►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission - 5/20/2020
Description
Please visit the following link for information on how to testify during virtual public hearings:
https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/finance-and-administration/city-clerk/virtual-meetings/
A
As
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you'll
be
called
upon
and
unmuted.
We
will
ask
if
you
have
slides
to
share
or
if
you
can
use
the
planner
slides
for
your
visuals.
If
you
have
your
own
slides,
your
role
will
change
to
panelist.
This
may
log
you
off
for
a
moment
and
log
you
back
in
and
then
you'll
have
the
capabilities
to
share
your
screen,
a
quick
overview
for
zoom.
A
The
capabilities
and
options
are
different,
depending
on
which
device
you're,
using
if
you're
on
a
smart
phone
you'll
be
limited
to
only
speaking
and
sharing
your
camera.
If
you're
on
a
computer,
you
can
share
your
webcam
if
you
have
one
or
your
screen
when
called
upon
some
laptops
might
not
have
microphone
capabilities.
If
you
wish
to
speak
over
the
phone
but
wish
but
watch
on
your
computer,
the
phone
number
for
the
hearing
is
listed
on
the
email
you
received
when
registering
for
tonight's
hearing,
for
both
smartphone
and
computer
participation.
A
There
is
a
chat
function
in
zoom.
This
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
If
the
chat
function
isn't
available
for
you,
you
can
email
zoning
info
at
City
of
Boise
org
with
any
technical
issues.
Our
procedures
for
the
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.
A
After
that,
we
proceed
to
the
public
hearings
public,
starting
with
those
who
have
signed
up
on
the
electronic
signup
sheet
in
advance,
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hands
virtually
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
We
will
provide
a
30-second
warning
and
then
stop
you
at
three
minutes.
We
are
strict
with
this
time
as
it
is
limited
in
code,
then
the
applicant
is
allowed
five
minutes
for
rebuttal,
after
which
the
hearing
will
be
closed
and
a
commission
will
deliberate
and
render
a
decision.
A
B
And
I
had
unmuted
my
computer,
but
my
phone-
maybe
not,
can
you
guys
hear
me
now?
Should
I
start
at
that
part
again?
Yes,
okay.
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
reasons,
annexations
and
code
or
comprehensive
plan
amendments.
Any
decisions
made
tonight
may
be
appealed
by
the
City
Council,
provided
that
the
appeal
is
filed
within
10
days
of
the
hearing.
B
In
order
to
file
an
appeal
you
must
have
given
written
or
oral
testimony
at
tonight's
meeting.
So
that's
why
it's
important
to
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
testify
tonight,
we
utilize
a
consent
agenda.
That
means
that
if
the
applicant
agrees
with
the
staff
report-
and
there
are
no,
there
is
no
public
opposition.
The
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
motion.
B
Without
further
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
consent
agenda,
we
will
hold
a
full
public
hearing
in
the
order
just
detailed
a
few
minutes
ago
with
staff
applicant,
Neighborhood,
Association
and
then
the
public
testimony
and
before
we
move
on
I
want
to
also
thank
Commissioner
suckers
Eckerman
who's
been
our
student
Commissioner
this
year,
I
have
been
been
a
really
wonderful
addition
to
the
Commission,
and
we
wish
him
all
the
best
of
luck
going
forward.
Thank
you
bad.
So
thank
you
all
for
virtually
attending
tonight
and
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
roll
stood.
C
D
A
F
B
Okay,
so
we'll
move
on
to
the
consent
agenda
and
the
first
item
for
consideration
is
item
number
1,
which
is
CV
a
2012
Boise
City
Parks
and
Recreation
at
ooh.
Six,
nine,
zero
notice,
North
Harrison,
Hall
Harrison
hollow
Lane,
and
this
is
a
variance
and
is
the
applicant
here.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
B
B
G
B
This
is
item
number
one,
so
it
will
be
the
first
item,
but
but
now
is
not
the
appropriate
time
for
for
testimony
if
you
would
like
to
if
you
would
like
to
test
it,
but
you
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
of
this
project
tonight,
though,
just
absolutely
clear.
No.
B
Okay,
if
you
don't
mind
just
hanging
a
few
minutes,
so
we
get
through
the
consent
agenda
and
then
we'll
return
to
item
number
one.
So
item
number
one
will
not
be
on
the
consent
agenda.
So
the
next
item
for
consideration
is
item
number
two,
which
is
SOS
2012
Cynthia
Boclair
at
three:
eight:
zero,
nine
North
Collister
Drive.
This
is
a
waiver
to
waiver
to
the
subdivision.
Ordinance
requirement
is
the
applicant
present.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
great
and
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report.
B
Okay,
seeing
none
we
will
place
item
2
on
the
consent
agenda.
The
next
item
for
consent
agenda-
consideration
is
item
3c?
U
P,
2016
ALC
architecture
at
1303,
North,
Maple,
Grove
Road.
This
is
a
modification
to
previously
approved
conditional
use.
Permit
is
the
applicant
present
great
and
is
the
applicant
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
Yes,.
H
B
Okay,
seeing
then
we
will
place
item
three
on
the
consent
agenda
and
the
next
item
for
consideration
is
item
number
five.
This
is
pewdie
to
zero.
Eleven
and
CVA
20-13
JME
co-investments
LLC
at
407
to
1
North,
Maple,
Grove,
Road
and
nine
zero
four
five
west
MacKinnon
Road
mckellen
Road.
This
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
residential,
planned
development
and
is
the
applicant
present.
B
B
See
that
hand
raised
again
so
I'm
taking
that
as
an
affirmative,
and
if
is
there
anybody
here
tonight
that
is
here
to
testify
in
opposition
of
this
item
tonight.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand,
okay,.
B
B
I
D
B
Seeing
then
we
will
place
item
6
on
the
consent
agenda.
The
final
item
for
consideration
of
the
consent
agenda
item
number
7,
which
is
PUD
0
1
0,
any
Thompson
construction,
9,
4,
0,
1
and
9
4
0,
5
West,
you
stick
roads.
This
is
the
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development.
Is
the
applicant
present.
J
B
J
B
C
L
B
And
so
we
had
a
motion
from
Commissioner
Schaefer
in
a
second
from
Commissioner
Bratton
over
will
the
journey
discussion?
C
D
K
B
H
H
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
from
the
landscape
design
standards
that
require
a
planter,
Island
every
10
parking
spaces
and
for
the
service
drive
associated
with
the
new
Harrison
Hollow
Park
trailhead
parking
lot
to
encroach
into
the
side
yard
setback
right
here.
The
variances
demet
are
demonstrated
on
the
site
plan.
The
site
currently
contains
the
Harrison
Hollow
trail
head,
which
is
unimproved,
and
the
public
currently
uses
the
private
parking
lot
adjacent
to
the
site.
H
The
variances
to
the
landscape,
design
standards
and
to
the
site
setback
will
allowed
the
existing
trailhead
to
be
improved
with
a
dedicated
parking
lot
and
a
public
restroom.
The
exceptional
circumstance
that
justifies
the
variance
from
the
design
or
from
the
landscape
standards
that
require
planter
island
every
10
spaces
is
the
poor
drainage
associated
with
the
site
to
accommodate
the
site,
drainage
the
applicant
proposes
to
use
pavers,
which
requires
an
even
flow
of
storm
water
over
the
paver
surface.
H
In
addition,
the
installation
of
internal
planter
islands,
in
conjunction
with
criminal
pavers,
would
affect
the
future
health
of
the
trees
within
these
planter
Islands.
There
is
also
a
hardship
associated
with
the
variance
to
reduce
the
side
setback
for
the
service
drive,
which
is
in
cos
the
configuration
of
parcel
and
the
limited
amount
of
street
frontage
along
the
right
away,
which
is
Harrison
hull
lane
to
accommodate
the
service
drive
width,
a
variance
from
the
site
setback
is
required,
which
is
demonstrated
on
this
site
plan.
H
This
I
plan
is
just
Adam
just
to
note
that
there
was
a
glitch
in
the
project
report.
The
explanation
letter
some
by
the
applicant
failed
to
showed
this
diagram
right
here,
so
I'm,
just
showing
it
it's
pretty
much
the
same
diagram,
except
that
I
just
showed
accepted
just
details
a
little
bit
more
information
on
the
variance
from
the
side
setback
so
just
to
keep
the
short.
In
conclusion,
the
planning
team
recommends
approval
the
very
instance
that
complies
with
all
the
required
findings
as
per
code.
Thank
you.
B
N
N
We
believe
that
this
project
will
do
a
great
job
in
formalizing
trail
access
in
the
area.
We
think
it's
needed
to
direct
and
educate
the
public
for
the
appropriate
uses
and
the
trails
within
the
greater
reserve.
We
think
these
improvements
gonna
be
widely
accepted
by
the
Neighborhood
Association
and
the
current
users.
We
engage
the
public
in
a
pretty
robust
in
the
process
too,
for
the
design
of
this
parking
lot
and
the
improvements
associated
with
this.
So
that's
pretty
simply,
that's
that's
it.
So
I
will
stand
for
any
questions
you
or
the
public
might
have.
B
B
B
G
Great,
thank
you.
My
name
is
Jack
Van
Valkenburg
I
live
in
2005,
North
Terrace
way,
Boise
83
702,
so
my
home
looks
down
upon
Harrison,
Hollow
and
I've
been
in
touch
and
met
today
with
my
neighbors,
the
McGee's,
and
we
just
had
questions
I
think
we
are
supportive
of
this
application,
but
I
would
like
to
inform
them
answers
to
maybe
I
could
list.
My
I,
don't
think
you
allow
for
a
back
and
forth
so
I'm
going
to
list
my
questions
and
hopefully
by
number
you
folks
or
the
applicant
or
mr.
G
G
G
G
Will
the
path
be
quote
improved
ie
made
into
anything
that
a
road
car
could
go
on
number
six?
Is
the
existing
I
heard
from
mr.
Moser
that
the
existing
trail
head
is
going
to
be
improved
I'd
like
to
know
what
I
am
fine
with
improvement
so
long
as
it's
not
pavement
or
enlargement,
number
seven
I
would
only
fall
conclude
I
know
number
seven
I'll
say
is
there
was
a
comment
that
the
to
accommodate
the
service
drive
with
some
sort
of
variation
is
going
to
be
required
required
and
I.
G
Left
30
seconds
I'd
like
that,
so
the
last
question
is:
there's
just
a
comment
that
I
believe
in
the
documents
that
are
provided
there
was
a
memo
referred
to.
That
indicated
that
there
was
notification
provided
I
believe
on
November
December
4th
about
a
neighborhood
hearing
or
meeting,
and
neither
myself
nor
my
neighbor
received
any
such
notification,
and
so
nobody
attended
that
neighborhood
meeting
and
I
think
that
was
at
Longfellow
school.
That's
all!
That's
just
an
FYI.
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Is
there
anybody
else
attending
tonight's
I
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
B
J
N
N
N
N
If
the
pavement
would
extend
past
where
the
existing
parking
lot
ends
so
to
be
clear,
this
is
a
private
parking
lot
owned
by
Howell
aspirated
and
they
have
been
providing
shared
parking
services
for
the
trailhead
area
for
more
than
last
ten
years,
just
as
a
courtesy
and
in
fact
I
would
like
to
highlight
that
they
were
the
ones
that
actually
sold
us
this
parcel
in
order
to
create
this
parking
lot
and
they
donated
$50,000
towards
the
purchase
price
of
these
parcels.
To
make
that
happen.
N
So
that's
going
to
allow
health
wise
to
reclaim
their
private
parking
lot
and
know
this.
This
parking
lot
will
no
longer
be
shared.
This
be
privately
owned.
There
is
a
five
foot
property
line
setback
for
that
for
their
parking
lot
on
their
parcel.
Additionally,
there
would
be
a
five
foot
setback
for
our
new
newly
proposed
parking
lot
here.
So
moving
on
to
the
second
issue
that
mr.
Van
Valkenburg
asked
was
about
the
large
willow
tree,
that
is
essentially
shown
right
here
in
this
area.
N
We
see
city
forestry
has
how
to
look
at
essentially
seven
of
the
trees
in
the
area
and
they've
deemed
those
two
large
willow
trees
to
actually
be
in
very,
very
poor
health
and
they're,
actually
a
kind
of
a
danger
to
the
public,
and
they
need
to
be
removed
immediately.
So
we're
we
making
these
trailhead
improvements
or
not.
Those
trees
would
need
to
come
out
because
they
are
entered
to
the
public
to
the
third
issue.
N
The
trees
that
we're
going
to
be
planting,
actually
we're
asking
for
a
variance
to
the
parking
lot
stand
design
standards
to
move
these
proposed
landscape
planners
to
each
of
the
corners
of
the
newly
proposed
parking
lot,
and
so
the
new
trees.
The
we're
planting,
will
actually
double
the
amount
of
canopy
that
is
there
now.
N
N
The
gentleman
also
asked
about
pathway,
improvements
and
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
move
through
this
screen.
We
see
that
the
the
new
parking
lot
that
the
is
going
to
provide
a
crosswalk
that
connects
to
the
newly
sidewalk
that
that
we
will
build
that
connects
to
the
existing
sidewalk
down
here
to
the
south
and,
as
we
see
that
the
trailhead
access
with
the
new
signage
here
is
going
to
have
some
kind
of
terrorists,
rock
or
gravel
to
kind
of
formalize
the
trail
access,
but
beyond
the
new
bathroom
and
this
formalized
trail
had
access.
N
Next
is
the
width
of
the
driveway,
which
is
the
subject
of
our
variance.
We
can
see
that
this
rock
wall
here
that
goes
along
the
property
line.
We
start
up
here
to
the
north
with
a
5-foot
property
setback,
but
as
we
move
south,
we
need
to
shrink
it
up
to
3
foot
here.
So
the
standard
setback
is
5
foot
we're
asking
for
a
variance
to
shrink
it
down
to
3
feet
in
this
area,
just
like
mr.
Moser
showed
with
in
our
letter
of
intent.
N
This
is
the
3
foot
setback
versus
the
5
foot
up
here
up
north,
and
the
last
question
was
just
in
regards
to
notification
on
the
neighborhood
meeting
that
was
on
hinges
held
in
December
at
Longfellow.
Elementary
would
be
happy
to
look
into
our
notification
list
to
see
if
mr.
Van
Valkenburgh
was
included
on
that
list
and
and
if
he
was
not
be
happy
to
look
into
us,
why
that
happens
so
anyways
with
that
I
will
stand
for
any
additional
questions
the
Commission
might
have
and
I.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
B
J
O
P
B
Q
Obviously,
I
support
the
motion
and
I'd
like
to
specifically
think
on
the
right
record,
health-wise
for
working
in
the
city
with
the
city
in
this
kind
of
a
tight
little
space,
but
very
important
space
for
all
the
neighbors
and
and
was
very
pleased
to
hear
that
they're
helping
us
out.
So
thanks
health,
wise.
A
B
R
Sorry
about
that
good
evening,
madam
chair
commissioners,
I'm
gonna
share
my
screen.
Let
me
know
if
you
can't
see
it
ok
good
evening,
madam
chair
commissioners,
the
next
item
on
tonight's
agenda
is
a
request
for
a
variance
to
encroach
into
the
front
and
street
side
yard
setbacks
for
new
single-family
home
in
our
1ch
zone.
The
subject
parcel
is
located
on
the
northwest
corner
of
11th
and
Eastman
streets.
One
block
away
from
the
Hyde
Park
neighborhood
activity
center.
R
The
applicant
proposes
to
construct
a
two-and-a-half
story.
Single-Family
home
with
the
below
grade
garage
at
six
by
six
hundred
forty-four
square-foot
existing
home
would
be
converted
to
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
through
a
separate
application.
A
variance
is
requested
for
the
new
home
to
encroach
ten
feet
into
the
street
side,
yard
setback
along
eastman
street
and
encroach
five
feet
into
the
front
yard
setback
along
11th
Street
for
off
street
parking.
The
Historic
Preservation
Commission
unanimously
approved
the
design
of
the
home
on
January
27th
2020
at
26
and
a
half
feet
tall.
R
The
proposed
house
will
be
roughly
two
feet
taller
at
its
peak
than
the
neighboring
home
to
the
north.
A
special
circumstance
exists
to
justify
each
variance.
First,
the
lot
is
only
30
feet
wide,
maintaining
a
15-foot
street
side
yard
setback
would
leave
just
a
10-foot
wide
building
envelope.
No
functional
residential
structure
could
be
built
within
this
envelope
when
considering
the
provision
of
required
parking.
R
Second,
the
existing
structure
limits
the
depth
of
the
proposed
single-family
home
to
provide
for
two
off-street
parking
spaces.
The
applicant
proposes
a
38
foot
deep
tandem
garage
to
maintain
the
required
six
feet
of
separation
between
the
new
and
existing
structures.
The
distance
to
the
face
of
the
garage
from
the
property
line
must
be
15
feet
rather
than
the
20
feet
required
by
code,
notably,
the
proposed
structure
lies
entirely
outside
of
the
clear
vision
triangle
shown
here
in
blue.
R
This
slide
shows
the
location
of
the
edge
of
the
proposed
structure,
the
five
foot
north
or
right
side
yard
setback
is
allowed
by
Wright
and
will
match
the
adjacent
home.
The
15
foot
setback
will
also
match
the
front
face
at
the
court
of
the
northern
neighbor's
home.
The
green
shaded
area
is
the
stairway
to
the
proposed
porch.
This
10-foot
setback
is
allowed
by
the
substandard
lot
development
code
and
was
approved
by
the
Historic
Preservation
Commission.
R
The
applicant
gathered
several
signatures
of
no
objection
to
the
project.
The
planning
team
did
receive
ten
letters
opposing
the
project:
officious
opposition
centered
around
three
main
categories.
First,
there
was
concern
over
vehicle,
bicycle
and
pedestrian
safety.
As
noted
earlier,
the
clear
vision
triangle
will
remain
unobstructed.
R
Next
neighbors
expressed
concern
that
this
particular
home
would
not
be
in
keeping
with
the
neighborhood's
character.
As
stated
in
the
staff
report.
Many
other
homes
on
this
block
and
across
the
north
end
do
encroach
into
setbacks.
While
the
massing
may
differ
from
some
of
the
surrounding
homes.
The
Historic
Preservation
Commission
considered
this
concern
when
they
unanimously
voted
to
grant
a
proposal
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
R
The
third
point
of
contention
focuses
on
the
impact
to
the
northern
neighbor.
Well,
the
garage
does
extend
to
fifteen
feet
from
the
property
line.
The
only
section
of
the
home
that
extends
past
this
15
foot
mark
into
the
front
yard
setback
is
the
stairway
to
the
porch
on
the
south
side
of
the
front
facade
farthest
from
the
northern
neighbors
log.
R
Within
one
linear
block
of
the
subject
parcel
along
Eastern
Street,
not
a
single
structure
meets
the
15-foot
Eastman
Street
setback,
as
evidenced
by
the
development
pattern
of
the
neighborhood
good
design,
knows
no
setback
as
detailed
in
the
staff
report.
The
addition
of
a
new
unit
and
the
preservation
of
existing
historic
home
near
a
vibrant
neighborhood
activity
center
is
supported
by
a
laundry
list
of
comprehensive
plan
objectives.
B
S
Hello,
my
name
is
Ken
Reed.
Yes,
please
go
ahead.
Oh
thank
you
and
my
I'm,
the
architect
for
the
project
and
my
address
is
24.
15
compass
drive
Boise,
so
this
project
is
approved
by
the
historic
Commission,
as
Ethan
stated
in
January
and
by
unanimous
vote,
and
no
one
appealed
that
decision
one
nearby,
but
non-adjacent
neighbor
turned
out
to
testify
in
opposition
of
the
project,
but
at
the
end
of
the
presentation
he
actually
changed
his
mind
in
support
of
the
project.
S
I
was
pleased
to
also
receive
accolades
for
this
design
on
how
well
his
historic
style
and
its
use
of
materials
like
sandstone,
similar
to
many
historic
buildings
nearby,
would
add
to
the
neighborhood
in
discussions
with
staff
for
both
historic
review
and
Planning
and
Zoning.
Regarding
this
design,
we
have
striven
to
create
a
unique
solution
for
this
difficult
site.
S
So
the
decision
to
keep
the
existing
building
in
its
historic
location
and
converted
because
of
its
small
size
to
an
exist
accessory
dwelling
unit,
was
considered
by
staff,
the
best
approach
so
to
repeat
we're
asking
for
two
variances
to
reduce
the
front
parking
setback
from
20
to
15
feet
and
to
reduce
the
eastern
side
setback
from
15
to
5
feet.
So,
as
noted,
above
both
a
hardship
and
an
exceptional
circumstance
exists
regarding
each
variance
request.
S
The
city
requires
two
all
street
parking
spaces
and
placement
of
those
spaces
must
be
at
least
six
feet
from
the
existing
building
on
this
property,
necessitating
a
reduction
on
the
front
setback
in
order
to
fit
the
spaces
in.
We
have
visually
reduced
this
impact
by
creating
a
garage
that
is
partially
below
grade.
S
We
are
requesting
the
street
side
setback
to
be
reduced
from
15
feet
to
5
feet,
because
without
this
reduction,
the
proposed
building
could
only
be
10
feet
wide.
That
width
would
preclude
the
ability
to
either
park
or
create
living
space,
thus,
likewise
rendering
the
property
unbuildable.
This
reduction
in
street
side
setback
will
be
compatible
with
in
the
other
hood.
As
many
of
these
houses
along
Eastman
Street
are
set
more
closely
to
the
street
than
the
standard
said
that
I
would
refer
you
to
the
Sanborn
maps
provided
by
staff
for
historic
review.
S
Neither
of
these
requested
setbacks
will
impact
the
vision
triangle
of
the
corner
lot
that
has
been
graphically
demonstrated
for
this
project.
Granting
the
variances
will
not
be
in
conflict
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
or
affect
a
change
in
zoning,
as
stated
by
staff
for
approval.
Granting
of
the
variances
will
not
be
materially
detrimental
to
the
public
health,
safety
or
welfare
or
interest
to
the
property
or
improvements
of
the
other
property
owners,
or
the
quiet
enjoyment
thereof.
I
understand
that
the
neighbor
to
the
north
mr.
S
Ritter
objects
to
the
variances
based
on
his
assertion
that
his
property
would
be
negatively
impact
if
they
are
granted.
It's
hypocritical
mr.
Ritter,
to
claim
injury
for
this
property
when
he
apparently
had
no
concern
for
doing
the
same
thing
to
his
neighbor
to
the
north
of
this
property
when
he
demolished
a
previously
existing
home
and
built
his
current
three
level
house.
S
Neither
of
these
requested
setback
variances
will
affect
the
neighbor
to
the
north.
Mr.
Ritter's
site
setback
bordering
mr.
our
site
setback
boarding.
Mr.
Ritter's
property
is
the
standard
five
feet
by
rule
and
the
proposed
structure
complies
with
that
setback
and
no
variance
is
required.
The
requested
eastman
street
side
setback
variance
will
not
affect
mr.
Wooster's
property
as
it
isn't
not
within
his
view,
and
his
does
does
not
border
his
property
and
the
requested
reduction
of
the
front
setback
to
15
feet
matches
the
front
setback
of
mr.
S
S
Mr.
Ritter
has,
from
the
south
side
of
his
house,
there's
no
legal
standing
to
object
to
the
blocking
of
mr.
Ritter's
view.
Since
mr.
Ritter
has
a
basement
with
egress
windows,
a
main
floor
with
windows
and
an
upper
floor
with
windows,
three
floors
facing
south.
There
is
no
way
to
build
a
home
of
any
height
that
would
not
block
the
view
from
mr.
Ritter's
windows.
In
essence,
mr.
Ritter
is
objecting
to
any
building
at
all
again.
It
is
extremely
hypocritical
of
mr.
Ritter
to
protest
an
action
he
has
previous
taken
previously
by
himself.
S
I
would
also
like
to
highlight
that
the
applicant
has
obtained
a
written
statement
of
non
objection
to
the
variances
in
support
of
his
this
project
from
all
but
two
of
the
adjacent
properties,
including
the
residents
as
renters,
as
well
as
owners
who
reside
out
of
state
and
the
North
End
Neighborhood
Association,
who
supports
both
the
conversion
of
the
existing
home
to
an
Adu
and
the
variance
is
required
to
construct
the
additional
house.
The
two
properties
who
object
are
mr.
S
Ritter
to
the
north
and
a
resident,
but
not
owner,
of
a
property
across
the
street
and
to
the
south
who
had
concern
regarding
the
vision
triangle.
Both
of
these
personal
objections
have
been
addressed
by
this
presentation,
I'd
like
to
turn
over
the
remaining
time
to
my
clients,
representative,
her
attorney
Terry
Pickens
man,
weather.
I
South
Knight
Street
Suite,
240,
Boise,
Idaho,
8,
3
702
I,
am
the
attorney
representative
for
the
applicant
Sherri
Bhutan's.
Oh
I
have
been
asked
to
look
at
the
legalities
of
the
application
and
of
the
objections
and
give
my
position
and
opinion
on
the
application
as
it
pertains
to
the
proposal
to
is
both
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
to
build
the
new
residence
next
to
mr.
Ritter's
current
existing
house.
I
In
looking
at
all
the
evidence
in
the
record
and
looking
at
the
Boise
City
code,
along
with
the
City
of
Boise
Comprehensive
Plan,
it
is
clear
that
the
proposed
application
not
only
meets
the
criteria
of
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
It
almost
exceeds
what
the
City
of
Boise
is
looking
for
for
infill
in
the
north
end.
In
particular,
the
historic
Commission
unanimously
agreed
that
this
particular
construction
on
this
residence
would
enhance
the
neighborhood
in
two
ways.
I
One
the
facade
and
the
actual
construction
and
materials
used
would
be
in
compliance
and
in
conformance
with
those
in
the
consume
in
the
area.
Secondarily,
given
the
need
for
higher
density
homes,
higher
density
Lots
in
the
North
End,
this
would
serve
that
purpose
as
well.
By
adding
the
accessory
dwelling
unit,
the
Adu
well
that
is
not
subject
to
this
particular
variance.
I
did
want
to
make
note
that
that
is.
I
That
is
something
that
it
has
considered
that
something
the
applicant
understands,
and
that
is
something
that
the
applicant
accepts
and
that
the
North
End
neighborhood
association,
most
of
the
neighbors
and
the
applicant
or
self
all
agree
that
this
would
be
a
good
addition
to
the
neighborhood.
With
respect
to
the
setbacks
and
the
variances.
With
from
a
legal
perspective,
it
is
true
that
we
are
seeking
a
variance,
it's
true,
that
we're
seeking
shorter
setbacks,
but
there
is
absolutely
good
cause
for
this
again.
This
is
a
very
narrow
lot.
I
This
is
a
30
foot
wide
lot
and
without
a
variance
you
could
not
build
a
home
on
this
lot,
which,
which
does
allow
for
this
Commission,
to
grant
the
variance
and
approve
the
variance.
The
the
variances
do
not
create
in
any
way
a
danger
or
a
risk
to
the
public,
and
they
certainly
don't
create
a
danger
or
risk
to
the
surrounding
properties.
I
So
with
that
in
mind,
the
variances
of
the
15
feet
for
the
parking
and
the
5
feet
for
the
for
the
eastman
street
setback
would
be
appropriate
and,
in
conformance
with
what
has
also
happened
up
and
down
Eastman
Street
and
11th
Street.
The
I
think
the
most
important
question
that
has
to
be
asked
is
there
has
been
an
objection
based
on
whether
or
not
mr.
Ritter
to
the
north
is
going
to
lose
his
view.
I
have
researched
the
property,
I
have
researched
the
plats
and
the
area,
and
mr.
I
Ritter
does
not
possess
a
view
easement
to
the
contrary,
he
has
chosen
to
build
a
home
in
the
north
end
of
Boise.
That
everyone
knows
full
well,
is
not
a
view
area
so
to
raise
an
objection
based
on
lack
of
view.
There
would
have
to
be
some
legally
substance
have
argument
as
to
why
mr.
Ayer
would
be
entitled
to
his
view
in
the
north
end
in
a
very
high-density
residential
area.
I
The
fact
of
the
matter
is,
there
is
not
a
legal
basis
for
that
objection
and
so
I'd
ask
that
the
Commission
disregard
that
that
objection
of
mr.
Ritter
with
regard
to
the
concern
about
the
corner,
mr.
Mansfield
has
a
very
adequately
addressed,
and
staff
has
confirmed
that
the
view
corridor
and
the
safety
corridor
triangle
ISM
is
completely
clear
and
will
not
pose
a
problem
for
this
particular
structure.
B
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
any
representative
from
the
north
end
Neighborhood
Association,
to
speak
on
this
item
tonight?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand,
okay,.
B
T
My
name
is
Jim
Ritter
1601,
North,
11th
Street
page
five
at
the
project
report
states
that
a
lot
is
only
thirty
feet
wide
and
maintain
a
15
foot
wide.
Streetside
setback
we'll
leave
a
10-foot
wide
building
envelope,
no
functional
residence
trucks
to
be
built.
The
architects
drawing
indicate
that
a
lot
is
actually
32
feet,
not
30
feet
wide,
so
the
building
envelope
would
be
12
feet.
Assuming
the
architects
correct,
it's
simply
not
true
that
12
foot
wide
home
could
not
be
functional.
T
The
depth
of
proposed
house
is
only
constrained
by
the
recently
reclassified
ad,
which
is
175
percent.
The
currently
use
size
restrictions
page
five
and
six.
The
report
stated
demolition
is
unpalatable
and
as
an
existing
home,
we're
demolished,
subparts
will
be
unbuildable
per
Building
Code
11060
3.3
the
idea
that
the
building
code
cannot
be
modified,
but
the
ATD
restrictions
and
the
front
and
the
side
setback
codes
can
be
modified
to
allow
for
development
size
logic.
T
This
property
can
easily
accommodate
an
allele
in
garage
with
an
Adu
that
meets
current
code
and
a
single-story
home
with
a
full
basement
that'll
blend
in
with
the
neighborhood
page
6.
The
report
fails
to
clearly
state
the
immediate
neighbors
connections,
the
objections
not
only
the
unnecessary
traffic
hazard
or
state
in
the
project
report.
You
also
include
the
height
of
the
structure.
T
The
fact
it'll
be
a
two
and
a
half
story:
wall
of
stucco
five
feet
from
the
sidewalk,
the
conversion
of
the
existing
house
in
an
Adu,
the
reduction
of
open
space
unlocked
and
the
overall
negative
aesthetic
impact,
the
neighborhood
as
well
as
my
home,
even
though
the
project
will
not
intersect
the
clear
vision
triangle.
That
does
not
mean
there's
no
impact
to
visibility
in
a
very
busy
intersection.
T
The
clear
vision
triangle
is
a
guide
just
like
the
speed
limit
of
65
mile
per
hour
and
the
freeway
is
a
guide,
but
it's
not
always
safe
to
drive
that
fast,
then,
on
the
conditions,
the
road
I
trust
the
city
understands
by
ignoring
the
neighbors
concerns
and
improving
this
project,
they
could
be
held
liable,
and
somebody
gets
hurt.
I
also
like
to
point
out
that
the
only
to
no
objection
forms
submitted
by
the
homeowners
are
an
immediate
neighbor
who
has
rescinded
their
support.
T
In
summary,
in
reference
to
the
three
concludes
in
the
section
eight,
there
is
no
real
hardship
nor
exceptional
circumstance
for
building
a
functional
structure
on
this
lot
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
majority,
the
immediate
neighbors
interests
and
in
line
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
There
is
no
need
to
grant
a
variance
to
reduce
the
amount
of
waste
going
to
landfill
or
increasing
the
number
and
type
of
housing
options.
T
This
can
be
achieved
through
recycling
repurposing
of
the
materials
during
demolition
and
building
an
Austria
parking
garage
with
an
Adu
that
meets
current
Adu
standards,
granting
of
rudest
reduced
setbacks
will
be
material
detrimental
to
public
safety
and
very
interest
to
the
property
of
other
property
owners
in
the
quiet
enjoyment
thereof.
This
is
clearly
documenting
the
JEP
objections
submitted
to
the
city.
Finally,
the
unanimous
approval-
the
Historic
Preservation
Commission
was
unfairly
influenced
by
the
fact
that
the
property
owner
is
a
community
liaison,
the
historic
Commission.
T
B
U
U
Frequently
I
think
it'll
fit
nicely
in
with
the
surrounding
character
and
give
one
more
family
an
option
to
live
in
a
lovely
part
of
town
adjacent
to
the
Hyde
Park
activity
area,
close
to
other
parks
close
to
downtown,
and
it's
a
lovely
opportunity
for
the
future
family
that
will
live
there.
I
think,
based
on
the
particulars
of
the
properties,
the
variances
are
very
well
justified
and
I
am
a
strong
supporter
of
this
option.
Thank
you.
B
E
Right,
yes,
this
is
Keith
bran
I'm,
the
owner
of
1603,
five
and
seven
North
11th
Street
and
I
would
like
to
agree
with
my
neighbor
to
the
south,
mr.
Ritter,
that
this
change
does
not
fit
the
neighborhood
they're,
essentially
splitting
a
lot
building
two
primary
dwellings-
and
this
does
not
go
according
to
the
city's
plan
of
design
plan
to
have
garages,
not
the
public
street.
So
that's
my
comment.
I,
don't
agree
with
this
being
built.
B
Thank
you.
The
next
hand
that
I
see
raised
is
miss
Murphy.
Please,
please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
three
minutes.
B
O
How
about
now,
okay,
yeah
I'm,
Rachel
Murphy
I
live
at
1610
North
11th
Street
Boise
Idaho,
830
702,
which
is
just
across
the
street
from
the
proposer
to
dwelling
and
I
want
to
speak
in
opposition
of
the
building
project.
I
side
with
Jim
Ritter,
in
that
this
is
an
extremely
small,
narrow
lot
and
building
to
houses,
especially
a
two
and
a
half
story
house,
with
five
feet
of
separation
from
Jim's
house
to
the
north
is
is
jamming
too
much
house
on
to
one
small
lot.
I
also
live
with
three
rentals
around
me
and
I'm.
O
Rental,
property
and
I
would
like
to
say
that
it
absolutely
impacts
Jim's
feel
of
his
home
because
it's
going
to
be
a
building
right
next
to
his
windows
that
will
block
his
southern
light
into
his
home
and
it's
going
to
be
five
feet
away
from
his.
So
it's
my
understanding
that
Jim
and
I'm
speaking
for
Jim
here
and
I-
don't
I'm
not
positive.
He
agrees
with
this,
but
in
our
conversations
in
the
neighborhood,
we've
agreed
to
the
fact
that
a
potentially
a
single-family
home
might
be
a
good
solution
to
this.
O
To
this
proposal
also,
I
want
to
say
that
11th
Street
has
been
designated
as
a
bike
path
in
the
future
and
to
say
that
it's
not
going
to
impact
visibility
at
this
corner.
I
think
is
unlikely.
I
think
that
if
we're
gonna
have
bikers
going
up
and
down
11th
Street
in
you
know
hoping
to
keep
bikers
safer
in
our
North
End
neighborhood.
This
isn't
the
way
to
do
it.
B
S
I
think
I'm
on
so
I
think
one
of
the
main
things
to
rias
reassert
is
that
if
we
knock
down
the
existing
structure,
the
lot
becomes
unbuildable
so
in
preservation
of
the
existing
structure
were
able
to
accommodate
a
separate
home,
and
we
did
get
a
survey
in
the
last
period
a
little
bit
ago
and
it's
true.
That's
a
30-foot
lot.
So
I'll
be
reducing
the
width
of
the
building
by
two
feet.
That
still
means
it's
going
to
be
a
home
of
20
feet
wide
instead
of
22.
So
mr.
S
Ritter's
home
is
15
feet,
so
I
think
it
shouldn't
have
visually
or
physically
affect
the
building
that
much
at
all.
So
there
is
an
existing
curb
cut
that
we
are
going
to
apply
to
the
parking
so
we're
not
taking
street
parking.
This
has
been
established
and
we
did
meet
the
vision
triangle
so
and
again,
as
counsel
has
suggested
it's
it's
not
a
legal
standing
to
guarantee
views
out
windows,
because
this
building
is
not
going
to
be
just
five
feet
from
mr.
Ritter's
property's
gonna
be
ten,
because
mr.
S
Ritter
has
a
five
foot
setback
this
building
by
code
as
a
five
foot
setback
so
Lybia.
Actually,
a
ten
foot
gap
between
the
two
structures
and
the
one
thing
I
think
I
wanted
to
ask
Ethan
to
make
sure
he
said
correctly.
He
thinks
that
this
building
was.
He
stated
that
this
building's
gonna
be
two
and
a
half
feet
taller
when
it's
actually
gonna
be
shorter
by
the
same
amount.
So
I
think
that
covers
most
of
the
elements
that
are
sort
of
applicable
to
this
and
I
didn't
bite.
I
Can
you
hear
me
yeah?
Okay,
great,
thank
you
so
much
I
did
want
to
address
Miss
Murphy's
concerns,
I,
appreciate
and
understand
the
concern
about
having
a
bunch
of
rentals
surrounding
you.
The
whole
point
of
having
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
attached
to
your
primary
residence
as
it
is
confirming
that
it
will
in
fact
be
a
single-family
dwelling.
There
will
not
be
a
rental
in
this
house.
This
will
be
owner
occupied
as
required
by
the
city
code
of
accessory
dwelling
units.
The
accessory
dwelling
unit
can
be
rented,
but
the
primary
residence
must
be
owner
occupied.
I
So
I
can
assure
you
that
you
will
have
a
neighbor
that
owns
and
has
an
invested
interest
in
that
property.
I
did
want
to
clarify
and
I'm
glad
that
mr.
Reid
did
too,
that
it
isn't
five
feet
from
mr.
Ritter's
home,
it's
ten
and
that
is
actually
quite
standard
in
the
north
and
it's
quite
standard
for
all
of
these
properties.
To
be
very
close,
that's
the
actual
love
an
aesthetic
of
the
north
end.
You
don't
go
to
the
north
end
to
be
on
a
one
acre
lot.
You
go
to.
I
You
know
the
suburban
areas
of
Boise
to
be
on
a
one
acre
lot.
I
appreciate
that
this
lot
as
small
and
I
appreciate
the
concerns,
but
there
is
nothing
substantially
illegal
about
building
the
construe.
The
residents
as
designed
by
mr.
Reed,
the
historic
district
is
not
a
biased
organization.
They
do
look
at
every
construction
and
every
proposal,
and
this
one
got
unanimous
approval.
I
It
got
unanimous
approval
because
the
elevations
of
this
house
were
beautiful
and
they
do
fit
in
with
the
the
North
End
aura
and
feel
so
with
that
I
would
defer
to
miss
Picasso
I'm,
not
certain
as
she
is
on.
I
did
know
that
she
did
want
to
say
very
briefly
that
she
had
spoken
with
various
neighbors
and
they
were
in
support
of
the
project.
F
With
this
I
think
we
see
the
exceptional
circumstances
that
we're
looking
for
in
this
variance
and
with
such
a
small
lot.
That's
why
I'm
supporting
the
variance
I
also
think
that
the
Commission
as
that
concern
shouldn't,
be
you
know,
judging
things
based
off
of
you
or
else
we're,
never
gonna
see
anything
bill
and
Phil
and
it
looks
like
it
fits
where
the
complaint
is
looking
for
fit
and
fill
so
I
support
the
project.
C
C
Obviously,
I'm
in
support
of
the
motion.
I
agree
with
Commissioner
Zucker
birds
comments.
So
far,
I
think
the
applicants
in
a
nice
job
of
designing
a
structure
to
work
within
the
constraints
of
the
property,
the
the
setback
to
the
north.
Regardless
of
a
lot
width,
there
would
always
be
a
five
foot
setback
so
had
this
lot
been
wider,
there
could
very
very
well
still
be
a
building
wall,
five
feet
from
the
property
line,
so
I,
don't
think
I
think
that's
kind
of
new
material
argument.
C
I
think
they've
also
done
ice
job
of
approaching
the
streets
and
with
regards
to
the
vision
triangles,
this
is
a
detached
sidewalk
on
both
streets.
There's
plenty
of
space
to
the
street
beyond
that,
so
I
feel
like
the
visibility,
is
really
not
much
of
an
issue
there
around
the
corners
and
considering
the
fact.
We
also
have
historic
preservation
approval
to
date.
I
think
that
also
speaks
volumes
that
you
know
it's
been
vetted.
The
design
looks
good
I
think
it
fits
within
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
they
have
that
approval.
L
L
So
I'm
gonna
have
to
be
opposed
to
this
because,
first
of
all,
as
I
guess,
I
read
the
project
report.
I
mean
it
really
is
a
nice
setup,
beautiful
facade
and
all
of
that,
however,
excuse
me,
the
Excel
accessory
dwelling
unit
is
problematic
here,
because
the
code
is
very
clear
and
actually
pretty
stringent.
On
this.
There
is
a
hard
cap
at
six
hundred
square
feet
for
ad
use,
and
this
comes
in
at
six.
Forty
four,
you
know
which
is
fairly
significantly
over.
L
It
basically
says
under
no
circumstances
may
the
six
hundred
square
foot
maximum
be
exceeded,
and
so,
while,
while
the
effort
is
great,
I
think
it's
an
excellent
use
of
the
property,
a
great
design
and
all
that
the
Adu
is
problematic.
Now
there
was
something
with
dr
h:
19-0
zero.
Five
six
seven
listed
in
the
project
report.
It
talks
about
construct
a
single-family
home
semicolon
existing
home
two
ad
you
approved
now
I'm,
not
sure
what
weight
that
bears
in
terms
of
granting
some
sort
of
variance
to
what
the
code
says
or
anything
like
that.
L
A
L
B
Okay,
seeing
then
we
have
a
motion
before
us
to
approve
item
number
for
CV
a
20-9.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
them
out,
stood
I.
A
K
Q
L
B
B
V
Madam
chair
commissioners,
the
next
item
on
tonight's
agenda
is
a
rezone
of
5.16
acres
from
m1d
light
industrial
with
designer
view
to
c1
BD,
a
neighborhood
commercial
with
designer
view
and
development
agreement.
The
site
is
located
at
511
North,
Maple
Grove
Road.
A
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
102
multifamily
units
is
also
included.
V
The
site
was
annexed
into
the
City
of
Boise
in
1987
and
has
never
been
fully
developed.
The
property
has
been
rezone
from
M
1
D
to
C,
1
D
and
back
again
twice
previous
proposals
have
included
neighborhood
retail
uses
and
a
self
storage
facility
look
at
now
intends
to
construct
multifamily
as
the
applicant
outlined
prior
to
the
Boise
Town
Square
Mall
creation.
This
area
has
intended
to
support
family
industrial
uses.
However,
with
the
construction
of
the
mall,
this
area
became
the
intersection
of
both
industrial
and
commercial.
V
This
is
evident
as
adjacent
to
the
site:
our
restaurants,
multigenic,
commercial,
a
warehouse,
a
self
storage
facility
and
a
nursing
home.
You
can
also
see
in
outlying
areas.
Residential
has
also
been
included
in
the
area
they
requested.
C1
DDA
Zone
is
compatible
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan,
as
it
doesn't
nates
the
site
as
industrial
on
the
land-use
map
within
which
c1
zone
is
well.
It's
important
to
note,
though,
the
subject
property
is
uniquely
located
where
the
industrial
meets
the
land
use.
Sorry
industrial
meets
the
mixed-use
land
use
designation
associated
with
the
mall.
V
The
prior
reason
approvals
confirm
that
either
c1
or
m1
zoning
would
be
appropriate
and
residential
uses
have
never
been
prohibited
on
the
site.
The
property
to
the
north
has
also
followed
this
pattern
electing
for
c1
zoning
in
order
to
support
commercial
and
restaurant
uses.
Although
the
comprehensive
plan
does
encourage
maintaining
a
sufficient
supply
of
industrial
land
and
also
encourages
Rita's
three
dozen
meeting
areas
that
cannot
be
feasibly
served
for
less
intensive
uses
and
concentrating
economic
developments
and
development
efforts
elsewhere.
V
Further
multifamily
is
encouraged
close
to
the
mall
and
adjacent
to
businesses
that
can
be
supported
by
nearby
residents
and
fill
development
is
also
directed
to
vacant
lot
suitable
for
change.
This
will
avoid
costly
extensions
of
transportation
facilities
and
minimize
travel
distances.
Transit
service
is
also
available
along
both
Emerald
Street
and
Maple
Grove.
It's
important
to
note.
The
planning
team
does
not
generally
encourage
rezoning
to
commercial
zones
for
residential
unit
uses.
V
However,
due
to
the
property,
speak
location,
size
and
available
transit
service,
it's
an
acceptable
use
of
the
commercial
zoning
designation.
The
development
agreement,
which
prohibits
future
automobile
oriented
uses,
has
been
included.
If
we
have
any
uses
shown
here,
will
ensure
compliance
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
and
encourage
development
of
transit-oriented
uses,
rather
than
a
reliance
on
the.
V
Proposal
includes
construction
of
102,
total
to
family
units.
At
nineteen
point,
eight
units
per
acre
site
access
will
be
provided
by
internal
service
drives
off
both
Emerald
Street
and
Maple
Grove
Road,
existing
seven
foot
white
touched
sidewalk,
curb
and
gutter
line
both
streets.
The
planning
team
recommends
this
be
replaced
with
detached
curb
gutter,
sidewalk
and
eight
foot
wide
planner
strip.
This
has
been
included
as
a
condition
of
approval.
V
This
is
in
alignment
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan,
which
encourages
installation
of
detached
sidewalks
and
street
trees
along
major
travel
quarters
in
the
West
bench
to
improve
comfort
and
safety.
There
have
been
some
concerns
or
their
new
tree
placement
and
the
location
of
utilities
along
the
right-of-way.
In
the
event,
no
power
will
not
allow
Street
trees
in
the
existing
easement.
Street
cheese
will
be
installed
behind
the
detached
sidewalks.
A
variety
of
tall
grasses
and
native
shrubs
shall
be
divided
in
the
parkway
final
plant
variety
will
be
approved
by
design
of
you.
V
It's
one.
Two
and
three-bedroom
units
within
two.
These
project
meets
that
he'd
be
hit
you
later
by
bicycle
parking
requirements
as
well
as
complies
with
the
standards
of
the
development
code.
That
comprehensive
plan
and
the
citywide
design
of
use
guidelines
and
standards,
a
design
of
your
permit,
is
also
under
review.
V
Lastly,
as
the
development
is
over,
one
acre
in
size
to
amenities
are
required.
The
project
includes
a
central,
clubhouse
pool
and
playground
for
future
residents.
In
addition,
a
ten-foot
easement
along
the
west
property
line
of
budding
the
canal
is
included
for
a
future
regional
pathway.
A
condition
of
approval
also
requires
an
easement
be
dedicated
to
VRT
for
a
future
bus.
Stop
along
the
Apple
Grove
Road
comments
from
adjacent
industrial
neighbors
were
received,
and
many
are
somewhere
here
tonight.
V
Concerns
focus
around
their
interpretation
that
were
the
presidential
uses,
are
prohibited
within
the
CC
knives
of
the
subdivision.
In
addition,
there
was
a
perceived
incompatibility
between
the
existing
industrial
and
new
residential
uses
and
fear.
Future
residents
will
inhibit
their
ability
to
operate
CC&R
some
private
agreements,
which
the
city
does
not
enforce
their
interpret.
The
subject
property
was
also
referred
to
as
located
in
the
midst
of
an
industrial
park.
As
you
can
see
here,
the
property
is
on
the
edge
of
an
industrial
area.
Buffered
on
three
sides
by
material
were
ablaze
and
a
canal.
V
The
only
side
of
the
project
jacent
to
an
existing
white
house
will
have
283
feet
of
separation,
an
8-foot
CMU
wall
and
dense
landscaping
to
buffer
the
adjacent
uses
and
future
tenants
are
there.
This
project
does
not
increase
the
residential
traffic
within
a
contained
industrial
area.
Site
access
is
provided
to
Maple
Grove
Road
in
Emerald
Street
by
two
arterial
roadways,
which
provide
regional
access
to
all
Boise
City
residents,
not
only
the
adjacent
destro
uses.
V
Lastly,
it's
evident
an
industrial
use
may
not
be
the
best
use
for
this
property,
and
the
site
has
never
been
formally
developed.
Rezone
twice
and
previous
proposals
have
never
been
built.
In
conclusion,
with
the
recommended
conditions
of
approval,
the
proposed
development
complies
with
the
standards
of
approval.
As
such,
the
planning
team
recommends
approval
of
the
rezone
and
conditional
use
permit.
The
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
makes
a
recommendation,
the
City
Council
and
the
rezone
and
DEA,
and
the
final
decision
on
the
beauty.
Thank
you.
B
A
D
B
Thank
you.
So
there
is
no
neighborhood
associations
for
this
area.
So
we'll
move
on
to
questions
from
the
Commission
see
if
there
are
any.
P
I've
been
chair,
Commissioner
finstock
I
just
had
a
quick
question
for
Nikolai.
What
are
the
units
per
acre
for
this
application
and
my
apologies:
if
I
missed
it
in
the
staff
report,
but
I
couldn't
locate
it.
V
P
P
V
W
W
W
W
Family
or
individual
would
want
to
live
near
such
uses.
I
also
am
aware
that
there
is
opposition
by
a
even
closer
industrial
use,
envirotec,
who
is
represented
by
Justin
cranny,
and
he
will
advise
of
some
of
their
more
even
specific
concerns,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
this
is
really
such
an
incredibly
incompatible
use
and
that
it
would
result
in
values
for
our
clients
decreasing
and
increasing
issues
with
a
long-term
tenant
that
our
client
has
continued
and
to
serve.
W
You
so
much,
and
so
I
understand
that
mr.
crane
well
even
more
carefully
address
the
fact
that
this
is
not
in
line
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
It
clearly
should
not
be
resumed
as
requested,
but
I
also
wanted
to
address,
just
in
conclusion
that
there
is
a
very,
very
strong
conflict
of
interest
in
the
variance
under
the
CC
and
the
CC,
and
ours
were
signed
by
mr.
Moore.
The
applications
I'm
a
mr.
Moore
and
mr.
W
B
Thank
you
and
next
up
on
the
signup
sheet,
we
have
I'm
Steve
that
I
hardly
use.
O
M
M
Moore
didn't
contact
us
or
involve
us
in
any
of
this.
Obviously
they
stand
make
a
lot
of
money
with
the
residential,
but
for
us
and
my
brother,
it's
a
long-term
investment
in
our
tenant
and
we're
concerned
that
you
know
this
could
drive
our
tenant
off
with
more
traffic.
We
already
experienced
theft
in
that
area.
You
bring
in
a
bunch
of
renters
you're,
going
to
increase
that
noise,
complaint
and
I
really
worry
that
with
all
of
our
trucks
coming
and
going
that
this
is
not
a
safe
area
for
residential
and
I
understand.
M
M
He's
been
basically
railroading
us
over
this
and
that
he
has
everything
to
gain,
and
all's
we
have
to
gain
is
a
loss
in
our
property
value
or
possibly,
a
loss
of
our
long-term
tenant,
and
this
is
not
right.
We
bought
this
property
knowing
it
was
industrial
and
we
were
in
an
industrial
zone
and
we
just
don't
feel
this
is
going
to
be
any
upside
for
our
property
or
our
tenant
and
I.
Thank
you
in
the
commissioners
for
your
time.
B
B
K
K
You
Justin
cranny,
Holly,
Troxel,
877,
Main,
Street,
Boise,
Idaho
I
represent
in
biotech
industries
LLC
the
owner
of
the
property
immediately
to
the
south
of
the
property
and
consideration
right
now
in
biotech
industries
as
a
manufacturing
company
that
does
machining
fabrication
and
assembly
on
its
property.
This
is
an
industrial
use
in
biotech.
Industries
is
opposed
to
this
project,
for
the
simple
fact
of
the
residential
component
is
incompatible
with
in
biotech
industrial
use
of
its
property.
K
Furthermore,
under
Idaho
law
and
the
Boise
City
code,
a
rezone,
a
PUD
and
a
Cu
P
all
require
compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
So
if
we
go
to
blueprint
Boise
we're
presented
with
the
land-use
map,
the
land
use
map
identifies
where
the
city
would
support
development
of
permitted
uses
and
is
intended
to
serve
as
a
guide
for
future
zone
changes.
So
if
we
look
at
this
map,
it
is
clearly
marked
as
industrial
referring
back
to
the
Boise
blueprint.
K
If
we
look
at
what
the
industrial
designation
is
included
intended
to
include
it
is
to
provide
for
the
concentrated
areas
of
employment,
primary
uses,
heavy
and
light
manufacturing,
warehousing
storage,
industrial
parks,
auto
repair,
etc.
Secondary
uses
are
to
support
those
restaurants,
offices,
health
clubs,
convenience
stores,
etc.
Nowhere
does
it
say
residential.
If
residential
were
intended
to
be
allowed.
Where,
then,
the
industrial
designation
is
found
on
the
map,
it
would
say.
So
if
you
look
at
the
c1
description
it
does
allow
for
residential.
K
This
does
not
there's
a
plain
reason
why
industrial
and
residential
uses
are
incompatible.
This
application
is
a
classic
example
of
why.
If
we
look
at
in
biotechs
operations,
it
operates
two
shifts
for
starting
at
four
a.m.
ending
at
4:30
p.m.
the
second
starting
at
4:30
and
ending
at
2
a.m.
there
is
22
hours
each
day
of
operations.
This
includes
deliveries,
deliveries,
come
off,
Maple,
Grove
and
traverse
the
northern
edge
of
envirotec
properties
right
next
to
the
residential
development.
There
are
40
to
45
deliveries
per
day.
K
These
most
of
these
come
from
semi
trucks
that
8
foot
wall
will
not
do
much
to
stop
the
sound
or
noise
generated
by
the
delivery.
There
will
be
sounds
of
people
employees
coming
and
going
at
2:00
a.m.
4
a.m.
4:30
p.m.
this
is
not
some
place
that
residence
is
going
to.
Residents
are
going
to
enjoy
living
with
this
much
noise
and
traffic,
hence
in
use
in
shorts,
4
points.
K
C1
zoning
does
permit
residential
use
only
with
a
conditioners
permit,
which
requires
compliance
with
the
conditional
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
Simply
because
this
property
wasn't
has
not
been
developed
for
33
years
does
not
mean
that
the
requirement
to
comply
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
can
be
ignored.
Nor
can
it
overcome
that
an
industrial
existing
industrial
use
would
be
anywhere
close
to
compatible
with
a
planned
residential
use.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I
stand
for
any
questions
you
may
have.
B
B
X
Madam
commissioner,
this
is
Julie
Klein,
Fischer
I'm.
The
attorney
for
the
applicant
I
also
have
with
me
Rebecca
Arnold,
who
is
the
attorney
for
the
WH
Moore
company,
so
we
were
going
to
respond
if
we
might
to
the
concerns
raised
by
both
of
the
SSP
and
enviro
tech
to
begin,
the
the
CC
NRS
which
were
raised
do
provide
a
provision
for
the
architectural
committee
to
in
its
sole
discretion,
allow
different
uses
within
the
industrial
park.
X
In
this
case
that
did
occur,
and
there
was
a
letter
that
was
submitted
to
the
Commission
I
sent
a
letter
on
March
16th.
That
included
both
the
approval
by
the
architectural
committee
and
a
couple
other
items
that
we
thought
would
be
relevant
to
your
consideration,
and
they
also
respond
to
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised
by
the
attorneys
for
both
SSP
and
in
biotech.
X
Specifically
in
response
to
some
of
their
concerns.
We
proposed
doing
a
deed
restriction
that
would
limit
any
complaints
that
any
industrial
uses
near
the
residential
property
would
be,
could
not
be
considered
a
nuisance
provided
they're
in
compliance
with
the
other
rules
and
regulations.
So
we
have
made
an
attempt
to
respond
to
that
can
about
potential
noise
and
other
uses
in
the
area.
X
X
X
Yeah
one
other
issue:
I
think
it
was
raised
by
SSP.
Is
you
know
that
they
purchased
this
property?
Zoned
industrial?
In
fact
they
purchased
it
in
2016
it
would
have
been
designated
c1
at
that
time,
which
does
you
know,
permits
the
uses
that
are
proposed
here.
So
with
with
those
comments,
oh
I
guess,
I
would
also
add.
With
respect
to
the
noise
and
the
incompatibility
of
residential
uses
nearby
the
there
is
a
assisted
living
facility,
that's
directly
east
or
I'm,
sorry
directly
west
of
the
proposed
project
that
you're
reviewing
this
evening.
X
Q
B
Q
Basically
the
housing
crisis
in
our
city
and
the
affordability
crisis,
so
I
think
that
that,
for
me,
is
what
sort
of
tips
me
into
approving
it.
Although
I
will
say
I
agree
with
the
folks,
miss
Miller
and
miss
Fisher
and
the
and
mr.
Craney
that
you
know
this
is
clearly
we're
pushing
the
boundary
of
c1
in
approving
a
purely
residential
development.
I
mean
I.
Q
J
L
In
support
of
what
Commissioner
Gillespie
said,
in
addition
to
its
sitting
vacant
for
so
long,
it
has
flipped
back
and
forth
in
terms
of
zoning
and
so
making
it
a
c1
is
not
outside
the
realm
of
imagination.
Here,
given
that
it's
been
there
before,
there
are
several
areas
where
it
is
supported
by
blueprint
Boise.
L
When
you
look
at
the
push
for
housing
near
the
mall
now
this
is
probably
in
about
all
I,
don't
know
a
mile
and
a
half
radius
or
so,
and
then
also
making
sure
that
we
have
available
transit
near
some
of
these
higher
density
developments.
It
is
certainly
in
line
with
that,
so
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion.
P
C
I'm
gonna,
be
in
favor
of
the
motion
as
well.
Definitely
is
a
challenging
one
though
I.
Think,
though,
that
in
addition
to
all
the
other
comments
from
I
felt
my
fellow
commissioners
that
just
looking
at
the
other
services
that
are
in
the
area,
in
addition
to
the
mall
I,
think
when
you're
looking
at
medical
services
nearby,
you
know
some
other
services,
commercial
services
nearby
as
well.
I
think
that
those
provides
support
for
residential
in
this
particular
instance
and
I'll.
Y
You
I'm
also
gonna,
be
supporting
this
motion.
I
I
agree
with
my
fellow
commissioners,
I
think
who
sums
it
up
perfectly
that
this
is
it
is
challenging
and
it
does
push
the
boundaries,
but
I
do
see
that
there
are
plenty
of
connections
to
the
comprehensive
plan
and
that
it's
also
very
clearly
a
mixed
use
area.
So
I'm
very
persuaded
by
all
of
that
and
I
will
be
supporting
the
motion.
L
L
For
chiming
in
again
but
I
just
to
make
sure
there's
one
thing
on
the
record:
I'm
interested
as
you
look
at
this
warranty
deed,
which
I
think
you
definitely
a
show
of
good
faith.
But
my
question
that
I
just
like
to
pose
is
the
enforceability
as
time
goes
by
something
like
that.
I,
don't
know
that
we
can
get
an
answer
tonight,
but
it's
certainly
something
to
be
thinking
about.