►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission - 7/6/2020
Description
Please visit the following link for information on how to testify during virtual public hearings:
https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/finance-and-administration/city-clerk/virtual-meetings/
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
There
we
go
again
good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
virtual
Boise
City
Planning
and
Zoning
public
hearing
a
few
things
to
start
out
for
the
good
of
the
order.
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
has
automatically
been
muted
and
cannot
speak.
Does
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you'll
be
called
upon
and
unmuted
we'll
ask
you
if
you
have
slides
to
share
or
if
you
can
use
the
planner
slides
for
your
visual?
B
If
you
have
your
own
slides
your
role,
change
to
panelists,
this
may
log
you
off
for
a
moment
and
walk
you
back
in
and
then
you'll
have
the
capabilities
to
share
your
screen.
A
quick
overview
for
zoom
as
the
capabilities
and
options
are
different,
depending
on
which
device
you're
logging
in
with,
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
screen
when
called
upon
some
laptops
might
not
have
a
microphone
capability.
B
If
you
wish
to
speak
over
the
phone
but
watch
on
your
computer,
the
phone
number
for
the
hearing
tonight
will
be
listed
in
the
chat
or
is
listed
on
the
email
when
you're
registered
for
tonight's
hearing,
for
both
smart
phone
and
computer
participation.
These
there
are
controls
on
the
bottom
of
zoom
to
virtually
raise
your
hand
when
you
wish
to
speak
on
the
item
you're
interested
in.
If
you
wish
to
attend
on
the
phone
with
no
visual
capabilities,
you
can
raise
your
hand
virtually
by
typing
in
star
nine
again,
that's
star
nine.
B
B
Our
procedures
for
public
hearings
begin
with
the
presentation
from
the
planning
team,
then
we'll
go
to
the
applicant
and
then
the
representative
of
the
registered
Neighborhood
Association,
followed
by
the
questions
from
the
Commission.
After
that,
we
proceeded
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
signed
up
on
the
electronic
signup
sheet
on
the
website
in
advance,
and
then
anyone
who
rose
raises
their
hand.
Virtually
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
B
We
will
provide
a
time
at
that
three
minutes,
we'll
let
you
wrap
up
and
then
you'll
need
to
be
done.
We
are
strict
with
this
time
as
it
is
limited
in
code
and
then
the
applicant
is
allowed
five
minutes
for
rebuttal,
after
which
the
hearing
will
be
closed
in
the
Commission,
will
deliberate
and
render
decision.
C
Good
evening
we
are
citizen
volunteers
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
the
City
Council.
We
make
final
decisions
on
conditional
use,
permits,
variances
and
appeals
and
recommendations
to
the
City
Council
on
subdivisions
reasons,
annexations
and
code
or
comprehensive
plant
updates.
Any
decision
made
tonight
may
be
appealed
to
the
City
Council,
provided
that
the
appeal
is
filed
within
10
days
of
the
hearing.
In
order
to
file
an
appeal
you
must
have
given
written
or
oral
testimony
at
tonight's
meeting.
C
So
that's
why
it's
important
to
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
testify
tonight,
we
utilize
a
consent
agenda.
This
means
that
if
the
applicant
agrees
with
the
staff
report,
if
there
is
no
public
opposition,
the
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
motion.
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.
C
A
C
Okay,
we'll
start
with
the
consent
agenda
this
evening,
without
objection,
I'd
like
to
place
the
meeting
minutes
from
May,
6th
and
May
20th
on
the
consent
agenda
and
then
moving
on
to
new
business.
We
have
several
items
this
evening
that
I
think
are
eligible
for
the
consent
agenda.
We'll
start
with
item
a
that's
su
B
1975,
moose
land
estates
subdivision
at
I'm.
So
excuse
me
three:
nine,
seven,
six
North
Cloverdale
Road
is
the
applicant
present,
either
in
person
or
online.
C
D
C
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
this
evening
is
item
number
one:
that's
CBA,
20-20
at
10:19,
west
Thatcher
Street.
That's
a
variance
to
encroach
into
the
rear
setback
for
an
accessory
structure
on
point
to
four
acres
in
an
art
to
HD
zone.
Is
the
applicant
present
and
believe
the
applicants
online
I
see
a
hand
up
mr.
hurt.
Are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
condition
of
the
staff
report?
C
C
E
F
C
Okay
to
item
number:
two:
that's
PUD,
20-20
cook
brothers,
construction
at
57:16,
North,
Peirce,
Park
Lane
has
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
six
detached
single-family
homes
of
0.76
acres
in
an
r1
C
zone.
Along
with
that,
we
have
SUV
20-18,
which
is
a
preliminary
and
final
plat
at
the
same
address
is
the
applicant
present
this
evening.
C
C
C
Moving
on
to
item
number
three
at
COP
20-20
craft
brewers
of
Boise
420,
North,
North,
Orchard
Street.
It's
a
modification
of
a
previously
approved
conditional
use
permit
to
expand
a
brew
pub
and
patio
space
within
300
feet
of
a
residential
property
on
0.92
acres
in
a
c2d
zone.
Is
the
applicant
present
this
evening.
C
C
Moving
on
to
item
number
number
for
PUD
20-19
here
on
properties,
LLC
at
sixty
16,
North,
Pierce,
Park
Lane,
that's
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
ten
detached
single-family
homes
on
2.86
acres
in
an
r1
B
zone.
Along
with
that
application,
we
have
su
B
2016
a
preliminary
plat
at
the
same
address
60-66
teen,
north
Parrish,
Park
Lane-
is
the
applicant
present
this
evening.
C
C
D
D
C
C
A
H
H
There
are
exceptional
circumstances,
justifying
the
variance
the
new
garage
and
ad
you
will
not
encroach
into
the
rear
setback
any
further
than
the
existing
garage
previously
encroached
for
nearly
100
years.
Furthermore,
the
encroachment
into
the
rear
yard
for
the
proposed
garage
and
a
Adu
will
allow
for
the
retention
of
a
mature
30-inch
caliper
shade
tree
along
with
other
established
landscaping
on-site.
H
The
planning
team
cannot
identify
any
adverse
impacts
on
surrounding
properties.
There
will
be
no
windows
facing
the
property
to
the
south,
which
would
be
most
impacted
by
the
variance.
This
proposal
will
bring
the
single-family
home
into
compliance
with
parking
and
will
provide
parking
off.
The
alley
is,
as
is
encouraged
by
Boise
City
code
and
the
comprehensive
plan.
The
proposal
received
a
historic
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
the
planning
team
is
unaware
of
any
opposite.
One.
Letter
of
support
has
been
received.
H
G
Great
yeah
I
think
that
was
that
was
summed
up
really
well
and
yeah
we're
looking
at
the
tree.
That
provides
a
lot
of
shade.
It's
quite
a
large
tree.
It's
60
or
70
feet
tall,
as
well
as
locating
the
garage
and
Adu
where
the
existing
for
the
most
part,
where
the
existing
garage
is
it's
kind
of
right
now
in
no-man's
land
between
that
neighbor's
garage,
which
is
to
the
south
and
the
existing
garage
and
then
in
the
future,
the
proposed
garage
so
because
of
the
closeness
of
the
neighbor's
garage.
G
G
The
existing
tree
is
important,
existing
landscape,
it's
kind
of
like
it's
a
very
large
lot,
so
it's
kind
of
like
a
park-like
setting
and
to
preserve
that
preserve
that
atmosphere
as
much
as
possible
for
the
benefit
of
Patras
street,
as
well
as
the
you
know,
preserve
the
landscaping
landscaping.
That's
there.
We
did
meet
with
the
neighbor
on
site,
that
is
to
the
south,
and
they
had
no
objections.
G
They
were
supportive
of
the
application,
as
well
as
Historic
Preservation
Commission,
who
approved
the
the
addition
and
the
Adu
with
the
garage
unanimously
and
as
staff
mentioned,
you
know
we
do
not
have
windows
on
that
side
of
the
on
that
side
of
the
Adu
to
preserve
the
privacy
of
the
neighbor
neighbor
to
the
south.
So
with
that
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
C
C
F
F
H
F
C
C
J
J
J
C
K
C
F
I
requested
it
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
requested
it,
because
the
the
proposed
variance
was
for
a
two-story
ad,
you
versus
the
single-story
garage
and
just
making
sure
that
you
know
it's
handled
like
a
side
street
or
a
side,
yard
interior
side
yard
setback,
which
would
be
five
feet.
That's
the
proposed
setback
for
the
furthest,
variance
on
the
on
the
garage
making
sure
that
it's
equal
on
the
other
side
and
that
there's
no
inequality
after
seeing
that
the
additions
back
15
feet.
F
C
C
H
Chair
commissioners,
before
you
as
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
six
detached
single-family
homes
in
an
r1
C.
Zoning
district
also
included
our
preliminary
and
final
Platts,
comprised
of
one
common
in
six
buildable
Lots.
The
property
is
on
the
east
side
of
Pierce
Park
Lane,
south
of
Hill
Road.
A
nine-hole
golf
course
is
to
the
east
and
an
AC
HD
drainage
law
is
directly
to
the
north.
H
Here
is
a
site
plan
and
landscape
plan.
The
development
is
under
one
acre
in
size,
removing
the
requirement
for
amenities.
However,
each
single-family
home
will
have
private
rear
yards
exceeding
the
100
square.
Foot
of
open
space
requirement.
Common
open
space
will
also
be
provided
along
the
spoil
banks
canal.
The
applicant
is
requesting
waivers
to
the
subdivision
ordinance
for
a
private
street
width
of
27
feet
with
sidewalk
on
one
side,
rather
than
a
width
of
28
feet
with
sidewalk
on
both
sides
as
acquired
by
code.
H
The
planning
team
is
supportive
of
these
requests,
as
they
are
interior
to
the
development
and,
due
to
the
narrowness
of
the
lot
waivers,
are
necessary
to
allow
for
adequate
building
envelopes
to
allow
for
future
connectivity
opportunities.
A
condition
of
approval
will
require
that
a
note
and
depiction
be
added
to
the
subdivision
plat
for
a
blanket
public
access
easement.
That
would
go
through
the
extent
of
the
common
law,
including
the
private
street
and
irrigation
easement
along
the
spoil
banks
canal,
depending
on
approval
by
irrigation
district
number.
H
Two,
the
public
access
easement,
could
end
at
the
edge
of
the
irrigation
easement.
In
conclusion,
all
commenting
agencies
have
approved
the
park,
the
project
with
standard
conditions
and
the
planning
team
is
recommending
approval
of
application.
Just
as
a
reminder,
the
Commission
will
make
a
final
decision
on
the
plan
unit
development
and
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
on
the
subdivision.
Thank
you.
L
Mr.
chair
members
of
the
Commission
been
simple
1
0
1,
4,
South,
Lapointe,
Street,
Suite,
3,
Boise,
Idaho,
8,
3,
7,
0,
6
and
I
think
miss
Nelson
for
her
presentation
and
as
I
stated
earlier,
we
are
in
agreement
with
all
the
conditions
of
approval,
including
the
extension
of
a
cross
access
easement
through
the
fire
department,
turn
around
to
the
property
to
the
south
and
to
cover
a
public
access
easement
over,
if
allowed,
by
the
irrigation
district
over
the
portion
of
the
irrigation
easement.
L
We
do
intend
on
putting
some
new
landscaping,
as
is
shown
on
the
site,
front
site
landscape
plan.
That's
on
the
screen
right
now
as
well.
We
did
request
the
waiver
of
the
sidewalk
on
the
north
side
of
the
private
street,
mostly
so
that
we
could
provide
a
better
landscape
buffer
between
the
AC
HD
drainage.
Pond,
that's
to
the
north
and
the
private
street.
The
private
street
also
being
27
feet
wide,
will
allow
for
on
street
parking
on
one
side
which
we
intend
to
put
along
that
north
side.
L
It
will
accommodate
eight
standard
spots
and
for
compact
spaces,
so
we
would
have
two
guest
parking
spaces
associated
for
each
lot,
along
with
each
house
will
have
a
two-car
garage
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
are
requesting
that
PUD
for
the
reduced
lot
sizes
in
this
area.
There's
a
lot
of
larger
single-family
homes.
L
There
are
some
infill
developments
that
are
occurring
specifically
to
the
south,
on
Pierce
Park
and
on
the
west
side,
and
this
is
in
kind
of
in
keeping
with
that
type
of
development,
also
to
provide
some
a
more
affordable
option
for
people
that
want
to
live
in
closer
to
town.
In
a
smaller
home.
These
the
setbacks
that
we
have
on
the
the
rear
setbacks,
which
would
be
the
South
property
line.
C
D
L
Yes,
mr.
chairman
Commissioner
Bratton
number,
we,
the
the
property
size,
does
allow
for
six
up
to
six
units
based
on
the
code
of
eight
units,
an
acre
at
point,
seven,
six
acres
and
in
order
to
provide
for
a
little
bit
larger
yard,
as
well
as
to
accommodate
the
irrigation
easement
and
the
20-foot
landscape
buffer.
Along
the
front,
we
were
looking
at
doing
some
smaller
homes,
I'm
not
going
to
call
them
tiny
homes
because
they're
they're,
not
they
don't
think
fit
in
that
classification.
L
But
we
feel
like
this
is
appropriate
to
provide
an
option
for
maybe
some
more
affordability
within
this
area
of
town.
There's
a
lot
of
larger
lot,
bred
single-family
residential
here
and
we
felt
bringing
in
a
smaller
single-family
home
rather
than
trying
to
do
something
that
was
attached
like
townhomes
or
something
like
that
was
more
appropriate
for
this
location
and
the
smaller
Lots
do
allow
for
us
to
get
the
six
units,
while
still
providing
for
a
more
private
open
space
than
what
would
be
required
for
a
PUD.
L
And
then
we
also
have
the
common
area
in
the
back.
That
would
encompass
that
irrigation
easement,
that
we
do
intend
to
landscape
and
again,
assuming
that
we
can
get
irrigation
district
approval
for
putting
some
other
improvements
back
in
there.
Maybe
like
a
little
picnic
area
and
some
stuff
where
it's
it's
a
really
nice
space
along
that
canal,
back
there
there's
some
large,
mature
trees,
and
so
the
smaller
lot
size
kind
of
helps
us
maintain
that
as
well.
Okay,.
D
Have
a
question
for
staff
please,
so
obviously
this
is
significantly.
Although
the
the
density
is
right.
For
one
see,
the
dimensions
of
the
Lots
are
not
by
a
by
a
big
amount.
Well,
was
there
any
idea
about
looking
at
alternatives?
I,
don't
know
if
there's
a
zoning
designation
that
would
fit
these
Lots,
but
what
other
alternatives
will
pursue
were
pursued.
Please.
H
E
L
Commissioner
Brown
number
I
did
look
at
how
we
could
accommodate
or
bring
the
Lots
to
with,
in
conformance
with
in
a
zoning
district.
But
you
know
typically
we're
not
allowed
to
do
spot
zoning
I.
Think
r1m
is
maybe
a
zone
that
would
allow
for
these
lot
sizes,
but
having
a
spot
zone
to
r1m
would
also
increase
the
ability
to
put
a
higher
density
on
this
property,
which
we
didn't
feel
was
appropriate,
and
while
these
homes
and
lots
are
smaller,
with
a
5,000
square-foot
minimum
lot
size
in
r1c.
L
I
know
these
are
you
know
about
half
that
size,
but
we
did
feel
that
by
providing
a
smaller
single-family
residence
on
a
smaller
lot
that
still
has
a
pretty
decent
sized
backyard
that
it
was
in
better
conformance
with
the
surrounding,
because
they
are
detached
single-family
and
that's
kind
of
like
and
without
being
able
to
rezone
to
something
else.
We
felt
that
this
was
appropriate,
based
on
the
parcel
shape
and
and
that
as
well.
If
that
helps
you.
M
H
M
Okay,
mr.
chairman
Commissioner,
so
Carla
I'm,
also
looking
at
the
homes
on
hammer
mill
and
fenwick
and
then
up
on
Baron
sort
of
all
these
are
probably
within
it
less
than
a
quarter
mile.
Those
look
like
pretty
skinny
lots
to
me.
Some
of
them
do
you
do
you
happen
to
know
if
those
are
all
also
smaller
than
the
r1c
sized
chair.
H
E
K
Also
have
a
question
for
Carla,
so
I
didn't
see
anything
in
the
staff
report
related
to
some
of
the
comp
plan
goals
with
regard
to
providing
variety
of
housing,
specifically
in
some
of
our
neighborhoods.
Aha,
maybe
it
was
there.
I
looked
and
maybe
and
I
and
I
just
was
wondering
I
think
that
in
terms
of
affordability
and
I,
don't
I
don't
know
that
I,
don't
think
that
it
is
represented
in
this
chart.
That's
in
front
of
us
was
there
any?
K
H
Chair
Commissioner
Stevens,
yes,
the
comprehensive
plan
was
certainly
I
think
encouraged
us
to
look
at
a
variety
of
housing
options,
including
affordable.
This
application
wasn't
presented
to
us
as
necessarily
being
affordable
housing,
but
it
is
I
think
providing
a
different
arrangement
of
single-family
housing
in
a
neighborhood
that
is
primarily
single-family
housing.
L
L
So
the
the
subject-
property
for
this
project
is
here
and
then,
if
you
go
to,
this
is
foggy
bottom
right
here
and
these
homes.
The
one
of
these,
this
lot
size
right
here,
I
checked,
is
2,600
square
feet.
So
this
is
very
similar
in
terms
of
lot
size,
although
these
appear
to
have
a
reduced
rear
setback
which
we
would
be
providing
for
a
larger
rear
setback,
but
again
kind
of
similar,
where
it's
got
to
turn
around
and
lot
sizes
that
are
comparable.
P
H
P
Let
me
let
me
interject
before
mr.
sepiol
comes
back
on
then,
because
here's
the
here's
where
I'm
looking
at
this
from
is,
we
wouldn't
approve
a
structure
like
this,
even
in
our
to
where
we
want
density
with
three
foot
side,
setbacks
so
I'm
it
just
it's
kind
of
perplexing
to
me
why
we
would
why
we
would
put
really
this
many
units
way
out
there
on
State
Street,
with
three
foot
side:
setbacks
where
all
around
Boise
State,
where
you've
got
our
two
properties
we
would.
We
would
never
consider
something
with
with
three
foot
setbacks.
We
would.
P
As
you
know,
you
know,
if
we're
gonna
have
a
two-story
structure,
the
upper
floors
would
have
to
be
set
back
to
even
get
a
five
foot
setback
if
I'm
reading
code
correctly,
so
just
I'm
just
kind
of
perplexed,
where
we
don't
need
density
out
there
along
State,
Street,
I'm
kind
of
these.
These
buildings
are
2,000
square
feet.
I
would
consider
that
to
be
a
small
footprint
or
when
it's
priced
out.
P
These
are
gonna,
be
probably
pushing
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
piece,
and
that's
that's
above
median
unless,
unless
I'm
wrong,
then,
but
that's
kind
of
my
concern
is
at
work.
We
wouldn't
approve
anything
like
this
in
it.
You
know
in
a
zone
like
r2
even
and
we're
looking
at
doing
it
in
a
residential
zone.
H
Chair
Commissioner
Blanchard,
we
do
allow
for
reduced
interior
setbacks
through
the
Planned
Unit
development
process,
and
we
certainly
do
allow
for
that
in
r2
or
all
of
the
our
zones
with
with
this
process
that
we're
looking
at
today.
So
the
plan
unit
development
in
combination
with
subdivision
allows
for
reduced
interior
setbacks
and
reduce
lot
sizes
as
are
being
proposed
and,
and
it
has
certainly
been
approved
elsewhere.
The
city.
L
Commissioner
Blanchard
to
touch
on
that
a
little
bit
more
I'm
just
to
clarify
the
Lots
themselves,
are
about
2,300
square
feet,
but
the
buildable
area
is
under
2,000,
substantially,
it's
probably
closer
to
about
1,700
square
foot
of
footprint,
and
it's
definitely
not
just
a
box
that
gets
built
in
here.
I
did
submit
some
floor
plans
on
those
too.
Those
are
still
going
through
development
and
the
3-foot
interior
side.
L
K
K
I
guess
just
to
be
clear
for
the
record:
I
did
recognize.
This
wasn't
necessarily
a
legally
defined,
affordable
housing,
but
my
assumption
was
with
a
smaller
house
like
that
in
a
neighborhood
like
this,
that
they
would
be
going
for
smaller
amounts
of
money.
So
that
was
my
theory
on
that.
One
who
knows
in
this
market,
but
that's.
C
C
C
K
And
if
I'm
swatting,
it's
cuz,
I'm
outdoors
and
there's
like
flies
and
mosquitoes
and
stuff,
so
apologies
for
all.
My
gesticulation
I
actually
am
really
pleased
to
see
an
application
like
this
it.
It
strikes
a
good
balance
in
my
mind,
between
having
some
density
but
having
single
family
homes
as
opposed
to
multifamily.
Every
time
we
see
a
building
envelope
that
looks
like
this
or
a
parcel
that
looks
like
this.
K
Forgive
me
and
I
actually
do
think
it's
a
good
spot
for
some
density
and
I
know
it's
marked
as
as
stable
and
I
think
that
this
actually
continues
the
neighborhood's
ability
to
remain
stable
and
to
continue
to
sustain
that
marking.
So
I
think
it's
a
good
project
and
I
think
that
the
waivers
that
are
requested
are
justified,
particularly
because
I
think
that
the
open
space
along
the
canal
and
the
backyards
are
really
nice
balance
provide
a
really
nice
balance
for
the
small
homes,
so
I'm
in
full
support
of
the
application.
D
So
probably
no
surprise
I
have
some
concerns
about
the
lot
dimensions
for
this
application.
Obviously,
the
density
matches
the
r1c
designation,
but
the
dimensions
are
in
some
cases,
half
of
what
the
zoning
specifies.
So
you
know,
as
a
commission,
we
have
latitude
to
exercise
leeway
on
these
specifications
in
most
cases.
The
deviation
is
nowhere
near
this
large,
but
it
allows
us
to
address
the
critical
housing
shortages
in
Boise,
which
are
you
know,
quite
significant
I,
looked
at
alternate
zoning
possibilities
and
couldn't
find
any
to
mr.
simple
statement.
D
R1M
is
the
closest
but
I
think
the
reduced
size
that
would
fit
requires
that
the
housing
is
attached.
If
I'm
reading
the
code
correctly,
which
this
is
not
and
seems
to
be,
we've
got
a
couple
of
choices
here,
reduce
the
number
of
Lots
to
continue
and
configure
it
closer
to
the
r1c,
specs
or
just
approve
and
move
on.
I.
D
D
If
we
just
approve
and
move
on,
because
this
can
easily
become
a
habit
and
as
such
we'd
be
setting
a
precedent
that
can
potentially
erode
zoning
requirements,
not
you
know
not
trying
to
single
this
one
out,
although
that's
kind
of
where
we
are
when,
when
you
know
when
we,
when
we
have
this
kind
of
discrepancy,
we
should
pause
and
think
towards
the
future.
If
we
truly
need
these
kinds
of
lot
sizes
and
this
kind
of
zoning,
we
should
be
modifying
the
law
appropriately
or
resume
to
the
correct,
specs
or
reconfigure.
D
It
may
mean
that
we
need
to
add
a
zone.
I'm
fine
I
think
the
law
needs
to
keep
up
with
the
pressing
demand
of
growing
city
if
we
continue
to
approve
laws
which
are
much
smaller
than
required
in
the
desired
zones,
we're
risking
both
our
credibility
as
a
commission
and
eroding
citizens,
confidence
in
the
law.
So
those
are
my
concerns
about
falling
into
this
repetitive
nature
of
approving
lot
sizes,
which
are
dramatically
lower.
We've
seen
in
Commission
meetings,
neighbors
come
up
in
arms
about
the
smaller
lot
size.
You
know
we
had
a.
D
I
Mr.
chairman,
it's
Commissioner,
Finn
frog,
I,
agree
with
Commissioner
Wright
and
over
on
that
I'm,
not
comfortable
deviating
from
the
dimensional
standards
that
the
sub
the
subdivision
ordinance
acquired.
If
we
are
getting
to
the
extent
that
we
have
on
this
application,
I
think
if
it
meets
the
standards
for
the
rezoning
and
I
agree
with
him.
There
has
to
be
a
standard
and
we
just
get
further
and
further
away
from
it
and
I'm
uncomfortable
as.
I
M
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion
to
approve
I,
think
the
basic
issue
here
is
it's
a
long
skinny
lot
and
we
have
to
put
a
street
in
because
of
the
orientation.
That's
a
lot,
so
you
have
to
put
in
a
27
foot
wide
street
and
then
we've
got
a
very
large
irrigation
easement,
and
so
in
order
to
get
to
the
density
allowed
by
the
zone.
We
have
to
have
these
skinny
Lots
I'd.
Also
point
out
that
there's
it's
no
specific
case
of
adverse
impact
has
been
shown.
M
M
But
it's
I
think
the
applicant
is
correct.
It's
likely
to
redevelop
in
kind
of
a
similar
pattern
with
you
know,
multiple
houses
or
multiple
Lots
on
that
southern
lot
line,
so
I
just
don't
see
where
the
sort
of
adverse
impact
is
and
I
think
there's
a
clear
interest
here
to
to
build
these
houses
in
the
way
that
the
applicant
has
proposed,
and
we
got
to
put
a
street
in
there
or
will
never
develop
that
lot.
Thank
You.
F
I'm
in
support
of
this
motion,
but
I
just
would
like
to
say
that
it
seems
like
there's
two
competing
ideas
going
to
competing
points
and
the
zoning
code
going
on
where
we
either
prioritize
density
or
the
density
allowed
in
his
own,
or
we
prioritize
the
size
of
lots,
and
so
it
seems
to
me
if
we
do
want
to
prioritize
the
density.
Like
commissioner
bratton
uber
said,
maybe
we
do
need
to
do
something
about
those
minimum
lot
sizes
and
if
we're
going
to
focus
on
that
density,
I
mean.
F
C
F
Will
note
that
the
all
the
adjacent
setbacks
to
the
adjacent
properties,
those
all
meet
the
zone
or
dimensionally,
meet
the
Cooke
the
zone
so
interior?
It
would
be
variance
from
that
we're
different
from
the
zone,
but
two
year
adjacent
properties.
It
does
meet
the
zone
and
and
would
be
the
same
as
if
you
had
just
one.
C
M
Just
a
procedural
point,
so
the
whole
reason
this
is
before
us
is
a
PUD
is
to
deal
with
the
lot
sizes
and
the
setbacks.
So
we
do
have
a
process
in
the
code
for
essentially
adjudicating
and
resolving
the
issues
that
some
of
the
other
commissioners
are
concerned
about.
That's
what
the
PUD
findings
do
is
allow
us
to
make
these
decisions
with
respect
to
lot
size
and
setbacks,
and
that's
normally
in
every
one
of
these
that
we
do
that's
the
criteria
we
should
be
applying.
Thank
you
and.
K
C
K
I
mean
I
got
to
be
honest
here
and
I
want
to
reiterate
what
Commissioner
Gillespie
just
said,
which
is
that
we
have
a
process,
and
this
is
what
we're
deploying
is
the
process
it's
in
our
and
if
we
start
having
a
zone
that
matches
every
single
situation,
we're
going
to
have
a
zoning
code
that
exceeds
the
hundreds
of
pages
that
already
exist,
so
I
think
that
we're
going
backwards
here
guys
we
have
a
situation
where
the
PUD
is.
Is
the
process
and
we're
dealing
with
PUD?
K
It
happens
to
be
under
an
acre,
and
so
he
doesn't
have
to.
The
applicant
does
not
have
to
apply
or
provide
amenities.
Yet
we
have
a
situation
where
there's
a
large
amount
of
open
space
being
provided
regardless
there
is.
There
was
no
discussion
for
the
people,
commissioner
bratton
over
his
comments,
had
nothing
to
do
that.
I
could
tell
with
compatibility,
but
instead
merely
a
sort
of
wanting
to
make
sure
that
that
it
meets
the
absolute
specific
things
of
the
code
and
I'm
going
to
disagree
with
Commissioner
Bratton
overall,
so
that
we
never
deviate
this
much.
K
It's
not
true.
We
do
and
that's
exactly
what
the
PUD
process
is
for,
and
we've
done
it
many
many
times
in
many
different
zones
throughout
the
entire
city.
So
I,
just
I,
don't
agree
with
the
premise
there
and
I
don't
agree
that
we
need
to
keep
writing
new
zones
that
can
fit
every
single
piece
of
property
that
comes
before
us.
We
have
a
process,
it's
being
deployed
properly
here,
I
think
staff
has
come
up
with
findings
that
make
sense
for
it
and
I
stand
by
the
motion
and
I.
D
D
We've
you're
exactly
right,
even
in
my
brief
time
as
a
commissioner
we've
we've
approved
some
of
these
and
that's
fine.
The
issue
is
when
we
get
to
this
level
of
deviation:
I'm,
not
looking
for
us
to
do
a
zone
for
every
single
size.
If
you
will
but
I
think
Commissioner
Moore
stated
it
very
well.
There
is
a
question
of
trade-off
here.
The
it's
matching
it's
coming
in
right
at
the
density
allowed.
D
However,
the
dimensions
for
the
lots
are
way
off
so
which
is
most
important.
We
try
to
do.
We
strive
to
do
both
come
within.
Oh
I,
don't
know,
maybe
a
thousand
square
feet
of
the
dimension.
You
live
with
that
we're
happy,
but
we're
fifty
percent
now
I
fully
expect
that
this
gonna
go
ahead
and
be
approved
and
all
that
stuff,
but
we're
gonna
run
into
this
over
and
over
again,
and
what
we
saw
in
our
last
meeting
was
that
this
is
a
concern
for
the
neighbors
in
cases
now,
in
this
case,
you're
right,
Commissioner
Gillespie.
D
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
see
us
look
at
the
law
closer
and
and
adapt
to
what
we're
seeing
as
a
city
in
terms
of
growth
and
the
need
for
affordable
housing,
which
I'm
not
sure
where
this
one
comes
in
because,
as
you
pointed
out,
commissioner
Stevens,
but
this
was
not
a
designated,
affordable
housing
or
low
cost
housing.
I
think
so
you
know
I'm,
not
I.
C
C
E
C
E
E
All
right
before
use
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
10
detached
single-family
homes
on
2.86
acres
located
at
60,
16
and
6100
north
of
Pierce
Park
Lane
in
an
r1
B
zone
also
included
as
a
preliminary
plat
for
a
residential
subdivision
and
comprised
of
10
buildable
Lots
and
five
common
Lots
property
is
located
on
the
west
side
of
Pierce
Park.
Just
south
of
Hill
Road
surrounding
properties
are
all
single-family
homes,
either
zoned,
r1
c
or
r1
b.
E
Access
is
taken
from
a
private
street
out
to
pierce
park,
with
two
shared
driveways,
providing
direct
access
to
nine
at
n
homes
with
the
PUD.
The
applicant
is
requesting
reduced
internal
side
and
rear
setbacks,
as
well
as
reductions
to
the
minimum
lot
sizes
and
widths
planning
team
is
supportive
of
those
modifications,
as
they
will
have
minimal
impacts
to
neighboring
properties.
Property
is
a
unique
shape
and
the
density
of
3.49
dwelling
units
per
acre
remains
well
below
the
4.8
allowed
in
the
r1b
zone.
E
Building
heights
parking
requirements
and
perimeter
setbacks
will
meet
the
requirements
of
the
zone.
On-Site
amenities
include
landscaped,
common
lots
with
picnic
areas
and
easement,
preserving
a
future
connection
shown
here
in
red
to
the
future
pathway
along
the
farmer,
unions
canal
to
the
northeast
and
pre-wiring
homes,
with
the
capacity
for
electric
vehicle
charging
in
the
garages.
So
this
last
one
is
a
did
come
about
through
the
P,
you
do
PUD
process
and
it
basically
consists
of
having
an
outlet
similar
to
what's
used
in
a
dryer
in
each
of
the
garages.
E
So
this
does
allow
the
homeowner
to
easily
plug
in
a
level-two
electric
vehicle
charger
without
the
added
hassle
and
cost
of
rewiring.
The
house
planning
team
is
fully
supportive
of
this,
as
it
does
lower
Barry's
barriers
to
evey
adoption
and
helps
the
city
move
towards
accomplishing
some
of
its
some
of
its
goals
associated
with
the
Boise's
energy
future
initiative,
as
well
as
being
supported
by
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
So
something
like
this
does
fall
under
the
quote.
Other
amenities,
as
approved
by
the
Commission
category
encode
common
agencies,
have
approved
that
proposed.
E
The
proposal
with
standard
conditions
and
no
letters
of
opposition
opposition
have
been
received.
The
planning
team
is
recommending
approval
of
the
application
with
conditions
for
the
PUD.
The
Commission
is
the
decision-making
body
and
for
the
subdivision,
the
Commission
is
a
recommending
body
to
City
Council.
Thank
you.
L
Mr.
chairman,
members
of
the
Commission
been
simple
one:
zero
one
for
South
LaPoint,
Street
Suite,
three
Boise
Idaho,
eight,
three,
seven,
zero
three.
This
will
be
the
second
of
three
that
you
hear
from
me
tonight.
This
again,
as
stated
by
mr.
Holmes
I,
appreciate
his
staff
report.
We
are
in
agreement
with
all
the
conditions
of
approval
contained
in
that
staff
report.
L
So
I
guess
the
base
things
on
here
would
be
lot
size.
So
our
lot
sizes
are
approximately
5,800
square
feet.
There
is
one
that's
closer
to
about
5200
square
feet,
and
that
would
be
a
lot
12.
As
shown
there.
The
surrounding
areas
to
the
south
is
Belmar
number
one
which
was
approved
I
believe
a
couple
years
ago.
L
It's
pretty
much
built
out
all
the
way,
if
not
built
out
all
the
way
till
the
north
is
our
three
or
immediately
adjacent
to
the
north
or
three
single-family
homes,
with
a
private
Street
to
their
north
and
then
three
more
homes
to
the
north
of
them
to
the
east,
as
Belmar
as
the
Farmers
Union
Canal
and
on
the
other
side
of
the
canal
is
Belmar.
Subdivision
number
two
to
the
west
is
Pierce
Park
and
some
existing
single-family
residential
developments
with
these
I'm
going
to
you
can
see
on
that
on
the
image
that's
shown
there.
L
While
the
lot
sizes
are
a
little
bit
smaller,
we
are
maintaining
all
exterior
setbacks,
as
required
by
the
r1b
zone
and
then
we're
requesting
essentially
r1c
setbacks
on
the
interior.
With
five
foot
side,
Eric
setbacks,
we
will
maintain
a
20
foot
setback
off
of
those
common
drives
to
the
drive
or
to
the
garages.
All
homes
will
have
at
least
a
two-car
garage
is
a
couple
of
them
having
a
three-car
garage
as
well
as
then,
a
driveway
that
would
accommodate
guests.
L
The
private
street
width
of
28
feet
from
back
to
back
does
allow
for
parking
on
one
side
as
well,
so
there
would
be
ample
on
street
and
in
driveway
guest
parking
opportunities.
One
thing
I
did
want
to
mention
as
well
is
that
the
developer
of
this
property
intends
to
build
their
personal
home
on
a
lot
11.
That's
the
lot
in
the
back
there,
so
they
do
intend
to
live
in
this
development.
I
worked
very
closely
with
them
and
developing
this
land
plan.
L
There's
some
fairly
large,
mature
landscaping
in
there,
as
well
as
a
kind
of
a
start
of
a
mound
or
kind
of
the
the
ground
slopes
up
there
towards
the
east,
so
the
homes
on
Lots,
2,
3,
&
4,
which
would
be
the
3
along
Pierce
Park
south
of
the
private
street,
would
be
essentially
daylight.
Homes
you'd
come
in
from
the
behind
in
the
alley.
The
private
driveway
drive
into
the
dry,
the
garage,
and
then
there
would
be
a
floor
below
that
along
the
front.
L
So
your
garage
would
be
on
the
second
level,
but
from
the
east
it
presents.
As
a
one-story
home,
we
will
have
a
20-foot
landscape
buffer
along
Pierce
Park
that
will
be
maintained
by
the
HOA,
and
then
we
are
working
a
during
the
neighborhood
meeting.
I
had
some
conversations
with
the
individuals
immediately
to
the
north,
about
working
with
them
during
the
landscape
design
of
the
individual
homes
to
make
sure
that
we're
protecting
their
privacy
as
well.
L
The
three
homes
of
the
north
of
our
private
street
there's
three
homes
to
the
north,
but
essentially
only
two
of
our
homes.
Lot,
seven
and
lot.
Nine
would
impact
them
directly
again
we're
maintaining
that
a
minimum
10
5
set
back
and
we'll
put
some
substantial
landscape,
some
evergreens
along
that
side
to
help
with
privacy
for
existing
and
future
residents
to
the
south.
Between
this
property
and
Belmar
number
one
there's
an
emergency
access
road
that
was
put
in
as
part
of
the
Belmar
approvals,
so
that
provides
for
an
additional
buffer
from
those
existing
homes.
L
L
Those
two
Lots
fall
right
here:
there's
a
currently
two
existing
signal:
family
homes
on
the
site
as
well.
This
doesn't
show
the
build-out
here,
but
these
two
homes
are
finished
as
well
along
there.
So
there's
three
here
where
we'll
just
have
two
along
the
bottom
portion
of
it
I
think
by
by
utilizing
the
PUD
allows
us
to
not
only
maintain
that
landscape
area
here
to
the
south,
some
very
mature
landscaping,
but
also
accommodate
we're
not
filling
up
these
Lots
all
the
way.
L
Obviously,
there's
a
lot
of
outdoor
usable
space,
private
and
public
for
these
again
with
proximity
to
Foothill
trails.
If
you
go
up
Pierce
Park,
it's
very
close
to
Hill
Road
and
obviously
everyone
knows
about
the
opportunities
for
recreation
and
the
foothills
around
here.
We
feel
very
good
about
the
project.
We
intend
on
providing
kind
of
a
modern
farmhouse
design
on
these
homes.
I
think
it'll
fit
really
well
with
the
existing
homes
in
the
area.
C
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
Then.
First,
we'll
move
on
to
representatives
from
the
Neighborhood
Association.
If
there
are
any
in
attendance
and
I
assume
that
there
are
not
because
our
last
application
was
in
the
same
neighborhood.
So
with
that,
we
will
move
on
to
questions
from
the
Commission
for
either
staff
or
the
applicant.
D
E
Mr.
cherrick
commissioner
bratton
Oberg,
similar
to
the
last
project,
the
PUD
process
does
allow
for
requested
reductions
of
those
interior
setbacks
that
maybe
would
be
more
in
line
with
some
of
the
r1
c
dimensional
standards.
But
as
we
are
looking
at
a
density
that
still
does
fit
within
our
would
be,
it
does
follow
the
procedural
setup
that
is
in
place
with
the
PUD
process
and
those
findings,
as
were
outlined
in
the
staff
report.
So.
G
A
L
I
could
add
a
little
bit,
commissioner
bratton
over
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
felt
it
was
appropriate
to
say
r1
be
in
this
zone.
Is
there
are?
It
is
r1
be
to
the
south
as
well
as
to
the
north
of
this,
and
by
if
we
tried
to
rezone
to
r1,
see
where
that
is,
does
exist
to
the
west
and
further
to
the
south
off
of
barren
Lane?
L
That
would
allow
for
the
development
of
up
to
22
units
on
this
property,
which
we
probably
could
fit
17
or
18
of
on
here
with
you
know
a
little
bit
more
creative
design,
especially
not
having
that
large,
a
20,
essentially
a
half
acre,
plus
a
lot
on
the
back
for
the
developer,
which
we
definitely
did
not
feel
fit.
This
area,
you
know
with
almost
three
acres
of
property
or
2.86
acres
with
ten
units
on
it,
we
felt
was
very
appropriate
for
this
zone
and
keeping
an
r1
b
would
protect
for.
L
If
someone
in
the
future
was
to
come
along,
they
could
rezone
it
or
go
through
a
rezone.
But
for
us
to
do
that
now
didn't
feel
like
the
path
we
wanted
to
go
down
to
open
the
door
for
someone
to
come
in
and
buy
the
project
before
it
was
fully
built
out
or
to
come
back
and
revise
it
to
put
almost
double
the
units
on
here
and
in
talking
with
again
with
the
neighbors
we
felt
like
that
was.
This
was
much
more
appropriate
way
to
handle
the
redevelopment
of
this.
D
Thank
you,
mr.
sample
life,
I
appreciate
your
your
explanation.
There
that's
helpful
as
I
look
down
around
Baron
Lane
I,
look
at
the
size
of
those
Lots.
Now,
obviously,
I
I
don't
have
the
measurements,
but
those
are
pretty
substantial.
Lots
probably
would
fit
r1b
yet
for
some
reason
back
in
history,
we
don't
know
why
they
chose
to
zone
that
at
r1c,
and
so
that's
why
it's
piqued
my
curiosity
here
when
you
compare
what
you're
seeing
there
in
terms
of
lot
sizes
surrounding
housing
and
the
existing
zoning.
C
C
M
F
C
M
M
The
way
we're
doing
it
and
it's
hard
in
this
particular
case
also
I-
think
the
layout
of
the
homes
is
such
that
there's
really
minimal
impact
on
all
the
surrounding
homes
and
in
fact
it
fits
kind
of
quite
nicely
I
think
both
north
and
south,
and
to
the
sort
of
the
you
know
across
the
canal
and
to
the
east,
so
I'm
again
strongly
supportive
of
this
application.
Thank
you.
C
F
F
All
your
variant
deviations
from
some
of
those
lot
sizes
are
all
interior,
but
everything
that
touches
your
your
perimeter,
those
all
conformed
with
his
own,
the
there's
lots,
eise's
setbacks.
The
location
of
your
house
in
relation
to
the
location
of
your
house
on
the
other
side
of
that
of
that
development
is
would
be
the
same.
D
Mr.
chairman
Commissioner
Bratton
over
so
starting
to
feel
like
Simon
Cowell
here,
but
I'll
go
ahead
and
and
if
you'll
indulge
me
just
for
the
record,
I'm
still
struggling
with
the
lot
size
question,
and
in
this
case
it's
I
appreciate
Commissioner
Gillespie
and
throwing
out
the
similarities
with
the
prior
one.
D
D
K
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
we
do
have
guidance
and
those
are
located
in
our
findings.
Number
eight
under
approval
criteria
for
Planned
Unit
development,
11.
Oh
three,
oh
four,
oh
seven,
under
C,
seven,
we
have
five
findings.
We
need
to
meet
for
a
plan
unit
about
unit
development
and
those
are
always
outlined
in
our
staff
report.
So
we
do
have
guidance
and
we
have
findings
that
we
have
to
meet
to
wade
the
things
that
we're
talking
about
weighing
tonight.
So
I
just
want
to
point
that
out.
M
Mr.
chairman
Commissioner
Gillespie
I
just
to
also
discuss
this
question
of
the
PD
process
versus
a
rezone
I.
Think
both
the
city
and
the
applicant
have
pointed
out
that
if
we
did
rezone
this
to
r1
see
to
address
some
of
these
dimensional
concerns,
the
applicant
is
correct
that
the
the
the
proposed
subdivision
could
be,
or
that
could
be
scrapped.
M
It
could
just
be
lapsed
and
once
that
r1c
is
in
place,
the
applicant
or
a
new
owner
could
come
in
and
put
up.
222
lots
22
homes
on
this,
and
if
they
followed
the
subdivision
rules,
there
is
no
hearing.
Essentially
it's
automatic.
So
up.
Zoning
to
r1
C
from
the
city's
point
of
view
is
a
really
bad
answer
right.
It's
just
a
bad
answer,
commissioner
bratton
over,
because
then
the
only
way
to
prevent
someone
from
coming
in
and
someday
building
a
lot
more
homes.
M
There
is
with
a
development
agreement
or
a
rezoning
agreement,
but
then
we're
basically
doing
the
PUD
process,
but
it
now
it's
just
called
a
reason
or
a
development
agreement,
so
either
the
the
changing
the
zone
is
is
is
a
very
difficult
problem
for
the
city
to
try
and
solve
the
PUD
process.
Here
is
straightforward.
It
asks
us
to
look
for
adverse
impact.
There
is
none
right.
P
Be
supporting
this
motion
as
well.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
differences
here,
though,
because
we
do
have
five
foot
interior
dimensional
standards
again
an
r1
see,
as
commissioner
bratton
over
noted.
The
last
application,
frankly
is
just
a
big
jump
for
me
to
get
to
three
foot
interior
setbacks
when
we're
when
two
storey
buildings
anywhere
else
like
an
R
3
requires
10-foot
setback.
So
that's
mean
to
me:
that's
you're,
asking
a
lot
on
that
one.
This
one
here,
I'm
fully
in
supportive,
I,
think
the
PD
process
was
appropriate
and
it's
a
good
project.
C
Thank
you
any
other
comments.
C
Very
good
I,
just
I'll
chime
in
you
know,
I,
didn't
comment
on
the
last
one.
Obviously,
I
voted
in
favor
of
that
that
application
I'm,
also
in
favor
of
this
motion
as
well
and
I.
Think
commissioner
Stephens
Commissioner,
Ed
Gillespie
summed
up
the
PUD
process
and
why
it
was
used
in
this
situation.
I
was
going
to
comment
as
well.
You
know
the
staff,
you
know
the
applicant
works
with
staff
to
vet
the
applications
as
they're
working
through
the
process.
C
C
B
C
A
A
M
M
M
C
A
C
E
C
Q
The
Civic
property
is
a
1.26
acre
parcel
located
at
the
northwest
corner
of
Hill,
Road
and
College
to
drive
the
surrounding
areas
developed
with
single
family
homes
on
various
sized
Lots.
You
can
see
many
detached
single-family
homes
to
the
west
and
north,
as
well
as
itself
directly
across
the
street
detached
single-family
up
here
on
a
wild
ride.
Drive
we
have
several
townhomes.
Q
Q
Due
to
a
request
for
reduced
lot
sizes,
widths
and
setbacks,
internal
to
the
development
APD's
required
for
the
standards
for
development
of
the
size,
2
amenities
have
been
provided
in
the
form
of
more
than
a
15%
landscaped
open
space
and
the
use
of
energy-efficient
design
and
drought,
tolerant
landscaping,
all
required
parking
has
been
provided
on
site
and
the
density
is
well
under
what
is
allowed
in
the
r1c
zone.
Particularly
this
site
is
on
an
arterial.
Q
Including
the
request,
a
preliminary
plat
for
a
bill,
double
lots
and
three
common
Lots
as
the
project
is
located
adjacent
to
arterial
and
collector
roadways.
A
30-foot
and
20-foot
landscape
buffer
have
been
provided
along
Hill,
Road
and
Collister
Drive,
respectively,
highlighted
here
to
preserve
existing
mature
landscaping
on
hill
road.
Q
All
reviewing
agencies
and
departments
have
approved
the
project
with
standard
conditions.
No
comments
were
received
from
the
public
prior
to
the
hearing.
In
conclusion,
the
planning
team
recommends
the
Commission
approve
the
PUD
and
recommend
approval
of
the
subdivision
with
the
attached
conditions.
Thank
you.
C
L
Sorry
about
that,
mr.
chairman
members
of
the
Commission
been
Semple
1:01
for
South
Lapointe
Street
Suite,
3,
Boise,
a3,
7:06,
Thank,
You
Leon.
For
that
overview
of
the
project.
As
Leon
stated,
this
project
is
for
a
PUD
I'm
going
to
share.
My
screen
is
a
PUD
for
8
Lots
on
just
over
an
acre.
We
are
dedicating
an
additional
right-of-way
along
Hill
Road,
there's
a
25-foot
existing
right-of-way,
we're
dedicating
an
additional
12
feet
of
right-of-way,
and
then
the
30-foot
landscape
buffer
exists
outside
of
that
additional
right-of-way
dedication.
L
So
we
are
essentially
42
feet
from
the
existing
right-of-way.
The
landscape
buffer
along
Hill
Road
also
allows
us
to
retain
a
number
of
existing
mature
trees
that
are
on
the
site.
That
was
a
big
deal
for
the
developer,
as
well
as
the
neighborhood.
That
was
one
of
the
discussion
points
during
the
neighborhood
meeting.
One
of
the
things
that
this
plan
does
not
show.
We
did
have
some
conversations
with
a
CHD
about
their
conditions
of
approval
for
the
improvements
on
Hill
Road.
L
We
are
in
agreement
with
attaching
the
sidewalk
on
collister,
but
we
will
be
doing
a
detached
sidewalk.
That
falls
approximately
where
it
shows
here
it's
26
and
a
half
feet
from
the
center
line,
so
Hill
Road
per
ACH
Dee's
direction.
They
are
recommending
a
basically
maintaining
the
existing
roadway,
pavement
width
and
bike
lane
and
shoulder
and
then
having
a
sidewalk
that
ends
up
being
I.
L
Think
it's
about
nine
feet
away
from
the
existing
edge
of
pavement,
so
there'll
be
a
detached
sidewalk
along
Hill
Road,
which
I
think
will
give
a
little
bit
more
comfort
for
pedestrians,
not
that
their
sidewalk
to
the
west
of
here
or
to
the
north
on
collister.
Hopefully,
that
does
get
installed
at
some
point
in
time
when
a
CHD
additional
right-of-way
improvements,
the
the
average
lot
size
on
this
is
three
thousand
nine
hundred
and
eighty
five
square
feet
so
about
a
thousand
square
feet
under
our
1c.
Some
of
them
are
smaller
one.
L
The
smallest
lot
would
be
lot
nine,
that's
thirty
one
thirty,
but
we
feel
with
the
substantial
landscape
buffer
along
Hill
Road,
as
well
as
the
landscape
buffer
along
Collister.
The
impact
of
these
homes
will
be
minimal.
There
are
some
larger
Lots
in
this
area,
but
the
development
pattern
in
here
again
everything
is
own
Darwin's
see
a
lot
of
the
Lots
are
two
to
three
times
larger,
but
are
still
zoned
r1
C.
L
So
I
could
see
a
lot
of
these
there's
actually
some
two
just
to
the
west
that
have
redeveloped
this
one,
in
particular,
at
forty
nine
twelve
West
Hill
West
Hill
Road
was
a
single-family
residential
up
front
and
they
went
through
PUD
process
to
establish
three
Lots
for
density
that
are
serviced
by
a
common
drive
off
of
Hill,
Road
I
think
is
kind
of
alluded
to
by
Commissioner
Gillespie
earlier.
This
area
of
town
could
have
probably
been
planned
a
little
bit
better
by
the
county,
with
connectivity
of
roadways.
L
I'd
foresee
a
lot
of
these
homes
are
older,
including
the
one
that
is
on
this
site.
I'm
sure
you've
seen
it
if
you've
driven
anywhere
in
this
at
this
intersection,
one
of
the
things
we
also
had
a
discussion
with
with
staff
with
regarding
the
demolition
of
the
home
we
were,
we
did
discuss
whether
we'd
be
able
to
move
it.
That
was
actually
an
initial
discussion
point
with
the
developer,
but
upon
review
of
the
structure,
it's
just
impossible
to
save
that
home
to
move
it
anywhere,
keep
it
on
the
site
or
get
it
off
site.
L
But
we
aren't
committed
to
trying
to
recycle
as
much
of
the
demolished
material
as
possible,
trying
to
help
achieve
some
sustainability
goals,
and
it's
one
of
the
things
that
voice
he's
looking
to
do.
But
this
again
it's
providing
for
eight
single-family
detached
homes
anywhere
from
two-story
kind
of
modified
two-story.
There's
some
step
backs
in
that
probably
not
real
apparent
on
those
preliminary
elevations
of
the
of
the
homes.
L
Although
it'd
be
difficult,
because
these
sub
driveways
coming
off
here,
maybe
between
the
driveways
they
could
park
on
the
street.
But
everyone
will
have
at
least
two
spots
in
a
driveway
for
guests
and
then
their
two-car
garages.
We
are
maintaining
all
our
1c
external
setbacks.
The
reductions
and
setbacks
will
only
occur
internally
and
then
against
the
landscape
buffers
again,
because
those
are
substantial
landscape
buffers
with
a
lot
of
trees
in
them.
We
feel
that
this
is
very
appropriate
for
the
area.
L
And
then
part
of
the
reason
we
did
pursue
the
PUD
on
this
was
because
of
those
landscape.
Buffers
and
dedication
of
additional
right-of-way
made
it
difficult
to
achieve
density,
that's
allowable
in
r1c
that
we
do
feel
is
appropriate
for
this
area.
Again
these
are
building
envelopes
shown.
Those
are
just
the
setbacks.
That's
not.
L
The
footprint
of
these
homes
on
here
I
wasn't
able
to
get
those
in
time
to
put
them
on
this
drawing,
but
they
are
represented
in
the
other
application
materials,
and
you
know
the
the
discussion
points
during
the
the
neighborhood
meeting
were
really
tree
removal.
What
was
happening
with
the
house?
We
did
talk
about
or
the
existing
home.
We
did
talk
about
the
density
of
this,
but
really
most
of
the
people
I've
talked
to
do
not
sorry.
L
My
office
phone
is
ringing
did
not
have
any
problems
with
the
density,
at
least
the
people
that
we
talked
to
that
attended.
The
neighborhood
meeting,
as
well
as
I,
did
receive
a
few
phone
calls
from
other
neighbors
that
weren't
able
to
attend
the
neighborhood
meeting
and
I
didn't
receive
any
strong
opposition
from
those
phone
calls
at
all.
Really.
Just
more
of
a
curiosity
finding
out
what
was
happening
and
most
of
them
realized
that
it
was
going
to
be
redeveloping
at
some
point
in
time
and
with
that
I
would
stand
for
questions.
Q
I
would
like
to
clarify
a
few
things,
not
from
Ben's
testimony
but
from
a
late
correspondence
memo
that
the
Commission
received
that
there
was
a
project
description
that
didn't
reflect
what
this
project
actually
is
so
start
with
the
confusion.
But
there
was
the
recommendation
that
the
developer
has
been
mentioned,
seek
ways
to
recycle
as
many
of
the
materials
from
the
original
home
as
possible,
and
then
I
guess
regarding
the
sidewalk
on
Hill
Road.
Q
If
it's
indeed
going
to
be
detached,
we
should
probably
look
at
one
of
the
conditions
recommended
conditions
of
approval
as
a
commission
to
possibly
remove
that
and
just
make
the
project
subject
to
a
CHD
requirements.
We
had
specifically
made
a
point
of
saying
a
seven-foot
is
hatched
and,
if
that's
not
feasible
at
this
point,
I
just
want
us
to
clear
that
up
on
the
record.
S
C
At
the
moment,
so
I'm
going
to
assume
that
there's
no
official
representative
from
the
Neighborhood
Association
in
attendance
this
evening,
so
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
questions
from
the
Commission
and
for
those
of
you
in
attendance
that
do
want
to
testify
we'll
move
on
to
public
testimony
we're
after
we
do
keep
questions
for
the
Commission
okay,
so,
fellow
commissioners,
any
questions
for
staff
or
the
applicant.
Mr.
C
M
Q
P
M
C
M
Q
M
C
We've
got
all
of
out
of
our
system
this
evening.
It
looks
like
so
with
that
we
will
go
ahead
and
move
into
the
public
testimony
portion
of
the
hearing.
We
have
we've
one
individual
here
in
person
that
would
like
to
testify
and
then
before
you
do.
Sir
I
have
question
for
staff
yeah.
Let
him
go
first.
I
do
have
a
list
of
names
here
that
was
credit
on
our
agenda
for
the
evening.
Should
we
just
kind
of
hit
those
in
order
after
we
have.
A
B
C
T
I
need
my
name
is
George
Pence
P
ence,
my
address
is
48
20
West,
Hill
Road,
it's
the
property
just
west
of
this
development
I've
had
a
phone
call
I
believe
it
was
with
mr.
simple
and
I
apologize
Leon
for
not
getting
in
touch
with
you,
I
probably
didn't
know
who
you
were
or
needed.
He
didn't
know
I
needed
to
call
you
right,
but
mr.
simple
was
fine
and
they
did
have.
I
was
one
of
those
that
had
questions
out
of
curiosity.
T
More
than
anything,
it's
very
much
aware
that
I've
lived
in
this
area
for
35
years
and
I've
lived
in
this
home
for
20
years.
So
naturally
each
of
you
would
have
the
same
concerns
that
I
do
I
would
think
when
you
see
things
going
on
and
I
knew.
This
was
going
on
because
I
knew
the
previous
home,
but
a
homeowner
that
sold
the
property
and
I
had
communication
with
her
I
also
know
from
past
years
living
in
this
area.
T
That
development
is
going
to
happen
and
I
know
what
these
Lots
are
going
on
and
I'm
not
blind
to
see.
What's
happened
down
on
West,
Hill,
Road
and
I
knew
it
was
eventually
going
to
happen.
It's
unfortunate
to
some
degree,
but,
on
the
other
hand,
I'm
not
totally
dismayed
I,
guess
that
my
concerns
are
this.
T
Is
the
dance,
the
and
I
again
I
know
you
go
through
a
process,
that's
very
clear:
you
go
through
a
zoning
process
and
I've
it's
been
fun
to
hear
that
discussion
tonight
and
I
noticed.
There's
here's
my
question:
I
guess
for
the
honor
for
Ben,
eight
set
lots
are
set
now
to
be
developed
in
that
one
point:
two
six
acres
and
it
looks
to
me
like
there's
two
that's
going
to
border
up
against
me
on
the
west
side
of
the
property.
Is
that
correct?
T
My
concern
is
I
build
a
fence
there
last
year
and
I
want
us
and
I
know
how
these
I
have
a
good
idea
if
these
developers
going
to
follow
the
same
housing
this
in
there
already
that
are
being
developed
on
West,
Hill,
Road
of
a
privacy
issue
nationally
or
landscaping
or
new
fence
and
I.
Think
Dan
said
that
could
be
addressed,
possibly
and
I.
Guess
that's
like
as
a
homeowner
and
as
a
citizen.
I'm
certainly
not
want
to
live
in
an
isolated
world
even
with
kovat
19.
T
But
with
that
being
said,
I'm
certainly
concerned
about
those
those
Lots
boarding
up
exactly
against
my
property,
which
that
would
be
the
only
property,
I
guess
they'll,
be
three
homes
on
the
north
side
will
be
boarded
up,
but
certainly
I've
lived
on,
Collister
too
so
upon
collister,
so
I
know
there'll,
be
no
real
homes
on
Collister
drive
so
I'm
concerned
about
that
I.
Guess
that's
a
concern,
as
I've
voiced
my
opinion.
T
I
know
this
other
person
from
Arizona.
She
called
me
other
day
about
she
had
that
home
built
and
I'm
sure
you'll
hear
from
her
in
a
minute
about
the
demolition,
be
idly
on.
My
question
for
you,
as
is
the
demolition
of
the
swimming
pool
and
the
time
frame
of
that
there's
a
huge
pool
in
that
home,
mm-hmm
and
I'm
concerned
about
that
I'd
like
to
hear
more
about
the
discussion
of
the
sidewalk.
T
If
that's
gonna
affect
my
property
as
I'm
as
it
moves
on,
if
AC,
HD
or
whatever
you
know,
I
think
that'll
not
only
affect
me,
but
maybe
on
down
a
couple.
More
houses
down
I'd
be
concerned
about
AC
HD
working
with
the
Commission
on
that
I've
talked
ban.
Ben's
employees
he's
convinced
me
in
a
nice
professional
way
about
the
landscaping,
needs
I'm,
very
comfortable
with
that
yeah
and
my
times
up.
Thank.
C
Commissioners,
Thank
You,
commissioner,
thank
you,
okay,
I
believe,
since
mr.
pence
is
ill,
he
went
in
the
audience
live
and
in
person
this
evening
that
they
will
be
done
with
in-person
testimony
we'll
move
on
to
online
testimony.
We
have
a
few
folks
that
previously
signed
up
I've,
seen
a
little
bit
of
overlap
with
the
lists
and
who
we
have
online
I'll
start
at
the
top
of
our
list.
Here,
though,
with
Elizabeth
mcevil,
e-zero,
Elizabeth,
mcevil
II
online
this
evening.
A
M
Mr.
chairman,
just
while
we're
waiting
for
Jennifer,
perhaps
I
was
wondering
saline,
do
you
want
to
read
the
phone
in
instructions
and
case
just
read
them
real,
quick
for
everybody
who
might
be
following
along
just
in
case
there's
oome
connection
became
unstable
and
don't
we
have
a
dial
in
they
can
use.
Why
don't
we
just
get
that
out
there
on
the
record
real,
quick.
C
C
S
S
You
guys
already
have
talked
about
the
increased
traffic
in
that
area
and
we
can
even
see
in
the
pictures
the
little
bike
path
right
in
front
of
the
street
and
having
eight
homes
will
drastically
increase
the
traffic
there,
causing
a
safety
issue
to
residents,
pedestrians
and
bicyclists,
and
on
your
guys's
straight
website.
It
does
say
that
Boise
City
does
honor
safety,
values
and
character.
I,
do
also
want
to
make
it
known
that
this
house
has
been
a
landmark
in
Boise
since
1965,
when
it
was
first
built
and
occupied,
as
well
as
the
owner
built.
J
J
She
is
a
pre-existing
occupant
of
that
home,
and
so
she
has
more
of
an
intimate
relationship
and
I
will
read
her
statement
as
well.
I
am
writing
to
request
application
to
subdivide
a
lot
of
4,800
Hill
Road
to
be
rejected
according
to
the
City
of
Boise
website
police.
He
understands,
as
Alicia
had
said,
before,
the
value
and
character.
For
all
these
reasons,
I
believe
this
application
should
be
declined.
The
new
development
of
eight
homes,
where
one
currently
stands
is
not
safe
for
neighborhood
residents.
J
An
additional
Road
off
caller
will
increase
traffic
at
this
corner,
which
will
impact
residents
of
both
streets.
There
is
already
heavy
traffic
on
the
corner
of
Hollister
and
Hill
Road,
and
this
will
cost
safety
issues
for
residents,
pedestrians
and
bicyclists.
This
proposal
will
decrease
the
property
value
of
the
neighborhood
Mocho.
Most
of
the
homes
in
the
area
are
currently
on
an
half
an
acre
or
more
subdividing.
J
J
The
house
has
been
a
landmark
like
she
had
said
before
since
1965,
and
when
it
was
bill
first
bill
and
occupied.
The
house
was
built
by
actually
the
grandfather
of
Jennifer
blazer
and
when
it
was
built
there
was
nothing
in
that
area
that
initiated
construction
of
other
residential
houses
in
the
area.
The
original
homeowners,
a
timber
nice
blazer,
were
longtime
Boise
residents.
J
Bernice
blazer
was
born
in
1912
Edward,
a
who
was
born,
who
was
a
Boise
realtor
in
1915,
her
husband,
ed
blazer
built
not
only
the
house
on
4,800
Hill
Road,
but
he
also
bought
other
homes
in
the
Boise
area
like
she
had
talked
about
two
houses
on
Hillside
Ave
and
two
houses
on
Shirley
Street.
For
these
reasons,
I
respectfully
ask
that
you
not
approve
the
request
to
subdivide
the
property
on
Hill
Road
Thank
You
Jennifer
blazer,
that.
J
C
S
C
R
R
My
dad
was
the
general
contractor
for
just
going
back
to
an
earlier
question
about
the
pool
he
built.
Not
only
the
house,
but
the
pool
as
well,
and
my
concern
is:
I
lived
on
Shirley
Street
a
number
of
years
ago,
probably
35
or
40
years
ago.
Now,
when
a
student
was
walking
home
from
school
and
because
Hill
Road
was
so
busy,
she
was
struck
and
killed
by
a
vehicle
going
down
hill
road.
R
So
I
am
really
concerned
that
these
eight
properties
will
not
only
impact
the
other
residents
around
it
by
decreasing
their
property
value,
because
these
Lots
are
so
much
smaller.
I
am
really
concerned
about
the
safety
of
children
that
are
walking
both
to
hillside
junior
high
and
to
the
elementary
school
that
is
down.
Hill
Road
and
I've
been
a
teacher
for
27
years,
so
the
safety
of
children
is
paramount
in
my
mind.
In
my
mind
and
I
think
all
these
things
need
to
be
considered.
R
R
Beautiful,
I
want
to
say
serene,
but
peaceful
area.
A
lot
of
the
residents
down
on
Collister
have
lived
there
for
30
or
40
years
and
I
just
don't
see
any
benefit
to
that
1.26
acres
being
subdivided
into
8
watts,
plus
a
roadway,
and
even
if
there
is
a
lot
of
trees
which
do
exist
already
on
the
property
to
act
as
a
buffer
I.
Just
don't
think
it's
I,
don't
think
it's
a
positive
impact
for
the
City
of
Boise
as
a
whole.
C
Okay,
I
see
no
other
hands
up
at
the
moment,
but
we
do
have
several
other
folks
online.
Those
of
you
that
wishing
to
testify
please
raise
your
hands
I,
see
if
you
going
up
now
and
then
we'll
just
start
at
the
top
of
the
list
and
work
our
way
down.
So
we'll
start
with
Spencer
Handel
sin'
Spencer.
If
you
could
unmute
and
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record,
hello.
N
C
O
My
name
is
Walter
heart,
you
call
me
Wally
16:02,
north
20th
street
Boise,
Idaho,
83,
702
I'm.
Actually,
the
developer
and
I
just
wanted
to
comment
on
the
condition
of
the
home
and
the
pool
it's
a
beautiful
home.
You
know
when
you're
driving
past
on
on
hill
and
Collister
unfortunately
has
not
have
been
very
well
maintained,
it's
actually
a
rental
and
has
been
a
rental
for
some
time,
so
both
the
pool
and
the
home
are
in
pretty
rough
shape.
O
As
far
as
you
know,
you
know
all
of
the
items
so
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
add
that,
as
far
as
you
know,
people
you
know
commenting
on
how
beautiful
it
is
and
how
much
it
means
to
and
everything
it's
very
different
now
I
think
than
probably
when
it
was
built
and
how
it's
been
treated.
You
know
prior
to
how,
when
we
received
it
or
bought
it,
and
that's
it.
C
U
You
are
going
to
run
into
very
fast
downhill,
bicyclists
and
just
screaming
down
to
the
stop
sign
heading
south
on
Collister
north
Collister,
to
the
stop
sign
an
intersection
of
castor
in
Hill
Road.
So
you
know,
development
is
gonna
happen,
but
please
take
into
consideration
the
fact
that
we
have
seen
I
have
seen
personally
in
the
last
ten
years,
a
huge
uptick
in
just
families
and
bicyclists
and
runners
and
walkers
in
the
neighborhood
and,
more
so
said,
and
more
so
really
as
of
this
last
march.
U
C
C
L
Thank
You
mr.
chairman
members
of
the
Commission
yeah
I'd
like
to
take
the
opportunity
to
address
some
of
those
concerns,
an
echo.
What
Wally
add
is
the
developer.
The
home
is
very
beautiful,
I
actually
used
to
live
right
down
by
Cynthia
Mann
elementary,
so
I
Drive
by
her
almost
every
day
rode
my
bike,
rode
the
bus
a
lot
so
I
got
on
that
bus
at
the
corner
there.
L
Unfortunately
it
has
had
some.
It
does
have
some
condition:
issues
based
on
how
it's
been
lived
in
that
require
it
I
mean.
Initially,
the
thought
was
to
try
to
save
it
and
move
it
after
they
did
some
evaluations
on
the
structure.
It
just
is
not
feasible
at
all.
Unfortunately,
I
have
talked
to
them
about.
You
know
trying
to
salvage
some
stuff
out
of
there
if
we
can
to
save
some
of
the
more
unique
fixtures-
or
you
know
some
of
the
characteristics
of
it
going
to
safety.
L
It
will
allow
residents
of
this
development
their
children
to
walk
from
their
private
road
on
the
sidewalk
to
a
sidewalk
on
collister,
come
to
the
intersection
cross
at
the
intersection
at
a
crosswalk
at
the
Stop,
the
4-way
stop
and
then
walk
on
sidewalk
all
the
way
down:
Hill
Road,
if
they're
going
to
Cynthia
Mann
Elementary,
so
it
will
provide
for
a
pedestrian
connection
that
way.
Obviously,
east
on
Hill
Road
is
a
different
story.
It's
kind
of
a
walk
to
get
the
hillside.
L
Junior
high
from
here
I
think
they're,
still
bused
from
this
location
to
the
to
the
school
down
there
at
36th,
Street
and
Hill
Road
see
there
is
touch
just
real
quickly
on
density.
The
lots
that
have
recently
been
plaited
to
the
east
of
Hollister
are
zoned
r2,
which
would
allow
for
much
higher
density.
As
well
as
the
townhomes
that
are
up
on
the
hill,
there
are
all
zone
r2
as
well.
L
Yes,
they
are
attached
townhomes,
but
they
are
for
sale,
townhomes,
which
their
lot
sizes
do
are
at
this
size,
if
not
a
little
bit
smaller,
with
very
limited
yard
space.
These
are
true:
single-family
homes,
I
think
the
the
addition
of
the
architecture
will
be
complementary
to
the
area.
It
would
be
a
little
bit
more
modern
than
what
is
built
out
there,
but
with
all
of
the
property
around
here
being
zoned
r1
see,
there's
a
very
real
possibility
for
additional
development,
extended
development
in
this
area,
and
so
I,
don't
think.
L
The
density
I
think
that
there's
going
to
be
can
be
more
density
in
this
area
than
what
is
right
now
and
as
leon
stated
during
his
staff
presentation,
because
this
is
on
a
major
arterial
and
transit
route,
we
could
apply
for
an
B.
It
would
be
allowed
to
to
request
a
density
bonus
because
we're
on
the
transit
line,
and
we
are
not
doing
that.
We
felt
eight
fit
the
property.
L
It
will
provide
a
nice
home
single
family
home
I
think
that
it's
going
to
increase
property
value
I
think
that
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
misconception
that
new
construction
rid
lowers
property
value,
knowing
the
developer
and
the
Builder
that
he
has
used
in
the
past.
These
are
very
high
quality
homes.
Again
they
all
have
garages
there.
These
are
not
quick
shotgun
homes.
The
developer
is
a
resident
of
Boise
and
so
I
know
he's
committed
to
providing
for
a
quality
project
here
to
address
the
neighbor
to
the
west.
L
The
sidewalks
will
at
the
property
line
to
the
west,
so
there
won't
be
any
impact
on
his
property
and
if
a
CH
D
does
come
through
to
extend
that
in
the
future,
obviously
there
that
would
be
a
conversation
that
a
CH
D
would
have
with
him.
If
there
is
additional
right-of-way
or
any
impact
on
his
property,
the
fencing
will
definitely
work
with
him
on
the
type
of
fencing
if
he
just
installed
a
new
fence
that
he
wants
to
keep
that
provides
him
with
the
privacy
he
wants.
L
L
L
Some
of
the
concerns
of
the
neighborhood,
but
we're
doing
what
we
can
to
address
the
privacy
or
the
privacy
and
the
safety
and
then
ACH
D
did
issue
a
staff
report
that
they
evaluated
traffic
from
these
eight
single-family
homes
and
determined
that
they
met
the
thresholds
of
their
evaluation
and
that
it
would
not
put
an
undue
any
undue
burden
on
the
transportation
sector
or
the
transportation
roadways
around
here
and
with
additional
right-of-way
being
dedicated.
It
probably
improves
that
and
allows
for
the
future
expansion
of
hill
when
they
do
and.
C
C
Blanchard
do.
C
P
Well,
there
we
go
all
right.
Well,
then,
all
right
so
I
guess
this
is
the
same
thing
that
perplex
me
about
the
first
application
that
mr.
Sibal
put
in.
So
we
have
a
30-foot
landscape
buffer
on
the
hill-road
side,
and
if
we
just
simply
reduce
that
to
20
feet,
it
seems
then
we
wouldn't
have
any
setback
issue
and
then
again
we're
being
asked
to
look
at
three
foot,
interior
setbacks
and
I
guess
you
know
my
question
is:
why
are
we?
Where
are
we
going
through
the
PUD
process,
rather
than
just
designing
a
26
foot
structure?
P
It's
just
kind
of
confusing
to
me
that
we
would
you
know
the
developer
would
be
like
well,
all
I
can
do.
Is
this
30
foot
building
I
can't
do
with
26
foot
wide
building
and
actually
make
it
fit
within
the
dimensional
requirements,
I
just
I,
just
again
I'm
perplexed
at.
Why
were
being
asked
to
do
this
when
it
looks
like
we
could
just
simply
avoid
all
of
this
by
just
proposing
structures
that
fit
within
the
dimensional
requirements
that
I
just
don't
I'm
just
again
I'm,
where
why
are
we
even
bothered
with
dimensional
requirements?
P
Guess
that's
that's
my
comment,
I'm
just
having
a
real
hard
time
again
justifying
this
when,
if
I
were
sitting
in
the
front
counter,
the
first
thing
I
would
have
said,
but
as
designer
26-foot
building
and
then
bring
it
back
instead
of
a
30-foot
wide
building,
it
just
doesn't
and
then
a
lemon
get
10
more
feet
on
the
other
side
and
make
your
building
longer
to
get
your
square
footage
I,
just
I,
just
don't
know
why
where
it's
like
well,
this
is
the
only
thing
we
can
make
work.
It's
it
can
be.
P
M
K
M
So,
just
first
of
all,
with
respect
to
the
setbacks,
so
I
think
Commissioner.
Blanchard
is
correct
that
the
interior
setbacks,
the
setbacks
between
the
buildings
are
set
at
3
feet
and
that's
to
meet
the
building
code
requirement
that
there's
6
feet
between
the
buildings.
I.
Think
the
the
idea
here
is
that
those
landscape
buffers
on
Hill,
Road
and
Collister
provide
a
very
important
public
benefit.
M
M
K
Me
I
would
agree
with
everything
that
Commissioner
Gillespie
just
said
and
I'd
add
a
couple
of
other
things
and
and
throw
it
back
to
Commissioner
Blanchard,
because
I
interested
in
hearing
his
his
thoughts,
but
when
I
again
I,
look
at
the
approval
criteria
right
and
I'm,
not
sure
with
regard
to
Commissioner,
Blanchard
and
and
the
other
sort
of
philosophical
conversations
we've
been
having
tonight
about
this.
If
there
is
fundamentally
an
issue
with
three-foot
setbacks,
and
if
so,
maybe
we
do
need
to
have
a
conversation
offline
about
that.
K
But
you
know
they
are
permitted
by
building
code
and
I.
Look
through
the
approval
criteria
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
and
and
I
just
don't
have
I'm
not
seeing
where
this
particular
application
doesn't
beat
these,
and
so,
when
I,
when
I
hear
Commissioner
Blanchard
ask
about
those
setbacks.
I'm
just
you
know,
I
go
click
and
I
always
go
back
to
the
approval
criteria.
To
look
at
what
we're
talking
about-
and
you
know,
maybe
the
setbacks
are
related
to
the
first
criteria,
which
is
compatibility
to
other
uses
in
the
general
neighborhood.
K
But
then
we've
got
you
know
four
other
criteria
and
and
I
just
am
not
seeing
how
this
doesn't
meet
those
and
so
I
think
we're
seeing
improvement
and
safety
with
sidewalks.
You
know
this
is
an
area
that
we've
talked
a
lot
about
safe
routes
to
school
for
and
what
we're
seeing
you
know,
sidewalks
being
put
in
that
we
can
start
making
those
connections
that
need
to
be
made,
because
this
is
an
urban
neighborhood
and
it's
you
know,
densely
populated
by
families,
so
I
I,
guess
I.
F
M
C
D
Uber
so
in
this
case,
I
believe
that
the
section
of
the
code
regarding
PU
DS,
which
states
the
minimum
lot
size
of
the
zoning
district
may
would
be
reduced
within
the
density.
Limits
of
the
district
can
be
properly
applied
here.
The
guidance
in
the
code
is
very
open
and
nonspecific,
but
this
deviation
is
more
reasonable
than
those
that
we've
seen
earlier
tonight.
D
I'm
supporting
the
motion
and
I'm
trying
I'm
trying
to
reconcile,
in
my
own
mind
where,
where
the,
where
the
cutoff
line
is
based-
and
maybe
a
girl
goes
to
Commissioner
Stevens
suggestion
that
we
get
together
and
have
a
discussion
about
what
this
latitude
means
to
us
as
a
commission,
is
it
infinite?
Are
there
points
where
the
pain
level,
where
we
should
respect
that?
How?
How
are
we
going
to
go
through
that?
D
Because
we've
had
some
great
discussion
tonight
about
this
issue
and
I'd
like
to
see
us
well
I,
know
I,
said
I'm
looking
for
guidance
and
basically
heard
that?
Well,
you
know
the
guidance
is
in
there.
Maybe
I
need
a
little
more
or
maybe
I'd
like
to
understand
where
I
should
see
that
threshold
and
in
anticipation
of
when
we
deal
with
neighborhoods,
who
feel
that
that
threshold
has
somehow
been
violated
so
again,
I'm
in
support
of
the
motion.
Sorry
for
the
long-winded
explanation,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
came
across
thanks.
D
C
Okay,
just
real
quick
I'm,
also
in
support
of
the
motion
and
I
think
getting
back
to
Commissioner
Blanchard's
original
question
about
why
that
30-foot
setback
is
where
it
is
on
Hill,
Road,
I
suspect
it
has
something
to
do
with
location
of
several
of
those
large
trees
that
are
existing
I,
think
it
were
to
preserve
that
buffer,
which
is
a
benefit
to
the
community.
That's
why
they
placed
that
wider
buffer
there
just
to
maximize
those
existing
trees.
So,
and
in
addition,
you
know
I
think
in.