything,
and
so
I
did
my
best
as
far
as
moving
it
closer
to
the
house
and
shielding
it
also.
So
it
would
not
be
no
longer
an
eyesore
to
whoever
complained
about
it,
and
I
also
wanted
to
notate
that
yeah
building
codes
that
it
had
to
be
six
feet
from
the
house
and
five
and
a
half
feet
from
the
rear
fence.
G
So
I
did
comply
with
those
measurements,
but
there's
still
not
enough
room
to
be
quite
compliant
with
the
side
street.
However,
there
is
no
health
or
safety
concern
there,
which
is
notated
in
the
denial.
If
I
were
to
move
it
to
the
north
side
of
the
property,
there
is
an
overhanging
tree
there.
That
is
in
the
way-
and
it's
like
way
over
on
my
property-
it's
not
even
my
tree.
G
So
that's
one
reason
why
we
did
not
move
it
over
to
the
north
side
of
the
property
there
and
then
also
it
would
not
be
compliant
with
the
building
code.
At
that
point,
as
far
as
being
as
far
away
from
the
house,
so
I
was
asking
for
a
variance
in
in
that
way
that
I
could
now
that
I
have
moved
it
and
shielded
it
that
it
could
just
stay
there.
B
Thank
you,
Miss
George,
we'll
check
in
real
quick
first
before
we
do
questions
we'll
see
if
someone's
from
the
neighbor
Association
is
here,
then
we
may
have
some
questions
for
you.
Okay,
thanks
yeah,
just
checking
to
make
sure
we
is
anyone
present
from
the
West
Valley
neighborhood
association.
B
H
F
F
Mr
Chairman's,
commission
I,
don't
know
exactly
how
how
tall
it
is.
The
the
the
specifications
for
the
Tough
Shed
that
were
delivered
at
the
application
indicate
that
the
door
was
six
seven
and
there's
a
little
bit
on
top
I.
Don't
there
might
be
five
inches
on
top
of
the
door
to
get
it
to
that.
You
know
right
to
that.
F
Seven
foot,
or
maybe
under
it's
hard
to
say
most
of
our
most
of
those
pre-made
sheds
I,
think
we
built
our
code
to
comply
with
those
pre-made
and
pre-manufactured
sheds
such
as
tough,
so
I
would
assume
it's
under
the
under
the
seven
feet,
but
it
is
currently
jacked
up
on
blocks,
so
that
would
all
that
would
clearly
throw
it
over.
C
H
F
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
unfortunately,
the
reduced
setbacks
only
applied
to
the
rear
and
interior
side.
This
is
the
street
side.
Okay,
so
you
have
to
comply
with
the
20-foot
Street
side
setback.
Thank
you.
B
F
I
Have
a
question
for
David
as
well,
so
for
the
natural
hardship,
do
we
ever
consider
Corner
loss
as
being
a
natural
hardship,
or
would
we
in
this
situation
not
consider
it
because
there's
another
alternate
location
where
we
can
move
the
shed.
F
Mr
chair
members
of
commission,
sometimes
on
Corner
Lots,
if
they're
substandard,
then
we've
we've
considered
that
because
in
a
substandard
lot,
where
it's
actually
smaller
than
the
75th
and
that
restricts
some
of
the
building
area
also,
sometimes,
if
the
house
is
faced
towards
the
wide
section
instead
of
the
that
kind
of
like
messes
with
the
the
rear
yard
setbacks,
so
those
could
be
could
be
considered.
I
don't
know
if
they
necessarily
apply,
especially
the
substandard,
doesn't
apply
in
this
situation.
F
D
Mr
chairman
commissioner,
daily
a
couple
questions
so
David,
so
there
was
a
legitimate
complaint
made
and
that's
what
brought
this
about
is
that
accurate
Mr
chairman
is
a
commission
that
is
correct.
Okay
and
there's
also
a
discussion
from
the
applicant
about
this
impossibility
of
compliance,
as
it
stated
and
has
to
do
with
when
the
house
was
originally
built.
Can
we
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
that
and
I
would
welcome
the
applicant
if
there's
anything
you
want
to
add
to
that,
but.
F
Mr
chair
members
of
commission
I
think
and
that's
in
reference
to
the
as
for
the
the
con,
the
current
placement
of
the
house.
That's
in
reference
to
that.
The
fact
that
the
house
is
encroaching
slightly
into
the
rear
setback
when
they
built
it
in
1983
or
two
so
I
think
at
one
point
of
the
house.
That
only
has
like
a
12-foot
setback
instead
of
the
required
15.,
and
then
they
oriented
the
house
towards
the
wide
section
of
the
of
the
lot
which
shrinks
the
the
size
or
width
of
the
house.
F
F
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commissioner
I
their
site
plan
indicates
16
feet
on
the
on
the
north
side
of
the
property.
It's
a
if
you
rotate
it.
So
the
10
foot
wide
section
of
the
of
the
of
the
shed
is
right
against
the
fence,
and
then
you
have
the
six
feet
of
Separation.
So
you're
you
can
be
against
the
property
line.
The
only
pick
up
there
is
I.
F
Just
don't
know
if
there's
actual
how
much
space,
if
there's
actually
16
or
16,
plus
or
a
little
bit
less
the
site
plan,
wasn't
that
detailed
and
then
it
would
still
need
to
be
inset
a
few
inches
so
that
the
Eve
isn't
you're,
not
pouring
water
over
the
neighbor's
fence
line.
So
you
have
to
at
least
bring
it
in
a
few
inches,
but
I
I,
the
based
on
the
rough
dimensions
of
the
site
plan
it
looked
like
it
could
fit
there,
but
I
don't
have
any
detailed
side
plans
to
confirm
that.
D
F
Chairman
of
the
commission,
that's
for
public
health
and
safety,
the
only
thing
I'm,
it's
not
it's
outside
the
Clear
Vision
triangle.
So
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
a
safety
issue.
It
might
given
the
fact
that
it's
currently
on
blocks
and
it's
five
feet
from
the
rear
property
line.
So
it's
actually
a
little
bit
taller
than
normal.
There
could
be
an
impact
onto
the
neighboring
property
to
the
was
it
west
west
side
being
that
we
actually
have
a
better
bit
taller
building
against
their
rear
property
line.
F
I
think
I
did
mention
that
as
a
as
a
possibility
for
an
impact
onto
that
neighbor,
but
there
is
no
health
and
safety
issue.
It's
it's
clear
setback
in
this.
It's
outside
the
Clear
Vision
per
se,
it's
more
of
a
design
and
sort
of
detox
structure
in
the
side,
yard,
and
sort
of
an
appearance
and
design
that
that
proposes
in
the
nuisance
out.
B
D
I,
don't
recall
seeing
it
in
our
packet,
which
is
why
not
that
degree
of
clarity,
the
next
one
down,
maybe
was
it
in
yes,
I
guess:
I'm
gonna
ask
this
question.
So
your
neighboring
property
has
a
structure
on
the
fence
line
too.
That
is
I'm
just
curious.
If
well,
I'm,
not
sure
how
to
ask
the
question,
but.
F
F
C
C
G
Was
just
going
to
say
that
neighbor?
That
is
right
next
to
me
there
he
actually
came
over
and
helped
me
move
the
shed
back
towards
he.
He
didn't
have
any
complaints
about
it
being
that
close
to
the
fence
line
and
at
the
time
the
complaint
was
made.
Yes,
it
was
closer
to
the
sidewalk
and
more
in
the
middle
of
that
area.
G
So
and
then,
as
far
as
the
other
north
side,
where
he's
talking
about,
if
you
just
take
note
of
that
tree,
that's
hanging
over
onto
my
roof,
it
is
one
reason
why
I
found
it
difficult
to
place
the
shed
on
that
side
of
the
property
and
then
to
the
block
issue.
They
might
be
three
inch
blocks.
It's
just
for
leveling
purposes.
Okay,.
B
B
G
Well,
they
have
trimmed
that
tree,
but
I,
don't
think
that
they
are
willing
to
take
it
down
and
I
didn't
feel
like.
It
was
in
my
my
realm
to
ask
them
to
do
that.
The
the
limbs
below
it
are
still
trimmed,
but
it's
still
very
overhanging,
and
so,
when
I
propose
that
to
them
as
far
as
hey
your
tree
is
like
almost
touching
my
roof,
they
did
trim
it
back
some,
but
they
weren't
willing
or
volunteering
to
remove
that
tree.
C
J
Mr,
chair
I
got
a
question
for
the
applicant
Miss
George,
the
it
looks
like
you
went
to
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
work
there
to
coordinate
with
the
neighbor
and
move
the
shed
and
then
put
up
a
nice
screening
fence
to
mitigate
the
complaint,
I
I
guess
my
question
is:
who
did
you
did
you
coordinate
with
anyone
on
this
planning
staff
or
the
city
because
I'm
certain
they
would
have
given
you
some
direction
on
a
location
that
would
work
in
accordance
with
code?
G
I
I
did
I,
came,
I
came
down
to
the
planning
and
we
did
talk
about
it
and
they
said
that
there
was
really.
They
told
me
at
that
point
that
there
was
really
no
place
that
was
completely
compliant
with
the
planning.
So
at
that
time
we
just
did
the
best.
We
could
to
move
it
as
back
and
as
close
as
we
could.
B
B
B
Okay,
so
at
this
point
Miss
George,
the
applicant-
has
a
few
minutes
for
rebuttal
to
rebut
anything
from
the
public
testimony
that
didn't
happen
so
you're
welcome
to
for
a
quick
rebuttal,
or
you
can
certainly
yield
that
time.
If
you
would
like
I,
think
I've
said
everything
you
don't
mind
just
on
the
mic
there,
so
we
can.
Everybody
can
hear
you
record.
G
K
B
Chair
commissioner,
Blanchard.
K
I
would
move
that
we
deny
CVA
22-127.
B
K
I
will
chime
in
here
sorry,
Miss,
George
I
think
nobody
wants
to
be
the
bad
guy
here,
but
it
this
is
just
we,
the
commission
very
rarely
finds
for
variances
on
these.
My
colleague
Milt,
who
usually
sits
in
this
chair
right
here,
is
the
one
who
is
almost
inevitably
opposed
to
variances,
even
when
there
is
legitimate
hardship,
but
I
think
the
staff's
been
very
clear
that
there
isn't
a
legitimate
hardship
here
and
the
burden
really
is
on
the
homeowner
to
make
sure
they
comply.
K
You
did
what
you're
supposed
to
do
would
just
come
and
see
the
city
and
I
think
they
were.
They
were
clear.
It
sounds
like
that
there
wasn't
a
way
to
make
this
shed
work,
so
I'm
I'm,
glad
that
you
were
cognizant
of
the
fact
that
the
city
isn't
going
around
and
policing
code
enforcement
issues.
This
was
a
complaint
that
a
neighbor
lodged
likely
they're,
probably
not
happy
with
the
fence.
Either.
K
We've
seen
this
a
number
of
times
so
I
wouldn't
have
recommended
that
strategy,
but
any
rate,
it's
it's
just
a
pretty
clear-cut
denial
for
why
the
staff
outlines
so.
B
Okay,
yeah
Miss,
George,
I'll
I'll.
Second,
commissioner
Blanchard's
thoughts
here
sorry
for
the
situation.
B
It
does
seem
that
there's
a
another
opportunity
to
locate
that
that
shed
Elsewhere
on
the
property
I
would
encourage
you
to
try
and
coordinate
with
that
neighbor
to
the
north
and
see
if
you
can
make
that
space
work
on
the
other
side
of
the
house
to
at
least
get
it
within
closer
compliance
to
code.
But
yeah.
L
B
Agree
with
the
motion
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion
and
I'm.
Sorry,
that's
the
situation
that
we're
in,
but
that's
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at
so.
Unless
there's
any
other
discussion
on
the
matter,
I'll
go
ahead
and
call
the
role
again.
This
is
CBA
22-27
promotion
to
deny
by
commissioner
Blanchard
and
a
second
by
commissioner
Stead.
B
K
B
Right
thanks,
everybody
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
our
last
item
tonight,
which
is
item
number
four.
This
is
cfh
22-90,
PUD,
22-68
and
SUV
22-69,
Riley
planning,
Services,
LLC,
Bergen
and
burgundy
view
subdivision.
The
address
is
248
North
Bene
Paso
place.
B
This
is
a
category
2
Hillside
development
permit
for
grading
associated
with
a
residential
subdivision
on
5.03
acres
in
an
A1
Zone,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development,
comprised
of
five
single-family
units
on
5.03
acres
and
a
in
a
A1
Zone,
and
then
the
associated
preliminary
plat
for
the
residential
subdivision.
M
Thank
you
Mr,
chair
members
of
the
commission.
The
item
before
you
is
a
request
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
five
single-family
units
on
5.03
Acres,
located
at
248
North
Benny
posto
place
in
an
A1
Zone,
a
category
3
Hillside
development
permit
for
the
greeting
associated
with
the
residential
subdivision
and
a
preliminary
plant
for
a
residential
subdivision
comprised
of
five
closable.
Lots
are
also
included.
M
The
subject
property
currently
functions
as
a
Vineyard,
and
the
only
existing
structure
on
the
property
is
a
well
house
in
the
northeastern
portion
of
the
property
which
the
applicant
proposes
to
maintain
for
irrigation
purposes.
Five
residential
lots
are
proposed
and
each
lot
will
be
developed
with
a
custom
designed
single-family
home.
All
vehicular
access
to
the
subdivision
will
be
provided
by
a
20-foot
wide
common
driveway
and
the
applicant
proposes
to
install
a
gate
across
the
common
Drive,
approximately
50
feet
into
the
site.
M
The
comprehensive
plan
prohibits
gated
developments
in
the
Foothills
due
to
the
potential
for
such
development
to
restrict
or
delay
emergency
response
and
to
impede
pedestrian
bicycle
connectivity.
Therefore,
a
recommended
condition
of
approval
requires
the
common
driveway
to
remain
unrestricted
through
the
Pud.
The
applicant
requests
minor
deviations
from
the
dimensional
standards
of
the
A1
Zone.
However,
The
Proposal
complies
with
All
Height
limits,
parking
requirements
and
perimeter
setbacks
of
the
zone.
M
The
proposed
amenities
include
the
use
of
drought,
tolerant
Landscaping
throughout
the
development
and
the
maintenance
of
an
existing
public
Trail
connection,
which
runs
through
the
northeastern
corner
of
the
site.
The
applicant
request
to
waive
the
subdivision
requirement
to
install
curb
Gutter
and
detach
sidewalks
with
landscape
buffers
containing
Street
trees.
The
planning
team
finds
the
requested
waivers
and
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
which
includes
multiple
goals
and
policies
that
specifically
call
for
the
installation
of
sidewalks
and
expansion
of
multimodal
facilities
throughout
the
city
and
within
the
Foothills
planning
area.
M
The
applicant
submitted
late
correspondence
included
in
your
packets,
which
expressed
concern
regarding
conditions
that
require
access
to
the
common
driveway
to
remain
unrestricted.
They
also
Express
concern
that
the
installation
of
detarged,
sidewalks
and
Street
trees
along
Bene
posto
place
and
the
common
driveway
May
pose
a
fire
risk,
encourage
parking
along
the
southern
side
of
Bene
posto
place
where
parking
is
restricted
and
impede
the
fire
department's
ability
to
Stage
their
equipment.
However,
the
fire
department
has
indicated
no
opposition
to
the
installation
of
sidewalks
or
Street
trees
in
those
locations
and
has
known
that
would
be
compatible.
M
Street
tree
species
should
be
utilized
if
the
trees
are
required.
The
applicant
also
requests
to
waive
the
requirement
for
a
30-foot
defensible
space
wui
easement
along
the
eastern
boundary
of
the
subdivision.
The
fire
department
has
confirmed
that
this
requirement
may
be
waived
as
long
as
the
adjacent
subdivision
maintains
their
common
lot
to
the
east
as
developed
land.
N
The
entire
project
team
is
here
this
evening,
and
that
includes
the
project
manager.
The
project
engineer
and
the
geotechnical
engineer.
I
know
that
you
like
to
stay
within
10
minutes,
but
some
Indulgence
would
be
nice
so
that
we
could
get
everyone
who
might
be
needed
for
answering
questions
up
in
front
of
you.
But
I'll
move
as
quickly
as
I
can.
Okay.
N
We've
all
appreciated
Sabrina's,
courtesy
and
professionalism
in
preparing
our
application
and
moving
it
through
the
process.
Burgundy
view
subdivision
is
a
five
lot.
Infill
subdivision,
surrounded
on
three
sides
with
two
phases
of
nativa
Terra,
the
site
has
been
zoned
A1
and
will
remain
a
Zone
a
zone
of
A1,
and
the
proposed
density
is
consistent
with
that
designation.
The
vision
for
the
site
was
to
create
a
residential
subdivision
that
is
context,
sensitive
and
respectful
of
the
surrounds.
N
The
small
slot
is
under
one
acre.
The
generous
open
space
between
the
residences
that
comes
with
this
low
density
allows
for
ample
space
between
individual
structures.
This
is
a
hillside
development,
but
the
slope
of
the
site
is
minimal.
Re-Vegetation
of
the
site
will
be
accomplished
with
Native
and
drought
resistant
species.
N
The
project
team
reached
out
to
Boise
fire
very
early
in
the
process
to
make
sure
that
their
needs
would
be
incorporated
into
the
design
of
the
site.
Neighborhood
heating
was
held
on
site
and
the
number
of
the
adjacent
homeowners
attended.
A
work
session
was
held
by
Boise
city
and
none
of
the
neighbors
attended
that
meeting
the
team
is
endeavored
to
provide
the
city
with
a
complete
and
comprehensive
application
packet.
N
Amenities
for
the
site
are
the
use
of
the
Native
species
and
the
Foothills
Trail
adjacent
to
the
site
to
the
east.
Although
the
access
point
for
the
trail
is
not
located
in
the
common
lot
originally
dedicated
for
this
Purpose
By
nativa
Terra,
the
developer
elected
to
retain
the
access
online
to
preserve
the
backyard
privacy
of
the
two
existing
homes
that
are
located
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
adjacent
subdivision,
providing
the
necessary
legal
documents
to
codify
that
location
will
be
prepared
and
provided
to
the
city
and
final
planning
process.
It
should
be
noted
as
well.
N
N
The
no
parking
designation
along
the
south
side
of
many
post
house
also
addressed
in
the
approved
achd
staff
report
indicating
that
District
standards
require
a
pedestrian
facility
on
one
side
of
the
street
in
the
foothills.
There
is
an
existing
sidewalk
present
now
on
the
north
side
of
Benny
postal.
N
N
So
it's
actually
two
lots
that
are
flags
that
connect
to
the
public
right
away
and
then
we've
got
Ingress
egress
afforded
the
other
residents
so
that
they
can
use
that
and
we
can
consolidate
our
access
point
to
minimize
impervious
services
in
this
uni
unique
location
and
to
prevent
informal
concert
goers
from
utilizing
the
common
driveway.
The
applicant
is
opposed
to
a
more
formal
Street
section,
with
curb
gutter,
sidewalk
and
Landscape
buffer.
N
Each
of
these
residents
have
very
large
lots
and
will
easily
be
able
to
accommodate
guest
parking.
Each
of
these
Lots
either
have
rear
yard
access
to
the
public
Street
or
to
the
Foothills
Trail,
while
gating
the
common
driveway
is
not
generally
approvable
in
the
Foothills.
The
project
team
believes
this
circumstance
warrants
the
gate.
For
several
reasons,
the
fire
department
will
not
be
dependent
on
the
common
driveway
for
access
to
the
open,
Foothills
area
to
the
South.
N
My
response
letter
details
issues
with
the
customary
Landscaping
preference
that
Boise
City
usually
requires
that
I
should
note
that
there
are
no
standards
in
the
code
with
relate
relating
to
Common
driveways
that
require
curb
Gutter
and
sidewalk
that
we
could
locate
there.
There
really
isn't
any
good
choice
for
trees
in
a
landscape
buffer
and
the
wooy
element
of
the
site
context
makes
any
kind
of
a
tree.
Unadvisable
I
spent
a
lot
of
time.
N
Reading
the
tree
guide,
I
looked
at
everyone
and
evaluated
each
one
of
them
for
their
ignition
potential,
as
well
as
what
kind
of
water
requirement
they
had,
and
even
the
ones
that
are
low
water
requirement
that
kicks
in
once
the
trees
have
reached
maturity,
so
there
just
aren't
any
good
trees.
Conifers
are
never
good
and
a
fire
prone
area.
N
N
N
The
letter
from
Environmental
Conservation
Services
clarifies
the
defensible
space
needs
for
this
site
between
the
width
of
the
common
trail
lot
and
the
15-foot
setback
along
the
rear
yards
of
the
Eastern
Parcels.
The
separation
exceeds
30
30
feet
of
the
defensible
space
requirement,
leaving
only
the
requirement
for
defensible
Space
set
back
along
the
South
Boundary
that
the
common
lot
with
nativa
Terra
that
houses
that
access
Trail
I,
don't
think
it
can
ever
go
away.
It's
a
fire
department
access,
it's
Idaho,
Department
of
land,
access
that
that's
there
to
stay,
it'll,
never
it'll,
never
disappear.
N
The
project
team
believes
that
the
proposed
site's
design
and
density
is
appropriate
for
the
context
of
the
site
and
respectfully
requests
that
the
site-specific
conditions
of
approval
be
modified
to
delete
conditions.
Two
three
and
six
on
a
side
note,
an
effort
was
made
to
re-home
those
great
plants,
but
it's
my
understanding
that,
because
of
their
age,
they
can't
be
certified
and
so
that
project
manager
was
not
able
to
re-home
those
plants
and
I
kind
of
expected.
A
little
smile
or
something
they're
rehoming
things.
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
O
O
I'm
Bob
Arnold
with
site
Consulting
5565
Kendall
Boise,
Idaho
83706.,
as
was
indicated,
it's
a
hillside
subdivision.
Therefore,
a
rather
extensive
Geotech
geology
and
hydrology
report
was
prepared
submitted
to
the
city
of
Boise.
We
met
with
the
city
of
Boise
prior
to
undertaking
this
project
and
then
again
after
completion
of
the
report
to
discuss
it,
I
again
contacted
the
city
of
Boise
engineering
department
today
to
confirm
that
they
had
no
concerns.
They
indicated
they
were
not
planning
on
attending
and
so
I'm
just
really
here
to
make
myself
available
to.
C
P
Right,
Derek,
Kerner,
David,
Evans
and
Associates
9175
West
Black
Eagle
Drive
in
Boise
civil
engineer
on
this
project,
just
want
to
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
the
the
grading
that
we
have
proposed
and
talk
talk
a
little
bit
about
those
conditions
that
we
asked
for
sites
located
in
a
natural
saddle.
So
so
we're
actually.
Yes,
it's
Hillside,
but
it's
a
gentle
gentle
slopes
on
this
side.
P
Our
site
is
lower
than
all
the
surrounding
homes
and
that
will
remain
so
the
northern
part
of
it.
So
we
got
a
a
gentle
site,
a
gentle
slope
from
the
north
to
the
South
and
we're
going
to
grade
that
to
make
that
even
more
gentle,
so
the
north
part
of
the
site,
we're
going
to
take
it
down
a
little
bit.
The
South
part
of
the
site,
we're
going
to
fill
it
in
a
little
bit
and
so
you're
just
going
to
create
a
flatter
flutter
area
for
these
Lots.
P
P
The
goal
is
to
have
the
lot
three,
which
is
the
southernmost
slot
to
be
level
with
the
pathway
adjacent
to
it,
not
any
higher
and,
and
still
the
pathway
is
quite
a
bit
lower
than
the
the
homes
to
the
to
the
east
that
you
see
there
we're
calling
for
about
three
to
five
thousand
cubic
yards
of
structural
fill
to
bring
in
for
the
roadway
and
and
the
home
sites
again
the
finished
homes.
All
of
them
will
be
lower
than
the
than
the
neighboring
homes
by
quite
a
bit.
P
Roof
and
driveways
are
going
to
be
draining
to
a
centralized
seepage
bed
all
right
and
then,
as
far
as
the
detached
sidewalk
we're
asking
that
we
don't
not
required
to
put
that
detached
sidewalk
along
many
posto
in
the
hillsides.
It's
a
good
idea
to
limit
impervious
surfaces.
That's
why
achd
and
their
staff
report
for
this
application
says
hey.
We
only
want
sidewalks
on
one
side
of
the
road
and
that's
to
limit
impervious
surfaces
in
the
hillside,
so
pedestrian
connectivity.
They
we
have
it
on
the
north
side
of
Ben
and
posto.
P
So
that's
why
we're
asking
to
not
install
it
on
the
south.
You
got
the
you
got
the
fire
department
that
wants
that
no
no
parking.
Anyway,
they
can
stage
their
vehicles
in
a
fire
emergency.
It
also
helps
us
comply
with
the
neighbors
wishes
disturbing
as
little
as
possible
and
then
again
just
retaining
that
curb
as
a
No
Parking
Zone,
either
we'll
we'll
paint
it
red,
we'll
work
with
the
fire
department
or
we'll
put
signs
up
so
that
there's
no
parking
there
and
it
was
historically
painted
red.
It's
just
completely
faded.
P
The
Dual
dual
detached
sidewalks
down
our
Common
Drive,
really
no
requirement
for
that.
It's
not
what
we
envision
again
limiting
the
impervious
surfaces
in
the
hillside,
but
we're
just
planning
for
a
20
foot,
wide
curvaceous,
something
something
that
looks
aesthetically,
pleasing
gate.
If
allowed.
You
know
on
the
gate:
there
is
a
rule
in
your
guys's
Hillside
rules.
That
says:
hey
no
gate.
Well,
the
the
understanding
is
well.
Why
is
that?
P
Well,
it's
probably
due
to
emergency
access,
but
you
know
working
with
the
fire
department,
they're
open
to
a
gate
being
there
and
they've,
given
us
guidelines
of
how
we
put
an
electronic
gate
to
meet
their
standards.
So
if
we
with
engineering,
are
able
to
prove
that
Bene
posto
not
being
a
very
steep
Road,
our
entrance
not
being
a
very
steep
Road.
Yes,
it's
in
the
hillside.
P
Q
Good
evening
my
name
is
Andy
cabianka,
with
Marquee
development
and
tillpoint
custom
homes,
323
West,
Jefferson
Street.
Here
in
Boise,
we've
worked
hard
with
the
neighbors
pnz
City
staff
Ridge
to
rivers
and
as
a
team
internally
to
bring
this
project
in
front
of
the
commission
and
chair
this
evening
and
want
to
thank
everyone
involved
for
their
time
and
effort.
Sabrina,
especially
thank
you.
Q
We've
had
a
vision
for
this
project
since
we
acquired
it
in
December
of
21
Marquee
development
to
a
point
Custom
Homes.
We
build
the
Lots
we
develop,
and
so
with
that,
this
preliminary
plot
represents
not
only
our
vision
for
the
subdivision
from
a
civil
engineering
perspective,
but
also
to
the
end
goal
of
home
ownership,
and
how
this
subdivision
will
will
function.
Lots,
two
and
three
specifically
are
what
we
were
referring
to
as
as
the
chart
and
lot
orientation
that
goes
along
with
our
lot
orientation
exhibit.
Our
thought
is
to
put
the
backyards
facing
south.
Q
Our
belief
is
that
our
future
homeowners
don't
want
to
look
in
the
neighbor's
backyard
just
as
much
as
the
existing
homeowners
don't
want
to
be
looking
into
our
backyards.
It
also
flows
well
with
the
street.
In
short,
I,
believe
our
team
addressed
the
concerns
that
that
we
had
and
from
a
development
standpoint.
We
believe
this
project
is
relatively
humble
and
complementary
to
our
adjacenter
community.
So
thank
you
all
right.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
very
good,
we'll
go
then
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
this
up,
then,
for
any
questions
by
the
commission
to
the
applicant
or
to
staff.
C
D
P
D
O
D
Truckloads
of
dirt
coming
up
to
the
site
is
that
right,
yep,
okay,
just
making
sure
next
question
I
have
is
to
the
applicant.
This
might
be,
but
somebody
else
I'm
not
sure,
but
it
could
be.
Youtube
I
want
to
understand
this,
the
the
claim
that
the
sidewalk
shouldn't
be
put
in
because
we
don't
want
to
add
impervious
surface
right.
That's
the
claim
is
the
roadway
that
you're
building
pervious
or
impervious
it
is
impervious
of.
P
P
D
O
P
Think,
like
achd
policy
they're
looking
at
a
a
a
policy
to
govern
all
right,
but
yes
they're
they're
their
stances.
We
only
need
to
decide
to
walk
on
one
side
to
get
pedestrians
to
and
from,
and
then
we
want
to
limit
it
limit,
impervious
surfaces
and
foothills.
Q
The
biggest
concern
that
we
heard
from
the
neighbors
during
the
public
hearing
we've
been
in
contact
with
the
HOA
was,
was
truly
the
parking
on
the
south
side
of
Bene
posto
and
during
concerts
or
Trail
events.
If
you
go
on
Google,
Google,
Earth
or
Google
Maps,
and
look
at
a
street
view,
there's
two
cars
parked
right
in
front
of
the
emergency
fire
access
as
it
is
the
idea,
because
the
the
neighbors
were
so
opposed
to
parking.
On
that.
Q
That's
one
thing:
they
asked
us
to
continue
whether
it
was
painting
the
curb
red
or
posting
no
parking
signs.
The
idea
it's
my
understanding
of
no
sidewalk
is
to
discourage
parking
on
the
south
side
of
Bene
posto.
Q
And
then
one
more
I
guess
point
to
that
is
that
sidewalk
doesn't
connect
anywhere
on
the
North
side
or
or
the
South
Side.
So
it's
that
sidewalk
starts
at
the
home
on
the
North
side
comes
around
stops
and
then
it
goes
to
the
emergency.
Currently
there's
nothing
there,
but
then
from
the
emergency
access
Trail,
there's
nothing,
there's
no
sidewalk
to
connect
to
from
that
point.
B
H
True,
commissioner
Moore
so
with
the
sidewalk,
so
with
that
image,
that
was
just
where
does
the
sidewalk
in
because
it
looks
like
there's
just
like
a
small
section
right
where
the
render
kind
of
starts
and
then
around
the
corner,
and
then
it
starts
again
at
that
adjacent
subdivision.
Is
that
correct
kind
of
the
yeah?
So
there's
like
it
stops
right
before
the
curb
cut
that's
proposed
and
then,
if
you
go
around
the
corner,
it
starts
again
where
that
subdivision
starts.
Is
that
about
right?.
M
Mr
chair,
commissioner,
more
I
was
hoping.
This
aerial
might
be
a
little
bit
clearer,
but
it
does,
you
know,
start
right
to
the
West,
the
southwest
of
this
development,
and
then
it
doesn't
continue
after
that
trail
connection
to
the
north.
M
H
For
the
common
drive,
so
what
is
what
is
the
difference
between
or
I
guess
from
the
city
standpoint,
common
drive
versus
I?
Guess,
a
private
drive
or
like
a
shared
access
versus
a
private
drive
because
I've
seen
you
know
if
we've
got
one
house
behind
another
one,
we
don't
necessarily
have
a
sidewalk
on
that
which
isn't
terribly
different,
just
maybe
on
a
Sim
on
a
much
larger
scale.
Here.
M
M
There's
some
requirements
for
you
know
how
would
the
flag
lots
have
to
be
what
buffers
have
to
be
provided
on
either
side
of
that
and
those
types
of
things?
Those
are
also
typically
restricted
to
a
maximum
length
of
150
feet,
with
the
exception
that
the
fire
department
can
approve
a
longer
length
as
long
as
they
have
a
turnaround
provided
service
drives,
do
have
different
requirements
in
terms
of
width
as
well.
So
those
tend
to
be
a
little
bit
wider
than
your
common
Drive,
which
is
required
at
20
feet.
M
I,
believe
a
service
drive
for
this
number
of
lots
would
be
24
feet
at
a
minimum.
Okay,.
M
Mr
chair
commissioner
Moore.
This
does
qualify
as
a
common
drive
because
they
are
providing
the
fire
turn
around.
There
are
still
requirements
in
the
Pud
and
subdivision
standards
and
in
the
connectivity
section
of
code
that
require
pedestrian
and
connectivity
to
provided
throughout
the
site,
but
that's
not
required
with
all
common
driveways,
which
I
think
might
be
where
the
confusion
is
coming
from.
Okay,.
B
Sabrina,
while
you're,
what's
the
city's
thought
on
the
I
forget
what
they
termed
at
the
setback,
exhibit
lot
orientation
exhibit
that
was
provided
in
our
late
correspondence
packet.
Does
the
city
agree
with
that
approach
and
how
they've
identified
setbacks
and
their
orientation.
M
Mr,
chair
I
did
speak
with
the
fire
department
about
that
orientation
and
whether
or
not
the
wui
requirement
should
be
provided
along
the
Eastern
side,
where
they
have
that
common
lot.
That's
with
the
adjacent
subdivision.
M
Their
stance
was
as
long
as
that
common
law
is
maintained
by
the
adjacent
subdivision.
The
proposed
law,
orientation
and
setbacks
are
acceptable.
B
So
you
start
to
add
all
these
things
up.
It's
it
feels
concerning
to
me
is
the
city's
standpoint.
I
understand
fire.
We
have
fires,
comments,
I've,
read
the
packet
I'm
very
aware
of
fires
comments,
but
when
you
start
to
kind
of
compound
these
various
topics
to
me,
it
feels
concerning.
Does
staff
have
any
thought
on
that?
The
fact
when
you
look
at
the
big
picture
and
everything
they're
asking
for.
M
Yeah
Mr
chair
through
the
Pud.
We
have
the
ability
to
place
conditions
to
mitigate
those
concerns
staff
attempted
to
do
that
in
the
staff
report
in
our
recommended
conditions.
If
the
commission
doesn't
feel
comfortable
with
that
or
thinks
there
are
additional
conditions
that
should
be
added.
You're
welcome
to
do
that
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
requirements.
B
C
H
I
have
a
follow-up
on
the
that
we
said
back,
so
the
condition
is
as
long
as
that
neighborhood
maintains
it,
but
it
doesn't
look
any
different
than
the
rest
of
the
Foothills
in
this
area.
It
looks
kind
of
you
know
like
like
Foothills
land,
so
would
that
that
wouldn't
be
defined
as
maintained.
They'd
have
to
change
it
to
comply.
M
B
H
For
that
egress
is
there
part
of
that
woolly
argument.
Is
that.
M
J
Problem
thanks,
Mr,
chair
I
have
a
question
for
staff,
so
my
understanding
is
our
the
city
policy
about
detached
sidewalks
and
Street
trees
versus
attached.
Sidewalks
is
primarily
a
pedestrian
safety
issue.
J
Do
my
question
for
staff
then,
is
the
applicant's
claim
is
that
that's
not
found
in
code
anywhere,
and
my
question
is:
do
we
have
kind
of
a
philosophy,
as
we
look
at
these
developments
of
pedestrian
I'll?
Call
it
art
arterials?
For
example,
it's
a
cul-de-sac
here
I've
been
opposed
to,
as
you
know,
if
you're
walking
out
of
that
neighborhood,
there's
not
going
to
be
a
whole
lot
of
vehicle
traffic.
J
If
you're
walking
down
this
common
driveway
out
of
burgundy
view,
subdivision,
there's
not
going
to
be
a
whole
lot
of
traffic
safety
issues
for
a
pedestrian,
but
they
get
more
and
more
so,
it
seemed
like
we
should
have
some
kind
of
taper
from
a
detached
sidewalk
with
Street
trees
required
to
attach
sidewalks
are
okay
is.
Is
that
what's
what's
staff's
position
on
on
how
we
approach
that,
for
example,
in
cul-de-sacs.
M
Yeah
Mr
chair
commissioner
Mooney.
You
know
our
comprehensive
plan
does
encourage
the
use
of
detached
sidewalks
with
Street
trees
wherever
possible.
Part
of
that
is
to
provide
pedestrian
safety.
In
this
context,
I
would
also
say
that
drainage
is
a
key
component.
Having
that
landscape
buffer
breaking
up
the
impervious
surface
of
the
Common
Drive
versus
the
impervious
surface
of
the
sidewalk
is
beneficial
in
this
contexts.
J
Okay,
follow-up
for
staff,
then,
on.
J
Actually,
this
is
a
question
for
the
applicant,
then
so
for
the
new
residents
in
burgundy
view,
as
they
walk
out
of
their
new
neighborhood
down
to
Benny
posto,
and
they
want
to
go
down
to
East
Dale
and
hang
a
right
or
left
and
go
into
town
or
go
up
the
street
to
a
neighbor's
house.
J
Your
claim
is
that
we
shouldn't
have
a
sidewalk
there,
because
we
don't
want
people
parking
for
concerts,
but
what
about
the
new
neighbors
that
want
to
walk
down
the
street
to
their
new
neighbors
in
the
next
subdivision
to
the
east?
How
do
they
get
there?
Are
we
asking
them
to
get
on
the
road
across
the
street
to
a
sidewalk?
That's
not
on
the
other
side
of
the
street
either.
How
do
they
get
to
Eastdale.
Q
And
then,
if
you
continue
down
Eastdale,
there's
no
sidewalk
on
the
south
side
of
Eastdale,
either
Sidewalk
Ends
at
our
the
property
corner
at
the
kind
of
the
the
center
of
the
cul-de-sac
there,
their
Sidewalk
Ends
and
there's
no
sidewalk
from
that
point,
all
the
way
down
to
Eastdale
and
then
the
sidewalk
doesn't
pick
up
until
the
first
lot
of
the
adjacent
subdivision.
Q
So
I
I
guess
to
answer
your
your
question:
I'm
not
not
sure
how
they
would
get
to
Eastdale
on
on
a
sidewalk.
If
that's
what
you're
asking
I
also
wanted
to
clarify
I
felt
like
we
were
talking
about
two
different
things:
the
sidewalk
within
the
subdivision
and
then
also
the
sidewalk
on
the
public
street.
So.
J
Yeah,
no,
that
that's
good,
I,
I
think
with
the
way
I
understand.
The
city's
condition
is
they're
asking:
are
their
conditioning
detached
sidewalks
and
Street
trees
both
on
the
common
driveway,
as
well
as
on
many
posters?
That
is
that
your
understanding,
it
is
okay
and-
and
my
point
is
that
there
needs
to
be
some
kind
of
pedestrian
facility
on
many
posto
and
if,
for
example,
the
commission
decided
to
to
maybe
go
with
attached
interior
to
your
common
driveway
and
you
know
kind
of
thread
the
needle
with
with
the
conditions.
J
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
actually,
I
got
one
more
question.
Mr
chair
for
for
staff,
the
the
existing
Trail
easement
on
that
northeast
corner.
Is
there
any?
Is
there
an
easement
there
already
that
the
other
nativa
Tara
common
lot
is?
How
did
how
did
that
trail?
Get
on
this
property
without
an
easement.
M
Mr
chair
commissioner
Mooney
I'm,
not
aware
of
an
existing
easement
over
the
portion
of
the
trail.
That's
on
the
subject
property.
Why?
The
trail
for
the
adjacent
subdivision
passes
through
this
property
I'm,
not
sure,
but
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
provide
an
easement
for
public
connection
over
it.
B
All
right,
very
good:
okay,
thanks
everybody
for
that.
We'll
go
ahead
then,
and
open
this
up
for
any
public
testimony
on
this
item-
and
we
will
start
with
folks
in
person
want
to
testify
tonight
any
takers,
no
takers,
okay,
we'll
check
in
online.
We
see
you
see
one
or
two
people
online
if
you're
online.
Let's
testify
on
this
item,
please
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand.
B
Okay
got
a
quiet
group
this
evening,
all
right,
okay
team.
So
typically,
this
is
the
opportunity
for
you
all
to
rebut
anything
that's
presented
during
public
testimony.
Obviously
that
didn't
happen.
Any
public
testimony
didn't
happen.
So
you're
welcome
to
yield
your
rebuttal
time
or,
if
you
want
to
do
a
quick
rebuttal.
P
And
Derek
Kerner,
David,
Evans
and
I
just
want
to
touch
on
those
three
things.
So
yeah
staff
is
recommending
detached
sidewalk
along
beneposto,
dual
detached
sidewalk
along
our
common
driveway
internal
and
then
no
gate.
We
brought
up
the
fact
that
hey
there's
a
rule
that
says
no
gate.
We
would
like
a
gate
if
at
all
possible,
if
we
can
demonstrate
that
it's
safe
and
we
can
get
fire
department
approval.
Why
not?
Let
us
have
the
gate.
P
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
some
of
the
the
resubmittal
items
we
had
a
letter
from
our
wee
expert,
so
we
were
required
to
do
a
Wildland,
Urban
interface
plan.
It's
all
part
of
the
new
Hillside
ordinances,
the
last
couple
years,
so
we've
really
had
to
get
an
expert
like
this
on
board.
P
So
we've
got
Environmental
Conservation
Services
he's
got
a
letter
here
in
the
the
packet
that
panel
will
be
sent,
and
so
we
actually
asked
him
to
head
on
this,
the
30-foot
along
this
common
common
lot
and
and
to
eliminate
that
large.
What
we
think
is
a
side
yard
setback
for
those
those
back
two
lots.
P
So
what
he
says
is
he's
calling
out
the
fact
that
that
that
wide
gravel
pathway,
which
really
would
accommodate
a
vehicle,
a
fire
department
vehicle
to
fight
a
wildfire
out
there,
that's
right
up
against
our
our
boundaries.
So
he's
looking
that
as
that,
as
as
long
as
that
wasn't
moved,
which
it's
not
planned
to
be
moved,
he
sees
that
as
a
defensible
space
as
well,
so
not
30
feet
completely
on
our
side
type
of
thing.
Where
he's
like?
P
No,
you,
you
could
do
your
10
side
setback
and
then
you've
got
this
HOA
maintained
common
lot.
That,
like
you
said
it
looks
exactly
like
everything
else.
However,
it
it
really
is
kept
kept
down
as
far
as
even
even
the
neighbors
to
our
tourists
part
of
their
defensible
plan.
P
So
anyway,
we
have
a
letter.
There
kind
of
addressing
that
particular
issue
of
hey
just
asking
the
experts.
Can
we
can?
Is
it
okay?
If
we
do
not
count
a
30-foot
woo,
we
are
planned
for
a
30-foot
woolly
along
in
our
entire
eastern
boundary,
and
the
answer
is
yes:
it's
okay
to
not
count
for
that
they're!
Only
counting
for
the
30-foot
woolly
on
the
south.
P
You
know,
internal
internal
is
probably
a
bigger
deal
for
us,
really
that
the
Dual
detached
sidewalks
internal.
You
know
that
Boulevard
look,
it's
not
what
we're
looking
for
we're
looking
for
a
a
very
private
driveway,
even
a
gate,
if
allowed
to
five
one
acre
State
Lots.
So
this
is
a
kind
of
a
thing
like
pedestrian
connectivity.
We
don't
need
any
just
walk
down
the
driveway,
we're
talking
very
low
volume
driveway
here.
So
all
these
five
people
probably
get
to
know
each
other
very
well
be
neighborly.
P
You
know
let
the
kids
drive
the
ride,
the
bicycles
up
and
down
the
driveway.
So
that
kind
of
thing
we
don't
feel
like.
We
need
a
five
foot
detached
and
another
five
foot
detached
just
for
five
homes.
So
if
they're
going
to
be
going
anywhere
substantially
they're
going
to
be
driving,
they
live
up
in
the
Foothills.
They
need
to
go
grocery
shopping.
That
kind
of
thing,
there's
not
a
whole
lot
of,
like
Andy,
said
connecting
Pathways
here.
So
in
our
opinion,
you
know
that's
the
bigger
deal
for
sure.
P
That's
not
what
we
envision
a
giant
Boulevard
coming
down
into
these
five
acre
State
Lots.
Just
have
a
a
gate:
if
allowed
very
private
secluded
development-
and
you
know,
use
the
driveway
kids
drive
have
fun
so
go.
If
you
don't
need
to
go
up,
just
walk
down
the
middle
of
the
driveway,
it's
yours,
so
no,
no
dual
sidewalks!
It
I
think
it's
an
Ask
because
it
doesn't
appear
to
be
required
for
a
common
driveways
on
the
Bene
posto
thing.
P
You
know
start
it
here
end
it
here,
we're
not
going
all
the
way
to
the
road
out
front
because
that's
you
know
that
wouldn't
be
our
Frontage
right
and
now,
all
of
a
sudden
do
we
have
enough
right
away
there,
questions
that
haven't
been
asked,
but
we
just
didn't
want
to
have
to
do
it
and
it's
achd's
concern
of
it's
more
impervious
surface
into
their
drainage
systems
and
their
roadways,
so
whether
it's
detached
that
that
would
help
it
really
would,
if
there's
a
buffer
there
for
drainage,
but
just
achd,
less
less
impervious
surface
draining
to
their
systems.
P
So
that's
those
are
the
three
things
asking
you
know
really
on
an
individual
basis:
sidewalk
along
posto,
the
sidewalk
internal,
pretty
important
to
us
and
and
then
the
gate
if
allowed.
If,
if,
if
the
city
would
how
do
I
play
it
lightly,
you
know
get
out
of
the
way.
If
we
can,
we
can
achieve
approval
with
the
Emergency
Services.
Will
let
us
do
that.
Q
One
last
thing:
I'd,
you
know
like
to
stress
importance
on
for
us,
is
just
clarify
clarification
on
the
the
lot
of
orientation.
Currently
in
the
staff
report.
It
shows
the
front
of
the
Yards
facing
Benet
posto
place,
which
creates
an
a
number
of
problems
for
the
Lots
if
we
are
taking
access
off
of
the
the
common
driveway,
and
so
the
lot
orientation
exhibit
we
sent
is
just
to
clarify
you
know
in
the
staff
report
it
dictates
the
front
is
to
been
a
posto,
the
rears
to
the
South.
Q
B
You
okay,
thank
you,
guys:
okay,
okay,
we'll
go
ahead
and
bring
this
these
items
back
before
the
commission
to
render
a
decision.
You
know
we've
got
three
items
here
on
this
project,
so
we
can
take
them
all
one
at
a
time.
We
can
take
them
all
together.
B
E
B
Do
I
hear
a
second
second?
Okay,
great!
Thank
you!
Okay,
so
you
have
a
motion
to
approve
by
commissioner
stead
and
second
by
commissioner
Blanchard
Meredith.
You
want.
E
Us
yeah
Mr,
chair
so
I
guess
as
far
as
the
sidewalk
goes,
I
know
that
you
know
we
hear
often
that
sidewalks
aren't
connecting,
and
so
therefore
they
don't
want
to
build
it,
but
we
have
to
start
somewhere
with
sidewalks,
and
that
is
an
expense
that
needs
to
fall
on
the
developer
and
we
need
to
do
what
we
can
to
support
that
infrastructure
when
we're
building
so
that,
then,
the
next
development
that
comes
in
can
connect
it
and
eventually
will
have
a
lovely
City
full
of
sidewalks
and
as
far
as
the
gate
goes,
oh
I,
also
and
as
far
as
sidewalks
I
know,
that
one
of
the
reasons
was
that
because
of
concerts
and
Trail
events,
there's
too
much
parking,
so
they
don't
want
sidewalks
to
me,
that's
even
more
reason
to
put
in
sidewalks.
E
If
we
have
people
coming
to
the
area
for
things
like
events
and
trails
and
concerts
and
sidewalks
to
me
are
even
more
important.
Also
it's
just
something
we
like
to
do.
We
put
sidewalks
in
so
that
someday
we
can
have
sidewalks
everywhere
for
the
gate.
E
You
know
we
sometimes
have
to
vote
against
a
comprehensive
plan,
but
when
we
do
it's
usually
in
my
experience,
because
the
code
requires
it,
because
the
code
doesn't
align
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
in
this
case
with
the
gate,
I
don't
see
a
reason
to
go
against
the
comprehensive
plan.
Even
if
the
fire
department
agreed
to
it.
I.
Don't
think
that
we
make
most
of
the
items
that
are
in
the
comprehensive
plan
are
not
solely
for
the
fire
department.
E
I'm
sure
that
there
were
other
reasons
that
went
into
that
when,
when
it
was
put
together
so
for
those
Reasons
I'm
supporting
approval
with
those
conditions.
B
E
D
I
will
not
be
supporting
the
motion
and
frankly,
there's
reasons
in
my
opinion
that
there's
be
a
little
further
to
say
that
there's
parts
of
this
application
that
I
find
offensive
to
be
honest
with
you,
when
I'm
looking
at
a
conditional
use
permit
and
looking
at
a
planned
unit
development
part
of
what
we're
looking
for
is:
how
does
it
satisfy
the
vision
of
the
community
at
large
and
what
I've
heard
in
quotes?
We
don't
need
the
sidewalk.
D
We
don't
want
a
condition:
we're
not
looking
to
extend
the
sidewalk
for
the
benefit
of
any
public
good
I,
I,
consistently
hear,
and
not
to
mention
250
plus
heavy
trucks
going
up
and
down
roads
with
Phil
right
there's.
So
many
things
about
this
that
to
me
just
fall
far
short
of
the
recognition
that
this
is
part
of
the
community.
This
is
part
of
the
city.
Yes,
it's
private
development
and
there's
a
right
to
develop.
L
D
Permit
and
in
our
comprehensive
plan
zoning
ordinance
for
that
matter,
all
those
things
that
there
be
some
degree
of
a
shared
presence
with
with
each
application
that
we
that
we
approve
and
man
there's
just
so
many
things
about
this-
that
that
I
I
find
to
be
to
fall
short
at
the
very
least
if
I
were
to
approve
the
conditions
that
were
put
forth
sidewalks
on
both
sides,
people
want
to
walk
right.
They
want
to
get
around
the
parking.
It's
a
public
Street.
D
If
someone
wants
to
park
on
a
public
street
they're
allowed
to
that's,
that's
the
public
realm,
all
of
us
taxpayers
own
the
public
realm
and
have
a
right
to
park
on
it.
So
you
know
if
they
want
to
walk
in
the
trails.
That's
why
we
have
our
trail
system
Ridge
to
Rivers
right
I
mean
I,
can
go
on
I'm
not
going
to
you
get
the
gist,
but
for
those
reasons
and
and
so
so
forth,
I
will
be
against
emotion,
Mr,
chair.
K
Blanchard
to
your
points,
commissioner,
Danley
I
would
be
more
than
interested
to
hear.
I
I
feel
exactly
the
same
way
is
that
I
I've
never
been
like
I
can't
remember,
seeing
an
application
where
we
were
asked
to
give
so
much,
and
you
wanted
to
give
so
little.
I
truly
cannot
remember
a
time
when
it
was
like
you
don't
want
to
do
anything.
We're
asking
you
to
do
it's
it's
truly
bewildering.
I
would
be.
If
you
have
other
suggestions
to
further
the
debate.
K
I
am
more
than
willing
to
hear
them
for
the
sake
of
argument.
I
offered
the
second,
because
you
know,
staff
has
given
their
approval,
saying
here's
what
we
think
needs
to
be
done
and
I
tend
to
agree
with
that
and
I
also
agree
with
commissioner
stead
that
that
we
should,
as
condition
five
shows
up
there,
that
the
public
leads
should
be
should
be
granted.
But
if
there's,
if
you
have
additional
ways
of
making
this
better
I'm
all
ears.
B
J
Chair
yeah
I
will
not
be
in
support
of
the
motion
either,
but
for
a
different
reason,
based
on
on
the
discussion
with
the
applicant
and
staff
I'm
I
agree
with
the
applicant
regarding
the
detached
sidewalks
in
the
street
tree
discussion.
I
think
there
ought
to
be
some
a
little
more
reasonable
approach
to
it
from
the
city's
perspective
and
agree
that
attached
sidewalks
would
be
appropriate,
especially
on
the
common
driveway
and
I,
even
think
on
Benny
posto,
it's
reasonable
too.
J
So
that's
why
I
think
that's
a
a
step
too
far,
so
I'm
in
opposition
to
it
for
a
different
reason,
which
is
why
I
asked
the
applicant
the
question.
Would
you
be
interested
in
extending
the
sidewalk
all
the
way
down
to
Eastdale
and
when
the
answer
that
was
no,
it's
like
okay?
Well,
then,
you're
really
not
really
interested
in
helping
things
out
here.
So
that's
an
unusual
position
I'm
taking,
but
there
it
is.
C
B
Or
an
interesting
situation
on
this
one
in
general,
you
know
in
general.
I
am
supportive
of
the
project.
B
I
do
agree,
however,
with
commissioner
Danley
that
there's
a
cost
to
development,
and
you
are
a
piece
to
a
puzzle
that
is
our
city
and
I
would
even
challenge
commissioner
Mooney
to
think
Beyond,
the
detached
sidewalk
and
the
street
trees,
providing
no
benefit
other
than
just
being
there
in
that
street
trees
help
clean
our
air.
They
are
a
public
asset.
They
help
with
soil
retention
in
the
hillsides.
So
there's
a
greater
good
in
my
mind
for
the
street
trees
as
well.
B
So
it's
a
really
strange,
sometimes
a
very
strange
circular
argument
that
we
find
ourselves
in
and
you
all
stand
to
benefit
quite
handsomely
from
developing
this
property.
Quite
frankly,
so
I
have
no
problem
at
all
with
the
staff
report,
as
it's
written
right
now
and
providing
Street
trees
and
providing
sidewalks
and
thinking
about
the
greater
good
Beyond.
This
development
I
would
also
support
commissioner
Danley
and
if
he
has
additions
or
other
thoughts,
I
am
completed
with
commissioner
Blanchard
on
this,
that
we
should
entertain
other
improvements
if
we
think
it's
warranted.
B
So
the
code
is
quite
clear:
when
you're
developing
a
property,
you
need
to
have
protective
buffers
in
the
Foothills
for
fire
protection
and,
in
this
case,
I
I'm
a
little
flummoxed
that
we're
allowing
an
adjacent
subdivision
to
use
their
land
as
the
protective
buffer
or
this
subdivision.
That
is
very
strange
to
me.
It's
like
us
saying
the
setbacks
from
a
neighboring
property.
B
You
know
in
the
in
the
North
End
support,
reducing
the
setbacks
on
a
property
adjacent
to
it.
It's
very
circular,
so
I'm
struggling
with
that
issue
right
now.
That's
the
one
where
I'm
kind
of
hung
up
on,
but
otherwise
I
think
I'm,
pretty
good
with
the
staff
report.
As
it's
written,
commissioner,
more
Mr.
H
Chair
yeah,
so
I
would
be
in
support
of
the
motion
with
the
addition
of
the
movie,
because
that
is
something
that
I'm
struggling
with
too
is
relying
on
an
adjacent
subdivision.
That's
doing
everything
right,
yeah,
let's
see
comply
and
when
these
lots
are
quite
large,
there's
there's
plenty
of
stays
to
have
that
30
feet.
I,
don't
see
a
hardship
that
would
justify
that
in
terms
of
the
detached
versus
attached
sidewalk.
H
If
I'm
looking
at
the
picture
in
our
packet
185,
it
looks
like
there's
kind
of
an
informal
detached,
sidewalk
sort
of
formed,
anyways
I'm,
seeing
you
know
eight-ish
feet
of
grass.
H
Maybe
tea
grass
but
of
grass
and
then
there's
what
looks
like
a
path
that's
formed
in
that
area,
so
it's
kind
of
naturally
formed
that
way.
So
it
seems
like
that's
kind
of
the
way
that
people
want
to
use.
It
is
a
little
bit
further
off
of
the
road,
so
I
think
that
that
in
itself
is
an
argument
for
the
attached
sidewalk
right
there.
It's
just
it's
how
it's
naturally
forming
but
yeah
the
the
movie
thing
I
I,
would
support
the
motion
with
the
with
the
modification
of
the
buoy.
B
Okay,
we
have
a
little
bit
of
housekeeping
to
take
care
of
beyond
that
anyway,
but
if
we
want
to
entertain
some
other
discussion
too
yeah,
that's
fine
we
do
have,
because
we
do
need
to
Circle
back
on
the
lot
orientation
exhibit
I
think
we
need
to
put
that
in
as
a
condition
if
we
all
agree
with
that
right,
because
that
is
a
that
is
a
loose
end
of
the
moment.
Correct
staff,
yes,
okay,
okay,.
B
So
so,
commissioner
Danley
did
you
have
any
other
thoughts
of
the
matter
or.
D
I
guess
to
add,
to
the
conversation
I
mean
it
was
a
note
that
I
had
too
is
so.
How
is
it
that
we're
going
to
condition
this
as
a
as
a
right
of
condition
for
approval
tie
the
hands
of
an
adjacent
property
to
vote,
to
develop
a
common
lot?
How
I,
don't
think
I've
ever
seen
us
do
that
before
in
the
five
or
six
years
I've
been
up
here?
How
that's
infringing
on
not
just
the
public,
that's
infringing
on
another
property
owner.
So
to
me,
that's
another
way
that
this
application
is.
D
Is
you
know,
sort
of
asking
others
even
more
people
to
step
up
to
help
them
to
comply
and
I,
don't
understand
that
I?
Don't
think
that
the
applicant
would
want
a
condition
on
an
adjacent
property
to
infringe
on
their
future
right
to
develop
so
I'm,
pretty
certain
of
that.
You
know
so.
I
don't
understand
how
that
can
be
even
a
starter.
M
Mr
chair,
so
when
the
fire
department
looks
at
the
Louis
setbacks,
they
look
at
developed,
open
space
versus
undeveloped,
open
space
when
they
refer
to
developed,
open
space
they're
just
saying
it's
open
space,
that's
part
of
a
subdivision,
that's
owned
and
maintained
by
the
subdivision.
So
in
this
case
that
adjacent
common
law
is
owned
and
mowed
by
that
subdivision
to
the
east
foreign.
D
Can
I
clarifying
question
but
you're
the
judge
on
whether
it's
even
be
asked
so
I
guess
the
question
is
then,
if
the
adjacent
property
owner
I'm,
assuming
that
some
form
of
a
HOA
that
has
this
common
lot,
if
they
said
hey,
we
want
to
put
a
picnic
ground
and
a
concrete
slab
for
something
on
this
common
space.
Does
that
then
violate
the
the
condition
of
this
wooy
that
all
of
a
sudden
that
would
no
longer
be
permissible
by
the
Boise
Fire
Department
I
mean
they
have
the
right
to
do
something
with
that,
I
mean.
M
Mr,
chair,
Commissioners
yeah,
so
that
law
currently
is
a
developed,
open
space
law.
It's
part
of
that
subdivision
that
has
their
Trail
connection
on
it.
If
they
wanted
to
add
some
other
type
of
amenity,
it
might
require
some
type
of
PUD
modification
or
something
like
that,
but
it
wouldn't
affect
the
way
we
set
back
for
this
property
in
that
way,
so
that
larger
setback
is
required
from
undeveloped,
open
space
like
the
natural
land
to
the
South,
not
from
developed
open
space
like
the
common
lot
to
the
east.
C
K
Quick,
it
sounds
like
where
we
might
be,
as
if
a
commissioner
said,
we're
willing
to
accept
friendly
Amendment
from
several
of
the
commissions
regarding
a
woolly
yeah.
It
sounds
like
that
might
be
the
closest
yep
thing
for
us
that.
B
J
I
your
arguments
swayed
me
so
I
am
in
support
of
the
motion.
B
B
So
we're
it's!
It's
just
a
little.
It's
a
little
strange
in
my
experience
up
here.
I
think
we
can,
as
the
motion
or
Meredith
I,
think
you
know
if
you
want
to
propose
an
amendment
one
way
or
the
other
well,.
B
K
What
do
you
got?
I
guess
my
question
was
gonna
be
for
James.
This
seems
to
me
to
be
a
first
City
attorney
seems
to
me
to
be
akin
to
a
discussion
when
somebody
wants
to
build
like
a
large
apartment
building
on
one
side
of
State
Street
and
we're
like
well
wait
a
minute.
There's
not
even
a
bus,
stop
there.
We
can't
compel
them
to
put
in
a
bus,
stop
right
because
it's
not
part,
not
part
of
so
any
it's.
K
B
B
L
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission
for
the
record
James
Smith,
Deputy,
City
attorney
this.
This
is
not
to
act
as
a
super
department
or
tiebreaker
on
this
sticky
issue,
but
I'll
just
go
direct
to
commissioner
Blanchard's
question
about.
Can
the
commission
here
bind
or
or
control
other
property?
That
is
not
the
subject
of
this
application?
L
No,
it
cannot
so
whatever
that
property
is
subject
to
whatever
development
conditions
or
deed
restrictions
or
easements
it
is
subject
to
that
remains
that
it
is
what
it
is
in
this
application
and
and
the
commission's
decision
on
it,
whatever
commissions
might
attach
conditions
might
attach,
are
to
this
property
and
this
applicant
not
to
not
to
neighbors
that
that
are
not
that
are
part
of
a
different
property
or
a
different
subdivision,
that's
already
entitled.
L
So
this
is
something
this
is
something
new
and
if
you
have
questions
about
what
that
means
or
how
it
relates
and
I
think
those
are
properly
directed
to
staff.
B
E
I
actually
can
see
both
sides
of
it
for
sure,
because
if
we're
saying
that
the
setback
is,
for
you
know
fire
safety
and
defenseful
space
and
they
are
not
and
there's
another
property
from
them
and
the
between
them
and
the
you
know
flammable
Foothill,
then
I
can
see
that
that
counts
right,
like
I,
don't
need
that
same
fire
setback,
because
I
live
close
to
the
Foothills,
let's
say,
but
there's
four
houses
in
between
that
count
as
that
defensible
space
right,
so
I
don't
need
that
same
setback,
so
I
can
see
why
fire
is
okay
with
this
and
staff
supports
this
I
guess
I
can
see
that
side
of
it
right
where
if
the
point
of
the
we
set
back
is
to
create
defensible
space,
there
is
defensible
space
because
there
is
other
development
around
it.
H
I
think
I
think
that
makes
sense
and
I
think
Sabrina's.
Explanation
really
helped
me
the
reason
that
they
have
that
defensible
space
is
because
they
went
first.
If
this
development
had
gone
first,
it
would
have
had
to
do
that
too,
but
since
they
didn't
they
don't
and
now
it
qualifies
so
they're
just
benefiting
from
not
being
first
and.
C
H
You
know:
that's
not
very
difficult.
You
kind
of
pay
a
higher
price
when
you
go
first.
H
I
think
I
could,
with
that
explanation
you
know
it.
I
could
be
okay
with
leaving
the
setbacks
as
as
written
in
the
stack
report
just
because
it
is
covered,
and
the
subdivision
to
the
east
has
done
it
just
because
at
that
time
it
was
undeveloped.
Space.
D
Mr,
chairman
Mr
Daly
I
apologize
if
this
muddies
the
water
but
I
I
just
need
to
ask
the
question
of
staff,
and
that
is
that
so
was
this
adjacent
subdivision
notified
and
clearly
is
it
understood
to
them
as
an
HOA
of
what
this
pending
application
means
for
their
common
lot,
so
that
if,
in
the
future
fire
code
changes
in
some
way
right,
they're,
not
deed,
restricted
I
mean?
Is
it
clearly
articulated
to
them
that
this
application
has
a
direct
effect
on
what
they
or
can
or
cannot
do
with
their
property?.
M
Mr
chair
commissioner
Danley
I'm,
not
aware
of
any
specific
communication
that
was
given
to
them
outside
of
the
typical
noticing
that
the
city
does
stand
out
and
that
the
applicant
was
required
to
send
out
prior
to
their
neighborhood
meetings.
So
they
were
aware
that
this
application
is
coming
through.
C
B
C
B
B
B
So
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
and
a
recommendation
to
approve
the
subdivision,
of
course,
with
the
additional
foreign
s
to
the,
including
the
public
access
easement,
which
I
believe
was
in
the
say,
specifics
anyhow
and
then
the
amendment
that
makes
the
lot
orientation
exhibit
part
of
the
record
moving
forward
and
that
we
agree
with
that
approach.