►
From YouTube: Planning & Zoning Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
evening,
everybody
thanks
for
joining
us.
We've
had
some
last
minute
stuff
shifts.
Somebody
went
home,
so
they
we're
just
bear
with
us
for
a
minute.
We
might
end
up
starting
here
a
couple
of
minutes
behind
schedule,
but
we're
gonna
do
our
best
to
stay
on
top
of
it.
B
No
we're
coming
up
on
six
o'clock
right
now,
but
maybe
we
can
start
with
a
quick
review
of
the
agenda
before
we
jump
into
this
tonight's
hearing.
B
B
Just
go
right
through
looking
at
item
number
one
that
has
been
withdrawn,
so
we'll
just
need
to
make
a
note
of
that.
At
the
beginning.
Item
number
two
has
also
been
withdrawn.
So
same
thing
there
so.
B
Which
is
an
amendment
to
the
development
code
regarding
the
wireless
communication
facilities,
one
actually,
the
the
planner
is
not
available
this
evening,
so
we
will
have
to
defer
that
unfortunately,
so
we're
looking
at
the
next
available
meeting,
which
would
be
october
4th
just
a
reminder
we'll
see
if
there's
folks
here
who
cannot
come
back
to
that
october,
4th
hearing
date
and
if
that's
the
case,
they
can
certainly
testify
this
evening.
B
It's
like
number
four
pud
over
on
bogus
basin
road.
B
We
are
recommending
approval,
looks
like
there's,
neighborhood
opposition
and
late
correspondence
was
received,
so
we
will
be
hearing
that
one
item
number
five
car
21-24
a
re-zone
out
on
blue
cloud
lane.
We
are
recommending
approval,
we've
not
received
any
opposition,
so
we
can
try
for
the
consent
agenda
on
that.
B
Item
number
six
of
variants:
21-43
over
on
pine
avenue.
We
are
recommending
approval,
it
does
look
like
there's
some
neighborhood
opposition,
so
we
will
be
hearing
that
one
item
number
seven
is
requesting
deferral
to
october
4th.
So
this
is
car
21-23
rezone
over
on
lusk
street,
so
we'll
be
yeah
requesting
deferral
to
october
4th.
So
we
won't
be
hearing
that
one.
B
Item
number
eight
pud
21-38
was
also
excuse
me
that
one
actually,
we
received
some
late
correspondence
to
withdraw
that
application
as
well.
So
just
need
to
note
that,
but
no
actions
needed.
B
Item
number
nine
cva
21-41
variants
over
on
alpine
street.
We
are
recommending
denial,
so
we
will
be
hearing
that
one.
This
evening
item
number
10
cva
21-32
over
on
lemp
street,
another
variance.
We
are
recommending
approval,
but
the
applicant
is
opposed
to
one
condition
of
approval,
so
we
will
be
hearing
that
one
as
well
and
then
finally
item
number
11,
cva
21-40,
a
variance
over
at
2811
west
woodlawn.
B
We
are
recommending
approval
and
have
not
received
any
opposition.
So
we
can
try
cons
for
consent
on
that.
One
so
kind
of
in
summary,
consent
would
be
items
11.
B
B
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
via
zoom
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak.
As
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you
will
be
called
upon
and
unmuted
you
will
be
promoted
to
a
panelist
and
then
rejoin
the
meeting
after
a
slight
delay.
There
is
also
a
chat
function
in
zoom.
This
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
B
The
chat
function
isn't
available
for
you.
You
can
also
email
zoning
info
at
cityofboise.org
with
any
technical
issues.
Our
procedures
for
public
hearings
begin
with
the
presentation
from
the
planning
team,
then
we'll
go
on
to
the
applicant
and
then
the
representative
for
the
neighborhood
registered
neighborhood
association,
followed
by
questions
from
the
commission.
B
After
that,
we
will
proceed
to
public
testimony.
Starting
with
those
who
signed
up
on
the
online
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand,
virtually
anyone
from
the
public
present
in
person
will
be
asked
to
raise
their
hand
and
approach
the
dice.
If
you
are
attending
through
your
telephone,
you
can
type
in
star
9.
To
raise
your
hand,
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
B
Finally,
the
applicant
is
allowed
a
five-minute
rebuttal,
after
which
the
hearing
will
be
closed
and
the
commission
will
deliberate
and
render
a
decision.
Please
be
courteous
and
patient
with
us,
while
we
venture
through
this
hybrid
hearing
format
and
madam
chair,
you
have
the
floor.
Thanks
kevin,
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,
free
zones,
annexations
and
code
or
comprehensive
plan
amendments.
B
Any
decision
made
tonight
may
be
appealed
to
the
city
council,
provided
that
the
appeal
is
filed
within
10
days
of
this
hearing.
In
order
to
file
an
appeal,
you
must
have
given
written
or
oral
testimony
at
tonight's
meeting.
So
that's
why
it's
important
you
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
testify
tonight.
We
utilize
a
consent
agenda.
This
means
that
if
the
applicant
agrees
with
the
staff
report
and
if
there's
no
public
opposition,
the
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
B
All
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
final
motion.
Without
further
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
consent
agenda,
we
will
hold
a
full
public
hearing
in
the
order
detailed
a
few
moments
ago
with
staff,
applicant
neighborhood
association
and
then
the
public
testimony.
B
Thank
you
all
for
attending
tonight
and
we'll
let
clark
please
call
the
roll
dead
here.
Schaefer
here
blanchard
here
more
here
and
frock
here,
five
present,
three
absent
okay.
So
let's
get
started
here
we're
going
to
first.
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate:
I
think
you
heard,
but
but
we
have
a
few
withdrawals.
We
have
item
number
one.
This
is
cva
21-34
for
white
leisure
development.
B
Co
at
513,
north
milwaukee
street,
has
been
withdrawn.
So
we'll
not
be
hearing
that
item
tonight.
Also,
item
number
two:
this
is
cva
21-21
for
michaela
todd
deferred,
originally
from
september
13
2021
at
7,
15,
north
17th
street,
a
variance
to
encroach
into
the
rear
yard
setback
has
also
been
withdrawn
and,
lastly,
number
eight
pod
21-38
for
cshqa
inc,
I'm
requesting
that
sorry
for
at
460
north
milwaukee
street.
A
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development
has
also
been
withdrawn.
So
we'll
also
not
be
hearing
item
number
eight
tonight,
okay.
B
For
item
number
three,
this
is
zoa
21-4
for
city
of
boise's
planning
and
development
services
and
amendment
to
the
development
code
regarding
wireless
communication
facilities
is
requesting
referral
to
october
4th.
Is
there
anybody
present
tonight
to
testify
in
this
item?
Who
would
not
be
able
to
return
to
the
october
4th
hearing
if
you're
online,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
B
Or
if
you're
in
person
just
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand,
okay,
seeing
no
hands
raised,
I
will
entertain
a
motion
and
I'm
sure
commissioner
schaefer
move
to
defer
item
number
three
to
our
october.
Fourth
meeting.
B
Second:
okay,
a
second
from
commissioner
moore.
If
there
is
no
discussion,
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote?
Stan
aye,
schaefer,
aye,
blanchard,
hi,
moore
aye
and
frock
hi.
All
in
favor
motion
carries
okay.
The
next
item
requesting
referral
is
item
number
seven.
This
is
car
21-23
for
scb,
idaho,
requesting
referral
to
october
4th
at
917
south
last
street.
This
is
a
rezone
of
approximately
2.5
acres.
B
Is
there
anybody
present
tonight
who
would
not
be
able
to
return
to
that
october?
4Th
hearing
for
item
number
seven.
B
Okay,
seeing
no
hands,
I
will
entertain
a
motion
manager.
Commissioner
shafer
move
to
defer
item
number
seven
to
our
october.
Fourth
meeting.
Second
great
second
from
commissioner
moore.
If
there
is
no
further
discussion,
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote
sen,
aye,
chiefer,
aye,
lynch,
aye,
moore
aye,
then
fraud,
all
in
favor
motion
carries
okay,
so
on
to
the
consent
agenda
without
objection,
I
will
place
the
minutes
from
our
august,
2nd
2021
and
august
9
2021
hearings
onto
the
consent
agenda.
B
That's
not
right.
Sorry,
one
second
hard
to
turn
pages
is
item
number
five.
This
is
car
21-24
for
falcon
one
inc
at
9700,
south
blue
cloud
lane.
This
is
an
annexation
of
13.65
acres
and
is
the
applicant
present.
B
B
B
And
the
last
item
for
consideration
is
item
number
11.
This
is
cva
21-40
for
rodney
evans
and
partners,
pllc
at
2811,
west
woodlawn
avenue
a
variance
to
encroach
the
front
yard
the
front
yard
setback.
B
B
Okay
see
none
item,
11
will
place
on
the
consent
agenda
and
I
will
entertain
a
motion,
madam
chair,
commissioner
shafer
a
move
to
approve
the
following
items
with
the
terms
and
conditions
ezra
and
their
respective
staff
reports
on
the
consent
agenda,
the
minutes
from
august,
2nd
and
august
9th
item
number
5
and
item
number
11..
B
Second,
concretely,
the
second
from
commissioner
moore.
If
there
is
no
discussion,
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote?
Sen,
schafer,
aye,
lansard,
aye,
more
aye
from
hi.
All
in
favor
motion
carries
great
okay,
so
we'll
start
up
here
with
item
number
four.
This
is
pewd
21-41
for
slitcher
virgin
architecture
at
2588
north
bogus
basin
road.
This
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development,
comprised
of
eight
studio
apartments
and
approximately
17
000
square
feet,
foot
addition
and
we'll
start
with
staff.
Please
go
ahead.
Ms
garlic.
B
All
right
when
it
when
it
rains
at
four,
so
I
think
we
can
get
this
going
now,
though
great
thank
you.
Go
ahead,
miss
garlic!
Thank
you
good
evening,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
before
you
is
a
request
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
residential
planned
development
and
a
height
exception.
B
B
The
proposal
is,
in
addition,
with
a
remodel
to
the
existing
building.
The
proposed
17
000
square
foot
addition
consists
of
commercial
space
and
patio
on
the
first
floor
office
with
associated
deck
space
on
the
second
level
and
eight
studio
apartments.
On
the
third
level,
the
proposal
does
comply
with
the
plan
unit
development
standards
of
the
development
code.
B
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
13
foot
height
exception
for
a
maximum
height
of
48
feet
or
35.
Feet
is
normally
required
in
a
c1d
zone.
This
height
exception
only
pertains
to
the
new
addition.
The
addition
is
designed
with
a
shed
roof
sloping
south
to
north.
The
proposed
edition
is
designed
to
be
cohesive,
with
the
existing
single
story,
building,
which
sits
at
19
feet
tall.
B
B
Planning
staff
does
recommend
approval
with
conditions,
a
final
decision
tonight
for
pud
2141
and
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
Before
we
get
to
questions
I'll
ask
we
will
ask
to
hear
from
the
applicant.
B
I
don't
I'm
trying
to
look
online
too.
I
don't
know
where
anybody
is.
Thank
you.
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
10
minutes,
no
just
go
ahead
and
try
to
click
that
on
all
right.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
all
right
and
delaney
is
going
to
pull
up
my
presentation.
It's
pretty
quick
and
brief
great.
My
name
is
brett
kalash,
I'm
with
slister
u-grin
architecture.
B
Thank
you
for
hearing
our
pud
application
tonight
I'll
keep
this
quick
and
just
wait
just
a
second
until
she
pulls
up
the
slide.
Okay,
quick,
quick
highlights
the
owners.
You
know
we
kind
of
worked
with
the
owners
representations
and
the
owner's
representative,
and
they
recognize
that
this
site
is
a
it's
got
some
great
tenants,
but
overall,
the
site
is
currently
under
utilized.
B
So
this
is
kind
of
a
good
opportunity
and
really
what
this
proposal
is
about
is
aiming
to
revitalize
an
existing
building
through
a
facade
upgrade
which
is
the
existing
part
and
then
as
well
as
adding
some
additional
square
footage
to
provide
commercial
office
and
housing
opportunities.
Overall,
we
feel
this
proposal
will
re-energize
the
site
and
benefit
the
neighboring
neighboring
community.
B
Speaking
to
the
height
exception.
I
think
delaney
actually
nailed
it
pretty
spot
on.
I'm
a
big
driver
of
the
height
is
really
the
existing
building.
The
existing
building
floor
to
roof
sits
at
19
feet
floor,
and
that
was
really
where
we
placed
our
second
floor,
and
a
lot
of
that
is
really
about
creating
a
second
floor
that
then
can
open
up
to
the
north
and
south
for
daylighting
and
daylighting
and
be
able
to
have
deck
space
that
opens
up
and
that
kind
of
ended
up
driving
the
height
exception
from
there.
B
We
do
you
know
and
then
from
there.
The
second
floor
is
an
office
space.
This
kind
of
plan
for
office,
so
it's
kind
of
a
14
foot
floor
to
floor,
which
is
a
pretty
common
office
use
and
then
the
floor.
Above
it
level,
three
is
going
to
be
dwelling
units
and
those
are
got
about
a
10
foot
ceiling,
so
that
kind
of
is
another
13
feet
when
you
include
the
overhang
and
roof
slope
at
a
shed
roof.
B
So
that's
kind
of
a
quick
note
on
that,
as
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
we'll
just
kind
of
address
comments.
You
know
that
the
trash
enclosure-
it
is
a
cmu
trash
enclosure
right
now,
they've
got
trash
enclosure,
they
don't
have
a
trash
enclosure,
they've
got
dumpsters
behind
bogus
basin
and
it's
kind
of
a
mess.
So
I
think
that
resultantly
there
probably
is
some
hesitation
to
have
a
dumpster
near
anybody.
These
locations
will
be
trash
enclosures,
so
I
think
the
trash
will
be
placed
in
an
enclosure
in
the
dumpster
within
an
enclosure.
B
So
I
think
it'll
be
a
much
more
sanitary
and
cleanly
environment
as
well
as
it's
really
a
pragmatic
location,
they're
kind
of
located
to
the
the
back
of
the
building
as
well.
As
you
know,
they're
they're
they're,
provide
you
know
we're
providing
access
for
the
guidelines
of
the
trash
collection
agency.
They
cut
through
traffic
concerns.
You
know
there
is
an
existing
cross-access
easement
this
process.
B
This
easement
was
put
into
place
when
the
residential
was
put
in
there
when
the
residential
was
built
for
there,
I'd
be
likely
to
guess
it's
served,
both
the
the
tenants
fairly
well
and
I'd
also
guess
it's
also
for
fire,
it's
kind
of
a
big
driver.
What
those
lanes
are
for.
You
know
all
spaces.
You
know
to
jump
to
the
third
item
that
was
concerned.
You
know
they,
you
know
all
spaces
within
this
are
within
the
proposal
are
part
of
the
city
city
zoning.
B
In
our
comprehensive
plan
there
isn't
not
going
to
be
a
drive-through
on
that
new
side.
There
is
an
existing
drive-through,
which
is
where
mocha
moose
is,
and
one
note
on
that
as
the
the
owner
is
really
working,
the
owner
and
the
owner's
representatives
are
working
to
keep
all
the
existing
tenants.
They
want
to
continue
those
tenants.
They,
like
those
tenants,
they've,
been
good,
long-standing
tenants
and
are
hoping
to
keep
them
as
well
as
allow
them
to
breathe,
maybe
adding
a
little
bit
more
space
to
their
existing
their
existing
place,
preserving
landscaping.
B
We
are
going
to
hope
to
and
trying
to
preserve
as
much
as
possible.
There
are
lots
of
material
landscape
in
there.
Sadly,
there
is
some
mature
landscaping
along
bogus.
That's
been
pretty
hammered
by
the
idaho
power
tree
mitigation
measures,
so
I
think
there
will
be
some
mitigation
of
some
of
that
that
is
kind
of
damaged
and
then
per
building
massing.
We
you
know,
I
think
the
building
is
consistent
with
adjacent
commercial
properties.
So
with
that,
thank
you.
The
applicant
agrees
with
the
staff
report,
and
so
I
stand
for
questions.
B
Thank
you
before
we
get
to
questions
I'll
ask
take
care
from
do.
We
have
a
representative
from
the
highlands
neighborhood
association,
mr
bradley.
Please
come
on
up,
come
on
down,
that's
right
and
brett.
Well
as
soon
as
we're
finished
with
this,
then
we'll
do
that
to
lower
my
face
mask.
No,
unfortunately,
you
keep
them,
but
if
you
could
speak
to
the
mic
so
that
our
commissioners
online
can
hear
too
jeff
bradley
311
west
highlander
boise,
idaho
83702,
can
you
just
take
a
step
closer,
so
you're
closer
to
that
mic
there?
Thank
you.
B
Can
you
hear
me
now
perfect,
jeff,
bradley
311,
west
highland
view,
drive
boise,
idaho
83702,
president
of
the
highlands
neighborhood
association,
a
couple
of
comments.
I
thought
we
had.
I
got
20
minutes.
You'll
have
10
minutes
same
as
the
reflected
that
I
just
I
just
had
a
couple
of
photos
and
I
was
going
to
see
the
remainder
of
my
10
minutes
to
the
to
the
tender
village
hoa
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
why
these
comments
were
considered
late
comments.
B
I
submitted
my
comments
before
the
deadline
on
thursday
and,
moreover,
we're
against
the
the
whole
conditional
use
permit
because,
based
on
the
proximity
of
this
building
and
the
height
of
the
building,
it
adversely
impacts
the
livability
of
several
residents
significantly
impacts
their
livability.
B
If
you
could
there's
one
called
sorry,
we
just
need
you
to
keep
speaking
to
the
mics.
There's
one
called.
If
you
could
pull
that
up,
please
it's
not
it's
called
inked.
It
has
it's.
B
It's
probably
one
of
the
last
files.
Yeah,
that's
fine!
So
if
you
look
at
that
photograph,
the
line
that
is
coming
toward
the
screen
is
where
the
curb
is
going
to
be.
B
Actually,
that's
where
the
building
is
going
to
be
where
the
curb
is
going
to
be
is
where
I
parked
my
car
and
you
can
see
a
residence
there
to
the
right
and
if
you
look,
I
drew
a
line
up.
The
current
building
is
about
20
feet
high
from
this
view
it
would
go
up
past
the
top
of
the
screen
there
and
there's
a
reason.
B
We
have
a
35-foot
height
restriction
in
c1ds
because
you
don't
wake
up
to
have
a
50-foot
wall
next
to
your
home
one
morning
and
you
don't
have
a
panda
express
sitting
there
either
blowing
fumes
on
you.
So
this
this
development
is
significantly
close
to
this
resonance,
and
if
you
pull
the
other
inked
photo,
please
up
it.
I
pulled
it
back
a
little
further.
This
is.
I
took
a
couple
of
these
photos
there.
You
can
that's
a
different
perspective
when
I
pulled
back
from
my
car.
B
See
where
my
car
is
is
where
the
beginning
of
the
parking
lot
is
or
the
parking
space
is
and
that's
how
tall
that
building
is
going
to
be
that
building
is
way
over
the
trees.
There
is
nothing
around
there.
That
is
that
tall,
so
anyway,
with
that,
I
will
take
my
thumb,
drive
back
and
see
the
rest
of
my
time
to
tinder
village.
Great.
Thank
you.
B
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address
okay,
mr
bradley
you're
way
taller
than
me:
hi,
I'm
amy
hutchinson
connor.
I
live
at
2488
north
bogus
basin
road.
I
am
the
president
of
the
pender
village,
neighborhood
association,
homeowners
association,
and
I
ask
for
you
to
consider
our
comments
regarding
the
highland
station
remodel
and
addition
project.
B
So
highlands
village,
as
it's
represented,
was
built
in
2005
ahead
of
its
time
right.
We
have
41
units,
we've
got
three
unique:
building
structures,
2
000
square
foot,
floor
plans
in
each
of
the
units,
two
car
garages,
walk-up
entries
and
lastly,
16
units
with
elevator
access,
entryways
four
buildings,
four
elevators,
as
you
can
imagine,
pretty
expensive
without
question
a
perfect
location
for
attracting
various
age
groups,
lifestyles
all
close
to
downtown
restaurants,
hiking
trails,
age
groups
all
over.
They
enjoy
the
natural
drainage
from
crane
creek
that
we
actually
as
an
organization.
B
We
maintain
we
prevent
overgrowth
and
prevent
any
harmful
damage
to
the
apartments
adjacent
to
the
creek.
B
Overall,
it's
a
neighborhood
that
enjoys
their
wildlife
habitat
next
to
them.
At
a
public
meeting
that
was
held
by
the
developer
on
july
14th,
we
were
presented
information
that
was
pretty
incomplete,
to
say
the
least.
There
were
11
individuals
that
attended
the
meeting.
Nine
of
them
were
homeowners
from
pender
village.
B
B
No
follow-up
was
ever
given
to
us
when
we
requested
this
information,
including
what
type
of
retail
that
they
were
identifying
as
part
of
the
first
floor,
will
it
be
a
quick
serve
restaurant?
Will
we
have
grease
taps
to
worry
about
and
smells
and
odors
that
could
affect
our
homes
that
are
literally
less
than
50
feet
away?
B
No
notification
of
a
height
exemption
again
was
given
and
or
when
we
requested
information.
We
believe
that
proposed
development
has
not
thoroughly
considered
the
proximity
and
the
effects
it
places
on
our
neighborhood
tender
village.
Maintaining
their
safety
and
current
neighborhood
livability
is
my
primary
concern.
B
Please
consider
the
following
points
number
one.
This
is
a
point
that
has
not
been
addressed
in
any
of
the
plans.
I'm
trying
to
bring
attention,
there's
a
drainage
retention
pond
on
property
that
and
according
to
the
landscaping
plans,
it's
not
called
out,
but
it's
being
covered
to
any
of
you
that
have
driven
by
or
been
to
that
area.
It
literally
fills
up
with
water
every
winter
and
it
sits
there
all
winter
long.
It's
a
major
safety
hazard,
there's
no
fence
around
it.
B
B
B
B
B
There
was
no
prior
notification,
as
I've
stated
the
south
side
as
the
target
and
the
misstatement
of
the
project.
Explanation
in
quotes
will
not
adversely
affect
other
property
in
the
vicinity.
This
height
exemption
is
an
immediate
impact
to
our
neighborhood
visually
and
audibly,
from
the
increased
noise
and
overall
usage.
B
B
B
B
We
want
to
be
partners,
we
want
to
live
and
be
happy
and
because
we
love
where
we
live,
but
we
request
that
the
proposed
development
consider
our
concerns
on
behalf
of
the
livability
of
our
neighborhood.
We
are
requesting
the
developer
to
fund
and
install
security
gates
needed
to
prevent
cut
through
traffic
usage
on
our
private
road.
Rejection
of
the
height
exemption
for
48
feet
conditional
use
permit
against
any
restaurant
style.
B
Retail
number
four
move:
the
current
dumpster
placement
at
the
southwest
corner
away
from
the
established
residences
and
number
five
present,
a
landscape
design
plan
for
the
remediation
of
the
drainage
pond.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
great
okay.
So
now,
at
this
point
we
will
entertain
questions
from
the
commission
for
staff,
the
applicant
or
the
neighborhood
association.
B
Madam
chair,
commissioner
schaefer,
I
have
a
few
questions
for
staff
and
the
applicant.
I
think
I'll
start
with
staff
I'll
probably
circle
back
and
ask
some
more
questions
so
delaney.
So,
if
I'm,
if
I
remember
we're
calling
correctly,
the
townhouses
to
the
south
for
condos
to
the
south
are
three
stories.
Is
that
correct?
B
Madam
chair,
commissioner?
Shaffer?
That
is
correct?
Okay,
and
are
they
right
at
the
height
requirements
for
the
zone
right
at
35b?
Madam
chair,
commissioner
schaefer?
Yes,
they
would
be
at
the
I'm
not
sure
if
all
individual
buildings
are
at
that,
but
the
max
would
be
35
feet
and
they're
not
exceeding
that
okay,
terrific
and
then
delaney
by
chance.
Do
you
know
across
the
street
over
it
health
wise?
What
is
the
approximate
height
of
health
bias?
I
know
it's
in
a
different
zone
as
well.
B
Madam
chair,
commissioner
schaefer
schaefer,
I
wouldn't
know
the
exact
title.
I
do
believe
it's
constructed
to
that
three-story
style
as
well,
but
being
that
it's
commercial,
it
may
exceed
that
35
feet
and
I'd
have
to
verify
that.
Okay,
terrific.
B
Okay
and
then
delaney
do
you
know
so
the
cross
access
agreement
to
the
south.
It
appears
you
know.
We
have
two
essentially
two
drive
aisles
that
sort
of
terminate
you
know
into
this
parking
lot.
So
is
the
cross
access
agreement,
and
maybe
this
might
be
for
the
applicant
too,
but
you
know
I
want
to
get
a
little
more
information
on
that
cross-access
agreement.
Does
it
apply?
B
I
assume
it
applies
to
both
those
drive
isles.
Is
that
correct?
Madam
chair,
commissioner?
Shafer?
That
would
be
correct.
The
cross
access
agreement
would
be
for
the
residents
to
this
commercial
property.
Okay,
true,
I'm
guessing
that
there
it's
also
for
fire
access
as
well,
so
maybe
this
might
be
for
the
applicant
actually
have
you
have
you
all
explored
with
the
fire
department?
You
know
gating
that
cross
access
as
the
neighborhood
is
requested.
B
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
we
have
not
currently
talked
with
fire
about
gating
or
doing
that.
It's
not
something
we're
necessarily
opposed
to.
I
think
we
just
wanted
to
start
the
conversation.
You
know,
I
will
say
one
of
the
things
we
did
do
and
one
of
the
things
we
have
increased,
I
think,
is
fire
access
on
our
property.
I
believe
the
existing
site,
and
just
as
a
backup
too,
the
existing
building
was
originally
a
little
bigger
so
and
I
think
in
the
in
the
I
believe
it
was
the
90s
99.
B
I
believe
they
locked
off
a
big
portion
of
that
building
and
then
in
doing
that
they
kind
of
created
kind
of
what
it
is
now,
which
is
a
little
bit
of
haphazardness.
I
think
they
also
actually
sold
off
property
to
that
south
plot,
so
yeah
they
we
have
not
pursued
any
options
with
the
fire
chief
or
the
fire
you're,
not
necessarily
opposed
to
having
that
discussion,
though
no,
I
think
that's,
I
think,
that's
a
worthwhile
discussion,
but
I
think
it's
also.
B
You
know,
I
think
this
you
know
the
the
easement
has
been.
I
think
it
predominantly
is
for
the
neighbors,
so
so
gotcha,
okay,
I'm
just
gonna,
continue,
go
ahead
and,
commissioner
one
more
couple
more
for
the
applicant
just
to
confirm
to
so
you.
I
see
two
two
trash
enclosures
on
the
site
plan.
B
Those
are
both
new,
correct,
correct,
correct
one
on
each
the
west
corners
of
the
building
yeah,
the
intent
is
really
is
recognizing
that
it's
a
big
property
and
to
ask
tenants
to
carry
trash
from
one
corner
to
the
other,
isn't
as
realistic
as
locating
two.
I
think
space
also
made
it
more
pragmatic
to
have
you
know
you
start
getting
those
trash
enclosures
get
big
real,
quick.
As
I'm
sure
you
know,
you
look
at
those
design
guidelines.
B
B
Additionally,
given
the
perimeter
length
of
the
building
yeah,
okay,
then
to
that
point
too,
on
the
this
would
be
the
very
southwest
corner
of
trash
enclosure,
so
nearest
the
nearest
the
improvements
they're
proposing
to
the
building.
So
there's
an
area
behind
the
trash
enclosure.
B
Sorry
no
man's
land
currently
looks
like
just
asphalt.
The
drive
aisle
just
terminates
right
there
from
what
I
can
gather
it
looks
like
the
property
line
is
actually
you
know
well
off
that
curb
line.
B
So
in
this
graphic
here
you
see
the
the
trash
enclosure
and
then
the
curb
line,
and
then
I
believe
the
proper
line
is
further
back
again.
No
man's
land
currently
just
asphalt.
Are
you
opposed
to
extending
the
landscape
behind
that
trash
enclosure
just
to
provide
additional
screening
in
that
area?
It's
that's.
Definitely
something
we've
seen
we
would
be
willing
to
entertain
and
the
trash
enclosure
was
set
on
the
on
the
setbacks.
B
So
and
that's
kind
of
I
think
it's
it's
the
10
or
15
feet
per
whatever
the
the
commercial
of
that's
to
a
residential
zone.
So.
B
And
then
I'm
sure,
if
I
can
continue
one
more-
and
this
is
probably
the
biggest
question
you
know,
I
love
the
mixed
use
aspect
of
this
project.
B
I
certainly
think
I
understand
why
you
located
the
additional
stories
on
the
south
side
of
the
building,
but,
having
said
that,
did
you
explore
adding
those
stories
on
the
north
side
of
the
building
away
from
university
jesus?
We
did
not.
A
big
reason
is
kenneth.
You
know
that
it's
the
it's
the
functionality
of
the
dollar
only
goes
so
far,
and
I
think
if
you
want
to
build
up
it's
best
to
if
you're
going
to
add
an
addition,
it's
best
to
continue
to
stack
that
edition
for
pragmatism.
B
A
lot
of
this
design
is
very
effective
and
very
efficient.
If
you
look
through
the
the
kind
of
the
images
you
can
kind
of
see
where
we've
kind
of
run,
our
column
lines
are
all
in
the
same
spot
and
it's
just
efficiency
of
building
is
kind
of
why
it
was
the
result
of
it
being
three
stories
and
kind
of
getting
a
nice
tight
compact
little
building
addition
to
there.
B
So
you
mean
just
going
up
above,
like
rhythm
instead
of
above,
like
so
still
doing
the
same
vertical,
but
on
the
other
side
of
the
right,
oh,
and
are
you
saying
on
the
entire
north
like
taking
this
yeah,
just
remodeling,
taking
the
extra
two
stories
and
putting
them
above
the
north
side?
You
know
there.
We
did
a
couple
options
and
iterations.
B
You
know
there
was
an
iteration
where
we
looked
at
a
separate
building
that
separate
building
was
actually
going
on
to
the
north
of
where
mocha
moose
is
or
to
the
north
of
that
drive-through.
This
seemed
to
be
the
most
pragmatic.
It's.
I
think
it's
also
a
little
serendipitous
that
there
used
to
be
a
building
there
too.
So
it's
kind
of
putting
it
back
almost
where
it
was.
You
know
the
the
original
building
was
built
in
the
80s
by
smith's
and
it
actually
extended
about
90
feet
to
the
south.
B
This
again
was
well
before
the
residential
was
in
there
and
they
also
had
a
larger
lot
when
albertsons
bought
it.
They
lopped
off
about
100,
it
was
90
feet
is
what
it
was
of
that
building
to
kind
of
make
a
more
boutique
grocery
store,
and
I
think
since
then
it's
really
been
an
underutilized
area.
So
okay,
okay
I'll,
yield
for
right
now,
but
I
might
have
some
more
thank
you.
B
B
I
have
a
question
while
we're
at
it:
what's
the
what
is
the
distance
from
that
neighbor
to
the
building
and
are
they?
I
know
it's
in
the
packet,
but
please
refresh
my
memory:
is
there
a
variance
request
for
that
setback?
Yeah.
Madam
chair.
The
distance
from
the
proposed
addition
to
the
residents
to
the
south
is
approximately
59
feet.
B
B
I'm
sure
commissioner
schaefer
two
more
yep
one
for
delaney
one
for
the
apple
delaney.
Anything
we
need
to
do
in
regards
to
a
possible
drive-through
use.
In
the
edition
for
the
life
of
me,
I
can't
see
how
a
drive-through
would
ever
work
with
what
they're
proposing.
B
B
In
order
for
them
to
your
request
to
drive
throughout
this
zone
and
location,
it
would
require
an
additional
conditional
use
permit
and
our
code
does
not
typically
allow
the
drive
through
within,
I
believe
it's
200
or
300
feet
of
a
residential,
so
they
would
have
to
come
through
asking
for
like
an
exception
to
that.
Okay,
terrific,
great,
thank
you,
then,
I'm
sure,
if
I
may
yeah
to
the
applicant,
can
you
speak
to?
I
actually
have
the
same
thought
regarding.
I
know
that
the
retention
pond
in
the
parking
lot
is
relatively
new
and
quite
large.
B
If
can
you
walk
us
through?
I
see
you
proposing
some
new
parking
there
where
that's
currently
located.
So
can
you
walk
us
through
the
storm
drain
system,
thoughts
the
plans
there?
Absolutely
it
does
have
a
high
water
table,
so
one
of
the
things
we're
looking
at
is
an
underground
sleepage
bed.
All
the
gray
areas
on
the
site
line
that
are
indicated
in
the
parking
lots
would
actually
be
previous
pavers
to
address
that
and
on
in
all
actuality.
B
I
think
I
think
a
majority
of
that
parking
lot
is
going
to
be
a
separate
bed
based
on
the
current
water
depth,
as
well
as
just
the
way
to
mitigate
that,
and
in
truth
I
think,
biasly.
I
think
that's
actually
the
best
way
to
mitigate
this
water.
I
think
that
the
open
retention
pond,
as
I
think,
is
evidence
from
the
nice
woman
speaking
earlier-
isn't
the
most
effective
methodology
so.
B
Great
just
and
just
just
circle
back
I
was
reminded
by
my
associate
the
you
know.
Another
reason
for
locating
the
building
on
the
south
side
is
really
just
the
impact
to
current
tenants.
There
are
tenants
in
the
entire
north
side,
bogus
basin
is
up
there,
mokamoos
and
lulu's.
B
The
church
is
in
the
kind
of
the
central,
so
this
northern
this
south
side
of
property
is
the
least
impactful
for
the
existing
tenants,
because
I
think
you
can
kind
of
work
around
the
church
a
lot
easier
than
you
work
around
bogus
basin
or
mocha
moose
or
lulu's.
So
that's
really.
Actually
that
brings
me
to
one
more.
I'm
sorry
right,
I've
been
saving
my
questions.
B
You're,
obviously
I
mean.
Obviously
the
use
of
this
building
originally
was
a
grocery
store.
So
in
the
back
we
have
a
loading,
ramp,
dock
etc.
So,
obviously,
with
this
plan
you're
proposing
to
remove
those
facilities,
that
obviously
could
be
replaced
in
the
future
if
needed.
But
at
this
point
with
this
plan,
the
intention
is
that
the
church,
how
long
has
the
church
been
leasing?
How
long
do
they
intend
to
lease?
B
You
know
that
removing
that
ramp
just
kind
of
changes
the
functionality
of
that
building,
so
anything
you
can
speak
to
there
yeah
I
mean
I
think
this.
You
know
that
the
church
is
has
just
signed
a
long-term
release.
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
able
to
disclose
how
long
that
is,
but
it
is
a
fairly
long
lease.
I
would
say
that
it
is
more
than
three
to
five.
It
is
a
little
bit
upwards
in
a
double
digit
without
saying
it
so
so
they're
there
for
the
long
haul.
B
B
They
have
they're
they're
still
in
kind
of
talks,
and
that's
you
know,
I
think,
just
to
speak
of
you
know
the
retail
and
what's
going
to
be
there
is
you
know,
we're
we're
in
early
conversations
I
mean
they,
you
know
the
the
we
have
to
you
know
you
got
to
start
somewhere
and
you
have
to
get
kind
of
the
entitlements
going
to
get
be
able
to
get
tenants
interested
to
be
able
to
commit
people.
So
so
I
think
that's
kind
of
all
very
flex.
B
I
think
the
abandonment
of
the
loading
dock
is
a
good
call.
I
think
it
actually
will
provide
a
full
fire
lane
and
access
to
that
area,
and
now
it's
a
little
dodgy
if
you
go
back
there,
there's
kind
of
a
big
yellow
pole
that
kind
of
sits
out
in
what
would
be
your
driveway
if
you're
back
there.
So
it
will,
I
don't
believe
the
owner
ever,
wants
it
to
go
back
to
a
grocery
store
or
have
that
kind
of
capacity
for
loading.
If
you
will
okay,
hopefully
that
answers
okay.
Thank
you
for
that
yeah.
B
I
have
a
question
along
those
lines.
So,
if
the,
if
there
was
going
to
be
a
business
change
there,
if
they,
if
a
panda
express
wanted
to
come
in,
for
example,
would
they
have
to
go
this
through
come
back
to
the
planning
department
for
sup?
B
B
B
Okay,
I
think
we're
good
to
move
on.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
okay.
So,
at
this
point
we'll
go
to
public
testimony.
If
you
are
online
and
would
like
to
testify
in
this
item,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand
if
you're
here
in
person
and
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item.
Please
just
come
right
on
up
to
the
podium.
B
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address.
You'll
have
three
minutes.
Okay,
my
name
is
jeff
hudson.
I
live
at
2520
north
closed
space
road
at
pender
village.
B
Our
private
neighborhood
is
directly
south
of
the
proposed
development
we
are
discussing
today.
The
neighborhood
meeting
held
on
july
14th,
provided
us
no
specific
information
other
than
it
would
be
a
three-story
project
on
the
south
end
of
the
existing
building.
They
had
no
measurements
of
the
proposed
building.
B
B
B
B
In
closing,
we
think
this
design
has
too
many
negative
impacts
and
the
established
upscale,
pender
village
condos
and
that
another
location
on
the
property
investigated
or
a
redesign
of
the
project
proposed.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank
you,
mr
hudson.
Is
there
anybody
else
here
in
person?
Please?
Is
there
anybody
else
beyond
this
we'd
like
you
to
just
kind
of
queue
up,
so
we
can
see
who's
coming
up
next.
B
Thank
you.
My
name
is
holly
hudson.
I
live
at
2520,
north
fogus
basin
road.
My
condo
is
the
closest
and
most
impacted
by
the
proposed
development.
In
the
current
plans,
there
is
a
garbage
dumpster
located
in
the
southeast
corner
of
the
property,
approximately
10
feet
from
my
master
bedroom
window
and
patio.
It's
like
this
distance
right
here.
B
B
I
respectfully
request
that
the
dumpster
be
moved
to
a
centralized
location
with
the
other
dumpsters
on
the
north
side
of
the
property,
because
pender
village
is
a
quiet,
private
community
with
only
41
residents.
This
proposed
development
as
planned
is
threatening.
The
life
we've
grown
accustomed
to
the
current
proposal
has
a
conditional
use
for
commercial,
which
could
include
food
beverage,
restaurant
space
on
the
first
floor
of
the
south
side,
approximately
55
feet
actually
because
we've
measured
it
from
our
property.
B
This
is
extremely
concerning
due
to
the
smell
emissions
from
grease
and
potential
late
night
hours
of
operation.
I
really
don't
want
to
band
out
on
the
patio
playing
till
10
o'clock
at
night.
I
respectfully
request
that
the
conditional
use
only
be
for
retail
on
the
first
floor
of
the
south
side
and
exclude
food
beverage
restaurants.
B
Lastly,
to
maintain
the
integrity
of
our
private
quiet
community,
I
would
request
that
the
owner
of
the
property
provide
private
fencing
gates
for
cut
through
traffic
and
landscaping
on
the
north
end
of
our
property
to
insulate
us
from
the
planned
retail
and
apartment
development
on
the
south
side.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
Thank
you.
B
My
name
is
david
stanton.
I
live
at
2514.
if
you
could
maybe
just
pull
that
microphone
up.
So
we
can
hear
you
a
little
better,
just
yeah
there
you
go.
My
name
is
david
stanton.
I
live
at
2514,
north
orchestration,
road
neighbors
to
jeff
and
holly.
Hudson,
our
community
consists
of,
as
amy
said,
41
units
their
their
values
have
been
selling
in
the
neighborhood
of
500
to
600
000..
Ours
are
right
on
the
creek
which
we
we
prefer
have
the
wildlife
and
so
forth.
B
B
B
And
our
concern
is
that,
with
the
increasing
traffic
coming
through
there
that
it,
it
won't
be
as
safe
as
it
is.
There
are
two
blind
corners
on
the
south
end
and
16
of
our
units
have
garages
that
have
very
short
driveways
and
you
have
to
be.
You
have
to
actually
be
in
the
street
on
those
16
units
to
even
see
if
somebody's
coming
or
not
in
addition
to
that
about
25
of
our
25
percent
of
our
owners
are
elderly
which
can
impact
their
reaction
time.
B
I
think
that
about
covers
tried
not
to
repeat
the
other
things
that
were
said,
but
our
big
concern,
I'm
a
retired
police
commander
and
I'm
very
certain
about
security
and
the
safety
of
traffic
passing
through
there,
and
therefore
we
would
like
to
have
some
gating
done
there
to
protect
our
our
lifestyle
there
time.
Thank
you,
mr
sudden.
B
Okay,
moving
online,
we
will
start
with
john
connors
john,
please
unmute
yourself
when
you're
ready
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
three
minutes
well
good
evening.
My
name
is
john
connors.
I
want
to
thank
madam
chair
and
the
committee
members,
my
wife
and
I
were
the
first
people
to
move
into
this
community
community
in
2008.
B
B
I
understand
the
property
to
the
north
of
ours
wants
to
further
develop
his
property,
but
I
would
hope
that
the
city
planning
zoning
commission
stands
by
the
35
foot,
height
adjustment
and
stands
by
that,
because
we
want
to
keep
the
concept
of
smart
growth
still
going
in
this
modern
era.
We
don't
want
more
sprawl
in
the
north
end
and
I
thank
you
very
much.
B
Thank
you,
mr
connors.
Do
we
have
anybody
else
online?
That
would
like
to
speak
to
this
item.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
B
B
Sorry,
an
apology
is
not
about
that.
A
quick
I'll,
keep
it
quick,
I
think
I'll
open
the
same
way
I
typically
open
rebuttals
is
change,
is
hard
and
I
think
all
ships
rise
with
the
tide.
I
think
that
there
will
be
heartache
as
the
construction
process
goes.
I
think
that
is
what
it
is,
but
I
think
overall
what
the
owner
and
the
representatives
are
trying
to
do,
I
think,
is
a
good
thing.
He
talked
about
john
talked
about
smart
growth
and
I
think
that's
a
good
point.
B
I
think
what
we're
providing
is
a
mixed
use
building
and
I
think,
we're
building
on
an
existing
building
that
can
can
sustain
it.
I
think
it's
if
you
drive
by
that
site,
it's
underutilized
and
I
think
that
this
will
create
more
vibrancy,
more
re-energized
re-energizing,
the
building
as
well
and
re-energizing
that
whole
corridor.
So
I
think
that
that
is
what
smart
growth
looks
like
for
building
heights.
I
think
that
violet
seems
like
a
big
number.
B
I
think
that
those
buildings
are
currently
at
35
plus
I
mean,
I
think
that
we
say
you
know.
35
is
the
max,
but
35
is
kind
of
mid-slope
for
a
bridge
residential
building,
so
it
could
be
upwards
to
40..
I
don't
have
a
good
measurement
of
it,
otherwise
I
would
share
it
and
I
think
if
there's
any
others,
I
think
in
my
hopes,
with
with
the
cleaning
up
of
the
seepage
bed
and
with
the
kind
of
underground
retention
and
opening
up
that
other
alleyway,
maybe
it
will
alleviate
traffic
concerns.
B
I
think
that
you
are
providing.
There
are
four,
I
believe,
entrances
to
the
site.
So
to
me
it
doesn't
quite
make
sense
that
people
would
drive
through
their
lot,
because
I
actually
think
that
it's
a
little
bit
of
an
inconvenience.
I
don't
question
that
they
do,
I'm
sure
they
do.
B
I
just
don't
quite
understand
how
drivers
work
sometimes-
and
I
don't
know
if
I
ever
will,
because
there
are
one
two
three
four
current
entrances
on
our
site
that
are
either
off
bogus
or
off
park
hill
drive,
so
that
should
be
sufficient
for
people
getting
access
to
it.
With
that,
I
do.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
We
do
stand
and
we
acknowledge
and
accept
the
conditions
of
approval.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
B
Thank
you.
Okay,
with
that,
we'll
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing-
and
the
item
is
now
before
the
commission.
B
Commissioner
moyer
all
right,
I
don't
know
if
this
will
work,
but
so
I
moved
that
we
approve
pud,
sorry,
one
second
21-41
and
amends
the
condition,
the
height
exemption,
to
defer
for
a
separate
variance.
Is
that
allowed?
So
you
are
suggesting
that
we
would
hear
the
height
exception
separately
separately,
a
later
date?
Okay,
okay,
do
we
have
a
second,
madam
sheriff,
maybe
might
have
legal
sound
off?
I
know
I
see
mary
pulling
the
trigger
over
there.
B
Yes,
madame
chair,
commissioner
moore,
I
believe,
given
that
this
is
a
complete
application
with
this,
as
a
an
exception
requested
under
this
pud,
that
it
would
be
a
denial
of
this
pod
and
a
request
to
the
applicant
to
come
back
with
a
different
application
to
cut
this
height
exception
out.
As
a
separate
process,
I
think,
would
be
duplicative
of
the
purpose
and
intent
of
this
application.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
mary
okay.
So
what
I
suggest
is
that
we
you
make
your
motion,
maybe
without
that
deferral,
part
of
it
and
we
can
at
least
get
the
conversation
going
and
see
where
we're
headed
manager.
Commissioner,
moore,
I
move
that
we
deny
pud
21-41
wait
a
second
okay.
We
have
a
second
from
commissioner
schaefer
who
would
like
to
start
the
discussion
I'll
start,
commissioner
moore
so
my
biggest
hesitation
over
approving
the
hyde
exemption
and
really
it's
just
the
height
exemption.
B
I
think
the
use
the
where
you
located
that
expansion
on
the
previously
demolished
portion
of
the
building
that
makes
sense
to
me
the
height
exemption.
Looking
at
based
on
our
discussion,
the
building
the
surrounding
buildings
are
three
stories
and
the
zones
surrounding
zones
are
35
feet
and
I
think
c2
is
45
feet.
So,
even
with
some
of
the
surrounding
zones,
it's
still
height
exemption
and
that's
kind
of
where
my
biggest
hesitation
lies
is
is,
with
that
height
exemption.
B
There's
I'd
struggle
to
find
an
adjacent
property
in
adjacent
zone,
something
to
kind
of
justify
that
or
make
it
cohesive
in
looking
at.
I
know
one
of
the
things
in
our
staff
report
on
page
224
was
you
know
it's
intended
to
be
cohesive
with,
or
that
first
floor
is
intended
to
be
cohesive,
with
the
existing
single
story
building
and
looking
at
kind
of
the
elevations.
I
know
this
isn't
design
review,
but
it
still
has
a
little
bit
of
a
different
massing.
B
So
I'm
not
entirely
I
not
to
design
from
here,
because
you
know
it's
impossible,
there's
so
much.
That
goes
into
this
entirely
sure
that
I
agree
that
it's
achieving
that.
I
guess
so
just
a
little
bit
hesitant
to
approve
the
height
exemption
in
this
location,
just
with
the
surrounding
properties.
B
Manager,
commissioner,
shaffer,
obviously
I'm
gonna,
be
supporting
the
motion
that
my
reason
for
proposing
to
deny
was
completely
in
line
with
commissioner
moore.
I
love
the
project.
I
love
the
use.
I
completely
agree.
The
site
is
underutilized.
I
completely
agree.
The
site
needs
improvements
for
the
stormwater
system.
B
I
love
the
permeable
pavers
that
you're
exploring
to
correct
some
of
those
issues,
but,
like
commissioner
moore,
my
only
hesitation
is
the
height
exception
right,
and
I
think
that
I
totally
understand
too.
I
love
the
tenants.
I
love
the
use
of
the
of
the
site
and
I
get
that
piece
of
it
that
you
want
to
leave
those
tenants
in
place,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
it's
it's
a
large
site.
I
think
there's
some
other
opportunities
to
add,
building
square
footage
and
other
locations
of
the
site
that
have
less
impact
to
the
surrounding
properties.
B
You
know,
and
I
think
that
as
commissioner
moore
was
saying
too,
that
you
know
if
there
were
some
other
buildings
in
the
vicinity
that
were
in
the
50-foot,
you
know
range.
I
think
that
that
creates
more
opportunity
to
for
us
to
really
consider
this.
This
deviation
in
the
height
but
as
it
stands
right
now
I
mean
most.
Everything
in
that
vicinity
is
right
around
that
35
foot
height,
so
I
have
a
hard
time
getting
to
47
and
allowing
that.
So
it's
it's
a
tough
one.
It's
a
really
hard
one,
because
I
love
it.
B
I
love
it.
I
love
the
use.
I
love
the
improvements.
It's
a
dated
building.
You
know
it
needs
a
facelift,
but
unfortunately
I
just
can't
get
there
on
the
height.
So
like
that's,
where
I'm
I'm
standing
right
now,
I'm
actually
not
going
to
support
the
motion.
I
do.
B
I
also
don't
think
the
height
is
appropriate,
but
I
think
that
I
would
rather
see
them
given
the
opportunity
to
rework
it
or
we
would
continue
to
approve
the
pud
at
the
35
foot
height
without
the
variance
to
the
height,
because
I
think
it
is,
I
love
seeing
mixed
use.
I
think
that
there's
more
that
they
can
do
with
the
space.
B
So
I
hate
to
deny
the
whole
project
because
of
that,
so
I
won't
be
supporting
motion.
I'd
rather
see
it
deferred
or
approved
with
the
35-foot
limit.
B
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
commissioner
blanchard,
I'm
also
not
in
support
of
the
motion
only
because
this
you
know
these
kind
of
failed
mall
developments
are
plaguing
us.
Frankly,
all
across
the
country,
and
this
is
frankly
what
I
think
is
an
excellent
example
of
adaptive
reuse,
the
the
building
I
think
across
the
street,
which
is
the
architecture
one
of
the
architecture,
firms
and
health-wise,
because
it's
up
on
a
berm,
I
mean
that
thing
has
got
to
be
60
feet
or
something
when
it
tops
out.
B
B
This
is
an
example
of
smart
growth.
This
is
exactly
what
we
want
is
an
adaptive,
reuse
project
like
this.
Frankly,
I
think
that
whole
site
could
benefit
from
being
way
more
intensively
used,
I'm
still
kind
of
bugged
by
how
much
parking
is
there
in
that?
You
know
space
frankly,
and
so
I
really.
B
I
think
this
is
a
great
first
step
at
redeveloping
this
site,
and
I
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
heights
exception
whatsoever,
because
I
think
it's
justified
in
that
area
just
because
of
what
we
see
across
the
street
already,
which
is,
I
know
it's
got
to
be
far
higher
than
than
what
this
is
so
anyways
there
you
go.
B
Madam
chair,
commissioner
finfrock,
I
wasn't
really
sure
on
which
way
I
was
going
to
go
on
this
one.
So
I
thank
my
commissioners
for
making
that
argument.
I'm
not
going
to
support
the
motion
either.
I
I
know
there's
a
height
issue
and
I
do
think
it
probably
adversely
affects
the
other
properties
directly
in
that
area,
but
I
do
think
it's
an
appropriate
place
for
increased
density,
and
I
so
I
I
don't
think
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion
as
well.
B
I
think
that
we
probably
could
use
a
the
higher
density
and
I
think
it's
an
appropriate
place
to
put
it
so
I
will
not
be
supporting
the
motion.
Okay,
thank
you.
So
with
that,
let's
go
ahead
and
take
the
vote
and
then
we'll
we'll
see
what
we
can
do.
Pen,
no
schafer,
yes,
blanchard!
No
more!
I
finn.
Frog
no
motion
fails
three
opposed
to
in
favor.
B
So
I
think
that
I
see
us
having
a
couple
options
here
on
the
motion.
We
could
either
defer
the
project
and
ask
them
to
take
another
stab
at
it
and
see
what
they
can
do
to
you
know:
try
to
onboard
some
of
those
neighbor
requests
a
little
bit
more
or
we
can
make
a
motion
to
approve,
or
we
could
make
a
motion
to
approve
and
scratch
condition.
Number
two,
which
is
the
height
exception.
B
I'm
open
to
any
motions,
though
madame
sure
commissioner
finn
proc.
I
knew
to
approve
pud
21-41,
along
with
the
standard
and
recommended
condition
or
terms
and
conditions,
with
the
exception
to
number
two,
with
the
height
variance
being
denied
or
limited
to
35
feet
great.
Do
we
have
a
second.
B
Madam
chair,
commissioner
schaefer
not
to
leave
the
motion
hanging,
but
we
had
input
from
legal.
Previously.
B
The
the
hype
exception
was
sort
of
material
to
this
application,
so
only
that
it
so
to
clarify
that
only
that
it
so
sometimes
we
say
wow
we
could
approve
the
we
could
approve
the
conditional
use
permit
now,
but
we'll
deny
the
other
separate
application.
You
know
that's
sometimes
submitted
as
a
joint
application,
but
in
this
case,
because
it
is
one
application
we
can't
hear
them
separately,
but
but
we
can
always
adjust
conditions
of
approval.
So,
since
the
height
variance
is
a
condition
of
approval,
we
can
do
what
we'd
like
with
that.
B
B
Okay,
we
can't
get
out
of
this
motion
so
that
we
can
that
motion.
Are
you
ready
to?
Second?
Are
we
gonna,
no
okay,
so
that
motion
is
dead.
Then
I'm
here,
commissioner
moore,
was
wondering
if
the
applicant
would
be
willing
to
come
back
in
and
redesign
or
kind
of
study
that
35
foot
height
and
come
back
in
at
a
later
date.
B
I
guess
the
question
to
you
is:
would
you
rather
us
defer
to
take
another
stab
at
it,
and
we
could
do
that
to
just
not
going
to
the
next
meeting,
which
is
in
you
know
two
weeks,
maybe
a
week
based
on
that
we're
late
in
the
month
or
we
can
push
forward
at
that?
What
would
probably
sounds
like
it
would
end
up
being
at
that
35
foot
limit.
B
B
B
Madam
chair,
I'm
sorry,
the
public
hearing
section
is
closed.
So
if
we
do
start
taking
new
information
in
yeah,
you
can
ask
your
question
to
your
I'm
trying
to
answer
we're
trying
to
answer
to
that,
because
if
it
is
a
35
feet
or
the
35
to
mid
slope,.
B
Does
staff
know
the
answer
to
that?
Madam
chair,
I
can
speak
to
what
code
does
say
yeah.
So
since
that's
not
new
information
by
any
means,
if
with
a
sloped
roof,
we
I
believe
we
measure
to
the
midline
of
that.
So
not
the
peak.
B
Okay,
okay,
so
I
think
any
emotions
we
thank
you
for
your
input.
I
think
even
that
question
was
helpful.
Okay,
so
I
think
any
motions
we've
attempted
to
make
have
died
at
this
point.
B
So
I'm
open
to
a
new
motion.
B
That's
plenty
of
time?
Okay,
great
great!
Okay,
great!
We
have
a
second
from
commissioner
moore.
Is
there
any
further
discussion,
man,
I'm
sure,
commissioner
schaefer?
Sorry,
gentlemen,
sorry
to
everybody
we
kind
of
stepped
in
that
one,
but
yeah
I
mean
obviously
we're
conflicted.
I
think
that
in
general,
it's
you
know
a
positive
project
that
we
all
like.
I
think,
there's
just
things
to
work
through.
So
deferral
at
this
point
is
probably
the
best
option.
B
Okay,
okay,
so
will
the
clerk?
Please
call
the
vote?
Oh
sorry,
we
have
a
motion
on
the
table
to
defer
to
october
4th
meeting
on
item
number
four.
This
is
pd21-41
at
2588,
north
bogus
basin
road.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
Then
I
schafer
aye,
blanchard
aye,
more
hi
hi.
All
in
favor
motion
carries
great.
Thank
you.
So
much.
Okay,
we're
gonna,
just
take
a
quick
five
minute
break
and
then
we
will
be
back
with
item
number
six.
B
B
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
to
encroach
at
the
rear
setback
for
proposed
two
cargo
detached
garage
with
an
adu
on
0.13
acres,
located
at
3855
west
pine
in
an
r1c
zone.
The
subject
property
currently
contains
a
detached
single
car
carport,
which
encroaches
about
one
foot
into
the
rear
setback
and,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
aerial
photograph,
the
surrounding
area
is
comprised
of
an
established
single-family
residential
neighborhood
and
the
new
building
is
located
behind
the
existing
house
and
adjacent
to
the
rear
property
line.
B
As
marked
on
red,
this
site
plan
shows
the
location
of
the
proposed
two-car
garage
and
the
adu,
which
is
a
1176
square
foot
two-story
detached
building.
The
new
building
is
proposed
to
be
set
back,
approximately
10
feet
from
the
rear
property
line
and
adjacent
to
the
north
of
the
building.
As
you
can
see
here
is
the
existing
main
house.
There
is
an
exceptional
circumstance
associated
with
the
subject
property
to
justify
the
encroachment
into
the
rear
setback.
B
This
justification
includes
the
site
providing
two
austrian
parking
spaces
for
the
existing
house,
which
is
required
by
the
development
code
and
to
accommodate
the
width
of
two
full-size
parking
spaces.
The
garage
will
encroach
five
feet
into
the
rear
setback,
and
currently
this
such
a
property
only
provides
one
parking
space.
There
are
no
other
viable
design
solutions
to
accommodate
the
two
parking
two
full-size
parking
spaces,
without
a
variance
in
particular
a
tandem
garage
or
attaching
it
to
the
existing
house,
will
not
work.
Both
solutions
could
potentially
damage
mature
trees
on
site.
B
There
is
for,
in
particular,
there's
a
mature
shade
tree
located
along
the
west
property
line,
which
could
be
damaged
with
a
a
tandem
configuration
for
the
garage
or
a
mature
conifer
tree
located
along
the
street
front
edge
of
38th
street,
which
could
potentially
be
damaged
if
you
attach
it
to
the
main
house.
B
Also
on
this
slide,
you
can
see
rough
elevations
of
the
building
and
a
conceptual
picture
of
what
the
type
of
building
proposed
is.
I
would
note
that
the
applicant
is
proposing
clear
story:
windows
on
the
second
floor
and
a
stairwell
to
the
second
floor
is
interior
to
the
structure.
The
applicant
did
provide
signatures
from
several
neighbors
expressing
no
opposition
to
the
variants.
However,
the
neighbor
adjacent
to
the
south
did
state
concerns
of
the
variants
in
terms
of
the
building
height
and
privacy
to
their
to
their
backyard
and
property.
B
These
are
the
pictures
of
the
the
trees
in
question,
so
you
can
see
the
large
tree
along
the
back
property
line
is
the
west
property
line,
so
the
large
mature
shade
tree,
probably
a
class.
True,
it's
about,
I
probably
say
40
feet
in
height
and
then
the
the
other
one
shows
the
conifer
tree.
It's
about
20
feet
in
height,
mature
right
along
the
street
frontage.
B
B
Great
lauren,
please
unmute
when
you're
ready,
you
can
start
your
camera
if
you'd
like
to
please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
10
minutes
all
right
good
evening.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
hearing
my
application
and
I
hope
it's
a
little
simpler
than
the
last
one
we
just
heard.
I
learned
a
lot
that
was
very
interesting,
so
I
don't
have
much
more
to
add
than
mr
moser
did
he's
been
very
helpful
helpful
throughout
this
process.
B
I
did
have
a
neighborhood
meeting
about
this,
where
I
learned
of
the
concerns
of
my
neighbor,
so
he
was
very
helpful
in
assisting
me
in
making
sure
that
I
could
create
a
structure
that
protects
that
privacy,
but,
as
he
stated,
this
is
in
an
established
neighborhood.
It
is
not
in
any
formal
subdivision.
There
aren't
any
ccnr's.
B
There
are
actually
a
couple
of
homes,
one
within
a
block
from
me.
That
has
a
second
story
as
well
as
another
block
and
a
half
just
from
my
home.
That
has
a
second
story
and
again,
as
he
stated,
I've
done
many
things
to
create
some
privacy.
B
The
hardships
I
think
you'll
want
me
to
address
here-
are
that
the
unique
circumstance
of
my
property
that
results
is
that
there's
not
enough
room
based
on
any
setback
requirements
to
create
the
two
off-street
parking
spaces,
as
the
city
co
requires,
and
as
he
also
mentioned,
that
no
matter
which
way
I
go,
it
will
go
into
a
setback.
B
This
property
is
a
corner
lot
and
the
shared
property
line
with
the
neighbor
to
the
south.
That
is
his
side,
property
line
and
my
back
set
box.
So
he
actually
only
has
a
five
foot
setback
on
that
fence
line
where
I
have
a
15
foot
setback
currently.
So
that
is
why
I'm
hoping
that
encroaching
only
five
feet
into
that
setback
and
having
a
10
feet
as
opposed
to
his
5
foot
step
back,
will
be
acceptable
to
you.
B
B
This
is
not
a
self-created
hardship.
This
is
not
something
that
I
that
I've
done
anything
to
create
it's
the
way
that
the
home
was
structured
or
built
upon
the
lot,
and
also
it
also
also
created
by
the
city
code,
requiring
that
I
have
these
two
off
street
parking
spaces
which
I'm
complying
with
a
couple.
Other
things
to
note
is:
it
will
not
be
material
detrimental
to
the
public,
health,
safety
or
welfare
or
injuries
to
the
property
or
improvements
of
the
property
owners
or
the
quiet
enjoyment
thereof.
B
It
will
be
harmonious
with
the
neighborhood
and
will
not
be
injured
to
other
parties,
and
it
will
not
grant
me
any
special
privileges
over
that
of
my
neighbors.
It
will
not
be
also
will
not
be
in
conflict
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
It
will
not
affect
a
change
in
zoning
and
it
is
not
in
pub
conflict
with
public
interest
or
general
land
or
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
application
so
other
than
what
I've
stated
here.
Mr
mosher
has
shared.
This
is
just
a
modest
neighborhood,
with
evolving
characteristics.
B
When
I
moved
into
the
neighborhood,
the
neighbor
across
the
street
had
actually
framed
in
a
second
story,
and
I
was
excited
to
see
that
that
was
an
option
after
I
moved
in,
they
abandoned
the
property,
so
that
was
actually
taken
down,
but
I'm
excited
to
be
able
to
improve
upon
the
neighborhood.
If
my
intent
is
to
make
the
entirety
pro
entire
property
look
much
better
than
it
does
now
I'll.
B
Be
updating
the
home's
exterior
to
match
that
of
the
adu
with
fresh
paint,
and
I
will
be
improving
the
landscaping
and
my
goal
is
that
it
really
has
a
positive
impact
on
the
entire
neighborhood.
Thank
you
miss
winsett.
First,
before
we
move
to
questions
I'll
just
check
real
quick.
B
Do
we
have
a
representative
from
the
veterans
park,
neighborhood
association,
present,
okay,
seeing
none
then
we'll
move
two
questions
from
the
commission
for
staff
of
the
applicant
manager,
commissioner,
moore
a
question
for
staff,
so
on
packet,
page
304,
there's
it
states,
there's
an
exceptional
circumstance
associated
with
the
property
and
goes
on
to
talk
about
the
two
off-street
parking
spaces
being
part
of
that
exceptional
circumstance
to
to
clarify,
because
in
two
offs
street
parking
spaces
is
kind
of
required
for
a
project
like
this.
B
Is
it
just
the
exceptional
circumstance
being
that
it
wasn't
originally
planned
when
it
was
built
to
allow
for
that?
You
know
those
dimension
parking
spaces
on
that
property.
Madam
chair
remembers
the
commission.
That
is
correct.
I
believe
the
house
was
built
around
in
the
70s
and
it
was
built
with
a
single
car
port
on
it
to
put
a
two-car
garage,
and
the
house
sits
up
in
the
front
to
put
a
two-car
garage
in
the
back
there's
just
no
space
to
do
that
without
damaging
a
mature
tree
in
the
process.
B
Ma'am
sure,
commissioner
schaefer
quick
question
for
staff
david-
I
don't
you
don't
know
this
exactly,
but
approximately.
How
far
was
the
distance
from
the
back
of
the
proposed
adu
to
the
west
property
line?
B
Madam
chair
members,
commission,
the
the
building
is
currently
22
feet,
as
proposed
from
the
west
property
line,
which
is
that
interior
side
property
line
right,
correct,
22
feet
great.
Thank
you.
B
B
We
did
have
one
sign
up
walter
cameron.
It
does
not
look
like
he's
present
tonight,
though.
Okay
seeing
none
then
we'll
go
back
to
it
would
be
the
applicant's
opportunity
for
a
five-minute
rebuttal,
miss
winstead.
Do
you
have
anything
else
to
add,
there's
not
much
to
rebut?
B
No,
I
don't
believe
there
is
okay.
Thank
you.
Okay,
with
that,
we'll
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing-
and
the
item
is
before
the
commission
adam
chair,
commissioner
finfrock
moved
to
approve
cva21-or,
yes,
21-43,
along
with
the
standard
and
recommended
conditions
of
approval,
and
I
know
there
was
really
no
opposition,
but
just
oh
sorry,
maybe
I
should
let
somebody
second
we're
just
moving
things
along.
B
B
It
looks
like
there's
a
hardship
associated
with
this
property
and
I
think
the
applicant
tried
to
make
efforts
to
appease
the
neighbors
by
moving
that
stairway
on
the
inside
and
try
to
accommodate
some
of
those
desires
of
the
neighborhood.
So
I
think
she's
done.
She's
worked
on
her
behalf
to
kind
of
remedy
this
situation.
B
So,
for
that
reason,
I'm
in
support
of
this
application-
great
I'm
sure,
commissioner,
more
and
obviously
in
support
of
the
application
and,
in
addition,
because
the
neighbors
that
property
line
on
the
neighbor's
side
is
a
side
yard,
it's
a
rear
yard
setback,
I'm
comfortable
with
the
with
the
variance
of
this
quotation,
great
okay.
Without
any
further
discussion,
will
the
we
have
a
motion
on
the
table
to
approve
cva
21-43
at
3855,
west
pine
avenue?
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
Ken
aye
shaffer,
aye,
lantern,
aye,
more
aye
in
front
aye.
B
B
Okay,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
this
item
before
you
as
a
variant
for
an
accessory
structure
to
exceed
the
size
of
a
primary
structure
on
1.49
acres
and
an
r1c
single-family
residential
zone.
The
property
is
in
a
predominantly
single
family
neighborhood,
comprised
mostly
of
urban
sized
lots
and
the
union
pacific
railroad
right-of-way
runs
across
the
south
of
the
lot
between
it
and
alpine.
B
The
street
currently
has
an
existing
home
that
is
1368
square
feet,
with
six
assorted
detached
accessory
structures
ranging
in
size
from
approximately
162
to
840
square
feet.
The
applicant
proposes
to
remove
three
of
the
detached
accessory
structures
along
the
north
property
line
and
build
a
1994
square
foot
garage
which
will
be
attached
to
an
existing
480
square
foot
barn.
B
The
applicant
seeks
variance
to
the
standard
stating
that
the
square
footage
of
the
existing
home
is
very
small
in
comparison
to
most
properties
in
the
area
and
that
structures
exceeding
2000
square
feet
exist
in
close
proximity
to
the
site.
While
there
are
other
structures
of
similar
size
in
the
vicinity,
they're
either
primary
homes
or
accessory
structures
that
meet
the
requirements
of
the
code,
further
accessory
structures
are
required
to
be
compatible
with
neighboring
properties
in
mass
and
design.
The
proposed
structure
is
industrial
in
character,
with
five
garage
doors
and
no
fenestration
on
two
sides.
B
This
would
stand
in
stark
contrast
to
the
residential
structures
in
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
In
conclusion,
the
planning
team
cannot
identify
a
hardship
or
exceptional
circumstance
associated
with
the
property.
Thus,
the
planning
team
is
recommending
denial
of
the
variance
request
and
the
commission
makes
a
final
decision.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mrs
rain.
Okay,
next
we'll
hear
from
the
applicant.
B
Please
it's
take
your
time
right
on
up
here.
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
10
minutes
my
name's
paul
hoffman
32
35
mountain
view,
drive
boise,
idaho,
83704.
B
Commissioners,
thank
you
for
having
us.
I
have
to
say
to
begin
with.
I
was
a
little
bit
taken
aback
by
the
staff
report.
In
june
I
met
with
josh,
wilson
and
sabrina
with
planning
staff.
B
I
don't
know
if
you
have
those
pictures
available
that
were
part
of
the
package,
the
middle
there
were
a
number
of
buildings
and
structures
and
trailers
and
lots
of
clutter
really
that
we're
trying
to
house
in
this
structure.
B
B
We'd
like
to
keep
the
barn
can
we
can
discuss?
Well,
the
barn
is
the
kind
of
the
center
structure
there.
B
It's
yeah
that
one
right
there
we'd
like
to
keep
that,
but
if
that
is
a
major
sticking
point,
and
we
certainly
are
willing
to
discuss
that
just
taking
that
out
of
there
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
hope
is
that
by
getting
all
these
structures
into
the
barn
they're
protected,
it
cleans
up
the
appearance
of
the
site
and
I'd
like
you
to
please
note
that
the
strip
proposed
structure
is
hundreds
of
feet
literally
well,
maybe
not
yeah
hunt
more
than
100
feet
from
any
adjacent
property,
any
adjacent
property
structure.
B
B
And
so
I
think
to
my
way
of
thinking
when
the
zoning
code
was
written
as
far
as
the
relative
size
of
the
house
and
the
garage,
you
know
it
can't
it's
difficult
to
write
an
ordinance
that
picks
up
all
circumstance
and
obviously,
in
this
case
this
is
a
large
piece
of
property
really,
for
you
know
an
urban
area,
it's
an
acre
and
a
half
and
and
the
other
difficult
or
thing
the
issue
that
we
were
struggling
with.
Is
you
know
this
original
house,
which
is
in
the
bottom
left
corner
down?
B
B
The
city
in
its
wisdom-
and
I
can't
say
whether
this
is
right
or
wrong-
is
decided
at
the
front
of
the
property-
is
actually
there
at
that
corner
of
douglas,
and
I
forget
the
other
name
of
the
street
so
and
that's
kind
of
awkward
in
the
sense
that
the
house
isn't
facing
that
way
and
most
of
the
house,
its
house
and
the
adjacent
garage
are
to
the
west
as
far
as
the
building
itself.
The
proposed
structure-
you
know,
if
we
needed
to
add
some
fenestration,
we
could
do
that.
B
B
B
B
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
sir.
Okay,
great
with
that,
I
would
ask
if
we
before
we
get
to
questions.
This
is
the
morris
hill
neighborhood
association.
Do
we
have
a
representative
present
to
speak
on
their
behalf?
B
And
I'm
chair,
commissioner
blanchard.
I
guess
this
is
just
it's
so
staff
has
said
no
and
by
right
you
could
put
12
housing
units
on
there
and
why
you
wouldn't
just
move
these
trailers
and
boats
and
whatever
it
is
out
to
self
storage
and
federal
way
and
develop
the
site
appropriately
is
is
kind
of
beyond
me.
Frankly,
like
I
just
I
just
simply
don't
understand
it.
Well,
ultimately,
it's
that's
probably
what's
going
to
happen
that
the
site
will
get
developed.
B
Any
other
questions,
or
more
so
packet,
page
343.
It
states
that
you
could
the
that
large
structure
could
be
split
up
into
multiple
buildings.
So
it's
it's
not
it's
not
a
matter
of,
and
I
guess
this
is
a
question
for
staff.
So
it's
not
a
matter
of
the
total
area
of
accessory
structures.
It's
just
a
matter
of
the
area
of
one
specific
accessory
structure.
B
B
B
America,
commissioner,
schaefer
and
just
so
we're
all
comparing
apples
to
apples
crystal
your
total
square
footage
you're,
including
the
existing
barn
correct.
So
it's
the
existing
barn
plus
the
new
proposed
structure,
that's
giving
us
that
2
400
and
change
square
footage.
Madam
chair
commissioner,
correct
the
the
structure
on
its
own
is
one
thousand
nine
hundred
and
ninety
four
square
feet.
B
So
that's
that
structure
on
its
own
is
still
larger
than
the
home.
Okay,
correct
great!
Thank
you,
madam
sure,
commissioner
finfrock
question
for
the
city.
So
could
it
like
an
exceptional
circumstance?
Could
that
be
the
size
of
the
property
or
a
size
the
size
of
the
lot,
because
the
lot
looks
quite
large,
madam
chair,
commissioner,
from
prop
I
don't,
the
city
does
not
consider
that
as
exceptional
circumstance
or
did
not
find
that
to
be
the
case.
B
How
do
you
define
that
sorry?
Madam
chair,
madam
chair,
commissioner
finfrock?
It
is
in
the
r1c
zone.
The
average
lot
size
in
that
zone
is
5000
square
feet
and
thinking
about
how
this
might
develop
in
the
future.
You
know
I'm
thinking,
that's
likely
it's
probable,
particularly
in
this
area
and
so
putting
a
large
structure.
There
doesn't
meet
the
finding
it
didn't
meet
the
findings
for
us.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Are
you?
Am
I
moving
too
quickly?
Okay,
okay,
thank
you.
You
can
have
a
seat
now.
Unfortunately,
you
may
not
just
questions.
You
will
have
an
opportunity
for
a
rebuttal,
though
so
just
stay
don't
go
too
far.
Okay,
at
this
point,
we
would
move
to
public
testimony.
Do
we
have
anybody
present
tonight
online
or
in
person
that
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item.
B
B
B
Manager,
commissioner
shaffer
I'm
going
to
move
to
deny
cba
21-41.
B
For
the
terms
of
the
staff-
second,
great
second
from
commissioner
moore
commissioner
schaefer,
would
you
like
to
discuss,
I
can't
think
of
another
night
where
I've
actually
moved
to
deny
two
projects.
This
is
a
very
unusual
evening,
and
I
think
this
is
a
very
unusual
situation.
B
I
think
I
mean
per
our
deliberation
and
our
questioning,
I
don't
think
we're
opposed
to
your
intentions
at
all
right.
I
think
that
we
all
are
in
agreement
like
yep
that
looks
good
to
clean
up
the
site.
I
think
we're
just
in
that
position
where
you
know
code
sort
of
dictates
one
thing
and
there's
really
no
argument
against
the
code.
In
this
case,
so
I
mean
I
appreciate
the
application.
I
appreciate
the
thought,
I'm
sorry
for
the
confusion.
B
B
But
again
you
know
we're
dealing
with
city
code
here
and
sometimes
city
code
can
be
counter-intuitive
and
in
you
and
that
you're
in
that
exceptional
circumstance
in
that
you
have
a
very
large
lot,
a
lot
of
space
and
nothing
that
says
you
can't
come
back
and
have
two
structures
to
achieve
what
you
want
to
achieve
so
yeah,
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
at
with
it.
I'd
love
to
hear
my
fellow
commissioners,
thoughts
on
it
as
well
mentor.
Sure
more.
I
think
absolutely
it's
for
the
denial.
B
Just
because
I
mean
a
hardship
to
me
would
mean
that
if
we
denied
it,
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
it
at
all.
But
because,
if
you
split
that
into
multiple
different
structures,
it
is
still
feasible.
I'm
I
see
it
as
not
a
hardship
at
all,
but
is
feasible
on
this
particular
site.
B
Medical
chair
yeah,
commissioner
blanchard.
I
just
want
to
reiterate
my
previous
comments
that
the
number
of
developable
one
acre
sites
on
the
boise
bench
fit
in
a
thimble
and
yeah.
So
to
see
that
this
is
what
you
would
do
with
the
site.
Is
it
just?
It
makes
absolutely
zero
economic
sense
and
for
sure
does
not
fit
with
you
know
blueprint
boise
I
mean
this
is
obviously
a
site
that
needs
to
be
built
out
with
multi-family
along
that
and
yeah
going
barn
dominion
style
in
on
the
boise
bench.
B
Just
just
it
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me.
I
hope
the
record
catches
that
barn
dominium
I
like
that,
but
I
the
only
thing
that
I
would
add
is
that
you
know
we,
although
all
your
neighbors
today,
might
think
it's
not
a
problem.
B
You
know
we
are
designing
for
the
future
and
for
all
the
neighbors
that
may
live
there
in
the
future
too,
or
even
on
this
site
in
the
future,
and
so
that's
why
it's
important
that
we
adhere
to
the
code
as
best
we
can,
even
if
neighbors
might
support
something
that
goes
against
the
code.
That's
why
we
have
the
code
as
a
reference.
B
Okay.
So
with
that
we
have
a
motion
on
the
table
to
deny
cva
21-41
at
4424
west
alpine
street.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
Ted
aye,
schaefer
aye,
ms
landshard
aye,
moore
aye
and
fro
hi.
All
in
favor
motion
carries
okay.
Moving
on
to
our
last
item
of
the
evening.
This
is
item
number
10,
cba
21-32
for
trout,
architects
at
1810,
west
lamp
street,
a
variance
to
encroach
the
year,
the
rear
yard
setback,
and
we
will
start
with
staff.
B
B
You
can
see
from
the
aerial
photograph
that
these
three
parcels
along
lamp
were
rotated
at
some
point
and
go
opposite.
The
typical
development
pattern
for
the
neighborhood,
resulting
in
a
side
yard
adjacent
to
the
alley.
As
discussed
in
the
project
report,
the
planning
team
finds
this
unique
configuration
of
the
parcel
to
be
exceptional
circumstance
related
to
the
property
and
thus
warranting
the
granting
of
the
variants
upon
submittal
of
the
request
the
applicant
proposed
to
place
the
new
garage
in
the
same
location
as
the
existing
garage.
B
After
discussions
with
the
architect,
a
five-foot
setback
was
agreed
upon
instead
of
the
one
foot
and
the
planning
team
moved
forward
with
the
recommendation
of
approval.
However,
the
planning
team
was
made
aware
after
the
late
correspondence
deadline
that
the
owner
would
like
to
maintain
the
existing
one,
foot
setback
or
14
foot
encroachment.
B
The
planning
team
is
not
in
support
of
this
request.
This
is
new
construction
and
with
that,
any
legal
non-conforming
status
is
lost.
As
such,
the
planning
staff
recommends
approval
of
a
five-foot
setback
due
to
the
unique
shape
of
the
lot
to
provide
compatible,
like
yard
setbacks,
to
the
neighbors
to
the
north
and
to
preserve
open
space.
The
request
for
a
five-foot
setback
meets
the
findings
for
a
variance.
The
commission
makes
the
final
decision
and
may
approve
deny
or
amend
conditions.
Thank
you.
B
My
name
is
sean
weston,
trout,
architects,
2504
west
kootenay
street
in
boise.
Madam
chair
commissioners,
I'm
representing
the
michael
cornwell
family,
michael
cornwell,
is
also
here
tonight.
B
B
The
existing
garage
is
tight
to
the
rear
corner
of
the
site,
and
it's
not
set
back
from
the
alley.
B
It's
not
convenient
to
park
the
cars
inside
the
garage.
It's
a
one
car
garage
now,
the
new
car,
the
new
garage
door
would
be
held
back
to
required
22
feet,
including
the
alley
and
would
make
it
more
workable
for
the
parking.
B
B
B
A
couple
more
points:
this
is
a
historic
neighborhood,
so
we
feel
like
we're
still
in
the
context
of
the
the
buildings
that
are
currently
built
there.
The
lot
is
a
substandard
lot
at
4
410
square
feet.
B
We
understand
that
the
planning
staff
has
made
it
their
job
to
try
to
make
the
project
code
compliant.
There
has
been
some
discussion
with
different
setbacks
on
the
rear
property
line.
B
Some
neighboring
buildings
in
the
context
are
built
on
property
lines
in
the
adjacent
alley,
so
it's
sort
of
keeping
in
the
style
some
neighboring
buildings
in
the
context
are
built
on
the
property
lines
around
that
particular
site.
We
have
worked
to
provide
a
rigorous
notification
and
have
signatures
from
neighboring
owners
and
tenants
with
no
objection
to
the
various
requests.
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
weston.
Next
we'd
ask:
do
we
have
a
representative
from
the
north
end
neighborhood
association,
that
wants
to
speak
on
this
item
on
their
behalf.
B
B
Okay,
cautiously
moving
forward
with
no
questions
all
right,
commissioner
moore,
so
the
disagreement
here
really
is
a
little
bit
less
than
four
feet.
What
I
guess
I
understand
the
benefits,
but
this
is,
I
guess,
a
question
for
the
applicant
and
for
staff.
The
benefits
of
the
five
foot
setback
is
more
space
between
the
two
neighbors,
it's
similar
to
a
kind
of
a
side,
yard
setback
and
it's
similar
to
kind
of
surrounding
conditions.
B
Madam
excuse
me,
madam
chair,
commissioner,
moore
correct.
It
would
provide
like
yard
setbacks
and
be
more
in
conformance,
while
still
providing
open
space
for
the
applicant
mentor.
Commissioner,
so
and
then
I
guess
the
benefits
of
less
setback
is
now.
You
have
more
green
space
between
the
house
and
the
garage.
B
B
Well,
we
sort
of
think
that
that
it's
sort
of
an
arbitrary
number
at
this
point
and
that
we'd
rather
have
that
extra
fee
in
the
yard
space,
since
it's
a
small
lot
to
start
with
and
that
it
would
be
a
benefit
for
the
neighbor,
so
they
wouldn't
have
to
build
a
fence
and
create
a
five-foot
area
behind
the
garage
which
becomes
fairly
unusable
space.
So
again,
it's
a
unique
situation.
B
B
Just
additionally,
I
know
on
a
couple
of
these
in
previous.
The
no
objection
from
the
neighbor
has
come
into
play
as
an
argument
for
approval,
but
a
question
for
staff
is
when
there's
no
objection
from
the
neighbors
and
things
like
that.
How
how
much
does
that
weigh
on
on
your
decision
or
on
your
recommendation
on
these
staff
reports,
chairman
or
madam
chairman,
commissioner
moore?
We
do
take
that
into
account,
but
you
know
looking
at
this:
the
intensity
is
being
almost
doubled.
B
It's
going
from
one
story
to
two,
and
so,
as
you
know,
was
mentioned
before,
keeping
in
mind
future
neighbors,
who
just
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
that
additional
space
you
know
neighbors
now
may
not
object,
but
a
two-story
building,
one
foot
from
the
property
line
may
be
more
impactful
for
future
residents.
This
is
thank
you.
B
B
B
Great?
Okay?
Let
the
record
note
that
they
are
waiving
that
rebuttal
time.
Okay!
So
with
that
we'll
close
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing-
and
the
item
is
now
before
the
commission.
B
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
blanchard
move
that
we
approve
cva
21-32
at
1810,
west,
limp
street
for
the
variants
to
encroach
through
your
rear
yard
setback
with
all
the
conditions
in
the
staff
report.
Second,
we
have
a
second
from
commissioner
schaefer.
Commissioner
blanchard,
would
you
like
to
start
the
conversation
sure
thanks
to
the
trout,
architects
team
here?
I
think
this
is
very
much
in
keeping
with
what
we're
seeing
in
the
north
end
just
about
every
time
we
meet
here.
B
I
you
know,
the
city
is
obviously
pushing
for
more
flex
space
and
more
housing
and
more
density
in
the
built-up
neighborhoods,
and
I
think
these
kind
of
adu
projects
with
some
home
office
space
reflect
what's
happening
in
the
larger
economy
and
it's
it's
a
good
move
for
the
city,
so
very
much
support
of
the
project.
B
Commissioner
schaefer
I'm
chair,
yeah,
I'm
in
support
of
the
project
and
the
motion.
Of
course,
I
think
in
regards
to
condition
number
two,
the
the
setback
and
encroaching
into
the
setback.
I
think
that
this
is
a
nice
compromise.
The
five
foot
setback
is
a
standard
side
yard
setback.
B
You
know
if,
and
I
agree,
this
is
a
positive
step
for
the
neighborhood,
but
I
think
we
also
have
to
think
long
term
right
and
beyond
the
current
owners
of
both
properties-
and
you
know
it's
always
a
challenge
when
we
have
these
older
neighborhoods
and
some
standard
lots
and
lots
of
change
over
over
the
years.
But
again,
I
think
in
this.
In
this
situation
you
know
giving
us
the
five
feet
makes
some
sense.
B
It
gives
a
little
bit
of
that
buffer
for
both
properties,
and
you
know
in
the
future
that
will
maintain
be
maintained
past
the
current
property
owners,
so
I
think
the
long
term
for
the
next
hundred
years.
This
is
the
best
move
for
the
property.
B
Okay,
great
with
that,
we
have
a
motion
on
the
table
to
approve
cva
21-32
for
trial
architects
at
1810,
west
lemp
street.
This
is
to
approve
with
the
current
conditions
as
written
in
the
staff
report.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote
and
aye
schaefer
aye
lantern
aye,
more
hi
ben,
frau
hi.