►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission
Description
Monday, August 1, 2022 at 5:30 PM MDT
A
B
C
A
A
A
A
So
we
can
put
that
aside
item
3
cva
2216
at
1214.
North
7th
street
are
two
variances
to
encroach
into
this
side
setback
and
reduce
the
required
backup
space
for
an
existing
non-conforming
structure
on
0.11
acres.
Basically,
they
want
to
raise
the
roof
and
they
need
a
permit
for
it.
So
I
know
I've
been
enjoying
that
for
months.
C
A
A
E
A
A
Item
seven
is
going
to
be
the
second
star
of
the
evening.
It
is
car
2211,
pud,
2228
and
suv.
2235
at
6776
east
warm
springs
avenue.
We
are
recommending
approval,
but
there
is
neighborhood
opposition
and
the
applicant
is
against
condition
number
four
to
install
detached
sidewalks
on
the
interior
of
the
development.
So
we
will
be
hearing
that
one
and
there
is
a
good
sign
up
sheet
outside.
So
mr.
G
H
C
A
2226
at
408
north
alamba
street,
it's
a
pud
for
24
multifamily
units
on
just
about
an
acre
in
an
lod
zone
and
we
are
recommending
approval
and
we
can
try
for
consent.
We
haven't
heard
anything
on
that.
One
number:
nine
rs
requesting
deferral
to
september
12th
as
well,
so
we
can
put
that
aside
item
10
cup
2217
at
4802,
west
kootenai
street.
It's
a
coup
to
convert
an
existing
child
care
facility
into
single
family
living
with
a
homeok.
A
That's
on
.34
acres
in
a
neighborhood
office
zone.
We
are
recommending
approval
and
we
can
try
for
consent.
So
we
haven't
heard
any
any
peeps
item.
11
is
pewd
2234
at
1404,
south
philippi
street.
It's
a
pud
for
108
multi-family
units
on
just
shy
of
five
acres
and
a
c2d
zone.
We
are
recommending
approval,
but
there
is
neighborhood
opposition.
So
we
will
be
hearing
that
one
this
evening
and
then
last
but
not
least,
we've
got
car
22,
7,
pud,
2224
and
suv
2222
at
915
north
shamrock
street.
A
A
J
M
D
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
and
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
public
testimony.
N
J
J
J
K
D
D
P
D
D
D
The
project
address
is
8710,
south
pleasant
valley,
road,
and
this
is
an
annexation
of
81.23
acres
with
an
m1da
zone.
The
applicant
is
requesting
deferral
to
september,
12th
is
there.
Anyone
here
in
attendance
tonight
would
like
to
testify
on
that
item
that
cannot
attend
our
meeting
on
september
12th.
J
D
D
The
address
is
6202
west
state
street
as
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
social
event
center
with
a
parking
reduction
on
3.03
acres
in
a
c4d
zone.
This
applicant
is
also
requesting
deferral
to
september
12th.
Is
there
anyone
in
attendance
tonight
to
testify
on
that
item
that
cannot
attend
our
meeting
on
september
12th.
Q
D
D
O
D
D
Okay
for
the
rest
of
our
consent
agenda.
The
first
item-
that's
eligible
is
item
number
three.
This
is
cva
22-16
matson
homes
incorporated
the
address
is
1214
north
7th
street.
This
is
a
multiple
variances
or
a
variance
to
encroach
into
the
side
setback
and
reduce
the
required
backup
space
for
an
existing
non-conforming
structure
on
0.11
acres
in
r2hd
zone
is
the
applicant
present
tonight.
D
K
D
I
D
Up
next
item
number
ten:
this
is
cup
22-17
river
city,
real
estate.
Llc
project
address
is
4802
west
kootenay
street.
This
is
a
conditional
use
permit
to
convert
an
existing
commercial
child
care
facility
into
a
single
family.
Dwelling
with
home
occupation
on
0.34
acres
in
in
an
nod
zone
is
the
applicant
present
tonight.
D
The
applicant
is
rodney
evans
and
partners.
Pllc
project
address
is
915
north
shamrock
street.
This
is
a
re-zone
of
approximately
3.17
acres
from
a1
zone
to
r1c,
conditional
use
permit
for
23
single
family
homes
and
a
preliminary
plat
for
the
residential
subdivision
of
said
homes
is
the
applicant
present.
This
evening
I
saw
ben
online.
D
P
P
D
J
N
D
Okay,
thank
you
all
for
that.
All
right,
deferrals
are
dealt
with.
Consent
is
dealt
with,
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
back
to
the
top
of
our
agenda,
and
here
are
the
rest
of
these
remaining
items.
Up
first
is
item
number
one.
This
is
pud
22-20,
adp
architects.
This
was
deferred
from
our
last
meeting
on
july
11th.
D
F
Good
evening,
mr
chair
commissioners,
the
item
before
use
pud
22-23
a
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development,
comprised
of
11
multi-family
units
on
0.98
acres.
The
property
is
located
at
4403,
maple
grove,
road
and
an
r1c
zone
at
the
intersection
of
maple
grove,
road
and
goddard
road.
F
The
apple
camp
proposes
11
units
in
two
buildings,
so
the
maximum
density
allowed
in
the
r1c
zone
is
eight
units
per
acre.
However,
the
applicant
is
requesting
to
utilize
a
transit
density
bonus
to
get
the
requested
number
of
units.
The
subject
property
is
adjacent
to
the
maple
grove
bus
route,
with
stops
approximately
150
feet
to
the
south
and
across
the
street
from
the
subject
property.
F
The
proposal
includes
garage
parking
for
each
unit,
with
a
condition
for
one
van
accessible
ada
spaced.
For
the
development
there
are
a
total
of
19
garage
parking
spaces
included
in
the
project.
A
recommended
condition
of
approval
requires
that
each
driveway
apron
to
be
at
least
20
feet
long
in
order
to
accommodate
guest
parking
without
vehicle
overhang
onto
the
internal
sidewalks.
F
F
Public
opposition
was
received
as
late
correspondence.
The
most
common
concerns
were
increased
traffic
and
related
noise
parking
privacy
and
safety.
Achd
has
reviewed
the
traffic
impacts
for
this
application
and
found
that
the
road
network
can
support
this
development.
All
units
are
provided
with
code
compliant
parking.
The
proposal
is
under
the
allowed
height
and
r1c
zone,
and
the
applicant
is
providing
pedestrian
connections
and
limited
vehicle
access
points
to
the
development.
D
S
Yeah
we
apologize
no
problem,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
and
we
do
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
in
front
of
you
tonight
for
the
record.
My
name
is
todd
lakey
with
wharton
lakey
law
address,
141,
east
carleton,
meridian,
83642,
commissioners.
This
is
a
relatively
small
nice
quality,
townhome
style,
multi-family
project
that
qual,
that
is
infill
in
this
location.
S
I
appreciate
staff
jesse
did
a
good
job
and
her
analysis
on
this
case
and
covering
the
comprehensive
plan
components
in
her
report.
I
do
want
to
just
mention
a
couple
that
are
in
support,
particularly
this
is
an
infill
project,
we're
providing
a
mix
of
housing
types,
we're
decreasing
vehicle
miles
based
on
its
location
on
the
transit
corridor.
S
We
are
providing
for
bike
utilization
and
parking
pedestrian
connectivity
and
we're
following
the
city's
design
principles.
I
do
want
to
emphasize
a
couple
of
other
components
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
As
was
stated,
this
property
is
zoned
r1c
and
there
may
be
some
that
would
argue
that
r1c
needs
to
be
single
family
and
that's
that's
it.
But
in
fact
that's
not
correct.
S
S
S
The
city
supports
this
mix
of
uses
and
the
densities
and
directs
it
in
this
location,
based
upon
what
I
just
described,
we're
on
an
arterial.
This
is
a
transit
corridor.
There's
existing
bike
lanes
on
both
sides
of
maple
grove
and
based
on
that
location.
Again,
the
city
encourages
the
density
that
we're
proposing
a
multi-family
is
appropriate
and
it's
part
of
the
character
of
the
area
for
this
r
1c
in
this
location.
S
So,
oh
I'm
sorry,
I
was
looking
up
there.
Maybe
back
it
up
there,
you
go
thanks,
so
we
still
have
to
go
through
the
design
review
process,
as
was
noted,
but
our
design
incorporates
the
balconies
and
the
interior
parking
garages.
Both
of
those
things
are
located
on
the
interior
of
the
project
inward
facing
the
and
then,
if
you
could
also
show
the
next
slide
that
it
does
conform
with
the
city's
design
principles.
S
We
do
have
6
000
square
feet
of
additional
open
space
there
on
the
west.
In
the
back
of
the
project,
there
is
a
very
large
mature
tree
located
there
and
our
intent
is
to
preserve
that,
but
we
also
are
agreeable
to
the
condition
that
we
have
a
tree
mitigation
plan
put
together
for
the
city's
approval.
There
are
some
other
trees
that
you'll
see
on
the
property
and
we'll
work
with
staff
to
determine
which
ones
are
appropriate
to
keep.
S
We
are
providing
adequate
parking
as
far
as
outdoor
parking,
we're
providing
the
20
spaces.
17
are
required,
but
the
guest
parking,
I
think,
wasn't
necessarily
considered
by
some
of
those
in
opposition.
Guest
parking
is
available
in
the
parking
spaces
or
the
driveway
in
front
of
the
garages
and
we're
required
to
provide
that
additional
20
feet
of
length
to
accommodate
they'll
guess
those
guest
parking
spaces
and
the
additional
spaces
within
the
garages
are
available
for
up
to
19
vehicles
within
the
garage
spaces.
S
We
are
providing
we're
required
to
provide
13
bike
spaces,
we're
providing
17
some
of
those
include
inside
secure
spaces
with
the
units.
There
was
some
concern
expressed
about
folks
parking
along
maple
grove
if
you
could
pull
up
the
next
slide
jesse.
So
this
is
a
picture
of
of
maple
grove.
You
can
see
the
bike
lanes
that
are
located
on
both
sides
of
maple
grove
when
there's
existing
no
parking
signs,
so
people
will
not
be
parking
in
those
locations
if
they
will
or
in
violation.
S
Next
slide
in
relation
to
traffic,
we're
agreeable
to
the
conditions
required
by
achd,
but
maple
grove
is
already
built
out
to
full
development.
There's
a
turn
lane
a
left
turn
lane
that
goes
into
the
site,
and
this
is
a
picture
of
the
intersection.
You
can
see
kind
of
the
traffic
lights
there
and
there's
that
kind
of
concrete
paved
area
just
past
the
crosswalk.
S
That's
the
entrance
to
the
site
if
this
was
an
11-unit
multi-family
project
in
the
middle
of
this
block
away
from
a
traffic
signal,
it's
really
kind
of
inconceivable
that
a
traffic
signal
would
be
required
for
access
to
this
project,
but
fortune
has
located
us
right
in
front
of
a
traffic
signal
which
provides
a
signalized
intersection
when
we're
only
adding
7
pm
peak
hour
trips
to
the
trap,
the
traffic
system.
So
it's
extremely
safe
when
it
comes
to
access
on
maple
grove.
S
We
agree
with
the
staff's
conditions
of
approval
and
the
need
for
multi-family
certainly
still
remains
high
in
the
city
of
boise.
This
is
a
small,
high-quality,
multi-family
infill
project
that
meets
the
zoning
ordinance
and
comprehensive
plan.
I
would
ask
for
your
approval,
commissioners.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
We
also
have
our
design
consultant
online.
If
you
do
have
any
more
technical
questions.
D
Okay
thanks
mr
licky
we'll
hold
for
questions
just
for
a
minute,
we're
going
to
check
in
and
see
if
we
have
someone
from
the
neighborhood
association
here
first
to
hear
from
those
folks.
Okay.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
yeah.
If
there's
anybody
here
from
the
west
valley,
neighborhood
association,.
F
P
F
P
P
Yeah
I'll
just
go
down,
I'm
going
to
do
this.
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
people
in
the
audience,
so
hopefully
this
will
answer
some
of
those
questions
but
same
in
regards
to
parking.
I
know
that
parking
is
a
big
concern
in
this
area.
Can
you
speak
to
the
requirement
and
again
the
where
we
stand
on
that.
F
F
P
F
P
S
Mr
chairman
and
commissioner
stead:
yes,
we're
we're
providing
the
setback
requirements,
we're
also.
I
think
that
also
goes
to
our
design,
we're
locating
the
balconies
and
things
inward
facing
along
with
the
garage,
and
then
we
have
that
large
6
000
square
foot
area
to
the
west.
That
will
be
maintained
in
open
space
and
is
occupied
by
that
tree,
which
my
guess
is
60
to
70
feet
across
and
pretty
good
size.
Great.
Thank
you.
T
Had
a
question
for
jesse:
okay,
I'm
looking
at
the
table
11-06.1
and
for
the
allowed
uses,
and
it
goes
over
the
multi-family
living
units
per
acre
in
an
r1c
and
I'm
just
wondering
how
we're
getting
to
11..
Can
you
maybe
help
get
me
there,
just
exactly
how
we're
doing
that,
because
I
know
there's:
it
states
multi-family,
building
three
to
six
units,
not
60
20
units
per
acre
and
then
there's
another
option
that
is
multi-family
building
7-20
units.
So
I'm
just
wondering
how
we
came
up
with
eleven
just
so
I'm.
I
can
understand
that.
F
Yes,
mr
chair
commissioner,
fun
frock,
so
the
r1c
allows
for
eight
units
per
acre
by
right,
and
then
they
are
asking
for
those
three
additional
units
based
on
a
transit
density
bonus
and,
as
you
can
see
in
the
plans,
each
building
has
either
five
units
or
six
units.
So
it's
not
going
over.
That
allowed
amount.
J
D
E
E
Would
you
alienate
the
community
you
are
assigned
to
protect
is
beyond
me.
This
adversely
affects
myself
and
my
neighbors,
because
our
street
is
directly
adjacent
to
the
project.
He
was
talking
about
parking.
Well,
you
can't
park
on
maple
grove
can't
park
on
goddard.
You
could
park
on
woodside
courthouse
and
I
imagine
they'll,
be
there.
E
E
E
N
D
D
U
D
U
U
U
U
In
fact,
according
to
page
eight
of
the
west
bench,
policies
of
the
comp
plan,
suburban
neighborhoods,
which
we
are
designated
in
the
west
bench,
are
anticipated
to
remain
largely
single-family
in
nature,
with
the
exception
of
areas
between
fairmont
park
and
eustic
windstead
park
in
fairview
and
south
of
fairview,
which
are
anticipated
to
see
some
men
feel
in
development
as
one
of
my
neighbors
who
could
not
attend.
This
evening's
hearing
told
me
very
plainly
by
approving
this
specific
multi-unit.
U
Currently,
the
surrounding
area
consists
primarily
of
single-family
homes
and
some
scattered
duplexes.
The
boise
planning
division
project
report
also
states
that
the
maximum
density
allows
allowed
in
the
r1c
zone
is
eight
units
per
acre.
However,
the
applicant
is
proposing
an
11
unit,
multi-family
development,
with
the
five
plex
and
six
plex
building
on
0.98
acre
again,
the
maximum
density
allowed
is
eight
units
per
acre.
However,
the
transit
density
bonus
allows
up
to
12
units.
U
U
And
what
about
the
issue
of
parking?
The
applicant
is
proposing
only
one
designated
guest
parking
lot.
However,
ac
hd
is
recommending
that
the
city
requires
a
greater
number
again.
That
means
that
when
there
are
party
celebrations
and
gatherings
for
holidays
and
other
events,
one
can
pretty
well
assume
that
guests
will
be
parking
on
the
already
limited
curbs
on
nearby
neighbor
courts.
U
We
understand
the
future
development
is
inevitable.
Most
of
us
are
amenable
to
a
smaller
development
being
built
at
this
site,
consisting
of
three
to
four
individual
single-family
residential
units,
similar
to
lots
located
just
south
on
maple
grove,
which
have
three
to
four
single
family
dwellings
on
them.
In
closing,
I
humbly
request
the
boise
planning
and
zoning
commission
denied
the
applicant's
request
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
a
monstrosity
of
11
multi-family
units
and
instead
consider
a
proposal
to
build
three
to
four
individual
single-family
residential
units
at
this
location.
C
S
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
commissioners,
again
for
the
record
todd
lakey,
141,
east
carleton,
meridian,
83642,
commissioners
I'll
address
some
of
the
arguments
and
misconceptions
again:
there's
a
strong
need
for
multi-family
and,
as
was
described,
r1c
is
not
simply
single
family.
It
provides
for
eight
dwelling
units
per
acre
of
multi-family,
but
your
code
and
your
comprehensive
plan
support
and
direct
mixed
use
and
also
support
additional
density
on
transit
corridors.
S
S
S
The
parking
again
is
more
than
adequate.
The
visitor
parking
is
located
on
the
driveways,
and
then
you
have.
The
additional
garage
parking
certainly
recognize
that
some
folks
may
use
their
garages
for
storage,
but
we're
in
again
we're
going
above
and
beyond
the
the
parking
requirements,
so
the
parking
is
more
than
adequate.
S
At
the
same
time,
you
also
want
to
encourage
transit
use
when
you're,
based
on
a
local
location
on
a
transit
corridor,
we're
also
supporting
bike
usage,
and
I
think
I
I
hope
those
facilities
are
encouraged
and
that
are
they
are
used.
That's
part
of
the
city's
desire,
especially
with
current
fuel
prices,.
S
There
will
not
be
a
significant
increase
in
traffic
against
7
pm
peak
hour
trips.
The
achd
has
done
their
analysis.
We
have
two
access
points
on
there.
Currently
we're
abandoning
the
southern
access
and
focusing
on
the
access
with
the
signalized
intersection
and
ach
does
require
ach
does
require
us
to
reconstruct
that
access
slightly
to
better
true
it
up
in
alignment
with
the
goddard
intersection.
S
Commissioners,
again,
this
meets
your
comprehensive
plan.
This
is
the
right
location
for
multi-family
in
this
type
of
zone
and
we
meet
the
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
comprehensive
plan.
It
supports
the
application.
We
ask
for
your
approval
and
again
I'd
answer
questions.
If
you
have
them.
D
T
D
T
So
just
going
along
with
the
public
comment
to
address
the
parking,
so
there
is
a
10
parking
reduction,
that's
based
on
the
transit
proximity
and
the
applicant
met
the
parking
requirement,
that's
required
by
the
code.
We
heard
a
lot
about
density,
I
think
in
our
packets
and
a
couple
of
public
comments
about
that
tonight,
but
the
multi-family
developments
they
are
allowed
and,
as
staff
pointed
out,
that
also
also
complies
with
the
code.
D
No
discussion,
okay,
very
good,
just
real,
quick
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion.
I
think,
for
all
the
reasons
the
commissioner
finn
proc
indicated,
I
think
it
does
check
all
the
boxes.
Right,
setbacks,
parking
their
met
at
the
code
and
in
every
requirement,
certainly
understand
the
concerns
that
this
site
is
surrounded
by
single
family
homes,
but
I
think
they
found
a
nice
way
to
blend
in
some
multi-family
into
the
neighborhood.
I
think
it
adds
another
dynamic
to
the
neighborhood
other
housing
type.
D
N
D
D
F
Good
evening,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
I'm
for
you
is
car
22-13,
a
reason
of
approximately
6.08
acres
from
a1
to
m1d,
with
a
development
agreement
located
at
2171,
east
dansie
drive.
Subject:
parcel
is
surrounded
by
industrial
uses
to
the
south
and
west
residential
to
the
east,
and
land
owned
by
idaho
power
to
the
north
property
is
designated
as
industrial
on
the
future
of
land
use
map.
F
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
rezone
the
subject
parcel
to
m1d
to
construct
an
88,
000
square
foot
warehouse
there's
a
large
idaho
power
easement
on
the
east
side
of
the
property
and
the
property
will
take
access
from
brana
street
through
a
cross
access
agreement
with
property
to
the
south.
The
association
development
agreement
will
restrict
access
from
dancy
drive
to
gated
fire
access
only
to
keep
the
industrial
traffic
out
of
the
existing
neighborhood.
F
Other
proposals
in
the
draft
development
agreement
include
limiting
uses
to
exclude
any
manufacturing
production
or
industrial
uses
where
the
majority
of
the
use
is
conducted.
Outdoors,
limiting
trucking
terminals,
where
a
truck
stop
or
fuel
station
is
the
primary
use
limiting
service
stations
and
composting
facilities.
F
F
Other
options
for
mitigation
between
residential
and
industrial
uses
that
have
been
utilized
include
berms,
sound
walls,
fencing
and
lighting
requirements
and
limiting
the
hours
of
operation.
The
example
on
the
screen
was
approved
for
the
blue
valley
project
and
mitigations
include
a
50-foot
buffer
to
parking
areas
with
a
10-foot
grass
buffer,
a
40-foot
berm
and
increased
landscaping.
V
V
V
So
the
subject
properties
intended
to
be
utilized
for
light
industrial
uses
per
the
comp
plan
long
term.
Our
team
is
qualified
to
rezone
and
develop
this
parcel
light.
Industrial
we
believe
light
industrial
is
a
better
fit
than
self
storage,
with
the
neighboring
residential
in
this
and
for
the
city
of
boise,
we
own
the
parcel
building
to
the
south,
which
is
2100
braniff
and
and
are
uniquely
able
to
to
provide
access
via
that
parcel,
whereas
anyone
else
that
would
buy
this
would
have
to
provide
access
via
the
neighborhood
and
then.
V
Lastly,
we
have
some
neighborhood
feedback
and
planner
recommendations
in
our
presentation,
so
existing
photos,
as
you
can
see
the
it's
a
beautiful
parcel.
However,
the
the
prior
owner,
jim
congers
who's,
also
developer
who's,
probably
been
in
front
of
this
committee.
Many
times
did
the
neighboring
residential
and
there's
a
reason
why
this
wasn't
residential.
It's
it's
a
buffer
to
the
heavy
industrial
next
door,
but
also,
as
you
can
see
on
this
slide.
Clearly,
there's
there's
power
lines
going
through
the
middle
of
it.
V
Here's
a
current
picture
of
the
site,
it's
a
it's
an
old
locomotive,
refurbishing
facility
and-
and
we
have
a
lease
signed
with
fbm
foundation,
building
materials
for
the
right
or
the
east.
Half
right
on
this
picture
and
here's
what
it'll
look
like
in
the
future
when
it's
done
I'll
skip
over
this
to
a
public
private
partnership
with
colorado
springs
so
this
property,
when
we
saw
the
marketing
material
on
the
bottom
you'll
see
it.
It
shows
when
jim
congress
owned
it,
it
was
listed
for
sale
as
m1d
light
industrial,
so
it
was.
V
So
this
was
planned
to
have
access
via
danzi,
which
would
be
via
the
neighborhood,
and
a
couple
notes
on
in
on
self
storage,
idaho
has
10.76
square
feet
per
person,
self
storage.
What
does
that
mean
it's
higher
than
any
other
state
in
the
united
states
and
it's
double
the
national
average,
so
there's
no
shortage
of
self-storage
around
the
other
is
the
access
is
via
residential
and
the
peak
hours
are
generally
the
same
hours
that
residential
are
going
to
and
fro
home
from
four
to
seven,
as
well
as
weekends.
V
V
This
is
a
hard
slide
to
see,
but
in
corrects
what
it
is,
is
tok
commercial,
which
is
a
local
real
estate
firm,
put
together
and
puts
together
on
a
quarterly
basis
how
the
industrial
market
is
doing,
and
in
summary,
there
is
zero
vacancy
in
the
southeast
by
the
airport
and
the
entire
treasure
valley
has
a
one
percent
vacancy
there's.
There's
a
lack
of
industrial
and
there's.
There's
significant
demand.
V
What
we're
highlighting
on
this
slide?
This
is
a
an
excerpt
from
one
of
our
past
site
plans.
We
have
an
updated
one
later,
but,
as
you
can
see
on
the
southeast
portion
or
the
bottom
right,
the
yellow
highlighted
area
is,
is
our
proposed
access
road
that
would
that
would
provide
all
the
access
to
this
property
via
braniff.
So
the
only
the
only
access
to
the
neighborhood
would
be
the
fire
access
on
the
north.
V
So
compatibility
as
you
can
see
on
the
south,
we
own
a
the
building
and
it's
it's
definitely
heavy
industrial
old
old
refurbishing
facility
and
to
the
west
and
the
north
are
to
the
west
is
also
old.
Heavy
industrial.
What
you'll
see
in
our
proposed
building
is
a
as
a
beautiful
light.
Industrial,
concrete,
tilt-up
building,
so
a
good
buffer
to
the
neighborhood.
Y
X
L
X
And
the
only
real
concern
was
the
future
traffic
and
that
it
not
be
through
the
residential
neighborhood
and
that
it
was
requested
that
there
would
be
no
signage
facing
east.
There
was
also
later
a
letter
to
staff
from
steve
conkel
that
requested
that
there
also
be
no
access
through
the
nz
drive
because
of
concerns
with
children's
safety,
noise,
large
trucks
driving
through
this
residential
neighborhood
and
as
proposed,
we
are
not
intending
on
having
any
of
that.
The
fire
is
requesting
access
there.
X
Okay,
we
are
in
agreement
with
all
of
the
permitted
uses,
which
should
be
any
uses
allowed
in
the
m1
zone
as,
except
for
the
outdoor
uses,
the
truck
terminal
service
station
composting
facilities-
that's
not
a
problem.
This
is
really
intended
to
be
at
88
000
square
feet
a
much
smaller.
This
is
not
a
large
amazon
size
facility.
This
is
a
much
smaller
sort
of
facility
intended
for
more
local
businesses
for
smaller
businesses,
it's
very
demiseable,
so
there
could
be
multiple
different
tenants
using
this
property
all
in
this
area.
X
That
really
is
slated
in
the
future
land
use
map
for
industrial
development
and
with
the
power
lines,
there's
very
little
else
that
you
could
do
with
it.
The
only
thing
that
the
applicant
is
not
in
agreement
with
is
the
hundred
foot
no
build
zone.
They
instead
are
proposing
instead
of
the
15
15-foot
setback,
a
25-foot
setback.
X
That
then
includes
a
berm
and
a
wall,
and
they
also
agreed
to
have
all
of
the
lighting
facing
away
from
the
residential
neighborhood,
all
of
the
signage
facing
away
all
the
signage
being
away
from
the
residential
neighborhood
and
to
do
in
some
enhanced
landscaping
with
larger
trees
as
we'll
go
through
here
in
another
slide
to
really
look
at
that
and
we're
running
low
on
time.
So,
let's
move
on.
X
Thank
you.
Okay,
as
you
can
see
from
the
proposed
site
plan,
which
this
does
still
have
to
go
through
design
review
in
the
future,
there
will
be
enhanced
buffering
on
the
east
side
that
will
meet
with
all
of
the
cities,
parking
requirements,
lighting
requirements,
landscaping
requirements.
Achd
has
generally
approved
this.
You
can
see
coming
in
on
the
south,
though,
that
they
will
be
asking
for
a
reduced
buffer
at
that
south
east
southeast
corner
due
to
making
the
access
flow.
So
you
don't
have
trucks
making
sharp
corners
there.
V
I
could
add
to
that
as
well:
the
in
the
southeast
corner
there's
already
a
buffer
and
from
the
residential
you
can
see
just
on
the
other
side
of
the
black
heavy
black
there's
a
there's,
a
residential
lot.
There,
that's
not
intended
to
be
built
on
so
there's
a
somewhat
buffer
there
as
well,
and
then.
V
Lastly,
I
know
I'm
just
about
out
of
time,
but
we've
conducted
us
on
site
line
diagram
and
our
our
thought
is
we're
in
agreement
that
we
want
to
come
up
with
a
buffer
to
the
neighbors
and
we
want
to
propose
the
berm
fence
and
from
what
we've
depicted
thus
far,
the
the
noise
is
generally
above
the
the
top
of
the
house
and
then
from
the
top
floor
of
the
house.
The
second
story,
you
just
see
the
top
of
the
building.
V
D
O
So
this
question
for
for
really
for
the
city,
I
guess
to
start
so
jesse
what
what
if,
if
there
was
no
100
foot,
no
build
requirement
in
the
da?
What
would
the
bare
setback
or
requirements
of
the
zone
be
for
the
the
space
between
their
building
or
their
parking
lot
in
those
residential
homes?
On
the
east
side,.
O
F
Q
F
Mr
chair,
commissioner,
gillespie,
essentially
that
number
came
from
the
highest
buffer.
You
could
have
between
any
kind
of
industrial
and
residential,
not
just
in
one
zone
and
also
that
came
from
the
suggestion
up
from
the
airport
area
rezone,
and
that
is
where
that
number
came
from.
But
again
it's
up
to
the
commission's
discretion
to
decide.
If
that's
an
appropriate
number
tonight.
O
So
when
you
say,
mr
chairman,
please
so
when
you
say
the
the
suggestion
from
the
airport
area
rezone
is
that
referring
to
the
blue
lake
that
whole
issue,
or
is
it
referring
to
that
new
property
where
we're
in
the
middle
of
discussing
the
annexation
and
there's
there's
residential
stuff
on
the
west
and
you'll
recall
that
this
commission
heard
that
about
what
four
months
ago?
So
what
exactly
do
you
mean
by
that.
O
X
To
our
knowledge,
there
are
no
other
industrial
developments
adjacent
to
residential
that
require
such
a
large
buffer,
the
airport
property
one.
That
was
a
hundred
feet,
that
was
the
city
requesting
that
on
its
own
city
property
and
that
application
was
actually
pulled
a
few
weeks
ago.
It's
my
understanding,
and
I
thought-
and
I
may
be
remembering
inc
correctly,
but
I
thought
blue
valley
ended
up
landing
on
a
40-foot
buffer
requirement.
V
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Gillespie
chairman
100
feet.
Is
it
it?
Wouldn't
the
the
project
is
dead
on
arrival,
we
we,
the
access,
would
make
the
truck
court
after
the
after
the
access.
The
truck
court
would
be
too
small
to
to
really
back
in
trailers
and
back
out,
so
we
we,
we
requested
25
feet,
but
we
there
there's
a
little
bit
of
room
that
we
could
go
with
the
landscape
buffer.
D
H
V
Yeah,
absolutely
we
the
only
reason
we
bought
this
property
is
because
we
own
2100
brannif
to
the
south
and
from
a
from
not
only
from
an
industrial
perspective,
the
it
truckers
certainly
don't
want
to
drive
through
residential
neighborhoods
if
possible
too.
It's
it's
just
easier,
going
straight
south
than
into
bran
of
street
and
then
dumping
on
a
federal
just
around
one
block
off
from
off
from
that.
So
any
assurances
that
that
we
can
provide,
I
mean
it's,
that's,
that's
the
whole
reason
we
bought
this
property.
O
So
this
question
for
the
city
and
the
applicant
so
that
the
existence
of
those
easements
essentially
prevents
the
building
from
being
built
any
further
east
really
than
is
shown
on
packet.
Page
134
right,
because
you
can't
you
can't
I'm.
I
assume
you
can't
build
a
building
in
to
this
big
high
voltage
power
line
instrument.
Is
that
right.
O
So
so
again
to
the
city
and
the
applicant,
so
isn't
the
real
thing
we're
debating
then,
because
we're
already
going
to
get
that
there's
not
going
to
be
any
building
within
this
hundred
foot
space
because
of
the
easement,
the
power
easement
already.
So
what
we're
really
debating,
then,
is
whether
or
not
there'll
be
hardscape
like
parking
lot
stuff
in
there
and
trucks
moving
around
in
that
space.
Is
that
correct
is
that's
what
this
is
essentially
about.
O
Okay
and
from
the
city,
mr
chairman,
basically
so
from
the
city's
point
of
view,
what
is
it
exactly
that
we're
trying
to
mitigate?
Is
it
the
headlights?
Is
it
the
noise?
Is
it
the
like?
What
are
we
trying
to
block
or
prevent
from
affecting
those
those
neighbors
to
the
east?
What
what
exactly
are
we
mitigating.
F
P
Chair,
I
have
a
question
for
stop.
Okay
is
there,
I
may
have
missed
it,
but
are
there
like
specific,
because
this
is
just
a
rezone,
I'm
so
probably
not,
but
are
we
looking
at
any
like
specific
hours
of
operation
or
anything
like
that?
We
wouldn't
know
that
until
we
got
the
next
application.
Is
that
right.
F
O
Are
you
willing,
in
the
d.a,
to
restrict
your
hours
of
operation
to
say
you
know
six
in
the
morning
seven
in
the
morning
to
say
eight
at
night,
because
you
did
indicate
in
your
testimony
that
you
thought
the
use
of
this
type
of
property
is
counter
cyclical,
vis-a-vis
residential
uses.
So
would
you
be
willing,
in
the
d.a
to
to
accept
a
restriction
on
these?
You
know
what
can
be
really
bright
headlights
from
these
trucks
and
noise
when
people
are
trying
to
rest
or
sleep
at
night.
D
C
J
D
C
D
I'm
curious,
though,
in
your
mind
right
now:
what
is
the
the
wall
the
proposed
wall
made
out
of
and
how
tall
is
that
berm
and
to
be
fair,
I'm
a
landscape
architect
so
you're
in
my
world
right
now,
so
I
just
gotta
understand
what
you're
thinking
as
far
as
25
foot
wide
buffer.
But
how
tall
is
that
berm.
V
Yes,
good
question,
commissioner:
excuse
me
chairman:
I
have
with
me
jeff
selector,
do
you
mind
coming
up
to
help
from
our
design
and
our
architectural
firm
and
we're
still
openly
dialoguing
on
this?
We
actually
updated
the
plan
as
of
an
hour
ago.
I
believe
so.
He
jeff
would
be
able
to
better
answer
what
our
latest
rendition
was.
C
Z
Z
D
D
D
Okay
and
then
my
experience
with
idaho
power,
there's
not
much
you
can
do
within
those
easements
right
now,
the
one
easement,
the
easternmost
easement
kind
of
clips
into
that
buffer
area
on
the
southeast
of
the
site.
So
is
it
your
understanding?
You
probably
couldn't
do
much
within
that
section
of
the
easement.
D
Z
D
F
D
D
AA
Chairman
and
commissioners,
with
regards
to
development
agreement
in
a
rezone,
there
is
discretion
within
the
code
and
within
the
comprehensive
plan
in
terms
of
what
that
buffer
is.
So
it
isn't
something
that's
prescribed.
So
I
would
answer
your
question,
commissioner.
Mooney
would
say
it's
not
necessarily
beyond
the
scope
of
anything.
K
O
John,
that's
why
I
was
asking
like:
is
it
the
lights
of
the
truck?
Is
it
the
noise
like
what
is
the
impact
as
as
specifically
as
we
can
get,
because
then
that
can
help
us
decide
how
big
is
the
berm?
How
wide
is
the
buffer?
You
know?
Where
does
it
go?
Those
sorts
of
things,
I
think,
are
what
the
code
encourages
to
consider.
O
So,
mr
chairman,
I
have
a
question
so
how
so
so
you're
basic
to
the
applicant
you're,
basically
saying
you
also
have
a
problem
with
that
pinch
in
the
southeast
corner,
where
the
access
comes
from
your
from
your
other
property.
Why
can't
you
move
that
access
a
little
bit
further
west?
So
you
don't
have
that
sharp
turn
like?
Is
there
a
limiting
factor
on
that
property?
If
you
get
what
I'm
saying,
because
you
could
line
it
up
better.
V
O
O
V
O
C
O
K
AA
That's
where
you
can
look
to
adding
conditions
within
that
development
agreement
to
ensure
that
the
compatibility
can
be
met.
So
that
was
just
to
add
a
little
bit
more
specifics.
With
regards
to
your
question,
but
again
just
reiterating
there's
nothing.
That's
specifically
prescribed
in
terms
of
a
particular
size
of
buffer.
C
V
And
commissioner
gillespie
to
to
hopefully
partially
answer
your
question,
we
do
have
a
separate
site
plan
that
we
did
with
a
40-foot
buffer
and
in
the
south.
It's
still
it's
the
same
shape,
but
in
front
of
the
very
the
southern
home
property
line
it
it
would
be
out
to
the
40-foot
buffer
at
that
point.
So
the
pinch
point
once
if
you
could
look
on
that
site
plan.
This
is
a
25-foot,
but
we
do.
We
did
one
with
40-foot
as
well,
which
would
still
work.
V
Z
J
O
Melts
on
a
roll
procedurally
now
it
generally
works
best.
If
we
defer
before
we
start
getting
into
public
testimony,
because
then,
if
we
get
all
the
way
to
the
end
of
it,
we
can
have
to
go
through
public
testimony
again
and
we
re-hear
it
right.
That's
my
general
understanding,
because
new
information
is
being
introduced
right.
So
I
guess
my
question
I'm
sort
of
interested
in
debating.
D
Well,
I
think
we're
in
a
position
right
now,
and
maybe
we
can
get
the
applicant's
thoughts
on
this.
It's
I
think,
I'm
reading
the
the
dice
correctly
we're
probably
interested
in
looking
at
probably
a
reduction.
We
could
be
interested
in
looking
at
reduction
in
the
width.
We
need
to
understand
what
the
berm
is
doing
and
have
a
better
picture
of
inch
yeah,
the
height
of
the
berm.
What
is
the
plantings,
the
widths,
the
width,
the
pinch
point
in
the
southeast
corner?
D
We
are
not
very
good
at
changing
the
da
up
here
with
motions
so
where
milt's
going
and
what
I'm
asking
is,
do
you
all
want
it?
Do
you
want
us
to
to
defer
with
the
input
that
we've
given
you
tonight,
to
kind
of
go
back
and
rework
that
buffer
kind
of
get
some
more
elevations
in
the
berm?
Think
through
all
that
and
come
back
or
do
you
prefer
that
we
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
public
testimony
tonight
and
try
and
monkey
up
the
d.a
and
give
you
some
direction
that
way.
B
K
O
X
It's
my
understanding,
anticipating
that
you
may
end
up
going
here.
We,
the
proposed
light
plan,
as
presented.
That's
currently
up
on
the
screen,
is
with
a
40-foot
buffer,
not
the
25
that
we
originally
had
and
the
40-foot
buffer
mirrors
what
blue
valley
had,
and
so
we
would
be
looking
at
and
amenable
to
something
that
matches
blue
valley
which,
to
my
knowledge,
was
the
most
contentious
residential
industrial
development
in
a
long
time
other
than
the
city's
airport,
one
which
the
city
pulled
on
its
own.
D
P
D
P
Mr
chair
who's,
your
staff,
I
have
a
question
for
the
applicant.
You
actually
mentioned
in
your
testimony
that
operating
hours
might
be
something
like
eight
to
four,
but
then
I'm
would
definitely
like
to
see
some
hours
of
kind
of
operation
written
in
there.
But
then
you
said
you
could
maybe
do
like
11
to
6
or
10
to
6,
or
something
like
that.
So
what's
a
more
realistic
compromise
somewhere
between
your
original
proposed
hours
of
age
of
four
and
then
the
other
proposed
hours
of
six
to
11.
V
Commissioner
stead,
thank
you
for
the
question.
The
what
I
was
referring
to
of
10-6
would
be
10
p.m.
At
night
to
six
of
call
it
a
quiet
time
with
the
hours
of
operation,
hopefully
falling
from
call
it
seven
to
five,
but
but
having
a
moratorium
on
on
idling
vehicles
or
other
things
that
would
create
noise
or
light
pollution
between
the
hours
of
call
of
ten
to
six.
D
D
V
D
C
O
Well,
this
yeah
quiet
hours,
but
I
think
what
I
mean
is
like
no
external
trucks
and
and
quiet
outside
like
if
there's
folks
in
these
buildings
and
they're,
you
know
making
soap
or
making
boxes
or
running
equipment
after
eight
in
the
evening.
I'm
fine
with
that.
It's
just
trucks
moving
in
and
out
and
idling,
because
the
impact
doesn't
come
from.
You
know
making
lotion
in
bay.
Three,
the
impact
comes
when
you
load
it
on
a
truck
and
it
takes
off
for
san
francisco.
Okay,
real.
D
J
O
O
Q
O
Out
there
I
think
we've
covered
it.
I
think
the
central
issue
here
is
limiting
the
impact
of
trucks
in
these
parking
lots
turning
moving.
It
can
be
loud.
That
was
the
central
issue
in
blue
lake
and
I
think,
a
50-foot
buffer
that
starts
with
a
six-foot
berm,
and
then
you
can
put
a
six
foot
fence
on
top
of
that
and
you
landscape
most
of
it,
and
I
think
you
have
done
a
good
job
of
mitigating
that
truck
impact
on
those
neighborhoods.
Q
T
O
T
Yeah,
I
think
I'm
going
to
stick
with
the
40
feet
buffer.
I
think
that
I
would
like
to
see
a
party,
I
think
again
same
argument,
the
site
plans
in
place-
and
I
don't
really
understand.
We
didn't
have
public
comment
here
and
I'm
not
sure
why
we're
altering
something
that
is
not
a
concern
to
the
neighborhood.
AB
Mr
chair,
commissioner
blanchard,
I
agree
110.
This
is
with
sorry
with
who,
with
commissioner
finn
frock
here.
This
is
absolutely
crazy
that
we're
trying
we're
just
recommending
this
to
council
and
councils
can
decide
what
they're
going
to
do
on
this
thing.
These
guys
have
asked
for
40
it
just
again
we're
trying
to
specify
things
from
the
dais
just
does
not
make
any
sense.
I
mean
it
would
just
make
more
sense
for
us
to
just
cleanly
send
this
thing
up
to
council
and
let
them
do
what
they're
going
to
do
on
this
thing,
either.
AB
Yes
or
no,
but
us
trying
to
put
all
these
conditions
on
there
when
we
just
don't
understand
it,
just
doesn't
make
any
sense,
especially
in
an
area.
These
are
some
of
boise's
oldest
industrial
businesses.
Up
there
I
mean
for
pete's
sake.
I
mean
you're
talking
about
the
historical
mk
rail
plant.
That's
been
there
since
the
70s
and
jm
thomas
forest
products
and
quarries,
and
I'm
more
than
willing
to
let
the
12
houses
to
the
southeast
live
in
the
bed
that
they
made.
They
built
houses
up
there
in
that
area,
but
I
will
be
no.
O
O
The
da
as
it
stands
now
calls
for
100
feet.
I
don't
see
a
site
plan
that
says
40,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
we're
referring
to
other
than
what
the
applicant
said.
So,
if
we
want
to
knock
it
down
to
40,
we
can
do
that
again.
My
point
is
the
applicant
has
said
they
need.
They
don't
need
58
feet,
that
was
their
language,
not
mine,
and
so
I'm
not
making
stuff
up
and
monkeying
around.
I
just
want
to.
P
G
G
Feet
so
we're
kind
of
on
the
fence.
I
am
curious
how
commissioner
gillespie
came
up
with
the
six
foot
berm,
because
you
know
we've
talked
about
the
the
wit,
so
I'm
just
kind
of
going
through
the
height
you
know
yeah,
I
I
get
the
trying
to
block
semi
lights
and,
and
things
like
that,
and
you
know
I
don't
know
how
tall
that
is.
It's
or
is
it.
The
intent
is
just
to
get
something
tall
enough
to
block
lights
from
semis.
O
So
the
simple
math
was
the
the
landscape.
Architects
represented
a
three
to
one
ratio
and
I
gave
them
a
break
and
said:
let's
measure
it
from
the
top
of
the
wall,
and
I
figure
the
top.
The
wall
can
be
six
feet,
so
I
wanted
roughly
eight
feet
because
I
wanted
to
get
roughly
to
14
or
15,
because
that's
three
to
one
on
50.,
so
you're.
So
that's
how
I
did
the
math
to
get
a
eight
footish
berm
and
that's.
I
wanted
to
get
close
to
15
feet
of
blocking,
because
that
was
the
three
to
one.
D
O
C
C
G
L
D
Okay,
well,
everybody
watch
this
I'll,
be
quite
honest
with
everybody.
You
know
when
we
were
having
the
discussion
earlier
and
we
had
them
up
questioning
staff
and
the
applicant.
In
my
mind
it
was
pretty
standard,
25
foot,
berm
three
to
one
or
25
foot,
wide
setback,
berm
three
to
one
slopes
which
gets
you
about
five
feet
from
the
berm,
the
walls
on
the
property
line
and
it's
heavily
planted
boom
done
so
you're,
screened
on
on
the
ground
plane
with
the
wall
on
the
property
line.
You've
got
a
burn
behind
it.
That's
maybe
six
feet
high.
D
You
throw
some
trees
on
that
and
you're
screened
very
well,
but
you're
only
taking
up
25
feet
of
width.
So
that's
where
I
was
going
in
my
mind
now.
What
what's
paramount
to
me
is
what's
happening
in
the
landscape
buffer
if
it's
50
feet
wide,
but
there's
nothing
there.
What's
what's
it
going
to
do
right
if
it's
50
feet
with
a
berm,
but
there's
nothing
dictated
for
plantings,
you
just
got
a
mound
of
dirt
with
a
fence
on
the
top
of
it,
which
is
completely
unattractive.
D
So
I
think
we
got
to
work
through
this.
A
little
bit
further
and
get
to
an
agreement
on
how
we're
arranging
all
of
this
and
I'll,
be
quite
honest
too.
I'm
not.
I
was
a
little
surprised
mill
when
you
suggested
50
when
we
had
the
site
plans
up
and
they
said
40
works
really
well.
We
have
other
projects
within
the
city
that
have
a
40-foot
buffer.
That
seemed
like
kind
of
another
natural
default.
In
my
mind,.
O
D
T
T
D
D
N
N
J
J
D
AC
The
applicant
is
requesting
to
modify
conditionally's
permit
for
a
plan
residential
development
comprised
of
single-family
house
and
dufex
by
removing
a
condition
of
approval
requiring
the
installation
of
sidewalks
along
garden
street.
As
the
subject,
property
is
located
at
4141
west
garnet
on
0.34
acres
in
an
r2
zone,
as
you
can
see
from
the
aerial
photograph,
the
surrounding
areas
comprised
of
residential
neighborhood
compris
are
consisting
of
detaching
family
homes,
duplexes
and
there's
a
large
part
to
adjacent
to
the
west.
AC
AC
In
addition,
I
would
note
that
garnet
street
is
right
at
the
corner
of
garnet
and
fargo.
It
is
39
feet
of
right
away.
Achd,
with
the
original
approval
back
in
19
or
2021
stated
that,
if
that
the
city
wanted
sidewalks,
it'd
have
to
be
a
detached
sidewalk
located
based
on
a
33
foot
street
section
with
a
39
foot
streets
or
existing
right
away.
AC
That
would
locate
the
sidewalk
about
10
feet
onto
the
subject
property,
as
you
can
see
from
here
that
would
remove
the
guest
parking
off
the
existing
driveway
apron
for
the
duplex,
that's
on
site
and
a
number
of
the
mature
landscaping
for
the
duplex.
That's
existing.
The
landscaping
was
required
when
the
duplex
was
originally
approved
as
part
of
the
duplex
standards
over
10
years
ago.
AC
In
summary,
the
modification
to
remove
the
conditional
use
approval
that
requires
the
d-test,
sidewalks
and
garment
complies
with
all
the
required
requirements
of
development
code.
It
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
since
it
will
not
significantly
change
the
residential
planning
development
proposal
from
from
2021.
AC
In
addition,
removing
the
require
required
sidewalks
on
garden
street
is
compatible
the
neighborhood,
since
there
are
no
street
improvements
along
this
section
of
garnett
street.
The
only
the
closest
street
section
are
sidewalk
improvements.
I
think
be
right
up
at
the
corner
of
fargo
and
and
state
street,
where
the
valor
point
is.
AC
In
addition,
it
will
not
place
an
under
burden
on
the
transportation
system
and
achieve
does
not
normally
require
street
street
improvements
for
residential
projects
of
this
size.
So,
in
conclusion,
the
planning
team
supports
the
the
re
or
the
the
the
the
pod
modification
and
the
removal
of
the
condition,
since
it
would
impact
the
existing
duplex
parking
and
landscaping
and
push
the
sidewalk
significantly
into
the
existing
site.
Thank
you.
M
Point
beautiful,
but
they
have
this
big
red
and
white
sign
there
street
will
continue
to
build
in
the
future.
We
are
also
required
to
put
that
sign
up.
So
talk
about
landscaping.
This
is
a
neighborhood
with
irrigation
flood
irrigation,
so
it
the
neighbor,
the
sidewalk,
starts
behind
the
irrigation
swell
goes
through
the
first
driveway
cuts.
The
second
driveway
we're
in
violation
of
existing
conditions,
and
then
we
build
into
the
neighborhood
the
neighbors
fence.
Then
we
have
to
build
a
wheelchair
ramp
with
a
sign
and
how
do
we
do
the
landscape?
M
D
D
AC
AC
AC
33
years,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
39
that'd
be
like
three
feet
on
either
side
you
you
could,
but
it
would.
The
sidewalk
would
encroach
a
little
bit
onto
the
private
property,
but
there
will
be
room
enough
to
do
it.
It's
39,
so
it
leaves
like
three
feet
on
either
side
of
the
existing
right-of-way.
Unless
hd
did
a
taking.
H
D
D
M
M
D
O
AD
O
H
Mr
chair,
commissioner,
thank
you
for
humoring,
my
pulling
it
off
the
consensus.
I
wanted
to
hear
this
because
I
I
did
I
haven't
experienced
this
before
so
it
was
a
good
discussion
and
I
agree
with
the
perspective.
It's
variance
of
sorts,
because
in
in
particular
I
mean
it's
it
reflecting
neighborhood
character.
Is
the
comp
plan
that
staff
used,
but
there's
all
kinds
of
other
comp
plan
conflicts
that
I
found.
I
said,
and
I
don't
know
how
I
do
this
but
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion.
D
Great
all
right,
thanks
john
no,
these
these
are
you
know
these
sidewalks
and
curb
and
gutter
variances
that
come
up
in
time.
Time
are
always
onerous
and
challenging.
So
it's
totally
totally
fair
to
have
the
discussion.
Absolutely
so
I'll
also
be
supporting
the
motion
too.
So
I
think,
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
call
the
vote
again.
This
is
pud
22-38.
D
J
D
Okay,
welcome
back
everybody,
we're
gonna
move
on
to
our
next
item,
which
is
item
number
seven,
car22,
pud,
22-28
and
suv.
22-35
kimberly
horn
at
6,
776
east,
warm
springs
avenue.
This
is
an
annexation
of
approximately
3.2
acres
to
an
r2d
with
a
development
agreement
zone,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
38
attached,
single-family
town
homes
and
one
single
family
house
on
3.2
acres
and
then
the
associated
preliminary
platt
for
said
project
we'll
start
with
staff.
First
and
that's
mr
david
mosher,
mr.
G
D
AC
As
you
can
see
from
this
slide,
the
requested
r2
zone
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
residential
neighborhood,
since
the
adjacent
properties
is
owned,
r1c
and
spo2
to
the
west
or
to
the
north,
east
and
south,
with
a
resident
or
with
a
townhome
development
adjacent
to
the
west
across
warren
springs.
Avenue
is
also
compatible
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
as
it
is
designated
commercial
and
land
use.
Map
within
which
the
proposed
r2
zone
is
allowed.
AC
The
proposed
r2
zone
is
com
is
most
compatible
with
adjacent
properties.
It
will
allow
for
higher
density
or
higher
density,
townhome
development,
which
will
create
a
transition
between
warm
springs,
avenue
and
arterial
roadway
in
the
adjacent
residential
neighborhood.
The
d.a
was
required
so
that
the
project
can
become
part
of
the
harris
ranch
wildlife
mitigation
association.
AC
As
you
can
see
from
the
site
plan,
the
development
consists
of
38
attached,
two-story
town
homes
and
one
detached
single-family
home,
which
includes
pair
town
townhouses
along
the
south
and
east
side
of
the
other
development.
The
remaining
townhouse
buildings
are
located
along
warm
springs,
avenue
and
interior
to
the
project.
The
detached
single
family
house
is
located
along
bryant
avenue
and
adjacent
to
the
residential
neighborhood
to
the
south.
AC
In
summary,
the
project
density
is
2.1
units
per
acre
below,
which
is
below
the
allowed
density
of
the
proposed
r2
zone
of
14.5,
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
reduced
lot
sizes
interior
setbacks
with
the
planning
development.
Each
unit
will
provide
two
off
street
parking
spaces
within
an
attached
garage
and
there
is
on-street
parking
available
on
one
side
of
the
public
street
adjacent
to
the
interior
townhouses.
AC
The
residential
development
contains
several
amenities
which
includes
a
dog
park.
There
will
be
a
pedestrian
pathway
connection
to
warm
springs
avenue
along
the
north
property
line,
connecting
the
warm
springs
with
the
trail
system
to
the
east
and
there's
drought,
tolerant,
landscaping
being
proposed.
The
site
design
includes
a
public
street
which
loops
through
the
subject
property
with
an
emergency
vehicle
access
to
warm
springs
avenue.
The
right-of-way
width
of
the
public
street
is
proposed
at
27-foot
wide
street
section,
which
allows
parking
on
one
side.
AC
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
five-foot
wide
attached
sidewalk
on
both
sides
of
the
street.
However,
the
planning
team
is
recommending
a
five-foot
detached
sidewalk
eight-foot
landscape
offer
along
both
sides,
although
it
would
be
noted
that
installing
the
d-chat,
sidewalk
and
landscape
offer
will
will
require
some
changes
to
the
site,
design
and
building
footprints.
AC
Warm
springs
avenue
will
also
be
improved
with
detached
sidewalks
and
there'll
also
be
a
30
foot
wide
landscape
buffer
common
lot
along
along
warm
springs,
avenue
several
neighbors
and
the
neighborhood
barber
valley,
neighborhood
association,
did
express
concerns
with
the
project
in
terms
of
access
to
warm
springs,
avenue
and
traffic.
In
particular,
they
were
requesting
that
the
project
have
direct
access
to
warm
springs
avenue
and
without
this
access
point
to
to
warm
springs,
the
traffic
will
have
to
travel
through
the
adjacent
neighborhood.
AC
However,
achd
will
not
allow
direct
access
to
warm
springs
since
it's
an
arterial
roadway
without
a
without
direct
access
to
warm
springs.
The
project
will
increase
the
traffic
with
the
neighborhood.
However,
there
is
traffic
capacity
on
the
adjacent
roadways
to
support
the
project.
This
includes
warm
springs
avenue
and
the
low
and
the
adjacent
local
roadways
neighbors
have
also
expressed
concerns
in
terms
of
compatibility
in
parking
to
address
these.
AC
AE
Blackrock
homes
has
developed
other
projects
in
this
area,
including
the
boulevard
at
harris
ranch,
they're
familiar
with
the
demands
of
buyers
in
this
area
and
the
right
way
to
develop
infill
housing.
So
a
lot
of
work
goes
into
an
application
before
it
gets
to
you
tonight.
So
in
february
there
was
a
pre-application
meeting
in
april
a
neighborhood
meeting
was
held
and
then
later
that
month
the
application
was
actually
submitted,
and
that
brings
us
to
august
actually
hosting
the
hearing
tonight.
AE
Just
for
ease
and
discussion
to
the
north
is
river
heights
subdivision
to
the
south,
and
east
is
east
valley,
and
the
west
is
east
valley,
room
the
vehicular
access.
So
initially
our
client
brought
forward
a
full
access
onto
warm
spring
zaf,
but
at
the
direction
of
multiple
agencies
they
worked
through
the
process
of
removing
that
access
on
warm
springs
out.
This
is
consistent
with
several.
You
know:
planning
one-on-one
policies
about
whether
it's
a
collector
or
trailer
arterial
roadway
not
having
access
on
such
roads
and
consolidating
it
within
the
existing
network.
AE
So
that
is
what
how
it
was
designed
to
the
south.
Brian
ave
has
been
stubbed
for
some
time,
and
so
the
best
way
to
get
a
project
circulated
through
this
site
was
the
plan
you
see
here
where
it
allowed
for
a
alley.
Roadway
network
to
be
set
up
in
the
middle
homestead
trail
again
is
expanding
from
the
east
of
the
site
to
warm
springs
there.
AE
We
are
proposing
detached
sidewalks
on
warm
springs,
ave
with
the
landscape
buffer,
greatly
improving
that
area.
Right
now
and
then
internal
to
the
site.
We
initially
showed
limited
segments
of
sidewalk,
hoping
to
kind
of
you
know,
focus
it
in
certain
areas,
but
at
staffs
direction
we
were
able
to
fit
in
an
attached
sidewalk,
with
a
continuous
circuit
through
the
site
and
again
I'll
just
note
that
is
similar
to
the
project.
The
subdivision
to
the
south,
which
has
attached
sidewalk
and
27-foot
street
sections
reduced
street
sections
one
side
of
parking
throughout
most
of
it.
AE
AE
So
there
were
discussion,
there
was
discussion
about
required
parking
and
maybe
a
concern
of
a
shortage
of
parking
78
spaces
are
required
to
per
dwelling
unit.
We
provide
that
in
the
garage
we
have
32
parking
spaces
in
the
driveway
aprons
and
24
available
on
street
parking
spaces.
That's
134
parking
spaces
about
3.4
per
dwelling
unit.
AE
We
do
include
reduced
interior
setbacks
and
that's
typical
of
most
infill
applications.
You
see
these
days,
our
perimeter
setbacks.
It's
important
to
note
that
we've
maintained
that
there's
that
landscape
buffer
along
warm
springs
on
the
west,
but
the
properties
do
front
it,
creating
a
pedestrian
street
vintage
and
then
there's
a
15
foot
setback
on
both
the
south
and
east
sides,
but
you'll
see
based
on
the
exact
current
configuration,
there's
a
lot
more
separation
than
that.
AE
AE
We
have
made
modifications
to
address
several
of
those
standards
to
meet
the
spirit,
intent
of
that
ordinance.
That
includes
meeting
the
floor
area
ratio
requirements,
open
space,
landscaping,
driveway
separation,
right-of-way
improvements,
architectural
details,
fenestration
covered
porches
and
modulation.
AE
AE
Basically,
in
the
current
design,
which
is
on
another
slide,
we
have
attached
sidewalks,
which
allows
our
trees,
especially
in
the
in
the
middle
area,
to
be
up
against
the
alley
loaded
homes
creating
you
know
a
large
connected
network
of
land
for
these
trees
to
spread
their
roots
in
by
putting
in
the
detached
sidewalk.
We
physically
run
out
of
land
to
the
north
of
the
site
on
the
north
side
of
cardell.
AE
You
would
be
off
the
side
at
that
point
to
and
then
on
the
east
side
of
bryan
and
the
west
side
of
whitten.
There
are
multiple
driveways,
which
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
put
trees
in
and
detach
sidewalk
halfway
through
a
six
foot.
Driveway
would
would
be
odd
when
you're
walking
through
or
driving
through,
and
then
for
the
alley
loaded
units
that
would
actually
put
it
at
five
feet
from
the
physical
building.
AF
Mr
chair
and
commissioners
good
evening,
gary
veese
4150
macbeth
avenue
when
the
developer
contacted
bbna.
Last
december,
we
explained
that
this
application
was
the
last
opportunity
to
address
worm
springs
avenue.
We
indicated
that
we
supported
warm
springs
access
for
his
project
and
a
streetscape
design
to
calm
traffic
and
enhance
corridor
aesthetics
until
speaking
with
acehd,
he
was
willing
to
propose
these
improvements.
AF
AF
Bbna
has
no
issue
with
the
higher
density
development,
yet
the
design
is
far
too
compact
for
this
property.
The
dog
park
is
a
weakly
planned
amenity
next
to
a
trail
connection
that
is
two
foot
narrower
than
the
trail
it
is
connecting
to,
and
in
fact
it
is
not
the
homestead
trail.
The
homestead
trail
is
1.4
miles
to
the
to
the
northwest.
AF
The
application
proposes
smaller
than
required
lot
sizes
and
widths,
with
significantly
reduced
interior
setbacks,
which
suggests
that
the
lots
are
being
shoehorned
in
at
the
expense
of
quality,
with
parking
on
only
one
side
of
the
street
and
the
lot
frontages
that
are
mostly
driveways.
Where
will
guests
park?
AF
AF
These
deficiencies
suggest
the
site
is
not
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
project,
and
this
required
finding
should
not
be
made
number
two.
The
proposed
uses
in
compliance
with
the
comp
plan.
We
see
no
mention
of
these
two
comp
plan
considerations,
one
application
of
the
harris
ranch
and
barber
valley,
specific
plans
for
properties
outside
their
boundaries.
AF
Were
the
specific
plans
considered
for
other
development
criteria,
we're
not
sure
two
requirement
of
multi-family
buildings
to
comply
with
city-wide
design
standards
at
a
minimum?
The
two-pack
should
meet
duplex
standards
and
all
buildings
include
modulation
of
building
footprints
and
facades,
stronger
architectural
features
and
and
de-emphasizing
garages
and
hardscape.
AF
Three,
the
proposed
use,
if
it
complies
with
all
conditions
imposed,
will
not
adversely
affect
other
property
in
the
vicinity.
Despite
staff
assertions,
this
project
will
adversely
impact
east
valley
residents
with
overflow
of
guest
parking
and
traffic
from
the
denser
atwell
project
flowing
through
the
lower
density
east
valley
subdivision.
AF
While
we
agree
there
will
not
be
an
impact
on
warm
springs,
the
project
will
have
an
impact
on
local
streets
due
to
the
lack
of
direct
access
to
warm
springs.
All
270
vehicles
per
day
generated
by
atwell
residents
will
burden
east
valley's
local
streets
due
to
south
brian
being
its
only
access
route.
AF
Staff
acknowledges
that
connecting
the
site
to
warm
springs
will
promote
connectivity,
but
it
cannot
be
provided
due
to
the
current
arterial
status.
Direct
access
to
warm
springs
should
be
a
requirement
to
minimize
impacts
on
the
adjacent
neighborhood
and
to
meet
the
objective
objectives
of
blueprint.
Boise.
This
required
finding
should
not
be
made
regarding
the
comp
plan,
we
recognize
blueprint.
Boise
is
not
code,
but
applicants
should
be
required
to
comply
with
it.
Regarding
warm
springs.
AF
This
application
completely
ignores
the
corridor
as
measures
have
not
been
proposed
or
required
to
satisfy
this
objective.
Worm
springs
does
not
exhibit
traditional
street
hierarchy
of
local
streets
to
collectors
to
arterials,
nor
should
it
exhibit
highway
design
conditions,
as
it
does
rather
warm
springs
is
the
connective
tissue
of
our
neighborhood.
AF
AF
We
urge
you
to
condition
this
application
to
improve
access
and
calm
traffic
by
adding
a
public
street
intersection
and
requiring
landscaping
curb
and
gutter
along
its
frontage
to
match
conditions
west
on
warm
springs.
This
will
beautify
the
lands
or
the
streetscape,
as
well
as
calm
traffic.
In
support
of
this
comp
plan
objective
regarding
connectivity
objectives,
each
development
in
sp01
and
two
at
the
toe
of
the
foothill
was
conditioned
with
a
fire
break
path
to
protect
the
wildlife
management
area
and
provide
bike
and
pedestrian
connectivity
on
the
barber
valley
path.
AF
This
application
does
not
effectively
connect
to
the
barber
valley
path
as
envisioned
in
the
comp
plan.
A
minimum
seven
foot
wide
path
should
be
required
to
do
so.
Regarding
transportation
concerns,
the
failure
to
impose
conditions
for
warm
springs,
frontage
improvements
and
including
a
driveway
is
disconcerting.
AF
While
we
understand
a
warm
spring's,
access
does
not
meet
achd's
policy.
Your
transportation
staff
provided
a
written
position
to
achd
that
warm
speed
warm
springs
should
be
a
collector
which
would
allow
access
by
policy
to
the
site
and
allow
design
features
along
the
atwell
frontage
to
calm
traffic
and
meet
your
comp
plan
objectives.
AF
Despite
your
staff's
astute
position,
achd
took
the
request
off
the
table
saying
that
the
comp
plan
had
to
be
amended
first.
Yet
the
comp
plan
already
supports
this
change.
Achd
acknowledges
it
is
not
their
responsibility
to
establish
the
vision
for
the
street
network
on
their
agendas.
They
include
the
following,
which
I'm
paraphrasing
for
brevity
as
a
result
of
the
kmst
judgment
that
we
understand
now
informs
how
the
two
jurisdictions
are
to
work
together
pursuant
to
idaho
code.
AF
AF
It
would
be
easy
to
let
someone
else
in
the
future
deal
with
warm
springs
fate,
but
that
approach
would
be
inappropriate.
This
project
has
a
nexus
with
the
transportation
network
that
serves
it,
and
this
application
should
be
conditioned
to
promote
connectivity
and
calming
including
a
requirement
for
a
direct
access,
or
it
should
be
denied.
AF
Commissioners,
you
are
the
arbiters
of
responsible
planning
and
requiring
anything
short
of
this
would
be
a
sorely
missed
opportunity
if
developed.
If
developers
want
the
benefits
of
being
in
annexed
into
the
city,
they
should
be
expected
to
meet
development
standards
and
not
offset
non-compliance
with
weak
amenities.
AF
Two
indicate
a
willingness
to
support
the
annexation
and
subdivision
applications,
but
only
after
the
applicant
satisfies
your
pud
expectations
and,
finally,
direct
staff
to
advise
achd
that
the
comp
plan
already
provides
sufficient
justification
for
the
change
in
classification
to
collector.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
I
will
stand
for
questions.
D
AB
AC
AB
AC
Mr
chair
remembers
the
commission
for
the
the
commercial
on
the
land
use
map
it
was
to
hold.
I
think
there
was
in
the
county
that
there
was
a
commercial
business
that
operated
there
in
the
past
on
that
site,
plus
ben's
crow
end
what
used
to
be
across
the
street,
so
that
was
initially
when
they
drew
the
comp
plan.
They
thought
this
might
be
a
commercial
node,
given
those
uses.
AB
AC
O
With
your
lead,
mr
chairman,
I'll
just
give
you
I
was
here
when
we
approved
that
we
tore
down
ben
scrowing
and
we'd
put
up
all
those
row
houses.
If
I
may.
I
might
just
open
briefly
upon
that
process,
which
happened
about
eight
years
ago,
is
just
on
the
commission
and
indeed
all
of
that
strip
on
the
benz
crow
inside,
and
this
little
pocket
here
were
designated
commercial.
O
So
I
voted
against
jim
conger,
putting
up
all
those
buildings
and
tearing
down
ben's
crown
for
the
obvious
reasons
that
one
ben's
crow
in
was
super
cool,
and
I
wanted
it
to
stay.
But
two
I
argued
that
jim
wasn't
putting
in
any
commercial,
any
mixed
juice
right
and
that's
what
it
said
right
and
it
was
an
annexation,
blah
blah
blah.
And
the
argument
then
that
that
the
applicant
gave
was
well.
O
The
commercial
bid
is
across
the
street,
and
I
said
then-
and
I
say
now-
I
said
then-
what's
going
to
happen
in
a
few
years-
is
we're
going
to
come
in
and
put
in
houses
there,
and
then
the
commercial
designation
will
effectively
go
away.
So
that
is
in
fact
what
has
happened
in
the
last
eight
years.
Of
course,
we've
seen
an
explosion
of
demand
for
residential
and
there's
no
demand
for
commercial
stuff
out
there.
So
I
support
that
move
so
I'll
just
get
that
on.
That
is
what
happened
chris
at
this
little
location.
O
I
guess
I
do
have
a
question
here.
Amazingly
enough,
a
couple
david:
could
you
talk
about
the
applicants,
comments
on
detached
and
attached
sidewalks?
I
note
that
the
subdivision
to
the
south
looks
like
all
attached
sidewalks
to
me.
So
is
the
city
dead
set
on
requiring
detached
sidewalks
in
this
subdivi
this
this
parcel
or
what's
your
view
on
the
applicant's
argument
about
going
with
attached,
sidewalks.
AC
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
the
you
are
correct-
the
east
valley
has
was
built
out
with
attached
sidewalks
throughout
that
throughout
that
project.
Although
the
change
of
philosophy
the
city
has
had,
especially
with
new
development,
where
you're
coming
with
a
clean
slate,
is
that
we
try
to
get
detached
on
on
public
streets
where
possible,
and
that
is
kind
of
our
our
default
mode
at
this
point-
is
to
get
the
detached,
so
that's
kind
of
where
we're
coming
from.
AC
O
AC
Mr
mr
chair
members
of
commission,
I
mean
I,
I
can
see
we're
putting
attac
or
detached
in
as
a
city,
and
I
I
even
acknowledge
it
that
that
would
pinch
the
development,
especially
in
the
chair,
even
on
the
the
town
homes
that
are
facing
under
warm
springs.
Since
those
those
garages
are
only
set
back
six
feet
or
so
from
from
the
public
road.
So
that's
going
to
require
some
adjustment.
AC
O
AC
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
the
the
town
house
arrangements
and
how
they
can
and
how
they
interact
with
the
internal
street
system.
It's
it's
not
ideal
per
se.
Having
said
that,
I
mean
do
we
do
want
density,
we
are
trying
to
get
infill.
This
is
the
right
location.
I
have
no.
I
have
no
general
concerns
with
with
the
12
units,
an
acre,
that's
being
proposed,
so
you
know
if,
if
it's
possible
to
adjust
the
plan
and
get
the
detached
in
that
would
be.
O
Mr
chairman,
so
now
I'm
a
little
bit
confused
because
we've
heard
a
couple
of
issues
that
have
things
that
that
need
redesigned
detach
sidewalks.
We
haven't
even
got
to
sort
of
the
width
of
the
path
issue
that
bvna
raised
and
the
whole
connectivity
issue,
and
so
now
I'm
I'm
sort
of
wondering
you
know.
Am
I
looking
if
I'm
going
to
approve
a
pud,
I'm
kind
of
need
to
approve
the
final
site
plan
right
for
a
pud,
and
so
I'm
sort
of
wondering
where
we're
at.
J
D
C
K
D
O
I
I
just
wanna
I'm
getting
sort
of
slightly
more
confused,
so
david
packet,
page
323,
shows
the
site
plan.
That's,
presumably
what
we're
proving
in
the
pud
are
are
those
site.
It's
kind
of
it's,
not
real
clear
in
my
on
my
computer.
I
don't
know
why,
but
are
those
sidewalks
on
their
detached
or
attached.
H
D
J
O
AE
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
dark
gray's,
the
road
light
grays
the
attached
sidewalks,
and
so
that
would
mean
that
we
would
be
taking
it
out
of
the
square
footages
of
the
lot.
You
would
be
reducing
the
depth
of
the
lot,
so
it
is
possible
to
make
that
site
plan
change
relatively
minor,
but
it
would
be
taking
it
out
of
the
lot
and
reducing
the
depth
of
the
driveways.
I
mean
cars
will
park
and
they
will
block
that
detached
sidewalk.
AE
I
did
want
to
say
earlier:
you
talked
about
a
compromise,
so
the
compromise
that
might
make
more
sense
would
be
detached
in
on
the
alley
loaded
products,
although
it
puts
it
five
feet
from
the
buildings
and
keeping
the
attached
on
the
outer
ring.
I
guess
you
could
say,
and
then
you
talked
about
the
two-foot
pathway,
the
the
difference
in
the
pathway.
They
talked
about
versus
pathway.
We've
shown
that's
two
feet.
AE
We
can
find
two
feet
on
the
site
if
you
need
that
to
be
a
condition-
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
info
is
difficult.
It
requires
compromises
and
trade-offs,
but
to
get
a
diversity
of
housing
type
in
this
neighborhood.
You
know
we'll
have
to
look
through
those
compromises
and
and
hear
your
guys's
recommendation.
D
AC
There
is
currently
ongoing
a
discussion
to
change
the
functional
classification
of
warm
springs
to
a
collector.
A
chd
in
the
city
are
working
on
that,
but
it's
not
complete,
and
I
don't
know
where
exactly
that
is
I'm
at
this
point
in
time
the
highway
district's
holding
to
their
policy
regarding
arterials,
which
basically
states
you
shall
not
connect
to
arterial.
If
you
have
a
a
secondary
access
point.
O
O
AC
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
ideally
we
would
want
the
the
the
guest
parking
to
be
not
blocking
the
sidewalk,
so
I
don't
the
city
or
the
planning
team
would
not
would
not
consider
that
to
be
guest
parking
at
that
point,
because
it
would.
The
car
then,
would
be
sitting
over
the
top
of
the
sidewalk.
AE
C
D
D
AG
Good
evening,
chairman
commissioners,
my
name
is
greg
holtz,
I'm
a
resident
of
east
valley,
6977,
east
tau
street.
I
have
two
points:
access
to
warm
springs.
We
recognize
a
chd
has
warm
springs
designated
as
an
arterial,
boise
city
and
bbna
have
formally
requested
achd
designate
warm
springs.
A
collector
achd's
traffic
count
supports
warm
springs
as
a
collector,
more
so
than
an
arterial,
and
this
sole
formality
would
require
the
applicant
to
access
warm
springs
planning
project
reports,
states
to
minimize
warm
springs
access,
despite
requests
from
bvna
who
has
comprehensive
knowledge
of
the
barber
valley.
AG
AG
Not
always,
since
the
city
and
bvna
have
formally
requested
warm
springs,
be
classified
a
collector.
I
would
suggest
we
motion
and
for
a
continuance
to
give
achd
the
time
required
to
determine
the
appropriate
classification,
boise
city
code,
110903g
street
pattern.
C
connectivity
shall
be
designed
to
discourage
cut
through
traffic
achd
policy.
AG
These
reasons
and
codes
should
require
approval
from
for
warm
springs,
access
number
two
pud
requests
reduce
minimum
lot
size,
reduce
average
lot
and
frontage,
reduce
interior
setbacks,
reduce
front
setbacks
adjacent
to
the
common
lot
planning
report,
also
states
under
two
land
use
attached.
Town
homes
are
adjacent
to
the
west.
Across
warm
springs,
they
are
not
town
homes,
they
are
single
family,
detached
residences.
AG
1106.03
boise
code
residential
uses,
dwelling
b
site
size.
The
site
is
of
sufficient
size
to
meet
all
code
requirements
for
setbacks.
Floor
area
far
exceeds
55
of
the
total
area
code.
110905
modification
waivers.
There
is
no
substantial
hardship
or
inequity
on
these
lots
under
a
pud.
The
incentive
for
the
developer
to
use
the
pud
process
is
to
get
allowances
for
return
amenities,
in
this
case
little
common
space,
a
small
dog
park,
drought,
tolerant
landscaping,
is
hardly
approval
for
the
many
setback
requests.
AG
In
summary,
we
do
not
oppose
development.
It
just
has
to
be
done
correctly.
Continue.
This
approval
until
achd
has
finished.
The
warm
springs.
Classification
grant
approval
with
warm
springs,
access
and
density
based
on
standard
setbacks,
it's
in
the
best
interest
of
the
current
residents
and
the
future
residents.
Thank
you.
R
Mr
chairman,
commissioners,
my
name
is
tom
hearn
I
live
at
6819.
East
warm
springs,
I'm
the
president
of
the
board
of
directors
of
the
east
valley,
homeowners
association,
which
east
valley
issue
wears
directly
to
the
south
and
across
warm
springs
from
that
well
placed
our
main
concern.
Is
access
being
denied
by
hchd
off
of
warren
springs,
just
to
clarify
a
couple
of
things.
R
East
valley
does
have
detached
sidewalks
along
sky
bar,
which
is
the
street
that
is
runs
through
the
middle
of
the
east
valley
subdivision.
I
would
also
think
that
having
cars
parked
on
a
detached
sidewalk
in
atwell
place
would
be
directly
in
violation
of
the
american
disabilities
act
which,
as
you're
aware,
is
typically
enforced
by
litigation.
R
R
R
So,
as
a
homeowners
association,
we
ask
you
to
defer
approval
of
at
well
place,
subject
to
working
through
the
problems
between
hchd
and
city
of
boise.
It
seems
like
every
time
we
turn
around,
or
it
seems
like
city
boise
point
stage,
chd
hchd
points,
city,
boise
and
nothing's.
Getting
done
planning
is
not
happening
and
we've
got
two
schools
on
that
route.
We
have
two
wildlife
corridors
on
that
route.
R
AH
Hello,
commission,
my
name
is
adrian
hanson.
I
live
at
5236,
south
hackathon
avenue
there
in
the
east
valley.
I
would
like
to
express
my
opinion.
I
might
not
be
as
detail-oriented
and
as
eloquent
as
the
previous
speakers,
but
as
a
young
as
a
father
of
a
young
family
and
a
father
of
at
least
one
child.
AH
I
want
to
express
my
concern
with
the
with
the
proposed
increase
in
traffic
through
the
neighborhood.
I
can
tell
you
living
in
the
neighborhood.
There
are
a
lot
of
other
young
families.
There
are
kids
that
play
in
the
streets,
whether
they
be
playing
ball,
basketball
hockey
or
just
riding
bikes
bicycles
without
parents.
AH
It's
a
very
lively
neighborhood,
but
I
think
that
the
increased
traffic
with
only
one
access
to
this
to
this
to
this
development
would
be
not
only
would
reduce
the
tranquility
of
the
neighborhood,
but
also
impair
the
safety
of
the
neighborhood
as
well.
So
it
is
my
feelings
that
I
think
that
there
should
be
a
delay
until
access
to
warm
springs
can
be
approved.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
W
W
But
the
reason
I'm
here
is
to
beg
someone
in
the
city
to
stand
up
and
show
some
leadership
to
decide
what
we
want.
Boise
and
the
barber
valley
to
look
like
what
kind
of
city
and
neighborhood
are
we
trying
to
create?
Do
we
continue
to
want
warm
springs
to
look
and
feel
like
the
state
highway?
It
was
30
years
ago
when
the
highway
21
bridge
was
built.
The
highway
traffic
was
shifted
to
gallon.
W
It
fails
to
do
that
in
the
current
configuration
blueprint.
Boise
is
clear
that
the
city
is
to
work
with
achd
to
implement
a
warm
springs
corridor
plan
to
provide
an
attractive
gateway
with
traffic.
Calming
measures
such
as
roundabouts,
pedestrian
crossings
and
control
of
traffic
speed
are
critical
elements
to
be
implemented.
W
Nothing
in
the
atwell
application
does
anything
to
make
the
corridor
more
attractive
or
contain
any
traffic
calming
measures.
I
hope
you
had
a
chance
to
look
at
the
plan
brighton
proposed
in
2009,
which
I
submitted
with
my
written
comments,
which
would
have
created
roundabouts
and
other
traffic
calming
and
aesthetic
features
that
are
referenced
in
blueprint.
Boise
achd
denied
it.
This
year,
transportation
staff
sent
a
written
request
to
achd
asking
for
reclassification
of
warm
springs,
achd
denied
it
according
to
the
kmst
ruling.
W
Achd
should
be
honoring
the
city's
desires,
but
the
city
is
allowing
a
junior
achd
staffer
to
deny
warm
springs.
Access
and
streetscape
changes
in
an
achd
report
that
couldn't
even
get
the
speed
limit
on
warm
springs
correct.
There
seems
to
be
a
pattern
here.
The
city
repeatedly
allows
achd
to
drive
planning
decisions
instead
of
taking
control
of
the
situation
and
following
the
comp
plan,
instead
of
kicking
the
can
down
the
road
and
hoping
someone
else
will
address
this
in
the
future.
W
Please
do
the
right
thing
and
help
plan
and
create
the
city
and
neighborhood
envisioned
in
blueprint.
Boise,
please
require
atwell
place
to
have
direct
warm
springs,
access
and
frontage
improvements,
including
planning
required
trees
that
honor
blueprint,
boise's
traffic
calming
and
aesthetic
goals.
Thank
you.
L
B
AI
Every
day
I
watch
families
with
kids
on
bikes
and
walking
their
dogs
across
warm
springs
avenue
with
no
traffic
control
at
all,
there's,
not
even
a
crosswalk
near
there.
I
don't
think
there
wasn't
when
we
moved
in,
but
with
the
additional
residents
in
the
additional
community
community.
Without
postponing
this
and
giving
ach
time
to
really
review
this
area
holistically.
AI
AI
C
C
D
C
AJ
D
AJ
AJ
I
started
living
in
east
valley
in
2016
16
in
a
house
on
towel
street,
that's
directly
opposite
brian,
and
subsequently
I
sold
out
my
share
of
that
house
to
my
bus,
my
business
partner,
who
still
lives
there
and
I
live
on
sky
bar
plus.
I
constantly
walk
by
my
house
on
ghost
bars,
so
I'm
quite
familiar
with
the
neighborhood
and
the
traffic
pattern,
rather
than
going
into
the
things
that
have
already
been
dealt
and
dealt
with.
AJ
This
is
just
going
to
be
a
nightmare.
It's
going
to
during
hunting
season,
it's
going
to
cause
a
real
mess.
It's
also
going
to
cut
during
the
construction
period
which
will
go
on
for
years.
It
is
going
to
cause
a
huge
mess
with
sky
bar,
which
is
then
going
to
push
everybody
off
onto
highland
valley.
AJ
This
is
not
well
thought
out
and
in
order
to
make
this
thing
work,
there
needs
to
be
access
directly
from
this
new
development
to
warm
springs
and
stem
and
simply
trying
to
route.
This
through
east
valley
is
going
to
create
a
whole
bunch
of
unanticipated
problems
which
we're
all
going
to
have
to
live
with,
and
I
hope
that
we
don't-
and
that's
really
all
I
have
to
say.
AE
So
again,
chair
and
commissioners,
we
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time.
We
understand
hard
decisions
are
made
here
and
we'll
do
our
best
to
explain
the
work.
That's
done
beforehand,
to
make
sure
you're
not
put
on
the
spot
with
some
of
these
big
conversations.
So
we
appreciate
the
conversation
from
the
neighborhood.
This
is
an
engaged
neighborhood
that
takes
development
seriously
and
asks
the
hard
questions
and
we're
prepared
to
talk
about
those
hard
questions.
AE
AE
So
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
how
warm
springs
is
not
being
improved,
it's
not
being
addressed,
so
the
homes
will
be
facing
warm
springs,
which
a
lot
of
the
homes
in
this
area
actually
don't
address
warm
springs,
and
that's
why
it
feels
like
your
back
is
to
warm
springs
all
the
time.
There
will
be
a
30
foot
landscape
buffer,
so
you
will
see
a
significant
change
in
landscaping
and
there
will
be
a
detached
sidewalk.
AE
People
are
not
used
to
traffic
calming
on
warm
springs,
yet
it
is
a
holistic
problem
that
we
need
to
approach
and
that's
not
the
first
time
we've
had
the
conversation
when
harris
ranch
was
has
been
planted.
This
has
come
up
time
and
time
again
that
there
are
issues
with
warm
springs,
design
about
a
collector
versus
an
arterial
and
either
one
would
not
encourage
support
for
an
access
on
it,
whether
it's
classified
a
collector
or
arterial.
AE
So
we
believe
that
there
should
be
a
holistic
approach
on
warm
springs
and
it
shouldn't
be
evaluated
one
piece
of
land.
At
a
time
there
will
be
a
pedestrian
and
bicycle
light
at
sky
bar,
which
will
be
improving
this
area
a
lot
and
then
waiting
on
achc
was
brought
up
multiple
times.
That
is
an
indefinite
measure.
AE
D
D
O
J
T
I'll
just
start,
I
I
think,
I'm
on
board
with
the
annexation
and
the
the
subdivision.
Just
like
you
know,
barbara
valley
association
said
I
just
I'm
not
there
with
the
conditional
use
permit.
Just
it
doesn't
feel
like
the
space
is
large
enough
again
we
have
a
detached
sidewalk
issue
and
then
their
comment
about
you
know
just
parking
on
those
detached
sidewalks.
I
just
it's
not
really
acceptable.
I
I
think
we
have
to
fit.
The
conditional
use.
Permit
has
to
fit
that
area
and
I
just
don't
think
we're
there.
T
And
so
my
thought
is
that
if
that's
the
only
option
we
have,
then
maybe
we
approve
the
annexation,
approve
the
the
you
know
the
subdivision
and
just
hold
on
the
conditional
use
permit
until
we
can
have
maybe
something
come
in
front
of
us
that
we
can
agree
to.
I
don't
that's
just
my
thought
right
now:
okay,.
O
J
O
G
D
O
So
if
we
go
through
the
approval
criteria
for
the
planned
unit,
development
I'll
just
this
will
get
my
cards
on
the
table
across
each
of
these
locations
compatible
to
other
uses
in
the
neighborhood.
Yes,
I
think
an
r2
zone
at
11.875
units
per
acre
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
r1c
zone
and,
what's
across
the
street
two,
the
provost's
use
will
not
place
an
undue
burden
on
transportation
and
other
public
facilities
in
the
vicinity.
I
actually
agree
with
that.
I
don't
think
I
think
the
achd
they
did
their
traffic
studies
they
opined.
O
O
I
think
criteria
four
is
met.
I
don't
think
putting
more
residential
next
to
residential
at
these
densities
is
creates
an
adverse
impact
with
respect
to
the
code
and
five
the
proposed
use
is
in
compliance
with
the
comp
plan.
Here
I
would
say,
probably
not,
and
it
gets
into
the
issue
of
it's
just
too
small
a
space.
So
there's
too
many
compromises
that
are
getting
made
in
the
layout.
So
that's
my
reasoning.
O
Let
me
just
conclude
this
phase
by
saying
I
agree
with
all
of
the
comments
about
the
achd.
I,
however,
the
applicant
is
entitled
to
have
a
hearing
on
their
application
with
the
way
things
are,
and
so
either
we
didn't.
We
can
add
a
condition
that
says
you
can't
do
this
unless
you
get
access
on
to
warm
springs,
but
I
don't
think
we
can.
I
don't
think
it's
fair
or
right
to
deny
it
because
we've
you
know
achd
has
taken
that
position
today,
just
because
it
might
change
in
the
future.
O
P
To
to
just
add
to
that
point,
I
I
I
support
the
motion,
but
just
for
the
neighborhood's
sake.
I
guess
it's
not
because
of
the
access
on
the
warm
springs
we
have.
We
know
that
we
have
new
development
code
on
the
horizon,
and
so,
if
we
went
with,
you
know
something
might
change,
so
we
shouldn't
make
any
decisions
now,
we'd
be
at
a
total
stand
still,
and
so
I
agree
with
commissioner
gillespie
that
we
have
to
make
decisions
based
on
what
is
in
place
today.
P
You
know
the
future
is
not
guaranteed
just
because
the
city
is
talking
about
it.
We
know
it
definitely
doesn't
mean
it's
going
to
happen
not
because
the
city
is
unreliable,
but
sometimes
the
relationship
between
achd
in
the
city
can
get
complicated.
So
for
for
all
those
reasons,
I
support
the
motion.
D
T
I
just
agree
the
site.
I
have
issues
with
the
site
being
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
proposed
use
and
you
know
I
think
that
main
issue
is
that
you
know
we
have
reduced
slot
sizes
interior
setback
issues.
I
just
think
there's
a
lot
for
this
site,
but
I
do
agree
with
the
comments
of
the
commissioners
about
achd.
I
don't
think
you
know,
I
think
they
they
opined,
and
it
is
what
it
is.
It
sounds
like.
T
O
Yeah
phil,
I
do
want
to
say
to
everybody
just
a
couple
of
things.
I
think
the
development
does,
that
are
very
good.
I
think
it
does
improve
the
warm
springs
frontage
and
I
think
that's
a
very
good
thing.
I
think
it
does
add
housing
diversity
in
a
part
of
town
where
that's
extremely
useful
and
I
think
it
does
or
or
it
has
the
strong
potential
to
improve
the
local
trail
system,
make
it
a
more
enjoyable
place
for
for
all
of
us.
O
So
I'm
hoping
that
if
we
turn
this
down,
that
the
applicant
can
work
with
the
city,
my
suggestion
would
be
to
reduce
it
to
to
8du
per
acre,
get
a
little
bit
more
space
for
all
this
stuff
to
fit
in
and
then
that
could
be
a
development
I'd
support.
Even
you
know,
with
these
this
kind
of
housing
style
in
this
place.
Mr.
D
P
Just
couple
other
things
to
add:
I
I
actually
don't
mind
the
density
at
all.
I
think
it
can
still
be
done.
I
don't
mind
the
idea
of
reduced
unit
sizes
to
accommodate
all
the
needs
here,
but
it
is.
You
know
this
is
a
great
piece
of
property,
wide
open,
ready
to
be
developed,
and
I
think
that
we
can
do
better
than
this
proposal
right
now
in
making
it
all
fit
and
making
a
great
and
a
great
housing
alternative
for
folks
on
that
side
of
town.
J
Q
Q
C
D
D
P
J
J
O
The
with
respect
to
the
annexation,
I
think
absent
a
pud
in
front
of
us,
it's
hard
to
me
to
make
an
affirmative
finding
on
finding
four
under
annexation,
which
is
you
know,
it
promotes
good
goals
of
the
city,
so
to
speak.
So
I
would
specifically
point
to
that:
okay
as
a
way
to
to
vote
against
the
annexation.
That's.
D
D
D
D
Y
Good
evening,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
before
use
request
for
a
pud
project
site,
is
4.96
acres
located
at
1404,
south
philippi
street
and
a
c2d
general
commercial
design
review
zone.
The
project
site
is
immediately
adjacent
to
the
hillcrest
shopping
center,
comprised
of
multi-tenants,
including
commercial
retail,
grocery
and
a
library.
Y
Y
AD
AD
AD
There
will
be
a
landscape
buffer
between
the
commercial
parking
and
the
the
the
internal
circulation
of
the
apartment,
complex.
It's
going
to
go
into
the
vacant
lot
in
the
southwest
corner
of
the
lot.
It
was
a
fred
meyer
years
ago,
it's
compatible
with
the
adjacent
uses
across
the
street
from
philippi
there's
town
homes.
AD
If
we
go
into
the
landscape
plan,
we
can
see
a
little
more
we're
going
for
21.8
units
per
acre
108
units,
147
parking
spaces,
many
of
which
will
be
covered,
there'll,
be
a
fence
surrounding
the
entire
property.
That
was
one
of
the
concerns
that
one
of
the
neighbors
brought
up
at
the
meeting.
They
didn't
want
people
coming
up
the
hill
into
their
neighborhood.
AD
One
of
the
concerns
was
at
the
first
neighborhood
meeting.
We
had
the
access
and
the
amount
of
use
on
philippi
one
of
the
things
to
mitigate
that
after
the
neighborhood
meeting,
we
moved
to
the
north
access
to
the
to
the
east
side
of
the
property
and
that
should
kind
of
push
some
of
the
traffic
more
towards
the
commercial
areas,
and
that
was
from
our
first
neighborhood
meeting.
AD
We
end
up
having
two,
but
the
buildings
are
relatively
modest.
The
idea
is
we
get
people
into
this
area
because
there
is
a
need
for
housing
and
the
idea
is
we
get
some
some
nice
apartments
in
a
vacant
lot
and
still
provide
enough
amenities,
there's
a
clubhouse
with
a
gym.
There's
private
balconies,
there's
a
barbecue
area
gazebo
and
then
across
the
parking
lot.
There's
a
library
grocery
store
everything's
right
there,
so
it
should
really
alleviate
a
lot
of
the
concerns
about
traffic.
AD
One
of
the
conditions
of
approval
was
to
have
bike
parking
and
yes,
we'll
get
into
that
a
lot
more
in
dr,
but
we
do
plan
on
having
at
least
one
bike
parking
space
for
every
unit
and
many
of
them
will
be
covered
inside
the
hallways
and
max
building
height
is
38
feet.
We
could
go
up
to
45
in
this
area
c2d,
but
we
don't
need
to
one
of
the
neighbors
complain
about
the
height.
They
are
across
the
street
up
on
a
ridge
or
up
above
this
won't
block
any
views
of
theirs.
AD
B
H
Was
there
any
consider
question
for
the
applicant?
Was
there
any
consideration
for
installing
the
southwest
corner
there?
It's
a
landscape
issue,
obviously
for
the
slope,
in
fact,
I
think
what
it
says:
save
and
protect
existing
landscape.
So,
what's
going
to
what's
that
corner,
going
to
look
like
that
southwest
corner.
AD
AD
H
Okay,
thank
you
that
was
confusing
to
me,
the
site,
the
subject.
All
the
agenda
material
implied
that
you
own,
that
that
intersection
and
where
I
was
going
with
that
was
this
is
108
units
a
whole
bunch
of
people
use
philippe
as
a
north-south
multi-modal
bike
connector.
So
I
was
looking
for
hey.
Let's
do
some
multi-use
path?
What
kind
of
pedestrian
features
can
we
put
in
this
project
if
nothing
else,
an
rrfb
at
that
intersection
across
the
street
is
the
new.
J
Q
D
AB
Good
team,
just
real,
quick,
yeah
chris,
please
I'm
really
grateful
to
see
this
application.
I've
been
waiting
like
most
people,
for
I
live
on
philippi
and
kasha,
so
I'm
two
blocks
down,
and
this
has
been
20
years
of
the
fred
meyer
hasn't
been
there,
and
this
has
been
a
vacant,
and
you
can
see
from
that
overhead
that
parking
lot
gets
very
little
usage
and
this
is
a
great
usage
for
it.
So
I'm
super
happy
to
see
it
and
I'm
glad
you
guys
are
doing
this.
AB
One
thing
I
might
we've
got
some
pretty
good:
we've
got
kasha
park
and
we've
had
lots
of
developments
over
there.
You
know
positive
developments
over
there
and
then
we
have
borah
park
right
around
the
corner
over
there
too,
but
just
as
kind
of
a
two
cents
worth
of
from
the
deus
design.
It's
like
you
can
probably
keep
more
kids
on
site.
If
there
were
more
green
space
clubhouse,
you
know
those
things
tend
to
not
get
utilized
too
much.
D
J
D
J
D
I
I
I
wanna
correct
something
this
will
block
my
view,
but
I'm
not
really
against
this.
My
my
concern
is
the
north
access
to
the
parking
lot,
the
shopping
center,
that
that
would
create
through
traffic
to
orchard
street
and
on
to
felipe
there's
already
quite
a
bit
of
traffic
on
felipe
and
there's
quite
a
bit
of
noise
on
this
street.
I
J
K
AK
D
J
D
J
D
G
I
think
and
the
staff
report
states
it
pretty.
Well,
you
know
it's
near
transit,
it's
a
diversity
of
housing,
types
along
a
major
road,
there's
library
and
other
kind
of
amenities,
nearby
and
yeah.
I
think
this
is
a
great
use
of
a
lot.
That's
been
underutilized
for
some
time
and
hopefully
we'll
help
with
some
revitalization
of
the
rest
of
that
kind
of
center,
as
well.