►
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).
B
Yes,
good
evening,
everybody
it's
time
to
start
the
work
session.
We've
got
a
couple
folks
here
from
our
comprehensive
planning
team
and
Community
engagement,
Lindsey
Mosher,
Andrea
tuning
and
Deanna
Dupuis.
We're
gonna,
give
you
a
rundown
on
module.
Three
of
the
zoning
code,
rewrite.
D
Thanks
Crystal
good
evening
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Lindsey
Mosher
I
am
the
communications
manager
for
planning
and
development
services,
and
thanks
for
the
hello
thanks
and
we're
just
going
to
give
a
quick
I'm
going
to
go,
give
a
quick
overview
of
what
how
we've
got
here
kind
of
the
process
moving
forward
and
then
Andrea
and
Deanna
will
go
through
module
three
with
you
all.
So,
just
as
a
quick
recap,
we
kicked
off
this
project
back
in
Fall
of
2020.
Even
earlier
in
2019.,
we've
broken
the
entire
process
up
into
modules.
D
D
The
goal
for
this,
of
course,
is
for
us
to
submit
to
this
commission
and
hearing
body
in
February
with
hope
of
adoption
in
summer
of
2023..
So,
just
as
a
quick
recap
of
kind
of
our
goals
that
we
heard
from
the
community
is
really
is
like
our
Guiding
Light
as
we
move
through
module
three
is
that
we
know
that
we
have
a
variety
of
great
neighborhoods
and
want
to
recognize
those.
We
want
to
direct
development
where
there's
planned
public
investment.
D
E
We
are
happy
to
be
able
to
walk
through
some
of
the
synopsis
of
module
3
with
you
today,
we've
had
the
opportunity
to
kind
of
track,
along
with
you
through
modules,
one
and
two,
and
so
today
we'll
go
ahead
and
continue
from
there.
So
as
we
left
off
with
you
on
the
revised
modules,
one
and
two,
our
community
outreach,
really
started
to
provide
feedback
for
us
to
move
forward
into
module
three
and
what
we
heard
in
those
original
Outreach
efforts
was.
People
were
really
seeking,
consistent
and
predictable
decisions
that
was
really
important
to
them.
E
And
so
this
is
a
brief
synopsis
of
what
module
3
will
propose.
And
so,
if
you
have
an
opportunity
to
read
that
draft
document,
it's
on
the
website,
but
It
ultimately
creates
some
new
application
typologies.
And
so
there
are
four
specific
types
of
applications
that
we
have
proposed
and
we'll
go
into
a
little
bit
of
detail.
So
you
understand
what
those
are.
We've
also
created
a
new
application
type
that
talks
about
allowed
use
in
a
loud
form
or
allowed
use
in
alternative
form.
E
So,
even
though
a
use
is
always
allowed
in
a
specific
Zone,
it's
really
important
how
that
building
is
designed
and
how
it's
built
within
our
city.
And
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
providing
the
most
efficient
way
for
our
land
to
be
utilized,
and
so
through
that
we've
created
this
process,
and
we
can
walk
you
through
that
as
well.
We've
also
proposed
to
establish
an
inner
Department,
Review
Committee,
so,
ultimately,
that
is
a
group
of
individuals
that
can
meet
prior
to
an
application
submittal.
E
It
allows
both
internal
departments,
as
well
as
external
agencies,
to
be
able
to
meet
around
a
single
table
and
discuss
an
application
to
make
sure
that
we
are
achieving
all
of
the
goals
of
the
agencies,
and
one
agency's
goal
doesn't
deter
another
agency's
goal.
We
also
would
like
to
reintroduce
the
hearings.
Examiner,
as
you
are
very
familiar
with
the
workload
for
pnz,
has
become
quite
extensive,
and
so
the
hearings
examiner
is
one
way
to
alleviate
some
of
that
workload.
E
E
Ultimately
that
allows
us
to
create
an
efficiency
in
our
process,
and
so,
if
there
are
appeals,
a
design
review,
commission
application
would
then
be
appealed
to
the
city
council
rather
than
coming
to
you
and
then
the
city
council.
So
it
creates
an
efficiency
in
that
regard,
and
also
when
we
talk
about
those
expertise,
we
can
get
the
right
type
of
application
before
the
right
body.
E
So
we're
talking
about
design
design
review
is
appropriate
when
we're
talking
about
land
use,
decisions,
Planning
and
Zoning
is
the
appropriate
location
or
policy
decisions
which
is
ultimately
held
by
our
city,
council
and
then.
Finally,
the
last
is
to
really
take
a
look
at
our
required
findings,
and
so
we'll
give
you
some
examples
of
how
we
have
proposed
to
change
those
to
really
inform
our
decisions
and
make
sure
that
we
are
getting
those
excellent
projects
that
we're
looking
for
the
type
typologies
that
we
have
created
within
the
new
process
and
procedures.
E
Section
does
identify
a
simple
review,
so
that
would
be
something
that
does
not
require
a
lot
of
detail.
You
either
meet
the
the
goals
or
you
do
not.
We
can
process
that
within
just
a
few
days,
type
2
our
or
administrative
decisions
where
they
might
have
use
specific
standards
attached
to
them
and
they
might
take
up
to
two
weeks
for
us
to
review
those
type.
3
are
your
appointed
body
reviews
and
type?
Four?
E
Is
your
city
council
reviews
and
when
we
take
a
look
at
the
graph,
you'll
see
those
typologies
across
the
top,
the
silver
band
just
below
that
gives
us
the
appeal
structure
that
goes
along
with
each
one
of
those
and
then
we
also
have
some
specific
examples
of
what
could
fall
under
there.
So
a
temporary
sign
that
would
be
up
for
14
days.
We
can
approve
that
either
over
the
counter
or
very
quickly
records
of
surveys.
E
E
So
they
would
be
able
to
take
some
of
those
that
workload
from
you
as
well
and
then
you're
going
to
notice
that
there
are
some
asterisks
below
those
say,
identify
where
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we
do
have
some
additional
coordination
either
internally
between
our
departments
or
our
external
Partners,
such
as
achd
itd,
irrigation
companies,
those
types
of
facilities.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we
can
get
those
to
an
interdepartmental,
Review,
Committee,
and
so
that
is
we've
identified
and
flagged.
Some
of
those
that
should
require
those
additional
coordination
efforts.
E
Type
3
is
really
what
will
be
impact
most
impactful
to
you
hearings.
Our
hearings
examiner,
will
review
variance
applications
as
well
as
appeals
from
type
2,
administrative
reviews,
Planning
and
Zoning.
You
will
really
focus
on
those
use
related
items,
so
expansions
of
non-conforming
uses
greater
than
the
20
percent.
E
The
allowed
use
alternative
form.
So
if
somebody
decides
to
build
something
that
is
contrary
to
what
we've
identified
as
the
ideal
form,
it
would
come
before
you
conditional
use
permits
which
you
currently
hold
and
then,
as
well
as
our
more
complex
river
systems
and
Hillside
permits
as
well.
Design
review
will
continue
to
hold
design
related
items
such
as
major
design,
review
applications,
as
well
as
major
small
lot,
which
would
be
five
or
more
consecutive
small
Lots
in
a
row,
and
then
historic
preservation
would
obviously
continue
to
focus
on
their
expertise
of
historic
preservation.
E
All
of
the
city
council
level
decisions
are
specifically
identified
within
the
local
land.
Use
planning
act
that
those
are
to
be
reviewed
by
them,
so
that
made
that
typology
really
easy
for
us
to
create
comprehensive
plan
amendments,
zoning
ordinance,
amendments,
annexations
or
rezones,
as
well
as
planned
unit
developments
and
subdivisions
fall
in
that
category
foreign.
E
E
The
new
orange
so
in
type
four,
the
local
land
use
planning
act,
identifies
everything
within
that
that
last
column
to
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
city
council.
When
we
go
back
to
type
three,
those
are
items
that
are
you're
gonna
you've
noticed
that
they're
in
Orange.
That
means
that
we,
as
the
city
have
determined
that
we
would
like
to
include
our
public
in
the
public
process,
and
so
we've
identified
them
to
come
before
the
appointed
bodies,
so
whether
it's
the
hearings,
examiner
design,
review,
Planning
and
Zoning,
or
the
historic
preservation.
Yes,.
A
My
question,
or
my
my
point
was
that
well,
the
question
was:
doesn't
Lupa
in
fact
make
all
appointed
bodies
optional
so
like
in
really
small
rural
counties?
I,
don't
think
there
is
Planning
and
Zoning
commissions
or
design
review.
I
think
everything
just
goes
to
the
city
council
or
in
some
cases
the
county.
E
Commissioner,
Gillespie,
that
is
correct,
so
Lupa
does
identify
conditional
use
permits
as
well
have
to
be
determined
by
someone,
but
it
does
create
the
allowance
for
cities
to
create
those
appointed
bodies.
As
you've
noted.
A
E
E
Yes,
so
when
we
do
take
a
look
at
each
one
of
those
review
bodies,
it
does
identify
administrative
reviews,
so
those
are
things
that
a
staff
person
could
approve.
Those
are
application
types
one
and
two,
those
really
focus
on
those
use.
Specific
standards,
as
we've
noted
previously,
that
interdepartmental
agency
review
allows
everybody
that
has
subject
matter,
expertise
to
coordinate
together
and
align
their
goals.
So
that's
going
to
be
some
of
those
items
that
were
type
2
with
the
asterisks
as
well
as
all
three
and
four.
E
Our
hearings
examiner
allows
us
to
provide
a
really
objective
and
consistent
reviews
for
variances,
as
well
as
those
administrative
appeals
that
are
going
to
come
to
them.
Design,
Review
Committee
really
focuses
on
that
architectural
design
and
they'll
focus
on
those
type,
3
and
type
4
applications,
as
well
as
historic
preservation,
with
their
emphasis
on
historic
design.
E
You
guys
will
focus
on
your
land
use
expertise,
whereas
the
city
council
relates
to
those
policy
related
items
and
just
to
kind
of
give
a
very
brief
overview
of
the
interdepartmental
review.
It's
really
a
collaborative
event
that
happens
prior
to
an
application
being
submitted.
So
we
don't
have
an
application
as
being
submitted
and
then
we're
in
the
situation
where
we
have
to
scramble
to
get
things
to
work.
The
idea
is,
is
that
we
can
work
together
very
early
on.
E
We
can
get
a
really
good,
solid
project,
that's
supporting
those
excellent
projects,
goals
and
then,
before
you're,
going
to
see
it
we're
hoping
that
you
only
have
two
or
three
conditions
of
approval,
rather
than
the
multiple
conditions
of
approval
that
you
might
see
today,
and
then
we
also
want
to
kind
of
walk
through
some
of
these
other
items
that
were
in
that
summary
list,
beginning
with
the
allowed
use
in
allowed
forms,
but
I'm
going
to
kick
that
over
to
Deanna,
Dupuis
and
she's,
going
to
help
us
through
that
process.
G
Thanks
Andrea
hello,
Commissioners,
as
Andrea
said,
I'm
going
to
walk
us
through
a
couple
things
that
we've
done
in
the
code
to
really
help
reinforce
our
City's
vision
and
goals.
The
first
one
is
this
new
application
type
called
an
allowed
use
in
a
loud
form
and
I'm
going
to
walk
through
a
couple
an
example
of
this,
because
it's
really
the
best
way
to
describe
it.
G
But
in
our
previous
Outreach
we
really
heard
from
our
community
that
they
wanted
us
to
direct
investment
where
we
direct
development,
where
we
have
planned
public
investment,
and
so
we've
created
this
hierarchy
of
mixed-use
zones
that
you'll
see
on
a
screen
and
we
care.
So
in
these
specific
areas,
we
care
really
what
is
going
to
be
built
there,
especially
because
we're
trying
to
direct
the
most
development
into
these
areas.
G
So
what
we've
done
is
we've
created,
allowed
uses
in
those
areas,
but
we
also
care
about
the
way
that
the
buildings
are
going
to
be
built
and
we
want
to
put
a
process
incentive
to
get
what
we
want
built
there
and
and,
as
I
said,
I'll
walk
through
this
example.
We're
going
to
pretend
we're
in
MX3,
which
is
the
m
mixed
use,
active
Zone.
This
is
primarily
on
State,
Street,
Vista
or
Fairview,
and
an
apartment
or
multi-family
is
an
allowed
use
in
our
new
code.
So
that
would
be
reviewed.
G
Administratively
Emma
would
be
a
type
2
application.
However
I'm
sure,
as
the
commission
may
know,
not
all
apartments
are
made
equally
and
we
want
to
really
support
our
highest
density
or
most
dense
apartments.
In
you
know
our
MX3,
our
most
intense
development
there,
so
we're
going
to
review
them
differently,
so
we've
set
the
allowed
use,
but
we're
also
creating
an
allowed
form
and
what
we're
hoping
to
see
is
four
or
more
stories
on
Within
These
MX3
zones.
G
So
if
a
developer
were
to
come
proposing
a
four-story
building
and
it's
not
exceeding
the
parking
map,
the
parking
Max
maximum,
the
maximum,
it
would
be
considered
in
a
loud
form
and
it
would
be
heard
it
would
be
reviewed
as
a
type
2
staff
level
application.
G
If
we
were
to
have
a
developer,
come
to
us
propose
in
an
apartment
which
is
an
allowed
use,
but
it's
going
to
be
three
or
store
three
or
fewer
stories,
and
it
may
have
you
know
an
excess
of
parking,
we're
going
to
make
that
a
public
decision,
because
is
that
really
helping
support
our
city-wide
goals,
especially
as
we're
creating
investment
in
transit
along
State
Street,
Vista
Fairfield?
So
it's
a
way
to
really
set
the
system
to
get
our
process
to
reinforce
that
desired
goal.
Commissioner,
Gillespie.
A
Hi
Deanna
so
I
wanted
to
ask
this
on
the
last
slide
we
were
discussing,
but
suppose
the
staff
approved
something
I
mean
the
way
back,
but
you
can
stay
on
that
slide.
A
A
It
gets
approved
through
that
process,
but
a
neighbor
decides
does
a
neighbor
or
anybody
have
any
appellate
rights
and
how
it
or
appellate
rights
generated.
If
there
isn't
a
public
hearing.
G
C
G
How
it
currently
is
anything,
that's
administratively
reviewed,
there's
a
10-day
appeal
period
and
anyone
could
appeal
an
administrative
decision.
F
G
G
So
it's
actually
very
simple
rules
that
either
could
get
to
type
2
or
kick
it
to
type
3.,
with
the
exception
of
mx1,
so
MX,
three
four
and
five
they're,
all
four
or
more
stories
it's
or
occupying
existing
building,
and
then
we
also
have
an
incentive
if
it's
affordable
housing,
it's
all
type
two,
and
if
it's
not
that
it
becomes
type
three
for
these
specific
uses,
the
mx1
is
less
intense
because
again,
that's
the
neighborhood
development.
So
we
don't
necessarily
need
to
see
four
stories
there.
G
A
G
Are
most
mostly
residential
zones,
so
we're
not
controlling
we're
only
controlling
or
creating
this
application
type
for
the
zones,
the
red,
Reds
and
oranges
that
are
shown
on
the
map
so
everywhere
else
it's
going
to
operate
exactly
or
similar
to
how
it
operates
now
or
if
it's
an
allowed
use.
You
continue
that
way
or
it's
a
conditional
use
and
you
would
go
type
three
I
would
say
one
thing
that
is
important
to
note
here.
All
of
these
application
types
still
are
going
to
run
their
own
design
review
process.
I
A
G
So
we're
actually
creating
many
new
zones.
I,
don't
remember
the
exact
number
off
the
top
of
my
head
and
we
are.
We
have
a
conversion
map
and
it's
on
the
city's
website.
So
we've
created
specific
rules
about
how
if
you
were
C2
previously,
you
would
convert
to
this
or
this
or
that.
C
A
J
J
Well,
there
will
need
to
be
a
plan
as
far
as
how
all
the
zoning
Maps
will
be
updated
and
and
by
what
means,
through
recorder's
office
or
otherwise,
but
but
I
think
you
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
that
it's
a
legislative
action
by
Council
to
adopt
amended
zoning
ordinance,
and
so
it's
rezoning,
Parcels,
that's
that's
true,
but
but
by
redefining
the
zoning
District
that
they're
in
so
it
would
be
no
different
from
from
other
code
amendments
that
affect
zones
broadly
across
the
city.
G
Good
questions
so
I'll
quickly
go
through
the
next
slide,
so
another.
This
is
a
subtle
change,
we're
making,
but
an
important
one.
We
think
to
help
us
really
achieve
that
goals,
we're
updating
our
development
application
findings.
So
what
you
see
on
the
left
or
my
left
is
a
previous
example,
and
this
is
from
the
findings
for
design
review,
but
we're
you
know
in
a
passive
voice
saying
the
traffic
is
minimized.
G
A
Sorry
I'm
just
chilling
on
you,
because
what
the
hell,
so
one
of
the
biggest
problems
in
the
findings
for
us
you
know
for
everybody-
is
that
the
adverse
impact
finding
and
I
think
that's
for
conditional
use
permits.
A
G
Commissioner,
Gillespie
I
believe
we
did,
and
so
I
would
actually
really
suggest.
You
take
a
look
at
that
and
let
us
know
if
we
think
that's
going
to
be
an
effective
way,
how
we
rephrase
to
that.
G
All
right
so
I'll
go
through
our
processes,
so
kind
of
comparing
current
process
to
Future
process.
The
first
up
here
is
a
staff
level
decision,
and
we,
you
may
have
heard
this,
but
a
planner
may
get
an
application
submitted
and
it
could
be
anywhere
in
terms
of
quality,
but
once
it's
submitted
to
planning
staff,
we
have
to
quickly
process
it
and
create
a
staff
report.
G
So
what
we're
doing
here
is
proposing
it's
very
similar
but
again,
starting
with
a
concept
review
meeting,
so
that
a
planner
can
work
with
that
applicant
before
they
submit
the
application
to
ensure
some
quality
control.
When
that
application
is
submitted,
staffer
support
and
then
a
decision
is
rendered
in
our
current
code,
and
this
is
how
it
would
work
for
a
type
one
or
a
type
2.
That
does
not
require
interdepartmental
review
or
what
we'll
learn
is
you
know
if
you're
a
type
2
application,
but
you
do
require
interdepartmental
review.
G
G
It
really
helps
us
to
again
have
that
quality
control
and
address
issues
like
Solid,
Waste
or
Transportation
issues
before
the
application
is
submitted
and
before
a
significant
amount
of
investment
in
plans
have
been
created.
Venture.
K
So
with
the
proposed
process,
what
are
kind
of
I
guess
lead
times,
for
these
meetings
anticipated
to
be
I
could
see
potential
for
some
of
these
mid-process
review
requirements
to
be
to
slow
time
frames
and
extend
project
schedules.
Yeah.
G
So,
with
the
entire
departmental
review,
we've
been
talking
with
other
departments
and
agencies,
and
we
think
that
would
be
a
regular
meeting
so
whether
it's,
how
we
do
our
pre-ops,
which
are
every
Thursday,
whether
it's
once
a
week
or
once
a
month,
there
would
be
a
scheduled
meeting
with
an
agenda.
They'll
take
a
bit
longer
to
you
know
is
not
just
going
to
be
a
30
minute
pre-app,
because
it's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
more
folks
around
the
table.
So
that
will
be
a
longer
meeting.
G
So
people
will
have
to
book
out
for
that
with
these
concept
reviews,
if
we're
really
thinking
them
as
touch
touchstones
with
a
planner.
So
it
could
be
a
phone
call.
It
could
be
something
easily
scheduled
but
again
kind
of
creating
gates
to
say:
okay,
you're
ready
to
move
on
to
the
next
stage
and
we're
working
through
a
lot
of
that
process.
Now
I
won't
live
within
the
code,
but
it
will
become.
You
know,
policy
and
how
the
staff
actually
are
organized
around
that.
G
So
here
is
an
example
of
our
hearing
level
applications
again
right
now,
an
applicant
may
come
with
an
idea
between
zero
to
100,
complete
they'll,
have
a
neighborhood
meeting
and
we've
read
this
a
lot
where
Sam
neighbors
will
say
we
had
a
neighborhood
meeting
and
it
was
already
baked
or
there
was
it
was
so
vague.
We
had
no
idea
what
they
were
proposing.
They
would
then
submit
the
application
and
we
would
go
through
partner
review
and
that
staff
review
and
then
it
would
finally
go
to
Planning
and
Zoning
commission.
G
You
know
we
saw
that
really.
What
we
want
to
do
is
address
some
of
those
issues
up
front
so
again
having
that
concept
review
meeting
with
staff,
if
it's
around
25
complete,
then
there
would
be
a
consistent
level
of
detail
when
you
have
the
neighborhood
meeting
and
we're
still
kind
of
working
on
what
percentage
is
right,
so
we're
interested
in
having
feedback
from
the
commission
and
the
development
community
on
what
would
work
and
then
we
would
have
that
mid-process
review
as
staff.
So
after
the
neighborhood
meeting,
you
would
come
back
to
staff.
G
You
would
get
scheduled
for
your
intern
departmental
review,
have
that
review
meeting
and
then
that
application
is
submitted.
So,
hopefully,
we've
heard
neighborhood
feedback
and
agency
feedback
before
anything
is
actually
submitted
as
an
application,
and
that
timeline
starts
for
the
hearing
again,
then
it
would
go
to
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
and
could
be
appealed
to
city
council.
G
The
last
is
our
Type
4
applications,
which
would
be
city
council
review
very
similar
to
the
Planning
and
Zoning
process
again
trying
to
standardize
those
meeting.
Steps
goes
to
planning
and
zoning
and
then
City
Council
and
then
our
last
goal
with
the
zoning
code.
Rewrite
is
really
to
involve
those
Community
partner
and
partners
early.
L
K
So,
for,
if
you
back
up
one
more
so
for
these
kind
of
incremental
meetings,
if
the
difference
in
a
design
between
25
concept
and
50
or
even
100
concept
can
be
relatively
significant.
If
we're
having
a
neighborhood
meeting
at
25
concept,
design
in
a
lot
of
cases,
there's
not
actually
a
lot
of
detail.
Sometimes
it's
even
just
some
blocks
and
SketchUp
or
something
like.
M
M
K
G
Great
comments,
commissioner
Moore
and
that's
actually
some
of
the
feedback
we've
heard.
Maybe
you
know
maybe
the
neighborhood
meetings
too
early.
Maybe
it's!
The
interdepartmental
review
is
first
because
that
could
significantly
change
the
site
and
then
it's
the
neighborhood
meeting
and
then
application
submittal
we're
still
kind
of
working
through
some
of
that
we
were
just
discussing
that
I
think
this
morning
about.
Is
there
a
possibility
to
flip
some
things?
We've
heard
both
the
same
thing
from
the
neighborhood,
where
it's
they're.
G
They
don't
want
it
to
be
already
baked,
but
they
don't
want
it
to
be
too
vague
that
it
changes
so
much
when
it's
submitted.
So
we're
still
working
through
that.
Another
thing
that
will
go
parallel
to
the
adoption
of
the
code
will
be
us
creating
you
know
the
checklists
and
the
things
we
need
for
this
new
process,
so
we
could
actually
Define.
What
does
you
know?
25,
look
like
or
50
look
like
in
terms
of
site
plan
for
the
application,
and
so
that
it's
clear
and
consistent
over
time.
G
That
makes
sense
so
our
goal
to
involve
our
community
and
partners
early.
If
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
see
this,
we've
created
a
Community
Development
tracker,
which
we've
always
had
this
data,
but
it's
been
kind
of
wonky
through
a
Stella.
So
what
we've
done
is
actually
now
funnel
all
of
our
submitted
applications
to
this
interactive
map,
and
so
it's
really
useful
for
any
Resident
to
be
able
to
kind
of
click
on
there
and
see
where,
what's
in
the
queue
and
at
what
stage.
G
So
we're
hoping
that
this
will
be
a
great
tool
as
more
things,
maybe
are
administratively
reviewed,
but
that
you
could
always
check
where
administratively
reviewed
projects
are
within
that
process.
There's
also
an
opportunity
right
within
the
website
to
click
on
a
specific
project
and
it
says,
send
like
submit
comment
and
then
go
straight
to
our
planning
staff,
so
that
your
comment
is
on
the
record
and
you
don't
have
to
take
any
more
steps
on
that
again.
G
A
Vienna
two
things:
one
be
really
careful
and
think
through
that
neighborhood
summary,
because
because
then
you
get
problems
of
the
record
of
a
meeting
and
we
went
down
that
trail
three
or
four
years
ago
there
was
a
little
subcommittee
that
came
up
because
of
prominence.
There
was
a
big
Ruckus
and
we
looked
at
like
David
Klinger
wanted
to
essentially
make
the
public
meeting
a
meeting
of
record
with
notes
and
minutes,
and
everyone
thought
that
was
or
a
lot
of
people
thought.
That
was
great.
A
That's
point
one
point
two:
what
is
your
thinking
on
signage
on
sites,
because
that
was
a
big
issue
too?
Back
then
was
was
complaints
about
you
know
this
little
tiny,
eight
and
a
half
by
eleven
yellow
sign,
blew
away
or
got
fallen
down,
and
then
we
were
putting
up
these
giant
Billboards
and
I.
Don't
know
where
we
are
on
that.
So
if
you
guys,
are
you
going
to
change
any
of
that
or
so
we're
going
to
still
have
the
same
notification?
Yeah.
G
Yeah,
so
we
signage
requirements,
yeah.
Sorry,
commissioner,
Gillespie
yeah.
We
know
that
there
was
that
larger
process
around
noticing
and
several
years
ago
and
we've
decided
because
of
that
process
to
maintain
noticing
assets.
G
O
I
want
to
take
the
opposite
attack
here,
because
I
know
we're
still
at
the
macro
level
with
all
of
this
stuff,
but
it
seems
to
me
what,
where
we
are
at
this
point,
is
we're
realigning
incentives
so
that
I
mean
mostly
what,
when
we
The
Neighbors
come
up
before
us.
It's
like
they
want
to
argue
stuff,
that's
by
right
and
I
mean
so
we'll
have
300
people
here
saying
the
same
thing:
there's
not
enough
parking,
it's
not
it's!
O
It's
going
to
be
safety
problems,
there's
too
much
traffic
and
I
don't
have
enough
privacy
and
it's
like,
and
we
hear
that
over
and
over
and
over
again
and
that's
like
we
sh,
we
shouldn't
have
to
bear
300
people
coming
here,
saying
that
stuff
like
that.
That
stuff
should
be
worked
out
in
the
beginning
so
that
they
understand
look
these
things
are
by
right.
O
We
can't
you
know
but
they're
incentive
to
come
here
and
argue
with
us
to
try
to
get
to
try
to
get
what
they
want
and
on
the
developer
side
of
things
as
well.
How
many
things
how
many
times
we've
had
to
sit
through
applications
where
developers
will
they'll
ask
for
a
variance,
so
they
don't
have
to
put
three
more
parking
spots
on
and
they'll
come
here,
and
you
know
and
boohoo
about?
Oh
it's!
O
This
is
a
massive
redesign
and
then
and
then
we're
like
well
take
a
week
and
redesign
it
and
oh
lo
and
behold
they
had
it
all
designed
already
right
and
it's
like,
and
then
we
wasted
a
whole
public
hearing
with
the
developer
who's
incented
to
try
to
get
us
to
get
the
variants
of
they
don't
have
to
do
this
little
tiny
thing
that
they
already
know
they
can
do
that
and
projects
that
come
in
here
where
the
developer
does
not
agree
with
our
findings
and
it's
something
like
the
pathway
that
we
just
had
a
month
ago
where
it's
like.
O
Well,
we
don't
want
to
put
that
pathway
along
State
Street.
It's
like
okay,
well,
they're
incented
to
come
and
roll
the
dice
with
us
where
they
need
to
not
be
incentive
to
come
roll.
The
dice
with
us,
his
staff
and
the
neighborhood
and
the
other
agencies
need
to
be
firm.
It's
like
you're
wasting
your
time.
It's
like
just
make
this
easier
on
yourselves
and
settle
it
with
us.
Now
we're
not
going
to
put
this
before
the
level
three
or
level
four
body
we're
just
not
going
to
do
it.
O
So
it
looks
to
me
like
we're
starting
to
get
the
incentives
in
the
right
place.
Even
if
we
don't
know
what
percentage
the
meeting
should
be
at
when
the
neighborhood
meeting
should
be,
but
it
looks
like
the
incentives
are
much
better
to
get
projects
baked
out
earlier
than
coming
before,
one
of
the
appointed
bodies
and
just
rolling
the
dice.
What
just
frustrates
everybody
and
wastes
a
lot
of
time.
G
O
But
I
would
also
like
to
say
that
I
nominate,
Milt
for
hearings,
examiner
and
and
I
want
him
to
be
able
to
sit
right
there
in
that
Center
in
that
side,
nominate
all
by
himself.
Okay,
okay,.
M
G
As
best
we
can
yeah-
and
this
is
our
last
slide
just
to
let
you
know-
we
have
two
more
public
meetings
for
this
round
of
Outreach
and
we're
accepting
comments
on
the
Consolidated
draft
till
December
15th.
So
we
would
appreciate
any
comments
and
you
could
send
that
to
the
email
zoning
rewrite
at
city
of
boise.org
or
you
could
send
them
to
Crystal
or
any
of
us
staff
here.
M
B
Yes,
thank
you,
everybody
that
was
a
great
overview
of
module
three
and
they
left
us
just
enough
time
for
gender
review.
So
luckily,
this
one
isn't
the
horrendously
long
agendas.
We've
been
seeing
lately
just
a
couple
so
to
start
off
item
one
is
PUD
2247
and
CVA
2226.
B
It's
a
conditional
use
permit
for
Planned
residential
development
of
201
multi-family
units
and
a
height
exception
on
2.08
acres
and
a
variance
to
encroach
the
side
yard
setback
that
was
on
last
week's
and
had
to
be
deferred
due
to
neatness
of
hour,
and
the
applicants
couldn't
make
this
one.
So
they're
requesting
deferral
to
December
5th.
B
The
next
one
is
pewd2261.
This
one
was
deferred
from
last
meeting
not
due
to
lateness
of
hour,
but
to
some
kind
of
last
minute
things
to
work
out.
It
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
Planned
residential
development,
comprised
of
18
multi-family
units
on
0.54
acres
in
a
c2d
Zone.
We
are
recommending
approval
and
we
can
try
for
consent
on
this.
B
If
you
all
so
choose
item
three
is
car
2219
for
bde
architecture
at
916,
West,
Sherwood
Street,
it's
a
rezone
of
approximately
0.64
Acres
from
c2d
General
commercial,
with
design
review
to
rodda
residential
office
with
design
review
and
development
agreement.
We
are
recommending
approval,
but
we
did
get
some
neighborhood
opposition,
so
we
will
be
hearing
that
and
I
will
be
your
guest
star
David
this
evening,
as
he
is
out
sick.
So
go
easy
on
me.
B
Item
four
also
deferred
from
last
week
is
PUD
2243
for
glancy
Rockwell
and
Associates
at
7670,
West,
Emerald
Street.
It's
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
unit,
development
comprised
of
48
multi-family
units
on
1.74
acres
in
an
LOD
Zone.
We
are
recommending
approval,
but
we
did
receive
some
opposition
from
the
neighborhood
and
the
applicant
is
in
opposition
to
condition
number
two
which
I
believe
is
in
relation
to
cross
access.
B
We
do
have
two
people
signed
up
for
that,
so
we'll
definitely
be
hearing
it
and
then
last
but
certainly
not
least,
the
grand
finale
is
car
2244
for
micron
Technologies
at
8,
000,
South,
Federal,
Way,
it's
in
and
then
there's
a
couple
of
them
so
that
that's
the
annexation
of
approximately
358.2
Acres,
with
a
t,
t2da
say
that
five
times
fast
Zone
we've
also
got
car
2245
for
a
rezone
of
approximately
32.1
Acres
from
t1d
to
t2da
and
then
a
cup
for
a
height
exception
for
future
microchip
fabrication
building
and
two
gas
separation
columns
within
the
associated
gas
plant.
B
B
Four
minutes
all
right
good
evening
once
again
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
entering
the
hearing
virtually
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
technical
difficulties
arise.
B
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're
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.
B
M
Thank
you,
Mr
rain.
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
hearing.
M
That's
why
it's
important
you
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
testify
tonight.
We
utilize
a
consent
agenda.
This
means
that
if
the
application
applicant
agrees
with
the
staff
report
and
if
there's
no
public
opposition,
the
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
motion.
Without
further
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
consent
agenda,
we
will
hold
a
full
public
Hearing
in
the
order
just
detailed
a
few
moments
ago,
with
staff,
applicant
neighborhood
association
and
then
the
public
testimony.
M
Okay,
let's
see
first,
we
will
let's
look
at
the
consent
agenda.
It
looks
like
we
have
one
item
for
consideration
of
consent.
This
is
item
number
two:
a
PUD
22-61
for
Chrysalis
architecture
deferred
from
November,
7th
2022,
and
this
is
at
503,
5033,
West,
State
Street.
A
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
is
the
is
the
applicant
present
and
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
in
Kinder?
Are
you
do
you
agree
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
M
Okay,
great?
Let
the
record
show
that
they
do.
Is
there
anybody
present
tonight?
That
would
like
to
testify
an
opposition
of
this
item
tonight.
Item
number
two.
H
I
move
to
to
approve
item
PUD
22-61
on
the
consent
agenda.
M
Second
great,
we
have
a
second
from
commissioner
Moore.
If
there
is
no
discussion,
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
F
M
Okay,
we
also
have
item
number
one
is
requesting
a
deferral
to
December
5th
2022..
This
is
PUD
22-47
and
CVA
22-26
for
gglo
at
6160,
West,
Denton
Street.
This
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
201
multifamily
units
and
a
height
exception.
M
M
Okay,
seeing
none
in
person
or
online
I
will
entertain
a
motion.
M
Second,
from
commissioner
Moore
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote
instead,
all.
O
M
Finn
frock
was
the
first
and
then
Maura
was
second
okay.
Moving
along
we'll
move
to
item
number
three:
this
is
car
22-19
for
bde
architecture
deferred,
originally
from
November
7th
2022
at
916,
West,
Sherwood
Street.
This
is
rezone
of
approximately
0.64
Acres
from
C
to
D
to
r
o
d
d,
a
we'll
hear
from
Staff.
First,
please
go
ahead.
Miss
Spain.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
item
before
you
is
a
rezone
of
approximately
0.4
Acres
from
c2d
General
commercial,
with
design
review
to
rodda
residential
office
with
design
review
and
development
agreement
located
at
916
West
Sherman
Street,
as
you
can
see
here
from
the
aerial
photo.
The
subject
property
is
located
within
the
Lusk
District,
which
is
comprised
of
a
mix
of
residential
and
Commercial
uses
located
on
the
west
side
of
Capital
Boulevard
near
downtown
Boise
and
the
BSU
campus.
B
The
request
requested
Rod
zone
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area
due
to
its
close
proximity
to
downtown
BSU
and
Transit.
As
such,
a
higher
density
development
than
what
is
currently
allowed
with
the
C2
Zone
43.5
units
per
acre
is
supported
by
blueprint
Boise,
which
encourages
compact,
pedestrian-friendly
infill,
while
still
maintaining
compatibility
in
the
area.
The
proposed
Ro
allows
for
a
maximum
of
87.1
units
per
acre,
which
would
allow
for
the
type
of
residential
development
envisioned
by
blueprint
Boise.
B
The
RO
is
intended
for
residential
and
office
uses
and
supports
mixed-use
projects,
which
includes
a
limited
amount
of
commercial,
including
restaurants,
retail
and
personal
services.
The
requested
zone
is
compatible
with
Comprehensive
plans
that
designates
the
site
as
mixed
use
on
the
land
use
map
within
which
the
proposed
zone
of
Ro
is
allowed
and
anticipated.
B
The
rezone
is
proposed
in
order
to
construct
a
six-story
building
containing
34
dwelling
units
comprised
of
a
mix
of
apartment
types
with
1200
square
feet
of
commercial
on
the
ground
floor
to
ensure
that
the
active
uses
along
the
street
Frontage
and
the
design
standards,
the
less
Street
master
plan
have
been
met.
A
development
agreement
has
been
included,
the
planning
team
recommends.
The
D.A
include
the
following
conditions
stated
here
to
ensure
that
the
city
and
neighborhood
goals
have
been
addressed.
B
The
neighborhood
association
and
several
members
of
the
public
have
expressed
concerns
with
the
project
in
terms
of
compatibility
and
compliance
with
the
lust
streak
master
plan.
The
compatibility
concerns
are
in
response
to
the
size
and
mass
of
the
building
which
they
state
are
not
consistent
with
the
character
of
Lusk,
Street,
neighborhood
and
Capital
Boulevard.
B
The
planning
team
believes
that
the
comprehensive
plan
anticipates
high
end
density
and
more
intense
uses
in
this
area.
Given
the
site's
proximity
to
downtown
BSU
and
Transit,
the
other
concern
is
the
project
does
not
provide
enough
storefront
commercial
and
that
it
is
another
student
project
or
student
housing
project
to
address
this
I
would
note
that
the
da
requires
a
minimum
of
40
percent
of
the
street
Frontage
be
comprised
of
active
uses
where
the
applicant
proposes
55
active
use.
B
Also,
the
project
is
comprised
of
a
mix
of
Apartments
types,
ranging
in
size
from
Studios
to
five
bedrooms
and
is
not
intended
to
be
solely
student
housing.
In
conclusion,
the
planning
team
recommends
approval
of
the
rezone
NDA
with
the
recommended
conditions
of
approval.
Thank
you
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
Thank.
L
Thank
you.
If
you
don't
mind,
I'll
wait
for
my
presentation.
Okay,
great
great
good
evening,
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
Deborah
Nelson.
My
address
is
601
West
Bannock,
Street
I'm,
with
Givens
personally
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
CA
Ventures
with
me
here
this
evening.
Are
members
of
our
project
development
team,
CA
Ventures,
will
own
and
operate
this
project
and
they
have
extensive
experience
in
developing
high
quality
projects
across
the
country
with
modern
amenities.
L
A
few
examples
are
shown
on
the
slide
and
they
are
currently
the
developer
of
917
Lusk
site
north
of
this
site.
Bde
Architects
is
the
architect
for
the
project
they're
represented
here
this
evening
as
well.
They
have
25
years
of
experience.
Developing
multi-family
housing
across
the
country
and
the
land
group
is
the
site
designer
providing
civil
and
Landscape
engineering
and
Jason
is
here
tonight.
All
of
them
are
available
to
answer
your
questions.
L
We
really
appreciate
staff's
work
on
this.
We
agree
with
all
of
the
conditions
of
approval
on
the
staff
report
as,
as
Crystal
explained,
we're
seeking
a
rezone
to
ro
to
allow
the
development
of
mixed-use
building
with
34
residential
units,
multi-family
units
above
ground
floor,
commercial
and
amenity
space
with
alley
accessed
Podium
parking,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
vicinity
map.
L
L
L
The
site
has
access
to
two
Transit
stops
on
Valley
Regional
transit's
Route
3,
which
provides
convenient
access
to
the
downtown
brt
Hub,
and
the
Boise
Airport
currently
on
this
site
is
an
auto
mechanics,
business
and
gravel
parking
lot.
There
are
no
Street
drainage
or
sidewalk
improvements
in
place
at
this
time.
This
is
an
underutilized
parcel
in
a
redeveloping
neighborhood,
with
access
to
Transit,
that
is
poised
for
increased
housing
density
and
walkable
commercial
uses.
L
The
total
Street
Frontage
activation
on
this
project
is
55
percent
well
over
the
30
percent
that
was
approved
earlier
this
year
at
917.
Lusk
the
street
frontages
align
with
the
Lusk
Street
master
plan,
which
calls
for
storefront
Main
Street
frontages,
with
a
mix
of
retail
studio
and
Upper
Floor
housing
on
Lapointe
Street
foreign
will
provide
vertical,
curb
Gutter
and
a
12
foot
wide
landscape
and
Furnishing
Zone
with
tree-graded
trees
along
La,
Pointe
and
Sherwood
streets
in
alignment
with
a
designated
streetscape
typology
in
the
lustrate
master
plan.
L
The
frontage
improvements
include
an
elevated
patio
with
seating
to
serve
the
neighborhood
with
a
public
gathering
space
and
provide
outdoor
seating
for
the
retail
use
and
generally
activate
the
building
Frontage
along
Lapointe
and
Sherwood
streets.
As
you
can
see,
this
design
matches
the
street
Frontage
improvements
across
the
Pointe.
The
project
will
add
nine
on-street
public
parking
spaces,
plus
three
parking
spaces
are
added
along
the
alley
inside
the
project
property
boundary
that
will
serve
the
retail
use.
L
Residential
parking
is
in
the
garage
hidden
from
View
and
accommodated
in
this
small
space
with
modern,
automated
stackers
on
the
upper
floors.
The
project
includes
34
multi-family
units.
This
slide
shows
the
floor
plan
of
the
second
floor,
which
includes
an
indoor
Club
room
highlighted
in
green
there.
That
opens
up
onto
a
large
exterior
Courtyard
with
a
lounge
area,
grilling
Area
fire
pit
and
Spa.
L
This
Courtyard
further
activates
the
buildings
La
Pointe
Street
Frontage,
the
Lost
Street
neighborhood
association,
testified
last
week
at
another
project
along
capital
in
this
same
neighborhood,
about
concerns
with
adding
more
student
housing
like
that
Capital
project
and
CA
Ventures
917
Lusk
project.
The
34
Apartments
here
will
include
a
mix
of
Studio
one
bedroom
and
two
bedrooms,
as
well
as
four
and
five
bedroom
units.
L
The
larger
formats
traditionally
are
sought
out
by
students
and
remain
the
most
in-demand
housing
in
the
neighborhood
and
in
all
areas
around
BSU.
In
fact,
BSU
students
remain
underserved
from
on-site
and
off-site
housing
options
on
the
campus
between
on-site
campus
and
off-site
purpose-built
student
housing.
Only
17
percent
of
current
enrolled
students
have
an
opportunity
for
housing
in
the
immediate
neighborhood,
a
concern
that
has
been
in
the
news
recently
Steve
interested
meet
with
BSU
about
this
project
and
BSU
was
supportive.
L
This
project
is
also
unique
from
the
housing
that
developed
early
in
the
lust
neighborhood
because
it
includes
ground
floor
retail
and
that
enhanced
streetscape
presence
with
storefront
activation
consistent
with
the
lust
master
plan
city
of
Interest
917
lust
project
was
the
first
housing
development
in
the
neighborhood
to
include
ground
floor
retail
and
Dave
Wally's
new
project
recently
approved
has
added
that
as
well
on
a
per
acre
basis.
This
project
is
providing
twice
the
commercial
square
footage
compared
to
the
approved
917
lost
project.
L
In
this
conceptual
elevation
of
the
building,
you
can
see
that
base
body
separation
and
Architectural
features
and
materials
that
enhance
that
streetscape
experience
and
based
on
our
neighbor's
input.
The
exterior
of
the
building
will
feature
a
modern
industrial
look
fitting
for
the
neighborhood.
They
liked
the
metal
siding
panel.
The
brick
base
the
storefront
railings
and
the
perforated
metal
accents.
This
aligns
well
with
the
master
plan's
desire
for
Urban
Design
architectural
elements.
L
This
project
has
also
been
designed
to
closely
align
with
the
lust
Street
master
plan.
It
fulfills
a
number
of
the
general
goals
in
the
plan
for
the
land
use
section
by
developing
a
walkable,
Urban
neighborhood,
minimizing
surface
parking,
mixing,
complementary
uses
and
weaving
the
urban
fabric
together
with
pedestrian
connectivity.
L
The
land
use
portion
of
the
plan
speaks
specifically
about.
This
block
has
intended
to
function
as
a
just
off
Main
Street
retail
district,
with
allowance
for
Unique
retail
and
Studio
uses,
as
well
as
upper
story
housing.
This
project
delivers
that
ground
floor
retail
and
active
amenity
spaces
with
outdoor
pedestrian
friendly
streetscape
improvements,
as
well
as
the
Upper
Floor
housing.
That
precisely
has
intended
the
project
is
aligned
with
the
urban
form
and
design
section
of
the
plan,
as
well.
L
Sections
of
that
are
highlighted
here.
It
calls
for
the
current
residential
density
west
side,
Sidewalk
improvements
and
Commercial
uses
to
create
an
engaging
streetscape
and
for
new
development
to
continue
to
enhance
that
CA
Ventures
is
adding
to
that
engaging
Frontage
with
people-oriented
uses,
including
that
retail
activation,
elevated
public
patio
and
amenity
space,
as
called
for
on
the
plan.
L
L
M
Thank
you,
Miss
Nelson,
before
questions
we'll
check
to
see
if
we
have
a
representative
from
the
Lusk
neighborhood
association,
the
lust
District
neighborhood
association
come
on
up.
P
So
my
name
is
Nate
heinzmann
I'm,
2582,
North,
27th,
Street,
83702
I,
am
the
vice
president
of
the
less
District
neighborhood
association
and
neighborhood.
Association's
stance
is
that
this
development
is
student
housing
on
this
one,
and
that
does
come
from
the
developer's
intention
to
rent
out
by
the
bedroom
of
all
the
units
that
are
two
bedrooms
and
above
they
did
right
before
these
presentations.
They
did
kind
of
change
the
kind
of
the
weighted
measurement
of
how
each
one
of
those
are
put
in.
P
They
added
more
one
bedroom
in
studio
apartments
in
there,
so
they
can
maintain
that
student
housing
model
on
that
and
and
still
claim
this
as
multi-family
housing.
Now,
if
we
truly
thought
this
was
multi-family
housing,
we
would
be
in
support
of
it.
However,
the
less
district
is
facing
the
brunt
of
all
the
student
housing
for
Boise
State.
As
you
can
see
here,
we
currently
have
74
percent
of
all
housing
units
is
student
housing
in
the
less
District.
P
Now
that
is
in
opposition
of
these
current
codes
that
are
in
the
comprehensive
plan
and
in
the
last
District
Master
Plan
as
well,
that
there
is
no
mix
of
uses
in
the
Lusk
District
at
all.
It's
just
student
housing
in
there
and
there's
a
lack
of
housing
choices
for
people
other
than
students
in
there
as
well,
based
on
this
housing
model
of
renting
it
out
by
the
bedroom.
On
that
now,
this
is
a
pie
chart
that
you
get
because
I'm
a
volunteer
with
zero
budget.
P
This
is
what
you
got,
but
this
kind
of
just
shows
the
what
we
have
for
student
co-housing
in
the
lust
District
neighborhood.
Obviously
there
is
some
buildings
that
are
for
Boise
State.
There
is
some
affordable
housing
units
in
the
Lost
District,
but
I
included
those
in
the
other
areas
as
well
with
the
hotel
and
office
retail.
But
this
just
shows
how
much
student
housing
is
in
the
less
District.
P
But
now
this
is
our
zoning
code
map
from
the
lust
District
master
plan
on
it,
and
this
is
located
in
the
bottom
left
corner
of
the
yellow
District,
which
is
The,
Pedestrian,
oriented,
Main
Street
area,
and
this
is
an
area
that
we
want
to
preserve.
P
This
is
the
only
area
that
we
kind
of
have
left
that
is
kind
of
the
Beating
Heart
of
our
kind
of
activation
zone
for
the
less
District
neighborhood
association
or
just
the
neighborhood
in
general,
and
this
is
where
we
have
Madre
Lost,
Grove
and
Boise
bicycle
project,
downtown
Hound,
Dawson
Taylor
shed,
and
we
also
have
Trademark,
Sign
and
design
in
that
area
as
well.
We're
hoping
to
keep
this
yellow
District
zoned
as
it
is
so
that
we
can
have
some
more
of
those
uses
in
this
area.
P
Now
there
will
be
a
small
portion
of
this
proposed
development
that
will
be
activated.
There
is
no
real
activation
along
Sherwood,
as
stated
in
the
presentation,
because
there
isn't
any
retail
or
office
space
in
that
on
that
side
and
on
the
Lapointe
side
of
it,
there
was
really
only
about
40
percent
of
that
was
the
retail
area.
As
elevated
and
I
also
don't
see
how
second
floor,
Courtyard
does
Street
activation,
as
stated
in
the
presentation
as
well,
because
that
doesn't
bring
anybody
in
to
the
neighborhood
to
kind
of
enjoy
the
economy
of
the
Lost
District.
P
M
Thank
you,
Mr
Heisman,
okay,
let's
see
so
next
we'll
go
to
questions
from
the
commission.
Commissioner
Gillespie
thank.
C
A
N
A
You
focused
a
lot
of
your
comments
on
student
housing,
we're
what
five
six
seven
hundred
feet
from
Boise
State.
A
Is
very
close,
really
close,
24
000
kids
go
there.
What
what
what's
actually
wrong
with
student
I
mean?
What
is
it,
what
adverse
does
it
cause
an
adverse
impact?
Does
it
what
what's
bad
about
it
other
than
it's
just
student
housing.
P
Kids
are
walking
in
the
streets
and
walking
amongst
the
cars,
there's
very
little
sidewalks
in
the
area
for
protection
on
that
as
well,
because
that
doesn't
change
any
of
the
other
areas
with
the
sidewalks,
where
all
the
students
walk
on
that
they
do
have
to
walk
to
the
other
areas
of
the
less
District
to
get
to
that
new
pedestrian
Crossing
across
ninth
and
Capitol,
or
to
get
to
the
green
belt,
and
so
they
have
to
walk
through
those
other
areas
without
sidewalks
to
safely
get
to
the
campus
on
that,
because
you
can't
get
it
on
the
north
side
of
the
intersection
of
University
and
capital,
you
can
only
cross
on
the
south
side
of
that
area
and
then
yeah
I
think
just
participation
in
the
neighborhood
as
well.
H
Madam
chair
commissioner
fin
frog.
Sorry,
Nate
I
have
a
question
for
you.
Sorry
before
you
walk
away,
I
was
looking
over
the
Lusk
Street
area,
master
plan
and
I
Know
It
defines
student
housing.
In
that
it
says,
student
housing
will
continue
to
play
a
role
in
the
less
straight
neighborhood,
but
it
should
not
be
the
sole
form
of
Housing
and
right
now,
you're
saying
it's
74.
Do
you
know
once
this
development
goes
in
what
the
percentage
will
be.
Q
H
Sorry,
and
also
what,
when
it
says,
Soul
that's
I
mean
that's
a
pretty
broad
word.
Do
you
think
what
would
you
like
to
see
there
and
I
mean
I
I
wondering
why
the
master
plan
didn't
maybe
focus
a
little
bit
on
what
your
expectation
was
for
student
housing.
P
P
That
is
being
developed
right
now,
So,
currently
right
now
we
are
sitting
at
74
and
then
with
those
permitted
projects
would
be
77
capacity
of
that
right
now
as
far
as
the
intention
of
it
and
why
it
doesn't
mention
that
in
the
lust
Street
master
plan
that
was
developed
in
2013
and
adopted
by
the
city
in
2013,
even
though
we
do
have
the
same
problems,
then,
as
we
do
now,
I
think
there
could
be
continuous
development
of
the
less
Street
master
plan
to
further
put
more
intent
onto
what
we
would
like
to
see
there,
and
we
would
like
to
see
multi-family
housing
there
and
much
more
activation
around
the
site
on
there.
N
F
We
got
a
question
for
the
applicant
Deborah
I.
Think
I
asked
the
same
question
last
week,
but
given
the
discussion
about
student
housing,
the
small
format
versus
large
format,
units
on
this
project
last
week,
the
I
think
he
said
it
was
60
percent
large
versus
small
format.
What's
the
mix
on
this
one.
L
For
you,
real,
quick
I'm
chair
commissioner,
so
I
remember
that
question
last
week,
that
mix
was
slightly
different
here
on
this
project.
It's
42
percent,
small
and
58
percent
large,
because
it's
a
smaller
site
but
the
between
those
three
buildings.
So
last
week's
project
on
Capital
had
two
separate
buildings,
had
a
much
higher
percentage
of
the
small
format
between
these
three
that
sea
Adventures
is
bringing
in
to
the
market.
At
the
same
time,
the
total
mix
is
56
percent,
small
format,
44
large
format
and
one
more
point
of
comparison.
L
The
the
917
Lusk
building
was
close
to
50
as
well,
and
that
that's
about
the
Target
that
the
council
has
laid
out
in
recent
student
council.
Our
student
housing
related
and
mixed
housing
approvals
like
over
on
Boise
Ave
as
well,
and
so
that's.
What
they've
targeted
overall
is
that
overall
50
percent.
N
F
Regarding
the
street
activation
and
Retail,
could
you
kind
of
walk
us
through
that
again?
What's
on
the
point
and
what's
on
Sherwood
and
I,
guess
it's
more
of
a
rebuttal
opportunity
now
but
I
just
trying
to
understand
what
what's
true
between
what
you
and
Nate
said.
L
Absolutely
maybe
I
think
Crystal's
gonna
try
to
pull
up
my
presentation,
so
we
can
see
a
visual
again.
Thank
you.
K
L
K
Manager,
commissioner,
please
and
then
same
question
I
think
we
had
last
week
in
the
development
agreement.
You
know
it
says.
N
K
Include
retail,
but
to
the
neighborhood
association's
concern,
you
know
that
may
kind
of
leaves
the
possibility
that
retail
would
go
away
is.
K
Is
there
for
this?
One
too:
is
there
any
you
know,
heartache
or
anything
about
getting
rid
of
the
May
saying
shall
to
kind
of
commit
to
that
retail
space
at
a
minimum.
L
A
So
this
is
a
question
for
the
city.
Crystal
I
know
that
three
four
years
of
the
go,
the
city
council
really
struggled
to
sort
of
pass
a
bill
about
student
housing,
particularly
south
of
Boise
State,
where
people
were
building
these
big
houses
right
up
to
the
setbacks
and
I
can't
remember
how
the
city
council
finally
resolved.
That
is
any
of
that
discussion
or
legislation
that
they
passed
relevant
to
this
discussion.
B
A
B
Madam
chair,
commissioner
Gillespie
is
not
in
the
use
table
it.
There
is
University
uses
and
frat
and
sorority
and
then
multi-family.
K
Manager,
commissioner,
so
one
last
question:
I
think
this
is
probably
for
the
applicant.
You
mentioned
plantings
on
the
rooftop
as
a
rooftop
garden,
but
I
don't
see
any
drawings
in
our
packet
about
that.
Do
you
know
what
do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
what
that
would
look
like
at
this
time.
L
Madam
chair
commissioner
Moore.
What
I
was
commenting
on
is
the
language
in
the
lust
Street
master
plan
that
calls
for
outdoor
amenity
spaces
such
as
rooftop
gardens
and
Courtyards,
to
be
utilized
for
active
open
space.
I
was
pointing
to
our
second
floor,
exterior
Courtyard
as
one
of
those
areas
that's
in
compliant
with
the
plan
to
create
that
outdoor
exterior,
open
space
that
helps
to
activate
the
building
it
it
isn't.
We
don't
have
a
rooftop
garden.
That
was
the
language
from
the
plant.
K
Okay
manager,
commissioner,
so
is
there
any
detail
about
that
particular
Courtyard?
Is
it
just
it's
not
green
or
it
doesn't
have
vegetation
on
it
at
all?
It's
probably
just
mostly
paved.
L
Maybe
they
could
comment
on
whether
or
not
they
want
to
add
any
plantings
there.
It
is
a
an
active
amenity
space
with
outdoor
fire
pit,
seating
area,
grilling
area
and
a
spa
I
assume
it
could
include
plantings
and
Landscaping.
Do
you
want
to
accommodate
more
on
that?
Okay,
we
will.
It
will
include
some
Landscaping
there
yeah.
M
Okay,
we
don't
have
anybody
signed
up
in
advance
for
this,
but
is
there
anybody
that
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item?
Please
come
on
up
and
if
you're
online,
please
raise
your
hand
virtually,
we
will
start
with
the
folks
in
the
room
here.
It
is
Mr
story.
S
J
story:
104
South,
Capitol,
Boulevard
good
evening,
Adam,
chair
and
planning
zoning
Commissioners.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
service
to
our
community,
because
I
know
it's
not
an
easy
job,
but
many
of
us
appreciate
the
work
you
do.
S
I
have
not
shown
up
in
testified
on
any
of
these
other
student
housing
projects,
but
this
key
aspect
is
that
it
lies
in
the
middle
of
the
lust
District
within
the
two
blocks
that
are
planned
to
be
the
heart
and
soul
of
this
neighborhood.
S
These
two
blocks
are
home
to
a
diverse
set
of
businesses
like
the
Boise
bicycle
project,
Madre
Taqueria,
Dawson,
Taylor,
gems,
Appliance,
Lost,
Grove
Brewing,
amongst
others.
The
neighborhood
plan
calls
for
storefront
Main
Street,
and
the
proposal
is
nothing
like
storefront
Main
Street.
It's
not
diverse,
unique
and,
quite
honestly,
doesn't
add
anything
to
the
neighborhood
that
already
isn't
there.
S
S
This
developer
in
their
917
Lusk
project
that
they
discussed
tonight,
has
already
removed
25
000
square
feet
of
office
space
from
a
block
designated
as
office,
and
they
are
working
to
remove
Elmer's
at
over
5000
square
feet
of
restaurant
space
and
replace
it
with
1200
square
feet
of
retail
in
a
block
designated
as
retail
dining
in
an
application
you
saw
last
week
to
comply
with
the
neighborhood
plan
and
comprehensive
plan.
This
developer
needs
to
do
a
few
things
number
one
replace
all
the
square
footage
of
retail
space
that
is
lost.
S
The
da
should
require
a
minimum
of
4
200
square
feet
of
retail
space
to
replace
what
is
currently
on
the
site.
Storefront
retail
two
comply
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
offer
a
diverse
set
of
housing
options
right
now.
The
application
anticipates
small
and
large
format
options,
but
when
you
run
the
numbers
88
of
the
108
planned
rooms
are
within
the
large
format
option.
This
is
strictly
student
housing.
S
We
not.
We
need
diverse
housing
and
to
do
so,
we
should
restrict
the
D.A
as
to
not
allow
units
with
more
than
three
bedrooms
last
week,
and
it
turns
out
this
week
they're
doubling
down.
With
this
statement.
Applicants
Council
indicated
the
projects
are
not
intended
solely
as
student
housing,
which
is
disingenuous
at
Best
in
dishonest
at
worst,
why
are
CA
Venture,
Student,
Housing,
Development
Group
here
and
not
their
market
rate?
Housing
group
number
three
stick
with.
G
S
M
You
Mr
story.
Is
there
anybody
else
that
would
like
to
testify?
No
questions
right
now.
Thank
you
is
there.
Anybody
else
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item.
M
Okay,
seeing
none
then
we'll
move
to
applicant
rebuttal.
Miss
Nelson
you'll
have
up
to
five
minutes.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
I
I.
Think
the
the
comments
from
the
neighborhood
association
and
Mr
story
are
similar
really
focusing
on
this
area
of
the
plan
and
that's
why
we
spent
so
much
time
going
through
all
of
the
components
of
the
plan
of
how
we
are
compliant
with
the
lust
Street
master
plan,
because
the
applicant
team
has
been
very
sensitive
to
what's
called
for
in
this
area.
L
They
have
worked
closely
with
staff
and
with
the
neighbors
to
in
a
number
of
different
meetings
to
try
to
develop
that
mixed-use
experience
that
really
does
complement
and
fulfill
the
the
plan
goals,
but
for
transportation,
for
parking
for
urban
form
and
design
for
streetscape
improvements
and
as
to
the
use
and
the,
as
has
been
noted
already
by
by
questions
and
my
testimony,
the
lust
Street
area
does
call
for
diverse
and
an
intensification
of
housing,
specifically
even
in
this
area
calls
for
upper
stories
of
housing,
and
so
that's
exactly
what's
been
provided
here.
L
In
order
to
have
those
upper
stories
of
Housing
and
provide
that
ground
floor,
non-residential
experience,
there's
not
much.
You
can
fit
on
a
very
small
site
like
this.
It
is
an
unrealistic
expectation
and
certainly
not
called
for
in
your
lust
Street
master
plan
to
replace
a
foot
by
foot
of
retail
of
the
space
that
is
taken
from
a
lot
on
this
.34
acre
lot.
L
The
team
has
worked
very
hard
on
their
design
and
efficiency
to
be
able
to
expand
that
retail,
based
on
input
from
the
neighbors
and
staff
up
to
1200
square
feet
and
still
provide
that
also
coveted
structured
parking,
also
called
for
in
the
plan
with
expensive
and
creative
modern
stacking
equipment
to
be
able
to
accomplish
that
and
still
pulling
off
all
of
the
corner.
Improvements
on
the
street
that
create
that
activation
that
provide
those
sidewalks
that
Nate
said
was
were
missing
that
the
students
need
to
walk
on,
and
yes,
they.
L
L
Consumers
of
the
commercial
businesses
that
exist
there
in
addition
to
bringing
in
a
new
commercial
business,
will
complement
it.
We're
also
bringing
in
that
that
density
that
will
support
the
transit,
which
is
exactly
what
the
city
is
looking
for
in
this
area.
So
for
all
of
these
reasons,
the
project
is
very
sensitive
to
the
neighboring
uses,
what's
called
for
in
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
lustrate
master
plan,
and
will
be
a
great
addition
to
the
neighborhood.
So
with
that
stand
for
any
further
questions
and
appreciate
your
consideration.
M
A
M
Second,
second
from
commissioner
Moore,
commissioner
Gillespie,
would
you
like
to
start
the
discussion.
A
Sure,
just
a
couple
of
points.
A
I
just
have
always
had
and
and
have
in
this
case
a
real
trouble
sayings
differentiating
housing
types
by
who
lives
there
right,
I
I,
just
think
we
have
to
be
really
really
careful
about
doing
that.
A
We're
we're
zoning
property
and
approving
apartments
and
buildings.
I
think
we
need
to
be
really
careful
about.
A
You
know
basing
a
lot
of
our
decision
on
the
type
of
person
who
lives
there.
I
think
the
room
for
abuse
is
obvious,
so
I
just
have
a
fundamental
issue
with
that
problem.
If
the
city
code
wanted
to
distinguish
and
make
differences
between
units
that
were
rented
by
the
bedroom
and
units
that
are
not
the
city
code
could
do
that
and
try
to
regulate
that.
The
city
has
had
this
issue
essentially
before
them
for
15
years,
the
whole
time
I've
been
on
the
commission
we've.
This
has
been
a
an
issue.
A
The
city
council
has
chosen
really
not
to
do
that
and
I
think
there's
some
really
powerful
reasons.
They
did
that
so
so
I'd
like
to
get
that
out
there.
Second,
when
I
asked
Nate
and
I
and
and
I
can't
remember
your
last
name
Nate,
so
I
apologize.
No
disrespect
the
well-spoken
guy
from
the
lust
Street
neighborhood
association,
I
mean
look.
A
I
think
that
the
applicant
met
all
of
the
conditions
of
the
code.
I
think
they
do
pretty
clearly
meet
most
of
the
conditions
or
requirements
of
the
master
plan.
So
you
know
I'm
pretty
pretty
strong
support
of
this
project.
Moving
forward.
K
We,
commissioner,
Moore
all
right,
just
really
quick,
yeah
I
agree
with,
with
all
that,
I
mean
the
commitment
to
add
retail
space
and
strike
May
from
or
strike.
May
you
know,
I
think
that
starts
to
get
what
is
kind
of
going
away.
It's
not
in
kind
square
footage
from
what's
going
on,
but
I
think
it's
it's
a
start
and
I
think
I
made
the
analogy
last
week
you
know
similar
to
the
Fowler
and
some
of
those
developments
that
are
starting
to
get
there.
K
K
You
know
it
will
add
sidewalks
and
start
to
mitigate
some
of
that
impact
and
just
having
housing
a
diverse,
diverse
apartment
types,
regardless
of
how
the
leasing
structure
is
set
up.
You
know
diverse
number
of
rooms
makes
sense
near
an
employment
center
so
that
you
don't
have
to
build
as
many
parking
garages
on
campus
so
that
you
don't
you
know,
have
as
many
cars
driving
across
Capital
over
there.
N
F
I
just
want
to
make
one
comment
about
Mr
heintzmann's
comment
about
the
Lusk
area,
master
plan
and
predominance
of
student
housing
and
I
think
Nate.
You
said
on
one
of
those
slides
that
it's
not
in
accordance
with
code,
but
the
comp
plan
is
just
guidance
and
that's
something
I've
learned
in
my
short
time
up
here
and
and.
F
In
this
case,
the
zoning's
appropriate,
and
we
can't
really.
As
for
all
the
reasons
stated
previously,
we
can't
really
decide
who
lives
in
these
units,
the
zony's
appropriate
and
the
comp
predominance
of
the
project
complies
with
the
comp
plan
and
the
less
carry
a
master
plan.
In
my
my
opinion,
it's
obvious
support
of
the
motion.
M
Okay,
with
that,
we
have
a
motion
on
the
table
to
approve
car
22-19
for
bde
architecture
at
916,
West
Sherwood
Street,
with
the
change
of
it,
shall
include
the
retail
space
instead
of
may
include
the
retail
space,
and
we
have
a
motion
from
commissioner
Crosby
with
a
second
from
commissioner
Moore.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote
instead.
M
Okay,
thank
you
with
that.
We'll
move
on
to
item
number
four:
this
is
PUD
22-43
for
glancy
Rockwell
and
Associates
deferred
from
November
7th
2022.
This
is
7670
West,
Emerald
Street,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
Planned
unit
development,
comprised
of
48
multi-family
units
and
we'll
start
with
staff.
Please
go
ahead.
Miss
Martinson.
R
Great
good
evening,
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission.
The
item
before
you
is
a
request
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
48
units
on
1.74
Acres,
located
at
7670
West
Emerald
Street
in
an
LOD
Zone.
The
applicant
proposes
two
three-story
apartment
buildings
containing
a
mix
of
one
and
two
bedroom
units.
R
The
structures
will
be
approximately
35
feet
in
height
to
the
midline
of
the
roof,
for
up
to
45
feet
would
be
allowed
in
the
Lo
Zone
vehicular
access
points
to
both
Emerald
Street
and
priest
driver
proposed
and
the
parking
provided
will
exceed
the
minimum
amount
required
by
the
development
code.
When
the
multi-family
development
on
the
adjacent
parcel
to
the
West
was
approved,
the
approval
included
a
condition
that
vehicular
cross
access
be
provided
to
the
subject
parcel
upon
future
development.
R
The
planning
team
has
also
received
written
opposition
from
Neighbors,
which
is
included
in
your
packets
and
is
also
summarized
on
the
slide.
The
primary
concerns
relate
to
the
proposed
access
to
pre-strive.
The
proposed
building
Heights
and
transitions
from
adjacent
properties
and
the
orientation
of
the
northern
building,
however,
the
proposed
access
from
priests
will
improve
vehicular
connectivity
in
the
area,
particularly
if
the
access
from
Emerald
Street
is
restricted
to
write
in
right
out
in
the
future.
R
The
proposed
buildings
are
only
one
story
taller
than
the
adjacent
multi-family
development
to
the
west
and
will
be
separated
from
the
nearest
single
family
home
by
more
than
80
feet.
The
balcony
spacing
crease
driver
minimized
and
utilized
larger
than
required
setbacks.
A
recommended
condition
of
approval
requires
that
a
minimum
of
15
Administration
be
provided
on
Street
facing
facades
to
reduce
the
blank
wall
effect
adjacent
to
pre-strive,
and
the
applicant
will
also
be
subject
to
subsequent
design
review.
R
M
Thank
you,
Miss
Martinson,
before
questions
we'll
move
to
hear
from
the
applicant.
Q
The
cross-access
agreement
came
about
from
a
previous
application.
Pud.
Q
This
project
had
originally
had
their
full
access
off
of
priests
drive
and
they
compromise
with
the
neighbors
and
were
given
an
access
onto
Emerald
for
their
project,
and
the
condition
was
that
if
my
client's
property
was
ever
developed,
they
would
have
to
vacate
their
access
point
and
have
access
through
that
adjacent
parcel
from
Emerald.
Q
Q
Okay.
This
is
our
initial
proposal
that
we've
showed
to
the
neighborhood.
The
access
is
on
the
West
Side,
the
upper
left-hand
corner
of
the
drawing,
and
then
we
had
a
turnaround
at
the
backside
with
no
access
on
to
priests.
Following
our
application,
we
received
a
letter
on
June
17th.
That
said
that
achd
would
not
allow
the
curb
cut
to
remain,
are
existing
and
directed
is
to
close
that
provide
the
cross-access,
easement
and
open
up
the
access
to
priests
Drive.
Q
Q
So
we
moved
the
curb
cut
down
to
the
east
side
of
the
project,
kept
it
relatively
the
same
and
we
did
put
the
Priest
Drive
access
on.
So
we
had
the
full
through
access
and
thought.
We
were
good.
The
item
number
two
that
I'm
asking
to
be
deleted
was
or
condition
number
two
for
the
cross
access
scene,
no
longer
pertinent,
as
we
have
our
two,
our
Ingress
and
egress
now,
and
the
purpose
of
that
cross
access
was
because
we
weren't
not
going
to
have
our
Emerald
Street
access.
So
we
asked
that
that
be
deleted.
Q
M
Thank
you,
Mr
glancy,
before
we
get
to
questions
I'll
check
to
see
if
we
have
a
representative
from
the
West
Boise
neighborhood
association
to
speak
on
this
item,.
M
M
A
R
There
are
a
couple
of
reasons
that
we
believe
that
cross
access
would
be
beneficial
one
being
the
achg's
comments
do
indicate
that
the
access
onto
Emerald
could
be
restricted
to
write
in
right
out
in
the
future,
meaning
that
any
traffic
from
the
subject
site
moving
East
would
have
to
come
up
to
pre-strive
and
out
or
come
down
to
Emerald
and
go
all
the
way
up
to
Fairview
to
the
North
or
down
to
Franklin
on
the
south
and
the
second
being
that
it
would
also
provide
an
alternative
route
for
these
units.
F
R
R
R
Rockwell's
plan,
the
initial
approval
for
that
Western
parcel
did
not
dictate
the
exact
access
location.
It
left
it
open
for
that
to
be
decided
at
the
time
of
this
development.
C
N
O
Sabrina,
you
might
walk
through
this
again
because
I,
don't
I
think,
following
on
what
commissioner
Mooney
said
here,
without
any
access
to
Priest
Drive
for
the
majority
of
that
development,
I'm
not
seeing
how
this
is
relevant
at
all.
Frankly,.
R
Madam
chair,
commissioner
Blanchard.
The
idea
would
be
that
that
cross-access
would
provide
access
for
the
adjacent
parcel
to
pre-strive
through
this
property,
and
this
property
would
also
have
access
to
an
additional
point
on
Emerald
Street
in
the
event
that
its
access
is
restricted
to
write
and
write
out
in
the
future
foreign.
O
Blanchard,
so
what
would
the
likelihood
be,
though,
that
this
development
of
the
West
would
have
that
same
situation?
Come
up
where
they'd
be
restricted
to
write
in
right
out.
R
M
Okay,
if
there
are
no
further
questions,
we're
gonna
go
to
public
testimony.
Miss
Barbara,
Gordon
I
see
your
hand
up
online
I'm,
going
to
first
check
to
see
if
we
have
individuals
in
the
chambers
that
would
like
to
testify,
and
then
we
will
move
to
our
online
testimony.
So
do
we
have
anybody?
M
I
Kyle
ensler
and
address
is
4401
North
Eagle
Road
in
Boise.
Thank
you
for
your
service.
I
was
here
last
week,
late
and
and
so
I
know
you
were
all
here
late
and
I
appreciate
it.
It's
not
very
often
I've
been
to
a
few
of
these
meetings,
but
it's
normally
you're
getting
up
opposing
something
and
on
this
go
around
I
really
wanted
to
get
up
and
and
in
support
of
this
application.
I
I
I
think
for
those,
my
family's
fourth
generation
Idaho
and
and
for
those
that
know
this
area,
an
existing
business
has
been
here
for
years.
I
believe
the
applicant
is
is:
was
the
business
owner
supported
the
community
for
many
many
years,
provided
a
lot
of
jobs
in
the
community?
And
this
isn't
a
this?
Isn't
a
project
like
next
door
that
was
just
built
to
sell.
I
This
is
a
project
that
the
applicant
is
keeping,
and
so,
as
you
read
through
the
application,
there's
so
many
things
that
are
done,
Beyond
code,
they
went
over
and
above
on
parking.
They
went
over
and
above
on
their
design
for
the
subdivision
that
the
neighborhood,
the
multi-family
that
was
approved
next
door,
there's
20
of
those
kind
of
multi-family
projects
that
all
look
exactly
the
same
throughout
Boise
and
Meridian.
I
So
I
was
really
impressed
by
their
thoughtfulness
of
just
not
trying
to
just
Mass
produce
something
but
really
taking
care
for
for
the
community
that
they've
been
a
part
of
I.
You
know
the
other
thing
I
like
is
as
a
as
a
tree
person,
we're
very
involved
in
the
canopy
of
trees.
I
That
I
know
Boyce
is
a
part
of
I
know
that
the
mayor
is,
is
and
and
and
part
of
Boise's
goals
is
to
be
carbon,
free
and,
and
this
project
proposes
to
be
an
energy
star
project
which
costs
a
lot
more
to
build.
I
You
know
and
and
I
think
that's
just
responsible
development,
responsible
building
and
so
I
know
that
in
early
discussions
you
know
they
were
trying
to
avoid
having
the
access
into
the
subdivision.
I
think
it
was
80.
County
comments
came
back
and
and
requested
that
so
I
know
that
they've.
I
You
know
they're
they've,
been
concerned
for
the
neighbors
and
I
think
the
concern
of
the
neighborhood
is
that
if
the
access
is
open
to
the
other
multi-family,
which
has
less
parking
and
and
a
lot
of
their
parking
is
in
the
garage
is,
is
part
of
their
garage
space.
But
unfortunately,
as
we
know
in
in
some
of
these
multi-family
projects,
the
garage
space
is
utilized
for
storage,
so
they're
over
parked
as
it
is
and
I
think.
I
M
You
Kyle
do
we
have
anybody
else
in
the
house
here
that
would
like
to
testifying
this
project
okay
scene.
Then
we
will
move
on
to
our
online
testimony.
I
see
Miss
Gordon's
hand
up.
If
there's
anybody
else,
I
would
like
to
test
fanline.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand,
Miss
Gordon.
You
can
please
go
ahead
and
unmute
and
start
with
your
name
and
address.
You'll
have
three
minutes.
T
T
T
The
project
would
still
be
well
above
the
original
proposal
of
38
units
and
follow
Chapter
3
of
the
comp
plan
of
locating
taller
buildings
along
the
corridor
and
transition
to
lower
Heights.
As
the
development
approaches
adjacent
established
neighborhoods,
this
will
be
our
fifth
infield
project
on
West
priests
and
all
others
have
been
one
or
two
stories.
T
Second,
ask
Orient
the
north
most
units
of
the
project
with
the
street
facing
entry
so
as
to
establish
a
strong
visual
relationship
to
the
streets,
sidewalks
and
neighborhood
all
homes
and
developments
in
the
neighborhood
have
a
free,
Street
front
entrance,
including
the
marina
Townhomes
project
which
abuts
to
this
proposed
project.
Third,
slightly
modify
the
proposed
exit
and
interest
strategy
entrance
strategy
of
the
project
onto
west
Priest
Drive.
This
was
an
approval
condition
for
set
forth
by
the
commission
for
the
marina
Townhomes
project
to
reduce
the
number
of
vehicles
exiting
onto
west
priests.
T
That
project
accomplished
this
by
incorporating
a
curb
Green,
Space
amenity,
which
also
serves
as
a
barrier
and
allows
only
a
portion
of
the
vehicles
that
are
at
the
North
End
of
the
development
to
enter
and
exit
Via
West
priest,
the
remaining
vehicles
within
the
development
exit
out
onto
Emerald,
where
there
is
a
turning
lane.
This
was
done
due
to
concerns
of
safety
on
our
narrow
road
of
West
priests
and
congestion
at
the
outlet
onto
Cole
Road,
as
there
is
no
turning
lane
there.
T
There
are
also
no
bicycle
Lanes
on
coal
to
the
north
of
emerald.
Many
cyclists
and
pedestrians
use
West
priests
to
connect
to
nearby
pass
Park
employment
and
Commercial
centers
West
Thief
serves
as
an
informal
micro
pathway,
as
it
is
not
a
thorough
Street
for
vehicles
only
for
pedestrians
and
bicycles
to
the
West.
T
There
are
many
Transportation
burden,
families
in
the
area,
as
well
as
the
surrounding
bench
in
West
Boise
area
that
use
West,
Priest
Drive,
to
connect
to
Milwaukee
Street
and,
along
with
our
recent
local
developments,
there
is
a
Habitat
for
Humanity
development
of
12
Homes
at
the
Westin
benefiting
from
this
micropath
in
hopes
of
another
successful
infield
project.
I.
T
Ask
that
you
apply
the
infield
design
principle
stated
in
the
comprehensive
plan
relating
to
infield
guidance
for
our
neighborhood
locations,
to
ensure
compatibility
with
existing
character
of
surrounding
homes
and
to
maintain
safety
of
our
pathway
for
those
wishing
to
use
alternative
transportation.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
commission
Benjamin's.
M
Garden,
okay,
do
we
have
anybody
else
online
or
in
person
that
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item?
Okay
with
that,
then
we
will
move
to
rebuttal
from
the
applicant.
Q
And
rebuttal,
as
far
as
the
through
access
I,
don't
know
that
we
can
cut
that
off.
That's
basically
the
full
access
to
priests.
The
project
adjacent
to
us
had
the
open
space
was
entirely
different,
design,
breaking
this
and
parking
half
and
half,
so
some
people
would
have
to
access
their
parking
off.
Proof
would
be
in
practical
for
the
design,
as
is
perceived
so
I.
Just
want
to
point
that
out.
I
want
to
reiterate
the
cross
access
agreement
there.
It
was
a
condition
of
approval.
There
is
no
access
agreement
in
place.
Q
It
was
a
condition
of
approval
from
the
Pud
in
2016.,
so
that
would
have
to
be
negotiated
between
my
client
and
the
adjacent
Property
Owners
and
their
adjacent
property
was
approved
with
this,
the
units
with
Total
Access
onto
Emerald
by
achd,
and
they
do
not
need
the
access
through
the
priests
for
the
number
of
units
are
there
so
again,
I
asked
the
commission
to
approve
our
project
as
submitted
and
delete
item
number
two
for
the
cross
access
agreement,
as
it
is
no
longer
relevant
due
to
us
having
two
curb
Cuts.
Thank.
M
You
Mr
Clancy,
okay,
with
that
we
will
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing,
and
the
item
is
now
before
the
commission.
A
M
Great,
we
have
a
second
from
commissioner
Gillespie.
Would
you
like
to
start
the
conversation
commissioner
fin
frock
Madam.
H
Chair
I
think
the
project
complies
with
all
the
setbacks
and
parking
criteria
of
the
Zone.
The
height
is
in
compliance
with
the
code.
H
I
know
the
project
will
go
through
further
design
review
to
ensure
that
the
project
meets
certain
criteria
and
achd
is
already
reviewed
and
approved
the
project
so
and
they've
implemented
their
own
conditions.
That
will
have
also
be
implemented
in
the
conditions
of
approval
for
this
project.
So
I
think
the
cross
access
as
discussed
from
staff.
It
creates
that
connectivity
and
I
know
that's
a
goal
of
the
city
and
a
comprehensive
plan.
So
for
that
reason,
I
move
that
we
approve
this
project
with
that
condition.
H
Number
two,
as
the
staff
explain
that
they
feel
it's
necessary.
A
So
I
agree
with
commissioner
finfrock's
Point
I
am
amenable,
though,
and
I
think
we
should
talk
about
the
one
on
the
on
the
cross,
access
agreement,
I'm
always
for
cross
assets,
access
agreements
unless
it
damages
either
site,
and
in
this
case
I
don't
think
it
really
does
so.
I
agree
with
the
commissioner
friend
Brock
on
that
with
respect
to
the
northernmost
unit,
the
one
on
on
the
northernmost
unit
I'd
like
to
discuss
both
the
building
height
and
the
building
orientation.
A
My
view
is
a
three-story
building
on
a
street
is
compatible
with
other
single-family
dwellings
in
the
area
that
are
two
stars.
I,
just
don't
think
a
three-story
building
is,
is
per
se
incompatible
with
two-story
buildings
on
a
street,
so
I
don't
have
real
concerns
about
the
any
of
the
building
height.
I.
Do
want
to
talk
about
the
building
orientation
on
that
Northern
building
and
whether
it
should
be
turned
180
degrees
to
face
the
street,
because
I
think
that
does
really
make
a
difference
in
the
streetscape
on
on
I.
A
Guess
it's
peace
or
priests,
and
so
I
would
I
would
be
in
favor.
If
enough
of
us
want
to
do
it
of
flipping
that
Northern
building,
so
that
that
it
faces
North
onto
the
streetscape
kind
of,
does
a
better
job
in
that
Madam,
oh
by
the
way,
one
last
point:
Sorry,
Janelle,
okay,
I'm-
not
definitely
not
in
favor
of
chopping
the
parking
lot
into
so
that,
like
half
of
it
goes
north
and
half
of
the
traffic
goes
south
I
just
think.
A
M
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Finfrock.
H
I'm
just
wondering
if
this
is
maybe
more
appropriate
at
the
design
review
level
if
they
want
to
flip
it
or,
however,
they
want
to
manage
it
on
that
level
instead
of
maybe
here
in
under
this
committee
I'm,
just
maybe.
M
A
In
terms
of
design
requirements
and
and
if
it
is
it,
you
know
if
it
is,
the
applicant
can
come
back
to
us
and
make
argument
why
it's
onerous,
so
I'm
I'm
amenable
to
whatever
you
guys
want
to.
M
Well,
let's
hear
maybe
some
other
discussion
before
we
make
any
revisions
sure
commissioner
Mooney.
F
I'm
I'm
kind
of
concerned
about
doing
that
to
the
applicant
at
this
point
just
because
it
probably
cost
some
time
and
money
and
and
I'm,
not
necessarily
I'd,
rather
kick
it
to
the
design
review.
F
O
I
mean
I
agree
with
Mrs
Gordon
as
well
that
and
in
our
previous
discussion
here
tonight.
It's
just
like
I
hate
see
an
application.
Come
to
us
like
this,
where
the
building
is
clearly
not
oriented
properly,
it
should
be
oriented
the
street
and
it
shouldn't
have
come
to
us
like
this.
It's
clearly
not
simply
just
a
matter
of
flipping
the
building
around
they
do
this
because
they
don't
want
to
build
additional
staircase.
O
K
So
I
think
I
am
okay
with
the
building
as
oriented
I.
Think
fundamentally,
if
I'm
looking
at
the
elevations
of
that
particular
building
on
a
201,
it's
our
packet
page,
oh
golly,
to
us
207,
yeah
pack
of
page
207..
So
this
is
the
fundamentals
of
the
building
on
that
on
those
sides.
We've
got
a
porch,
we've
got
some
windows
and
then
the
access
to
the
building
doesn't
appear
on
any
of
the
elevations.
K
It's
kind
of
internal
in
that
kind
of
Breezeway
sort
of
feel
so
there's
there's
no
front
door
to
face,
regardless
of
what
orientation
we're
looking
at.
The
biggest
difference,
in
my
mind,
are
the
size
of
those
windows,
the
side
windows.
Maybe
those
windows
I'm
assuming
they're,
probably
in
bathrooms,
but
if
they're,
not,
maybe
those
windows
get
a
little
bit
bigger
or
something
like
that
to
give
it
more
of
a
Street,
Front
presence
but
fundamentally
I
think
you're
getting
something
very,
very
similar,
regardless
of
orientation.
M
I
mean
I
was
gonna,
say
I
think
actually
it
sounds
like
there
is
support
for
it.
If
the
maker
of
the
motion
wanted
to
change
promotion
and
also
it
sounds
like
you
know,
we've
put
it
clear
on
the
record
that
design
review
we're
asking
them
to
take
a
look
at
that
specifically,
so
I
would
leave
it
up
to
the
maker
of
the
motion.
H
H
What
did
they
feel
if
I
actually
make
a
added
condition
that
design
reviews
specifically
review
the
orientation
of
that
building
so
that
we
flag
it?
Is
that
I.
M
H
Appropriate
Madam
chair,
it's
can
I
get
some
clarification
on
what
I
should
call
that
building
the.
H
Madam
chair
aye
Michigan,
to
amend
my
motion
to
add
an
added
condition
that
design
reviews
specifically
review
and
address
the
northernmost
building
to
see
if
the
orientation
is
appropriate.
Second,.
M
Great,
so
we
have
a
revised.
Let's.
M
M
Immense
I
see:
okay,
so
first
we'll
vote
on
the
amendment
to
asking
design
review
to
look
at
the
most
northern
buildings
right
to
add
that
to
at
the
most
northern
buildings
orientation.
M
M
Great
so
now
we
have
on
the
table
a
motion
to
approve
PUD
22-43
for
Clancy,
Rockwell
and
Associates,
with
terms
and
conditions,
as
stated
in
the
staff
report,
also
asking
design
review
to
take
a
look
specifically
at
the
orientation
of
that
Northern
building.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
this
question?
Okay
with
that,
then
we
had.
The
motion
was
made
by
commissioner
finfrock
in
a
second
by
commissioner
Gillespie.
C
M
We're
starting
up
for
with
item
number
five:
this
is
car
22-44
for
Micron
Technology
Incorporated
at
8,
000,
South,
Federal,
Way
and
the
annexation
of
approximately
358.2
Acres
also
included
is
car
22-45
at
3851
East
Columbia
Road,
a
rezone
of
approximately
32.1
Acres
from
t1d
to
T2
d
d,
a
and
cup
22-58
for
Micron
Technology
Inc
at
8,
000,
South,
Federal
Way,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
height
exception
for
future
microchip
fabrication
building
and
two
gas
separation
columns
will
please
go
ahead
and
start
with
stuff,
Miss,
garlic.
U
Great
thank
you
good
evening,
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission
before
you
as
a
request
for
annexation,
rezone
and
a
height
exception.
The
existing
Micron
campus
is
generally
located
south
of
East
Columbia
Road
and
East
of
South
Federal
Way
in
the
Southeast
Boise
area.
The
campus
includes
existing
office
research
manufacturing
and
accessory
utility
uses.
The
surrounding
area
is
primarily
comprised
of
Industrial
and
Commercial
developments,
with
the
exception
of
painted
Ridge
residential
subdivision
to
the
Northeast,
which
is
over
1300
feet
away
from
the
annexation
boundary
and
even
further
away
from
the
development
footprint.
U
The
newly
annexed
area
will
provide
continuity
with
the
existing
campus
zoning
and
ensure
cohesive
and
predictable
development
pattern,
with
the
request
to
Annex
to
the
t2da
Zone.
A
concept
plan
which
identifies
internal
and
peripheral
areas
is
also
included.
This
is
consistent
with
how
we've
treated
the
existing
campus
through
ordinance
number
5952,
which
designates
the
outer
600
feet
of
the
campus
as
peripheral
and
all
other
areas
in
existing
structures,
as
internal
areas
within
the
peripheral
zones
are
subject
to
design
interview,
while
development
within
the
internal
era
would
be
exempt.
U
A
development
agreement
is
included
with
the
annexation
due
to
the
specific
use
and
location
of
this
property.
This
provides
assurances
that
the
goals
of
the
neighborhood
will
be
supported
in
any
modifications
that
occur,
another
public
hearing
would
be
required.
The
draft
agreement
is
provided
and
at
its
heart,
the
da
ties,
this
annexation
and
rezone
to
conceptual
plans.
Sustainability
features
and
specifies
future
coordination
for
roadway
pathway
and
phasing.
U
The
expansion
of
the
campus
requires
a
conditional
use
permit,
for
height
exception,
for
two
facilities
to
exceed
the
maximum
height
of
150
feet
in
the
t2d
zone.
The
Fab
building
will
be
approximately
160
feet.
Tall
with
175
foot
tall
utility
stock
height
and
the
gas
plant
will
have
two
gas
columns
at
approximately
185
feet.
U
The
Fab
building
will
be
compatible
with
the
surrounding
areas.
Nearby
structures
on
campus
are
approximately
130
feet.
Tall
Additionally,
the
gas
plant
and
Associated
columns
are
largely
unoccupied
in
our
accessory
to
the
Fab.
These
columns
are
narrow
with
limited
massing
and
there
are
similar
columns
at
148
feet
height
in
the
existing
campus,
given
the
size
of
the
project
site,
the
location
of
the
fat
building
and
the
gas
columns
internal
to
the
Micron
campus
exceeding
all
building
setback
requirements,
the
height
exceptions
requested
will
not
adversely
affect
property
in
the
nearby
vicinity.
U
V
V
Thank
you.
So,
first
and
foremost,
what
you
often
hear
is
the
Fab
and
what
you
see
in
front
of
you.
The
Fab
is
actually
located
about
bottom
middle
of
the
layout
and
what
the
Fab
is
is
basically
the
fabrication
process
on
the
campus
and
that
will
consist
of
600
000
square
feet
of
clean
room
space
that
will
be
built
out
over
four
phases
in
the
next
10
years.
V
So
supporting
the
Fab.
There
are
multiple
other
structures
around
it
and
so
moving
to
the
west
of
the
Fab
I'll
start
there.
There
is
going
to
be
a
support.
Building
that
is
built
attached
to
building
51,
which
is
about
92
000
square
feet
of
support
space
that
that
building
will
be
connected
to
what
we
call
the
probe
building,
which
is
south
of
that
that
probe
building
it
will
include
about
85
000
square
feet
of
cleanroom
space
and
that's
about
350
000
square
feet
in
total.
V
That
probe
building
is
where
we
do
our
final
step
in
our
testing
to
make
sure
our
semiconductor
Parts
pass
before
we
move
them
on
to
assembly
and
test,
and
that
building
will
also
include
our
automated
Material
Handling
system
that
will
carry
Wafers
back
and
forth
between
TD
or
technology
development
building
51
as
well
into
our
fabrication.
Building
attached
to
the
probe,
building
to
the
West
will
be
our
administration
building
that
will
be
about
440
000
square
feet
and
that
building
will
house
about
2
and
workplaces,
as
well
as
a
fitness
center.
V
A
Wellness
Center,
cafeteria
conference
space
and
and
such
attached
to
the
admin
building
and
the
pro
building
will
be
a
parking
garage
that
will
be
necessary
in
order
to
support
the
parking
needs
of
this
campus.
So
then
moving
past
to
the
west
and
then
kind
of
traveling
to
the
East.
Do
you
see
the
Fab
south
of
the
Fab,
but
you
see
a
structure
called
production
support.
That's
about
350
000
square
feet
of
a
building.
That
is
where
our
chemicals
and
our
gases
are
housed.
That
will
support
the
fabrication
process.
V
Then
moving
north
of
the
Fab.
You
see
a
central
utility
building
that
is
about
450
000
square
feet
and
what
that
building
is
it's
comprised
of
the
facility's
mechanical
equipment
required
to
operate
the
Fab
and
then
continuing
to
move
north
of
that
you
see
the
water
treatment,
building,
that's
about
620
000
square
feet
and
that
building
is
where
we'll
do
additional
water
treatment.
V
Before
we
discharge
that
water
to
another
additional
water
treatment
process,
so
continuing
to
move
to
the
east,
now
you
see
the
electrical
yard
that
will
be
where
the
Transformers
and
the
electrical
systems
are
housed
that
are
required
to
support
this.
This
expansion,
that
equipment
will
be
run
by
Idaho,
Power
and
then
moving
additionally
to
the
east
is
the
gas
plant.
That's
where
those
gas
separation
columns
are
the
Delaney
spoke
of
and
then
moving
to
the
north
of
there.
You
see
a
couple
of
additional
parking
lots.
V
You
see
two
buildings
for
construction
areas,
support
and
then
moving
over
back
to
the
West
UC
vendor
space,
a
vendor,
warehouse
and
then
finally,
to
wrap
all
of
this
up,
we'll
also
be
building
out
a
mask
manufacturing
facility
and
that's
located
north
of
that
water
treatment
and
vendor
space,
and
that's
comprised
about
30
000
square
feet
of
clean
room
space.
So
as
you've
probably
read
in
the
news,
when
you
hear
a
Fab,
that's
that's
one
of
these
facilities,
but
will
require
many
other
facilities
to
provide
the
support
necessary
to
operate.
V
That
Fab
So
speaking
of
the
Fab
I,
do
want
to
touch
on
some
exciting
sustainability
benefits
that
Micron
has
committed
to.
Hopefully
you
all
had
the
opportunity
to
read
our
sustainability
report
this
spring.
We
did
make
the
commitment
that
a
hundred
percent
of
this
facility
will
be
run
by
renewable
energy
by
2025,
and
that's
not
just
for
the
site
here
in
Boise
Idaho,
that's
for
all
U.S
manufacturing
sites,
so
we're
committed
to
hitting
that
Target
The
Fab
will
also
be
lead.
L
Sorry,
annexation
application
requests,
the
annexation
of
358
Acres
with
the
t2d
zoning
designation.
This
area
is
already
adjacent
to
the
current
campus
immediately
to
the
east.
The
annexation
is
proper
under
the
applicable
standards
because
it
is
contiguous
to
the
current
city
limits
and
within
the
city's
area
of
Impact.
Services
are
also
available
to
serve
the
project
expansion.
Based
on
the
comments
that
you've
received
in
the
record,
the
requested
T2
zoning
is
also
proper.
L
Thus,
the
Zone
provides
continuity
with
the
zoning
and
the
rest
of
the
campus
and
the
interior,
and
also
the
comprehensive
plan
supports
T2
zoning.
Here.
The
project
will
fulfill
comprehensive
plan
goals
to
support
the
expansion
of
existing
businesses,
provide
sufficient
land
zone
for
High-Tech
Industries
and
to
promote
stable
and
clean
Industries.
L
The
applicant
has
done
a
traffic
impact
study
that
does
recommend
some
mitigation
improvements
at
a
few
intersections
to
improve
turning
delays
at
peak
times
and
Micron
will
construct
all
mitigation
projects
that
are
required
by
achd
and
itd,
based
on
the
traffic
study.
Consistent
with
the
conditions
of
approval,
Micron
will
also
continue
to
work
with
achd
and
the
city
on
future
Road
improvements
in
the
area,
achd's
Capital
Improvements
plan
does
currently
show
a
future
road
to
connect
up
from
the
eisenmann
exit
up
to
Columbia
Road.
That
would
provide
additional
access
and
support
for
the
larger
area.
L
The
rezone
application
is
a
is
a
small
area
that
that
triangle,
that's
highlighted
in
blue
there
we're
requesting
the
city
to
rezone
32
Acres
within
the
existing
campus
from
T1
to
T2,
again
to
be
consistent
with
the
surrounding
zoning
of
the
other
of
the
rest
of
the
campus.
This
is
supported
by
the
comprehensive
plan
which
designates
this
area
as
industrial
and
compatible
with
the
surrounding
zoning.
L
And
finally,
as
Delaney
mentioned,
our
final
application
is
the
conditional
use
permit,
for
a
height
exception,
limited
to
just
the
two
facilities,
the
Fab
and
the
gas
separation
Towers.
On
the
gas
plant,
the
Fab
would
be
up
to
160
feet
in
height
with
utility
Stacks
up
to
175.
The
gas
separation
Towers
would
be
up
to
185
feet
and
the
height
of
those
Towers
is
required
to
produce
the
quantity
and
grade
of
gases
that's
required
in
the
chip
manufacturing
process.
These
sites
are
compatible
with
surroundings.
L
There
are
some
existing
Towers
power,
poles
and
buildings
in
the
area
that
range
100
feet
to
up
to
130
feet.
These
buildings
also,
notably,
are
internal
to
the
area
of
the
campus,
with
5000
feet
from
the
Fab
and
3
400
feet
from
the
gas
Towers
to
the
closest
residential
use.
The
site
is
large
enough
to
support
the
use
and
they
requested
height
exception.
The
campus
will
be
approximately
1050
Acres,
with
the
annexation,
making
the
site
large
enough
to
create
these
significant
buffer
areas.
With
that
we'll
stand
for
any
questions
and
appreciate
your
support.
Thank.
M
You
Miss
Nelson
and
Miss
Elroy
with
that
we
will
check
to
see
if
we
have
and
just
double
check
here,
yeah
it
would
be
Cena.
Do
we
have
a
representative
from
Cena
here,
With
Us,
online
or
in
person.
M
H
Madam
chair,
commissioner
fin
frog:
I
just
have
one
for
the
city.
There
was
reference
in
our
correspondence
I
believe
it
was
late
correspondence
in
our
packets,
that
discussed
the
airport
influence
area
b
and
a
and
I
think
they
had
a
maybe
an
opportunity
to
comment,
but
I
didn't
see.
The
response
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
there
was
what
the
issue
was
or
what,
how
that
outcome
to
that.
U
Yeah
Madam
chair
commissioner
finprock.
This
area
is
within
the
airport
influence
area.
We
did
have
comment
from
the
airport.
What
would
be
required
is
a
separate
request
for
the
height
with
the
FAA,
which
I
believe
Micron
is
currently
working
on.
Thank
you.
C
K
K
U
F
Got
a
question
about
for
staff
about
groundwater:
the
did
the
I
understand.
There's
a
Southeast
Boise
groundwater
Management
Area
advisory
committee.
Today,
chime
in
on
this
I
guess
responding
to
possible
concerns
about
the
aquifer
and
wells
in
the
area,
especially
as
it
goes
out
to
the
West
Northwest
of
there.
U
F
C
F
The
tis
there's
discussions,
it
seems
like
Federal
and
burgessin,
and
federal
and
Amity
were
the
two
intersections
that
of
of
greatest
concern
for
future
traffic
issues,
but
I
noticed
the
tis
was
was
littered
with
the
standard,
tis
stuff
and
the
same
company.
That
does
that.
Did
that
also
has
a
active,
Transportation
group,
but
there
wasn't
very
little
in
the
study
regarding
traffic
and
future
impact
on
the
surroundings
that
multimodal
Transit
bikes
in
particular
would
be
impacted
and
how
we
can
mitigate
that
as
it
goes
ahead.
U
Madam
chair,
commissioner
Mooney,
as
you
noted,
the
tis
does
oftentimes
focus
in
on
that
vehicular
traffic
impact.
As
far
as
consideration
for
multimodal,
we
did
include
in
the
da
that
future
Pathways
and
other
Road
connectivity
be
brought
forward
at
a
future
date.
I
think
they
did
know,
there's
in
the
plans
with
achd
to
have
some
kind
of
connection
from
the
Eisenman
interchange
up
to
Columbia
the
location
of
that
road.
U
The
details
of
that
we
don't
have
at
this
time,
but
we
did
want
to
be
sure
we
get
that
back
in
front
of
us
when
that
does
come
to
light.
Additionally,
VRT
does
identify
this
area
for
a
future.
Transit
stop
again.
We
didn't
don't
have
the
information
today
in
front
of
us,
but
we'll
continue
to
encourage
VRT
to
create
you
know,
Transit
routes
that
would
incorporate
the
micro
on
campus.
M
Okay,
seeing
no
further
questions
we'll
now
move
to
public
testimony
thanks
since
garlic
and
thank
you
to
the
applicant
I
if
you
are
in
if
you're
online
and
would
like
to
test
famine
side
and
please
virtually
raise
your
hand
if
you
are
in
person
and
would
like
to
testify
inside
and
please
just
come
right
on
up
to
the
podium.
W
Good
evening,
Madam,
chairman
and
and
committee
members,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
service.
I
appreciate
it
so
I'm,
a
retired
Naval
flight
officer
and
Naval
intelligence
officer,
I
moved
here
about
three
years
ago.
My
son
Everett,
is
with
me
tonight.
We
moved
from
Washington
DC
after
I
served
a
tour
in
the
Pentagon
I've
lived
in
a
lot
of
dense
Urban
environments
in
my
life,
including
Seoul,
Korea
and
suburbs
of
Tokyo
and
San
Diego
and
Washington
DC
and
I
retired
to
Boise,
because
I
did
not
want
to
retire
to
a
dense
environment.
W
I
chose
to
purchase
a
home
at
the
end
of
this
street
at
the
end
of
a
Columbia
Road,
pretty
far
away
from
the
development.
That's
farthest
away
from
the
Micron
facility.
W
W
W
I
do
have
concerns
about
the
details
of
the
deal
with
the
city.
I
I've
read
on
what
benefits.
Micron
says
that
they're
giving
the
the
community,
but
I
would
like
to
make
sure
that
we
have
all
those
all
that
information,
because
it
sounds
great,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
they
don't
pass
the
costs
on
to
us
in
taxes
and
cost
of
living.
It
always
sounds
good
in
the
beginning,
and
then
it
ends
up
being
harder
for
everybody
and
I
didn't
move
here
to
have
a
Fab
plant
put
right.
W
Next
to
my
house,
when
I
lived
in
Washington
DC
Everett
used
to
ride
his
bike
in
the
street,
we
were
on
the
end
of
a
cul-de-sac,
and
cars
would
come
flying
by
and
then
we'd
get
notes.
Yeah
yelling
about
him
riding
his
bike
on
the
sidewalk,
so
I
moved
out
in
the
middle
of
nowhere.
I
thought
now
I'm
going
to
have
a
Fab
plant
right
down
the
street,
so
I
would
like
to
have
some
kind
of
buffer
put
in
between
these
facilities
and
the
different
developments
that
are
out
there.
W
Some
sort
of
Nature
Preserve
I
have
a
wildlife
game
in
my
backyard.
I
have
a
bobcat
out
there
all
the
time.
If
we
don't
do
that,
we're
going
to
lose
that
kind
of
thing
so
anyway,
I
don't
want
to
mark
it.
Next
to
my
house,
I
don't
want
to
make
another
manufacturing
plant
I,
don't
want
an
apartment.
I,
don't
want
a
train
station.
I,
don't
want
any
of
those
things,
and
you
may
be
thinking
about
all
those
things
and
I.
Don't
want
that.
M
X
I'm
Neil
Mercer,
my
address
is
6920
East
oblisks
and
that's
a
same
neighborhood
as
him
by
chance.
I'd
like
to
also
speak
about
this
kind
of
on
the
same
vein
as
what
he
was
just
speaking
about.
We
know
this
is
inevitable
right,
like
my
friends
is
going
to
move
in
there
and
that's
how
it's
going
to
be
all
I
ask
is
that
we
do
this.
The
the
right
way
I
can't
help
but
notice.
She
talked
about
achd
recommendations,
but
I
haven't
seen
any
recommendations
from
achd.
X
So
I'd
like
to
understand
that
better
before
we
continue
on,
because
there's
no
reason
not
to
have
that.
I
know
that
it's
not
law
or
statuette,
saying
that
you
are
required
to
have
an
achd
recommendation,
but
it
has
been
common
per
course
in
the
past
and
I.
Don't
know
why
there
wouldn't
be
something
along
those
lines.
X
Now
going
along
with
some
of
the
a
similar
vein
as
Mr
overcash
there,
we
will
be
paying
the
taxes,
so
Micron
I'm
guessing
got
a
pretty
big
tax
break,
at
least
from
my
understanding
for
moving
in
here,
which
is
you
know
great,
but
I
don't
see
that
happening
with
Captain
comets
off
Vista
I,
don't
see
that
happening
at
Ishtar,
you
know
the
Mediterranean
food
down
there
that
they're
not
getting
those
tax
breaks
and
there's
been
supplying.
X
You
know
work
for
the
community
as
well
as
tax
revenue
for
the
community
for
how
many
years,
let's
not
say
that
Micron
won't.
But
that
being
said,
there's
plenty
of
other
businesses
that
have
not
had
the
same
are
not
getting
the
same
breaks
as
what
Micron
is
getting.
So
that
leaves
the
tax
burden
for
the
various
plannings
up
to
the
neighborhoods
and
of
Boise,
and
some
of
the
benefits
that
we
don't
seem
to
be
getting
out
in
off
the
East
Columbia.
X
Is
we
don't
have
the
same
amount
of
park
space
around
us?
We
don't
have
as
many
like
Road
access
to
21
is
negligible.
We
got
the
one
road
there
that
when
you
do
have
a
biker
on
it,
I'll
be
damned
if
I
don't
hit
him
almost
every
single
time.
Luckily,
right
now
the
traffic
is
slow,
so
you
can
make
way
for
the
bikers
and
it
goes
pretty
smoothly.
X
However,
we
also
know
that
there's
a
900
there's
a
plat
for
900,
more
homes
and
even
more
in
the
Southeast
Boise,
eventually
coming
out
there,
which
is
going
to
increase
even
more
traffic
flow
there
on
Colombia
and
that
road
is
just
not
wide
enough,
and
so
my
taxes
will
go
to
pay
for
that,
but
not
microns
who
is
developing
there,
so
some
kind
of
working
with
achd
and
maybe
get
a
more
comprehensive
plan
for
that.
X
Additionally,
I'd
like
to
bring
up
the
issue
of
schools,
we've
got
Trail
Wind
Elementary
out
there,
which
is
already
kind
of
oversized,
and
if
we
are
planning
for
the
future,
like
I,
would
expect
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Community
to
do
or
has
been
doing
well
in
the
past.
We
need
to
start
planning
for
another
school
out
there
at
some
point
with
those
999
100
other
homes
coming
plus
more
development.
X
South
of
that
whole
area-
eventually,
there
are
other
developers
that
have
land
out
there
and
I
know
that
they
are
planning
on
use
that
using
that
so
I
just
ask
that
we
slow
the
process
down,
make
sure
we're
dotting
all
the
eyes
and
Crossing
all
the
t's.
I
know
it's
inevitable
and
I.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Y
Y
Like
many,
my
family
moved
to
the
Southeast
Boise
east
of
Micron
for
the
peace
and
quiet
it
offers
the
beautiful
Oregon
Trail
and
the
dark
night
skies.
This
Fab
plant
will
take
away
a
lot
of
what
we
love
about
the
area,
cause
it
to
be
more
dangerous
for
the
homeowners
and
lower
our
home
values.
Y
Y
So
my
request
would
be
that
the
acdh
road
that
has
been
discussed
that
that
be
built
before
the
plant
is
up
and
running
so
that
if
there
is
a
pop-up
fire
that
we
won't
have
2000
plus
additional
possible
seventeen
thousand
other
workers
in
the
facility
and
all
the
homeowners
with
one
Road
or
we
can't
get
in
and
out.
My
second
question
has
to
do
with
something
already
discussed
as
well.
Commuting.
I
am
a
regular
bicycle
commuter,
perhaps
the
one
that
you
try
and
hit
every
day
the
north
side
of
Columbia
Road
into
technology.
Y
Third
question
has
to
do
with
the
conditional
use
permit
for
the
height
exemption.
It
was
discussed
already
with
the
airport,
but
I'm
just
curious,
a
little
bit
about
the
185
foot
structures.
If
that's
going
to
change
the
angle
at
which
planes
have
to
come
in
if
it
causes
them
to
go
a
little
bit
steeper
and
that
will
increase
the
noise
for
Boise
residents.
Y
Fourth
question:
will
the
power
lines
that
are
currently
in
the
annexed
area
be
moved
and
if
so,
where
would
they
be
moved?
Would
they
be
next
to
the
homes
in
the
neighboring
development,
and
my
final
question
has
to
do
with
the
wildlife
in
the
area
as
discussed
before
we
have
a
lot
of
mule
deer,
wolves
and
other
animals
and
I'm
just
curious
how
the
structures
would
be
influencing
the
movement
of
wildlife
in
the
area.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
M
You
Mr
sebola,
do
we
have
anybody
else
in
the
room
that
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item?
Okay,
I,
don't
see
any
hands
online,
so
I
will
make
a
last
call.
Is
there
anybody
online?
That
would
like
to
testify
for
this
item.
L
Members
of
the
commission,
I
think
Delaney
did
a
great
job
answering
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
came
up
from
the
commission
and
I
think
addressed
a
lot
of
those
the
questions
you
had,
especially
you
know:
coordination
with
brt
on
future
Transit
opportunities
in
this
area
that
micron's
very
interested
in
and
supportive
of,
and
appreciate
the
comments
from
the
neighbors
and
their
participation
that
recognizing
the
importance
of
the
jobs,
even
when
nobody
likes
having
new
growth
and
activity
near
their
homes,
but
I
think
that's.
What's
really
important.
L
L
That's
contemplated
and
supported
for
this
use
in
your
comprehensive
plan
providing
those
additional
high-tech
areas
that
are
zoned
appropriately
to
support
the
expansion
of
businesses
where
you've
got
support
of
of
services,
and
so
the
buffers
that
will
be
created
to
the
residential
areas
are
significant
not
only
from
the
annexation
area
but
from
the
development
footprint,
in
particular
the
conditional
use
permit
towers,
and
so
it
there
is
sufficient
mitigation
in
place
just
through
those
conditions
alone.
L
To
address
a
lot
of
their
concerns
of
having
this
as
a
new
neighbor,
we
will
be
continuing
to
to
work
with
achd
in
the
city
on
the
future
road
that
was
discussed
about
the
timing,
for
that
currently,
achd
does
have
that
in
their
Capital
Improvements
plan
for
construction
in
2036
to
40..
It
is
not
needed
to
support
the
trips
from
this
development,
as
is
supported
by
the
traffic
impact
study,
but
it
will.
It
is
of
interest
to
to
Micron
to
have
that
in
place.
L
We
know
it's
of
interest
to
the
neighbors
to
have
that
in
place.
The
existing
conditions
that
were
spoken
of
of
them
being
essentially
at
the
end
of
a
long
cul-deck,
exist
now.
That's
where
those
residents
were
put
that
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
this
campus
expansion,
but
we'd
like
to
be
part
of
that
solution
in
the
future.
To
try
to
alleviate
that
concern.
L
Achd
has
accepted
the
tis
as
final.
They
did
provide
review
comments
back
and
forth
with
the
traffic
engineer
and
have
that
refined
and
they
did
accept
it
as
final
and
they
will
be
providing
additional
comments
on
that.
But
no
further
changes
will
be
required
to
the
traffic
impact
study
so
that
there
will
be
movement
of
there
will
be
additional
power
lines
added
to
the
site
to
support
this.
Just
like
there's
new
substation
infrastructure
that
was
outlined
on
the
plan.
L
So,
yes,
there
will
be
additional
energy
infrastructure,
that's
added
to
support,
as
would
be
expected.
There
are
existing
power
lines
out
there
now
and
they'll
be
consistent
with
the
the
height
and
appearance
of
what
is
there
now
for
school
impacts.
There
was
a
question
or
comment
about
that.
Obviously
we're
not
adding
residential
use
with
this
with
these
applications,
the
additional
activity
around
the
site
at
this
point
is
employee
activity
and,
to
the
extent,
there's
additional
housing.
L
That's
added
to
address
those
concerns
in
the
future,
then
that
would
be
an
opportunity
to
address
the
services
associated
with
that
growth,
but
certainly
education,
support
and
general
Community
Support
is
Paramount
for
micron
and
they
will
continue
to
be
partners
with
the
city
and
the
community
as
those
applications
come
forward
in
the
future
or
any
future
discussion
about
those
I
I.
Think
that's
all
I've
got
on
my
list.
So,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
listening
and
we
ask
for
your
support.
M
You
Miss
Nelson,
so
with
that
we
will
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing
and
items
before
the
commission.
Just
a
reminder
to
Commissioners
that
we're
looking
for
a
recommendation
on
car
2244,
ncar
2245
with
then
approve
or
deny
cop
2258.
M
Second
great,
we
have
a
motion
from
commissioner
Gillespie
and
a
second
from
commissioner
Moore.
Commissioner
glassy,
would
you
like
to
start
the
discussion.
A
Madam,
chairman
I'm,
so
you
know
on
the
height
exception,
or
the
the
reason
for
the
cup
I'm
in
agreement
with
the
applicant
that
it's
both
necessary
for
this
application
as
well.
As
you
know,
it's
almost
it's
more
than
a
half
a
mile
away
from
existing
residential
subdivision,
and
it
seems
like
all.
C
A
Know,
I'm
pretty
sure
the
FAA
and
everybody's
going
to
figure
all
that
out,
so
the
cup
is
fairly
straightforward.
A
A
Out
at
the
end
of
the
Columbia,
Road
and
Jay
story
was
the
chairman:
actually
the
guy
who
who
talked
and
I
voted
no
because
and
I
said
at
the
time
I
said:
there's
no
there's
no
Road
planning,
there's
no
school
planning,
there's
no
mixed
use,
there's
no
there's!
No
anything!
It
was
just
a
sub.
At
the
end
of
a
very,
very,
very
long
straw
and
the
developer
wasn't
interested
in
comprehensive
planning
the
landowners
out.
There
aren't
interested
in
doing
a
Harris,
Ranch
style
plant.
A
A
The
conditions
there
in
that
area
have
just
not
come
together
to
do
that
style
of
planning,
and
so,
while
I
agree
with
some
of
the
comments
in
sort
of
an
academic
planning,
sense
I,
don't
think
it's
a
reason
to
hold
up
this
application
and
indeed
there's
a
real
question
as
to
whether
the
city
can
hold
up
any
application
just
because
it
doesn't
do
some
of
the
things
that
folks
want
to
do
in
the
planning
process.
So
that's
where
I'm
at
just
a
little
color,
because
everything
comes
back
around.
M
Great
any
other
comments
or
discussion
manager,
commissioner
Moore.
K
Just
to
touch
on
I
think
there's
a
comment
about
a
buffer
between
the
development
and
the
adjacent
residential
and
I.
Think
that
is
one
item
that
the
city
is
working
with
Micron
on
in
their
development
agreement.
There's
that
internal
and
peripheral
area,
so
you've
got
that
internal
area
and
I
forget
how
big
the
buffer
is.
It's
a
pretty
significant,
several
hundred
feet
internal
area,
it's
kind
of
like
a
huge
setback
that
anything
inside
outside
of
that
internal
area.
K
O
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
blade
insurance
I
just
want
to
thank
all
of
you
for
showing
up.
We
were
chuckling
between
us
earlier
that
this
is
a
15
billion
dollar
project
and
we
had
three
people
show
up
to
to
talk
about
it.
So
thank
you
for
taking
time
to
come
out
and
say
your
peace.
F
F
Ditto
and
to
commissioner
Gillespie's
comments
about
the
cul-de-sac
development
at
the
end
of
the
road
there
Columbia
Road
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
over
the
last
couple
years,
working
with
achd
on
neighborhood
stuff,
and
we
won
the
master
street
map
battle
last
Wednesday.
So
for
the
folks
here
that
were
concerned
about
Columbia
Road
and
in
this
development
agreement,
there's
obviously
assurances
Micron
will
work
with
achg
in
the
city
to
get
it
right.
It
might
not
happen
in
the
timing.
F
We
expect
but
achd
last
Wednesday
added
a
stub
Road
from
Columbia
North
to
Highway
21
as
part
of
their
plan,
so
they're
we're
getting
better
about
cracking
the
nut
between
achd
and
the
city
and
to
commissioner
Gillespie's
comments
about
a
long-range
planning.
We
can't
force
that,
but
in
this
case
I
think
we
we
did
make
some
Headway
there.
M
Yeah
great
okay,
with
that
we
have
before
us
emotion
to
recommend
approval
for
car
22-44,
recommended
approval
for
car
22-45
and
approved
cop
22-58
for
Micron
Technology.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.