►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission
Description
Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:45 PM MDT
A
All
right
good
evening,
everybody
and
welcome
to
the
boise
city
planning
and
zoning
commission
public
hearing
a
few
things
to
start
out
with
for
tonight's
proceedings.
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
virtually
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak.
As
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you
will
be
called
upon
and
muted
unmuted
excuse
me.
There
is
a
chat
function
in
zoom.
This
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
A
After
that,
we
proceeded
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
are
in
person,
then
those
who
signed
up
on
the
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
if
you
are
attending
through
your
telephone,
you
can
type
in
star
nine.
To
raise
your
hand,
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
We
are
strict
at
this
time,
as
it
is
limited
in
state
code.
A
B
Any
decision
made
tonight
can
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.
That's
why
it's
important
to
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
testify
tonight.
B
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
the
public
testimony.
D
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
All
right,
a
couple
of
things
looks
like
we
have
a
few
items
that
are
eligible
for
consent.
Tonight,
we'll
start
there
without
objection.
I
will
place
the
meeting
minutes
from
our
meeting
on
april
4th
2022
and
from
may
2nd
2022
on
the
consent
agenda
and
then
one
other
note
item
number
one
has
been
withdrawn:
that's
pud,
21-55
at
2189,
west
boise
avenue.
That
item
has
been
withdrawn,
so
we
will
not
be
hearing
that
item
tonight
and
then
moving
on
into
items
eligible
for
consent.
B
E
B
B
B
B
B
Bronze
bow
land
at
1501,
north
garden
street.
This
is
a
modification
of
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development.
Comprised
of
three
single
family
homes
on
0.42
acres
in
an
r1c
zone
is
the
applicant
with
us
leaving
mr
schneider.
Are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
staff
report?
Terrific,
and
is
there
anyone
here
in
attendance
this
evening?
That
would
like
to
testify
in
opposition
to
this
item
again
item
number
10
at
1501,
north
garden
street.
B
D
G
C
H
B
J
B
Okay,
great,
that
does
it
for
all
of
our
initial
housekeeping
tonight,
we'll
dive
right
into
our
agenda.
The
first
item
up
is
item
number
two,
that
is
car
22-4,
andy
thompson.
Construction
incorporated
project
address
is
2576
and
2623
north
linda
vista
lane.
This
is
a
rezone
of
approximately
1.86
acres
from
r1b
to
r1c.
K
Yes,
yep.
Okay,
thanks
good
evening,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission
item
ca
2-4,
an
application
to
rezone
1.86
acres
from
r1b
to
r1c.
The
subject.
Property
is
located
at
25-70
and
620
north
linda
vista
lane.
The
area
contains
mainly
single
family
housing
and
the
surrounding
area
has
piecemeal.
R1B
and
rc.
Zoning
are
two
zoning
to
the
south.
The
future
land
use
map
has
the
site
designated
as
suburban
with,
in
which
the
r1c
zoning
destination
is
allowed.
Other
zones
allowed
within
the
suburban
destination
include
open
lands,
office
and
other
residential.
K
The
planning
team
finds
that
the
r1c
zoning
is
appropriate
for
the
subject
properties,
as
the
proposed
density
is
similar
to
the
surrounding
area.
While
the
applicant
has
not
submitted
any
other
applications
with
the
rezone.
The
conceptual
site
plan
shows
the
applicant
keeping
the
existing
duplexes
at
2623,
linda
vista
and
adding
two
additional
duplexes
on
site,
as
well
as
adding
a
cottage
style
development
to
26
or
2576,
linda
vista.
Any
additional
development
will
acquire
additional
pud
applications.
K
L
B
D
M
D
B
F
L
The
owners
wanted
to
move
forward
with
the
project,
but
they
hadn't
really
solidified
it.
So
I
told
them
like
an
easy
way
to
do.
It
is
to
get
the
rezone
done
so
that
you
can
like
know
exactly
what
you're
up
against,
and
so
we
don't
have
to
come
in
front
of
you
guys
after
the
whole,
designing
and
then
kind
of
the
cart
before
the
horse
thing.
So
I
said
we'll
get
the
rezone
done.
They
can
do
their
their
readings.
It
takes.
L
F
B
B
If
you're
here
in
person
to
testify,
please
come
up
to
the
podium
or,
if
you're
online,
please
go
and
raise
your
hand
chairman.
Do
you
have
the
sign
up
sheets?
Oh,
thank
you,
sir.
I
do
have
a
sign-up
sheet.
I
got
mark
andrews
and
andy
thompson.
I'm
assuming
mr
thompson.
You
already
spoke
so
we're
good
there.
Mr
andrews.
D
B
N
Yeah
2640,
linda
vista,
okay,
lane
boise.
My
concern
is
a
couple
of
things:
traffic
in
the
air
that
street
is
not
built
for
big
traffic
or
fast
traffic.
It's
a
20
mile,
an
hour
street.
Another
thing:
these
are
two
story:
where
are
some
of
our
elderly
people?
Gonna
live
without
stairs
going
up
this
town's,
getting
overcrowded
with
chicken
coops,
as
I
call
them
most
of
these
houses
can
fit
in
my
garage
on
my
property.
N
It's
just
a
a
poor
way
of
organizing
our
city.
I
know
it's
a
great
tax
opportunity
for
everybody,
which
is
good,
but
my
thought
is
just
to
calm
it
down
a
little
bit,
let's
think
about
our
city
before
we
think
about
cramming
more
people
into
it
on
it.
I've
lived
here
all
my
life,
so
I
seen
what
happens
has
happened.
What's
been
the
mistakes,
unfortunately,
the
stakes
still
keep
happening,
but
that's
my
thought
on
this
process.
B
B
F
O
B
F
Thanks,
mr
chair
yeah,
you
know
with
sensitivity
to
mr
andrews
testimony
here.
You
know
we're
all
we're
hearing
is
the
rezone,
whether
it's
appropriate
for
this
area
to
go
from
r1b
to
r1c.
So
it's
pretty
pretty
established
on
the
record
that
there's
r1c
all
surrounding
it,
so
it
it
is.
It
is
appropriate
that
we
we
re-zoned,
that
we
don't
have
a
project
to
look
at
tonight.
So
we
we
don't
know
what
they're
gonna
put
and
that
will
be
again.
F
O
B
Okay,
very
good
go
ahead
and
call
the
roll
here.
We've
got
again.
This
item
number
sorry.
This
is
item
number
two
car
22-4
at
2576-2623,
north,
linda
vista
lane.
We
have
a
motion
to
recommend
approval
by
commissioner
blanchard
in
a
second
by
commissioner
squires.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
roll.
B
B
Previously
item
number
11
now
item
number
three
cva
22-8,
bga
planning
and
design
at
1302
north
24th
street.
This
is
a
variance
request
to
allow
a
garage
edition
to
encroach
into
the
side
street
setback
on
approximately
0.24
acres
in
r1ch
zone.
First,
we're
going
to
hear
from
staff
and
that's
sabrina,
mortensen.
P
The
subject
property
currently
contains
a
single
family,
home
and
attached
one
car
garage
and
a
detached
two-car
garage.
The
applicant
requests
to
expand
the
attached
garage
to
improve
accessibility
for
a
wheelchair-bound
resident
of
the
home,
as
proposed.
The
garage
would
approach
20
feet
into
the
required
side
setback
and
the
eaves
of
the
garage
would
extend
over
the
property
line.
The
applicant's
letter
of
intent,
cites
design
guidelines
for
residential
historic
districts
and
the
presence
of
mature
trees
on
the
site
as
justification
for
the
variance
request.
P
The
planning
team
received
late
correspondence
from
the
property
owner
detailing
the
medical
diagnoses
of
one
of
the
residents
of
the
home
and
outlining
the
provisions
of
the
fair
housing
active
ada
examples
of
past
variances,
which
had
been
approved
by
the
city,
were
also
included,
while
the
ada
and
fha
require
the
city
to
make
reasonable
accommodations
to
afford
persons
with
disability
and
equal
opportunity
to
enjoy
their
dwelling.
The
requested
20-foot
encroachment
is
substantial
and
there
are
other
options
that
could
be
pursued
to
provide
the
wheelchair
van
loading
area.
B
J
J
J
Your
comments
indicate
that
the
hardships
and
exceptional
circumstances
provided
within
the
proposal
do
not
justify
the
variance
requests
for
an
addition
into
the
existing
attached
garage
to
encroach
20
feet
into
this
side.
Street
side
setback
and
we're
in
disagreement
with
that.
Obviously-
and
we
do
believe
that
there
are
hardships
and
exceptional
circumstances
presented
and
they
do
justify
the
variance
request.
J
The
current
garage
was
constructed
by
the
same
family
who's
residing
there
now
in
1937,
it's
located
six
foot,
six
from
the
property
line,
and
it's
20
foot
from
the
street
we're
asking
to
add
five
foot
six
to
the
south
end
of
that
garage,
so
that
it
would
end
up
being
one
foot
from
the
property
line.
Essentially,
the
the
eve
is
not
before
we
were
showing
the
eve
extending
into
the
over
the
property
line,
but
we
pulled
that
back
in
so
the
eve
would
not
be
extending
over
the
property
line.
J
We've
reviewed
many
suggested
alternatives
for
placement
of
the
garage
and
in
each
one
of
those
there's
been
issues.
One
of
the
recommendations
from
staff
was
to
create
a
breezeway
from
the
existing
detached
garage
at
the
back
of
the
property
and
by
doing
that,
it
essentially
bisects
the
site
in
half
does
not
provide
any
weather
protection
for
the
person
in
the
wheelchair,
and
it
also
is
a
42
foot
distance
to
travel.
So
it
that's
not
really
a
legitimate
alternative,
placing
the
site
in
the
garage
between
the
existing
house
and
the
existing
detached
garage.
J
We
would
have
to
remove
trees
in
that
area
and,
according
to
the
design
guidelines
for
the
historic
districts,
that's
not
doable.
We
wouldn't
be
able
to
remove
those
trees
to
be
able
to
do
that.
Essentially,
another
suggestion
was
to
add
a
garage
that
was
accessed
off
of
the
alley.
There's
no
room
to
do
that
in
order
to
add
a
garage
to
the
alley
off
of
the
alley
we
would
have
to.
In
order
to
get
a
turn-in
distance
beyond
the
existing
detached
garage
at
the
north,
we
would
have
to
lose.
J
J
J
And
as
you're
cited,
you
know
to
provide
garage
access
through
existing
alleys,
minimize
the
placement
of
garages
along
the
block
face
well,
this
house
has
always
historically
had
a
garage.
We
believe
that
the
removing
of
the
garage
function
from
that
area
that
is
located
in
in
this
particular
home
would
not
be
in
the
spirit
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
Again,
it's
always
had
a
garage
in
the
front
it's
accessed
from
the
side.
That
drive
is
the
same.
J
We
don't
agree
that
it's
going
to
have
any
effect
on
the
vision
triangle.
I
don't
know.
I
saw
on
the
illustration
the
division
triangle
out
of
the
garage
there,
the
the
driveway
is
existing.
It's
not
changing
and
the
vision
triangle
is
should
be
shown
down
at
the
curb
where
the
the
driveway
enters
the
street,
not
back
up
at
the
property
line
where
we
were
next
to
the
garage.
J
Anybody
driving
up
there
I
mean
in
the
garage
is,
is
well
off
the
street.
We're
15
feet
off
the
street
there.
So
beyond
the
sight-related
hardships
that
we've
noted,
there's
also
a
hardship
that
the
tillman
hamlet
has
endured.
With
regards
to
performing
any
improvements
on
the
house
for
about
the
last
20
years
since
2002,
the
property
was
considered
to
be
of
contributing
status
and
therefore
the
family
was
not
able
to
pursue
any
changes
to
the
property
due
to
its
status.
J
J
As
noted
in
other
applications
for
variants
policy,
7.1.4.5
encourages
development
of
residential
units
that
are
accessible
to
handicapped
persons
and
adaptable
for
conversion
to
use
by
handicapped
persons.
We
feel
that
a
safe,
connected,
accessible
garage
does
assure
safe
access
to
transportation
and
to
the
neighborhood
in
general.
R
R
R
Due
to
our
changes
in
the
original
footprint,
the
house
was
classified
as
non-contributors
also
has
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
Our
remodeling
request
has
a
full
support
of
the
neighbors,
the
north
end
neighborhood
association
and
the
boise
city's
historic
preservation.
Commission.
It
has
been
an
extremely
stressful
time
for
us.
As
you
know,
my
wife
has
progresses,
progressive,
multiple
sclerosis,
seizure
disorder,
congestive,
heart
failure
and
impaired
mobility.
R
R
R
R
So
we
are
not
setting
a
precedence
for
the
neighborhood
and
actually
provide
more
of
a
buffer
than
these
properties.
If
you
reference
a
photo
of
1301
north
20th,
it
is
on
the
property
line
of
rydenbaugh
and
20th
that
I
just
submitted
this
evening.
We
believe
the
meaning
we
believe
we
meet
all
the
approval
criteria
for
this
variance.
R
R
Writing
the
parents
is
not
in
conflict
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
will
not
affect
the
change
in
zoning.
The
house
is
non-conforming.
Granting
this
variance
will
not
be
detrimental
or
interest
to
the
public
for
pnc
concerns.
Regarding
the
ease
encroaching
over
the
property
line,
we
have
modified
our
design
to
ensure
that
this
won't
happen.
R
Okay,
sir,
thank
you.
This
will
well
kelly.
You
must
grant
the
requested
accommodation
elicit
doing
so
will
pose
a
fundamental
alteration
to
local
government
zoning
scheme
or
an
undue
financial
and
administrative
burden
to
the
local
government.
Our
alteration
does
not
pose
any
of
these
burdens.
There
are
several
court
cases
that
I
have
submitted
in
there.
I
won't
bother
to
go
through
those
at
this
time
and
they
they've.
Actually,
let's
see,
we
asked
your
consideration.
R
B
B
T
P
T
T
And
so
in
the
case
of
using
that
kind
of
existing
area
or
the
parking
to
encroach
due
to
the
van
accessibility
into
the
setback,
that
would
be
a
reasonable
accommodation
for
the
city.
That
would
be
something
that
would
be
potentially
accepted
by
variants.
I
know
parking
is
usually
allowed
outside
or
required
outside
the
setbacks.
U
D
B
P
Mr
chair,
commissioner,
mooney:
yes,
that's
not
an
option
that
I
discussed
with
the
applicant.
I
believe
that
may
have
been
something
that
was
discussed
with
other
staff
previously,
but
in
order
to
utilize
that
option
that
existing
garage
would
need
to
be
moved
a
little
bit
or
obtain
a
variance
for
the
backup
space
to
the
alley.
I
The
planter
and
half
of
the
driveway
looked
to
be
outside
of
the
property
line
and
therefore,
if
ever
a
sidewalk
was
to
be
put
in
here,
because
it
looks
like
at
least
from
a
jurisdiction
perspective,
it's
conceivable
and
based
on
the
fact
that
the
24th
street
sidewalk
is
a
detached
sidewalk
and
therefore
a
buffer
space.
In
between.
I
M
Commissioner
gillespie,
so
this
is
just
a
technical
phrase.
It
is
a
question,
but
one
of
the
challenges
we
face
here
tonight,
folks,
is
the
variance,
is
forever
it's
permanent,
it's
not
contingent
on
who
lives
there
or
what
they
do
or
their
condition
it's
forever
is.
That
is
my
interpretation
of
how
variance
is
implemented.
Correct.
P
D
B
H
H
V
H
H
And
the
setback
setbacks,
I
believe
the
main
reason
for
setbacks
is
for
police
and
fire
to
be
able
to
access
the
property
and
because
it's
on
the
street
there's
not
that
issue
at
all.
So
you
know
the
the
setbacks
on
the
alley.
I
don't
all
those
garages
are
right
on
the
property
line.
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
this
can't
be
the
same
right
on
the
property
line.
H
Yeah,
that's
pretty
much
it.
I
just
don't
see
any
reason
why
an
accommodation
couldn't
be
made
for
this
family
so
that
they
can
live
in
the
house
comfortably
in
their
golden
years,
so
to
speak,
and
I
would
hope
that
when
I
come
to
the
council
or
board
planning
meeting
30
years
from
now-
and
I
need
the
same
thing
that
it
would
be
granted
so
anyway.
W
W
It's
also
not
worthy
there's
no
sidewalk,
and
I
don't
believe
there
can
be
because
there's
three
huge
historic
trees
and
we
own
two
thirds
of
the
block-
and
I
believe
echds
said
in
the
past
that
they
need
our
permission
to
even
put
a
sidewalk
in
there
because
of
that
in
respect
to
criteria
number
one,
that
there
be
a
hardship
or
exceptional
circumstance.
The
lot
is
larger
and
longer
than
most
in
the
north
end,
the
lot's
actually
two
and
takes
up
two
thirds
of
the
block
and
it's
almost
200
feet
long.
W
W
Doesn't
conflict
with
the
spirit
intent
of
the
comp
plan,
comp
plan,
nac
15's
goals
to
promote
boise's
historic
heritage,
an
approved
city
case
cba
15.0048
has
a
hardship
and
exceptional
circumstance
very
similar.
The
attached
garage
was
constructed,
sometimes
before
1945
prior
to
the
adoption
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
was
approved.
I
quote:
the
garage
has
not
been
in
use
for
parking
to
its
rundown
condition
and
is
considered
legal
non-conforming.
W
W
There
are
several
other
cases.
It
encourages
infill
and
encourages
access
through
alleys,
but
it's
not
required.
Cba
09-004
was
approved
in
boise
for
a
person's
son
who
was
in
a
wheelchair.
It
was
rude
to
be,
and
I
quote
not
in
conflict
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
comp
plan
policy.
7.1.45
encourages
development
of
residences
that
are
accessible
to
handicapped
persons
and
adaptable
for
conversion
to
use
by
handicapped
persons.
This
case
allowed
encroachment
onto
the
side,
yard
setback
for
the
construction
of
a
garage
and
a
driveway.
W
I
feel
I
mean
a
locality
is
required
to
reasonably
accommodate
a
disabled
person
by
modifying
the
zoning
policies
and
I
know
they
want
to
put
a
little
breezeway
out
front.
But
in
order
for
a
handicap
ban
and
do
a
big
covered
area,
I
don't
we've.
We've
looked
at
that
option
and
it's
going
to
be
kind
of
more
of
an
eyesore
for
we're
trying
to
preserve
the
historic
character
of
the
home
that
my
grandpa
built.
So
any
questions.
B
B
R
Yes,
in
your
packet
is
a
picture.
This
is
a
current
garage
there.
The
fence
right
here
this
fence
post,
is
within
a
couple
inches
of
the
property
line
from
this
red
line
here
to
the
curb
is,
is
13
feet
if
we
go
in
a
foot,
that'll
be
at
least
14
feet,
okay
of
clear
fusion,
clear
vision,
there's
no
obstruction
from
the
front
part
of
the
garage
to
24th
street
is
at
least
75
feet.
We
can
see
a
good
block
and
a
half
in
either
direction.
R
R
The
other
thing
is
is
if
you
know
the
history
of
boise
very
well
reserve
street
st
luke's
in
the
capital
used
to
flood.
There
is
a
canal
about
a
block
and
a
half
from
our
place.
There
is
a
big
canal
in
elm
grove
park
that
is
overflowed
also,
and
if
you
look
at
the
front
steps
here,
okay,
my
dad
built
the
foundation
of
this
house
higher
than
normal
so
from
the
bottom
to
the
top,
is
probably
close
to
three
feet
to
ground
level.
R
Flooring
in
the
entire
house,
and
that's
why
putting
a
ramp
here
would
extend
to
quite
far
out
now
in
snow,
snow,
snowmageddon
or
whatever
my
wife
has
mobility
problems.
She
slips
and
falls.
That's
all
part
of
the
medical
record.
I've
submitted
to
you,
okay.
She
really
has
severe
balance
problems,
it's
difficult
for
her
and
even
me
now
to
walk
on
snow
and
ice
okay
and
to
put
a
cupboard
portico
out.
There
would
look
terrible.
R
B
V
S
B
V
Yes,
I
I'm
obviously
sympathetic
to
the
situation
and
and
but
I
also
recognize
our
role
is
to
apply
the
code
as
written
and
it
seems
like
the
the
majority
of
the
problems
that
are
identified
in
the
staff
report
and
the
opposition
is
the
site
issues,
and
I
don't
consider
that
the
issue.
The
issue
is,
there's
a
setback
requirement
and
that's
just
the
nature
of
our
code.
X
V
T
I
know
how
important
that
is.
I
think
I
seconded
the
motion,
because
I
think
that
the
architect
has
done
based
on
the
elevations,
that
I
can
see
a
good
job
at
integrating
some
of
these
covered
patios
and
and
this
addition
into
the
intent
of
the
house
and
the
character
that
that
was
kind
of
already
ingrained
in
this
house
for
so
long.
So
I
think
that
the
options
presented
or
the
alternatives
presented
by
the
city,
whether
it's
the
portico
out
front
or
the
covered
walkway
from
the
detached
garage.
T
M
M
Their
recommendation
seems
reasonable
to
me
in
the
sense
that
there
have
been
alternatives
presented
again.
This
is
a
very
big
piece
of
land
in
the
north
end,
so
I'm
not
persuaded
by
that
argument
and
then,
finally,
to
my
my
earlier
point,
I'm
very
uncomfortable
granting
variances
that
depend
on
some
character
of
of
the
current
occupant
or
owner,
because
that
changes,
this
variance
will
be
on
this
piece
of
land
for
200
years,
for
as
long
as
there
is
boise
city
and
a
house
there,
this
variance
is
there.
M
So
it
is
a
big
deal
in
that
sense,
and
I
think
variances
are
important
in
the
north
end,
especially
to
be
careful,
because
we
hear
this
argument
all
the
time
that
oh,
let's
just
do
it,
you
know,
there's
a
special
circumstance.
The
occupant
and
other
people
have
done
it
indeed
they
may
have,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
it
was
wise,
then-
and
I
don't
think
it's
wise
now
so
I'll-
be
voting
in
favor
of
the
motion
to
deny
the
variance.
I
I
am
a
bit
on
the
fence
right
now
and
I'm
leaning
towards
supporting
the
motion,
but
I'm
not
sure
I'm
there
yet,
because
I'm
getting
particularly
hung
up
on
exactly
the
word
that
commissioner
gillespie
pointed
out.
That's
part
of
fair
housing
and
is
also
part
of
ada
and
that's
reasonable,
reasonable
accommodations
and
working
in
the
realm
of
of
ada.
That
I
do.
I
But
that
does
matter,
and
so
when
we
look
at
this
property,
I
look
at
it
and
I
think
well,
one
alternative
detracts
from
the
historic
preservation
notion
that
we
have
and
we
value
okay,
another
one
takes
away
the
mature
trees
in
the
city
of
trees,
which
we
value.
Okay,
the
other
one
requires
ada
ramps
to
go
up
into
the
entrance
of
the
home.
I
I
can
point
to
you
a
ramp
over
a
hundred
foot
road
that
has
800
foot
ramps
to
get
up
to
the
top
because
of
the
restrictions
of
aka
and
800
on
the
other
side.
So,
therefore,
an
800
foot
crossing
requires
1700
foot
of
linear
distance
because
of
the
the
metrics
piece
of
it
so
when
it
gets
into
the
reasonable
you
know.
I
If
you
want
to
call
it
a
reasonable
test
or
what
have
you
a
federal
federal
housing
law,
does
this
get
to
that
point?
Does
this?
Does
us
accommodating
a
five-foot
variance,
especially
in
light
of
some
of
the
other
circumstances
that
were
pointed
out
that
may
may
sort
of
conflict
with
other
objectives
of
the
city?
Does
that
get
to
the
reasonableness
of
this
application?
M
You
know
substantive
language
about
the
ada
or
the
fha,
and
so
I'm
left
as
as
an
amateur
practitioner
right
to
rely
on
the
advice
of
the
city
staff
and
the
city
lawyers
with
respect
to
those
those
federal
statutes,
I'm
here
really
to
interpret
the
code,
the
you
know
the
code
that
this
commission
operates
by
and
I
think
on
that
matter,
you
know
I
have
a
kind
of
a
hard
definition
of
what
a
hardship
is.
It
has
to
be
part
of
the
land
and
again
that's
what
I
look
to
is
is
the
city
code.
M
I
If
I
may
just
follow
up
on
that,
I
it's
interesting,
because
I
completely
understand
that
argument.
I
also
know
that
this
same
body
makes
decisions
on
cell
towers
and
halfway
houses,
for
example,
and
we
are
not
allowed
to
make
decisions
that
trump
federal
law
right
in
in
those
instances
we're
told
as
a
local
body,
we
can't
deny
certain
things
because
of
federal
law.
I'm
just
saying
that
it's
not
always
our
code.
That
necessarily
carries.
Y
M
C
M
V
Commissioner
moore
opened
up
questions
with
that
and
I
asked
to
follow
up
on
the
alley
load,
but
this
appears
to
be
a
pretty
significant,
remodel,
we're
removing
an
interior
courtyard
there's
a
significant
interior
remodeling
going
on.
I
just
seem
I'm
just
the
layman.
Looking
at
the
site
plan,
thinking,
there's
a
way
to
place
a
garage
and
comply
with
all
the
code
requirements
all
right.
B
O
I'm
just
going
to
say
I'm
on
the
fence
as
well.
I
am
for
the
exact
same
reasons
that
commissioner
dan
lee
was
able
to
express
more
much
more
eloquently
than
I
could.
I
know
enough
about
ada
to
be
dan.
You
know
to
be
dangerous
and
I've
been
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
apply
that
to
this
project
in
light
of
the
project
before
us.
B
D
B
B
C
H
U
C
I
C
V
B
B
B
E
E
Finding
the
project
complies
with
all
zoning
ordinance
and
design
review
standards
and
guidelines
on
march
18,
2022
dwayne
mitchell
appealed
the
design
review
committee's
decision
to
deny
the
appeal
the
property
is
located
on
the
south
side
of
eustic
road
in
a
c-1d
neighborhood
commercial
with
designer
view
zone.
This
area
contains
commercial
uses
as
well
as
surrounding
single-family
and
multi-family
uses.
E
The
appellant
provided
a
number
of
grounds
for
appeal.
First,
that
the
applicant
didn't
follow
the
required
procedures
in
regard
to
the
neighborhood
meeting.
Typically,
a
multi-family
project
in
this
zone
would
require
a
planned
unit,
development
which
would
require
a
neighborhood
meeting
and
pnz
public
hearing,
but
because
the
applicant
is
providing
income
restricted
units,
the
project
is
less
than
25
units
total
and
it
is
located
on
an
arterial
roadway.
E
This
is
a
chart
of
the
incentives
provided
by
the
housing
bonus
ordinance.
The
first
is
a
density
bonus.
26
units
would
be
allowed
in
the
zone
without
the
bonus.
Unlimited
density
is
allowed
with
the
bonus,
but
this
project
only
includes
17
units,
so
they
are
not
utilizing
the
density
bonus.
The
second
is
a
height
bonus.
The
max
height
allowed
in
the
zone
is
35
feet
to
the
midpoint.
E
E
The
appellant
also
contends
that
the
project
does
not
comply
with
the
ccnrs
for
the
subdivision
that
restrict
development
to
single-story
commercial
uses.
Ccnrs
are
a
private
agreement
that
the
city
cannot
enforce
and
it
would
be
up
to
the
property
owners
and
the
business
owners
to
pursue
enforcement
of
the
ccnrs
outside
of
the
city's
review
process.
E
The
appeal
application
also
noted
that
the
project
includes
various
design
flaws,
listing
parking
access
and
trash.
The
planning
team
and
the
design
review
committee
found
that
the
project
complies
with
all
zoning
ordinance
and
design
review
standards.
The
applicant
is
providing
the
required
parking
on
site.
We
did
receive
achd
approval
of
the
project.
E
In
conclusion,
the
planning
team
believes
that
the
project
complies
with
all
boise
city
code
procedures
and
requirements
and
the
design,
review
standards
and
guidelines
and
recommends
denial
of
the
appeal
and
approval
of
the
project.
Subject
to
the
original
conditions
of
approval.
I
can
stand
for
questions
and
testimony
will
begin
with
the
appellant
which
is
dwayne
mitchell.
Z
Z
I
don't
know
it's
kind
of
a
strange
deal.
His
whole
design
thing
is
flawed.
He
thinks
he
has
drive-through
access
through
my
property,
which
he
certainly
doesn't
have,
and
there
will
be
a
problem
over
that
I
can
see.
I
don't
know
what
else
we're
gonna
do,
but
I'm
really
proud
of
you
guys
to
cook
this
up.
Like
you
did
it's
a
pretty
amazing
he's
got
inadequate
parking,
he's,
got
17
parking
places
for
17
apartments,
and
any
fool
will
know
that
you're
going
to
have
more
than
two
cars
per
apartment.
Z
There's
going
to
be
125.
There's
a
proposed
125
apartment
complex
across
the
street,
with
a
beer
store
across
the
parking
lot
from
that
this
place
is
a
disaster
in
the
evenings
in
the
summertime
anyway,
and
this
not
only
that
this
residential
neighborhood
behind
it
was
going
to
build
these
two-story
monsters
and
look
right
down
these
people's
backyard.
Z
AA
Good
evening
richard
wilmot
chrysalis
architecture,
3914
east
presidential,
drive
meridian
idaho,
as
caitlin
mentioned,
we
proposed
this
project
under
the
housing
bonus
ordinance.
I
believe
we've
complied
with
all
the
requirements
proposed
to
propose
from
staff.
We
don't
have
any
objections
to
any
of
the
conditions
with
any
of
the
staff
reports
that
have
been
received
up
to
this
point.
AA
Nor
do
we
have
any
objections
to
any
of
the
jurisdictional
requirements
from
irrigation,
district
or
achd
in
terms
of
just
responding
directly
to
mr
mitchell's
prior
comments,
I
don't
even
have
an
attorney,
so
I
don't.
I
don't
know
what
letters
he
was
receiving
from
me.
They
certainly
weren't
coming
for
me,
I'm
representing
my
client,
so
that
that
may
be
a
situation
that
he's
referring
to
my
client
directly,
but
me
personally
or
professionally,
have
not
approached
him
in
that
way.
AA
That
too,
was
an
advantage
of
utilizing
the
the
the
new
housing
bonus,
ordinance
and
didn't
did
not
hold
a
neighborhood
meeting,
but
we've
we've
also
complied
with
those
requirements.
As
far
as
the
design
flaws
you
know
we
are
currently.
We
have,
I
think,
about
three
driveways
various
sizes,
one
for
the
office
building
and
then
two
more
for
the
drive-through
and
with
the
removal
of
the
drive-through.
AA
We
are
reducing
the
three
drive
driveways
down
to
one
so
we're
I
think,
we're
providing
a
little
more
of
a
focused
access
and
entry
point
and
there's
currently
cross-access
agreements
between
all
the
properties.
So
with
that,
I'm
available
for
any
questions,
but
we
agree
with
staff
and
the
conditions
presented
to
us
thus
far.
G
B
B
M
E
M
So,
mr
chairman,
so
caitlin,
so
at
that
meeting
you
guys
didn't
discuss
the
fact
that
it
had
already
it
had
received
administrative
approval
there.
In
other
words,
there
wasn't
an
argument
or
a
hearing
about
anything
other
than
the
architectural
layout
issues
which
you
just
discussed.
Is
that
correct.
M
H
Z
Well,
the
whole
thing
is
a
flawed
project:
they've
carved
out
the
gun
into
a
commercial
subdivision
and
cut
a
hole
in
the
center
of
it
and
and
surrounded
by
commercial
and
putting
this
development
in
there.
You
can't
find
a
development
in
this
town.
That's
done
like
that.
I've
been
all
over
you
can't
you
can't
drive,
there's
no
drive-through
access
won't
be
through
my
property
anyway,
I'm
I
have
the
building
just
east
of
there
and
with
five
offices
in
there,
and
I
know
where
the
parking
they
think
the
parking
is
going
to
go.
Z
They
think
it's
going
to
go
on
my
my
property,
which
I'm
going
to
gate
off,
and
so
it's
that
that's
a
lot
of
it,
but
to
build
two
stories
high.
He
you
know
in
in
the
ccnr's
is
the
old
ones,
which
I
would
think
had
some
validity
since
1958
they
haven't
been
tampered
with.
You
couldn't
build
anything
over
two
stories
and
no
no
residential
in
there,
and
I
look
around
town.
Z
E
D
V
B
G
V
The
I
was
looking
at
the
transcript
from
the
deliberations,
commissioner
zuckerman
in
particular
said
I'll.
Just
quote
it
here
for
the
record.
I
agree
with
committee
member
semple
everything
I've
heard
tonight
is
really
a
pnz
issue
and
not
a
design
review
issue,
with
the
exception
of
some
concern
about
the
height
of
the
building,
and
we
know
that
this
is
an
allowed
height
for
this
site.
V
I'm
very
familiar
with
that
area.
I
would
like
to
re.
I
would
like
to
think
that
a
two-story
building
would
protect
the
neighborhood
from
the
noise
of
you.
Stick
so
and
end
quote
from
that
deliberation
at
the
design
review.
Were
they
pointing
it
at
this
body
in
particular,
to
make
any
decisions,
or
were
they
recognizing
that
that
was
their
purview.
AB
M
G
M
E
B
E
B
O
N
E
B
B
Okay,
well,
that
was
quick
all
right.
We
will
go
ahead
back
into
rebuttal
now
and
we
will
so
both
the
applicant
and
the
appellant
have
a
few
minutes
to
rebut,
there's,
obviously,
no
public
testimony
to
rebut,
but
we'll
still
both
give
you
time
for
rebuttal.
So
we'll
start
with
the
applicant.
Mr
wilmot
give
you
typically
five
minutes
for
a
bottle.
AA
AA
The
building
is
currently
connected
across
two
properties,
and
we
we
felt
that
there
was
value
in
utilizing
the
existing
structure,
both
from
an
ecological
perspective
and
then
also
just
how
it
was
util
being
how
it
could
benefit
us
and
the
type
of
buildings
that
we
were
proposing
on
the
property
we
did
take
down.
One
building
that
was
an
existing
drive-through
and
are
are
building
basically
a
new
structure
in
that
in
that
particular
location.
AA
But
again
our
square
footage
was
just
offset
was
too
much
and
then
in
terms
of
the
the
ccnr's
that
mr
mitchell
was
referencing
and
and
the
multiple
stories
that
the
buckhorn
gun
and
pond
that's,
that
is
on
the
corner
at
u-stick,
that's
adjacent
to
our
property.
It
actually
has
a
second
story
in
it
currently,
so
I
don't.
I
don't
really
know
how
how
that
would
have
been
allowed
at
any
given
point
if
this
was
a
concern
at
the
time
that
that
permit
was
issued
for
that
structure.
AA
Z
Yes,
in
reference
to
the
gun
shop,
that's
an
old
gas
station
and
that's
why
it's
two-story
they
had
bays
in
there
and
so
that's
why
that's
the
way
it
is,
but
I'd
like
to
go
back
to
the
parking
and
fire
access.
I
I
don't
know
how
they're
going
to
get
a
fire
truck
in
and
out
of
there
and
you've
17
parking
places
for
17
apartments,
so
they
may
be
a
couple
of
handicapped
and
they're
going
to
probably
have
no
less
than
two
cars
per
apartment
and
where
are
they
going
to
park
those
cars?
Z
Z
It's
a
problem
with
children
wandering
through
all
through
there
anyway,
and
we
blocked
access
just
just
to
keep
cars
from
constantly
driving
through
there
and
the
access
will
stay
blocked
and
if
I
have
to
put
a
gate
up
I'll
give
access
to
the
fire
department
and
that'll,
be
that
I'm
gonna
have
to
do
that.
But
I
don't
know
it's.
I
don't
know
what
else
to
say
about
it.
It's
it's
gonna,
be
a
mess.
Z
B
B
I
Mr
chair,
mr
mitchell,
I'm
sure
you're
the
first
of
what's
probably
going
to
be
several
folks
over
the
next.
Who
knows
how
much
time
to
come
in
and
appeal
a
decision
like
this,
because
this
is
new,
and
this
is
a
new
process
for
the
city
of
boise
and
I'm
sorry.
It
wasn't
something
that
necessarily
allowed
you
to
participate
as
much
as
you'd
want.
I
understand
that
I
get.
I
We
also
know
that
we
are,
you
know,
getting
getting
units
that
are
below
market
rate,
ami
right,
70,
000
or
so
a
household
right
now
in
our
city
of
boise.
That
means
that
someone
can
get
into
this
unit,
for
maybe
50
55,
that's
still
25
to
30
dollars
an
hour
right,
unfortunately,
that
the
testimony
is
over,
sir,
so
respectfully.
I
So
my
my
point
is
that
this
process
again
is
new.
It
was
called
upon
over
and
over
for
the
city
to
enact.
We
have.
We've
listened
we've
done,
and
this
is
the
byproduct
of
it.
Unfortunately,
maybe
there's
future
tweaks
to
be
made.
Maybe
it's
not
perfect,
but
it's
where
we
are,
and
I
think
that
the
project
that,
as
is
proposed,
is
a
good
one.
I
So
one
more
thing
I
was
going
to
say
is
that
in
the
last
year,
for
example,
on
the
commercial
retail
front,
I
think
that
we've
had
maybe
one
maybe
two
applications
in
the
entire
time
that
have
been
commercial
and
or
retail
applications.
We
have
had
so
much
residential
we're
not
seeing
that
energy
like
we
once
did.
I
My
point
is:
is
that
things
in
in
the
way
that
we
consume
is
changing
right
and
and
our
market
is
changing
and
right
now
it's
the
housing
piece
that
has
a
tremendous
amount
of
energy
and
is
again
what
our
ordinance
here
is
permitting
to
try
to
do
and
try
to
work
toward
and
make
a
dent
in
this
thing
that
we
all
know
that
we're
working
with.
So
that's
a
lot
to
be
said,
I
apologize
for
being
a
little
long-winded,
but
I
I
think
that
we're
on
the
right
track.
Maybe
there's
some
tweaks
to
be
made.
F
I
don't
really
just
that
when
something
like
this
comes
before
us,
we
need
a
lot
more
than
some
undefined.
You
guys
cooked
up
something
that
we
didn't.
I
just
I'm
just
confused
about
more,
even
who
those
guys
are
and
what
the
the
cooking
up
thing
was.
So
I
don't
even
know
what
we're
supposed
to
be
considering
here.
S
T
I
think,
in
terms
of
I
know,
I'm
in
support
of
the
motion
and
in
terms
of
compatibility,
I
think
I
am
supporting
the
motion
because
I
do
think
it
is
compatible
from
our
aerial
map.
I'm
seeing
an
area,
that's
pretty
heavily
residential,
so
I
feel
like
more
residential
is
compatible.
It's
two
stories.
Even
if
most
residential
is
one
story,
that's
only
a
one
story.
Difference,
it's
not
terribly
significant.
T
I
think
that's
beneficial
in
terms
of
emissions,
adding
landscaping,
reducing
urban
heat
island
effects
and
I
think,
in
terms
of
fire
access,
I
have
a
letter
in
my
packet
from
the
fire
marshal
indicating
their
approval
with
with
conditions
but
approval,
so
I'm
pretty
confident
that
it's
compatible,
and
in
that
you
know
fire
and
everybody
has
looked
at
it
and
embedded
it.
I
think
integrated
into
that
site.
D
B
C
B
F
M
B
Okay,
thank
you
all
right
up.
Next
is
item
number
six
cup
22-6
and
cva
22-12
myra's
spanish,
preschool
and
daycare
llc
at
1505,
south
south
empire
way.
This
is
a
conditional
use
permit
to
change
an
existing
residential
group,
child
care
facility
to
a
large
child
care
facility
on
0.27
acres
in
r1c
zone
and
we're
here
from
staff.
First
delaney,
garlic.
AC
Thank
you
good
evening,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission.
Before
you,
as
request
for
conditional
use
permit
invariants,
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
conditional
use
permit
to
expand
an
existing
in-home
group
child
care
center
to
a
large
commercial
child
care
center
to
serve
25
children
on
0.27
acres,
located
at
1505
south
empire
way
in
our
r1c
zone.
AC
The
site
abuts
a
c2d
zone
directly
south
less
than
300
feet
to
the
west,
is
a
elementary
school
and
located
just
north.
Is
the
site
is
located
just
north
of
a
neighborhood
activity
center
overland
and
empire
road.
This
neighborhood
activity
center
promotes
providing
local
services
to
the
surrounding
neighborhoods.
AC
The
existing
building
operates
a
residential
child
care
home
serving
12
children.
The
proposal
would
convert
the
single
family
home
into
a
commercial
child
care
center
with
the
operator
living
off-site.
The
proposal
meets
all
the
conditional
use
permit
criteria
for
a
large
child
care
center.
The
proposed
on-site
parking
is
located
at
the
rear
of
the
property,
with
access
from
south
empire
way.
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
to
the
proposed
parking
which
is
within
the
rear
and
street
side
setbacks.
AC
B
AD
AD
AB
She
is
very
moving
forward
and
spent
a
daycare
in
preschool
because
there's
a
highly
demand
in
the
area,
and
she
is
considering
to
a
potential
to
help
the
neighborhood
and
all
the
people
around
to
provide
the
the
daycare
for
the
kids
and
people
can
go
to
war
and
improve
the
life
of
the
boise
city.
People.
AB
AD
D
M
M
AC
Yeah,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
in
terms
of
the
compatibility
first
and
foremost,
the
existing
use
is
a
child
care
facility,
so
we
are
looking
at
an
expansion
of
an
existing
use,
the
site
abuts
directly
to
a
c2d
zone
and
just
half
a
block
from
the
overland
and
empire
intersection
there.
So
we
are
looking
at
kind
of
the
surrounding
area.
We
have
a
neighborhood
activity
center,
located
half
a
block
south
of
the
site.
We
also
have
the
elementary
school
less
than
300
feet
to
the
west.
AC
B
AC
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
commission,
the
site
plan
might
help
display
kind
of
the
buffering.
Here
we
have
the
existing
instructor
structure
at
sort
of
an
angle
on
the
corner
of
empire
way.
Most
of
the
play
structure
and
play
area
is
directed
towards
south
empire
way
at
the
rear
of
the
site.
AC
V
V
AC
AC
V
F
Mr
chair
commissioner
delaney
just
this
is
planning
101,
I'm
sorry,
but
so
if
we
grant
the
variance,
what
what
does
that
mean
for
the
future
use
of
the
property,
so
myra
decides
to
retire
in
20
years
and
we've
given
a
variance
for
a
parking
lot.
What
is
that?
What
does
that
mean
for
the
future?
Use
the
property.
AC
Yeah,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
the
cup
and
variants
would
run
with
the
land
until
a
future,
and
you
know,
entitlement
or
request
came
in.
It
would
allow
for
future
parking
to
remain
in
that
rear
street
side
setback
so
yeah.
If
the
use
were
to
change
that
parking
could
remain
or
be
proposed
in
a
different
orientation
at
a
later
date.
F
AC
S
T
AC
B
AC
Mr
chairman,
the
the
request
does
meet
the
space
ratio
requirements
for
both
indoor
and
outdoor.
There
will
be
tenant
improvements
required
to
upgrade
this
building
from
a
residential
occupancy
to
a
commercial
occupancy.
So
there
is
some
tenant
improvement,
but
the
footprint
and
the
proposed
site
layout
meet
all
the
large
child
care
criteria.
V
V
AC
I
believe
they
needed
more
time
to
kind
of
figure
out
how
to
upgrade
the
structure
to
meet
the
commercial
code
requirements,
since
it
is
a
significant
change
in
our
building
code
to
go
from
a
residential
child
care
to
a
commercial
child
care.
So
they
did
come
back
and
resubmit
when
they
were
ready
to
move
forward
with
that.
D
B
X
X
We've
been
there
for
over
30
years
and
it's
a
very
quite
peaceful
neighborhood
and
I
pretty
much
grew
up
over
there
and
and
spent
all
my
life,
and
my
kids
also
grew
up
over
there
so
but
coming
outside
before
these
guys
moved
in.
They
couldn't
even
tell
that.
There's
people
live
in
this
neighborhood
because
they're
so
quiet
and
we
have
in
the
neighborhood.
We
have
a
lot
of
elderly
people
that
live
there.
X
You
know
that
30
40
years
and
they're
still
over
there
and
so
back
in
2020,
mr
ramirez,
the
husband
and
maria,
invite
us
to
their
backyard
and
told
us
about
their
plan
that
they're
gonna
go
ahead
and
change
their
house
to
a
full
flash
baker
or
slash
preschool
and
ask
us
our
opinion.
What
do
we
think?
X
So
after
talking
for
10-15
minutes,
the
husband
said
that
you're
right
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
find
a
place
other
than
here
to
make
a
daycare
and
a
preschool,
and
so
we
just
talked
about
it
and
he
was
considering
you
know,
finding
a
place
in
nampa,
caldwell
area
and
so
and
we
left
it
that
way
for
them
to
find
a
place.
Until
today
they
changed
their
mind
again
and
resubmit.
The
application
and
all
and
so
empire
way
has
been
a
peaceful.
X
Since
the
day
we
moved
in,
you
know
with
our
family
30
years
ago
and
spent
we
tried
to
be
keep
it
like
that.
You
know
and
like
like
they
say
that
there's
a
school
about
a
couple
blocks
or
a
block
and
half
away
to
that
side,
but
that's
not
going
to
affect
as
much
as
these
guys
10
kids
that
they
have.
I
mean
for
most
of
us
that
they
have
like
children.
X
X
AE
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
abner.
I
am
a
maida
fuentes,
husband,
the
only
I
want
to
add.
There
is
a
fox
I
speak
here.
This
is
my
second
time
I
met
here
the
first
time
he
being
our
home,
and
today
I've
been.
We
buy
the
house
in
19
no
in
2017,
and
this
is
my
second
time
I
saw
him
and
his
dad.
I
met
him
and
they
don't
live
in
the
house.
They
own
the
property,
but
they
don't
live
in
the
house.
I'm
surprised
when
he
says
noisy
for
him.
AE
When
he
not
lived
there,
he
had
a
different
house.
He
live
in
different
place.
The
noise
has
been
there.
If
you
see
behind
our
house,
it's
a
building
commercial,
they
have
a
shop
close
to
his
house,
they're
doing
mechanics
stuff.
They
he
hammer
they
used
to.
They
use
compressor
and
there's
a
noise.
That's
not
exist
in
that
time,
and
my
point
is
when
you
come
in
here
and
complains
on
something:
it's
because
you
live
there,
but
he
not
lived
there
and
he's
done
no
lead
there.
They
live
in
a
different
place.
AE
G
B
AF
AG
AG
AG
AG
AF
AF
AB
V
AB
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
first
time
I
appeared
here
I
was
doing
the
english
translator
at
the
best
of
my
ability.
Yeah,
absolutely
absolutely
appreciate
that
my
name
is
bloody
mercado.
I
live
on
mcbowling
street,
which
is
really
nearby
and,
as
we
can
see,
the
footprint
of
the
area
is
already
a
commercial
area
behind
where
the
parking
lot
is,
as
you
can
see,
is
it's
a
little
shopping
mall
to
the
right?
Is
a
chop
been
there
for,
since
I
banged
and
boys
since
1990s
over
30
years,
the
noise
already
exists
there.
AB
AB
AH
Good
evening,
everyone,
my
name,
is
catalina
boo.
The
address
is
7837
wes
mcmullen
in
the
same
neighborhood.
I
can
speak
to
that
neighborhood.
I
attended
borah
high
school.
I
know
that
area.
Like
the
back
of
my
hand,
this
increase
and
with
conditional
use
permit
will
not
only
benefit
the
community,
but
also
offer
also
offer
the
students
that
go
to
grace
jordan
and
their
families.
Another
option-
that's
close
by
so
the
other
day,
cares
that
are
close
by
are
closer
to
whitney
elementary
school
down
the
road
another
bilingual
school.
AH
AH
We
know
that
about
children
and
then,
of
course,
again
with
the
parking
it
will
allow
for
the
traffic
to
be
more
towards
overland,
where
a
lot
of
the
traffic
is
so
that
those
cars
aren't
even
going
to
marvin
or
past
that
area,
they're
going
to
be
parking
behind
the
building
and
their
children
will
probably
access
the
building
through
the
backyard
or
going
around
front.
I
think
this
also
solves
a
problem.
That's
currently
happening
where
they
park
on
the
street.
B
AI
AI
My
kids
go
to
boise,
bears
it
on
8th
and
eastman
in
the
north
end,
and
it
is
lovely
being
a
place,
that's
walkable
and
having
access
close
to
people's
houses.
So
I
think
it's
a
really
compatible
use
with
residential
neighborhoods
were
at
large.
I'd
be
sad
if
I
had
to
drive
my
kids
to
like
down
busy
roads
and
then
have
them
play
outside
on
a
major
arterial.
AI
G
B
B
So
if
you
want
to
come
back
on
up
to
the
podium,
if
you
want
to
make
any
of
their
final
statements
or
rebut
any
of
the
testimony,
okay,
let
the
record
show
the
applicants
yielding
their
time
for
rebuttal,
and
now
I
think
we
can
bring
this
back
before
the
commission
to
render
a
decision
again.
We're
cup.
F
B
F
Sure,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
You
know
the
the
the
noise
complaint
seemed
to
be
the
biggest
one.
Here
and
again
I
live
in
that
neighborhood
as
well,
and
it's
it's
noisy
yeah
overland
is
noisy
and
you
know
commercial
stuff
is
noisy.
The
business
has
been
operating
there,
for
I
don't
know
how
long
so
I
I
don't
have
a
concern
with
any
of
that.
F
So
what
what
I
wanted
to
avoid
was
myra
and
her
family
retiring
and
then
they
want
to
sell
the
house,
and
then
somebody
buys
the
house
and
it's
like
oh
good,
we're
stuck
with
six
parking
lot.
You
know
six
six
parking
spaces
here
that
we
don't
want.
So
that
was
my
big
concern
and
delaney
has
assured
us.
I
think
that
that's
is
not
going
to
be
a
problem,
so
there's
several
other
daycares
in
that
neighborhood.
F
M
M
One
is
that
we
add
a
specific
condition
requiring
the
applicant
to
maintain
a
six-foot
fence
around
the
western
property
line,
as
well
as
the
southern
property
line.
Now
I
think,
from
the
float
we
didn't
talk
about
this
in
q,
a
so
I
kind
of
which
we
had,
but
I
think
from
the
photos.
There's
is
an
existing
fence
there
now
and
it's
kind
of
like
the
daycare
has
to
have
a
fence
right,
so
I'm
I'm
not
sure
about
putting
it
in
as
a
condition.
M
But
if
it's
going
to
be
a
daycare,
it's
really
that
person
just
to
the
west,
that
is,
that
is
most
affected
by
the
noise.
So
I
wouldn't
mind
a
condition
saying
that
they
have
to
maintain
a
six-foot
fence
along
the
western
and
southern
property
lines.
I'd
be
interested
in
the
city's
view
on
that.
The
second
question
is
this:
amplified
music,
so
my
recollection
of
the
noise
ordinance?
Is
it
really
it's
sort
of
a
10
pm
to
8
a.m?
M
M
So
people
who
want
to
sleep
in
right,
10
a.m
or
9
a.m.
You're
you're.
You
know
so
they're,
not
starting
the
karaoke
at
eight
in
the
morning,
and
then
you
know
they
stop
it.
It
stops
at
four
or
five.
I
would
certainly
entertain
that,
but
again,
because
we
didn't
ask
that
in
q
a
or
get
into
that
like,
why
do
they
need
amplified
sound?
I
was
a
little
hesitant
to
propose
that
those
are
definitely
two
tools.
M
T
So-
and
I
actually
did,
coincidentally
have
noise
ordinance
up
in
my
computer
because
of
the
sound
amplification,
just
like
everybody
else
and
the
way
I'm
reading
it.
I
don't
see
a
timing
aspect
to
it.
I
think
it's
just.
It
shall
be
unlawful
for
any
person
to
operate
a
permit,
the
operation
of
any
loud
amplification
device
in
such
a
manner.
D
T
I
Mr
chairman,
commissioner
danley
I
mean
in
support
of
the
motion
and
with
respect
to
commissioner
gillespie's
potential
additional
conditions.
Certainly
the
fence
to
me
makes
sense.
I
think
we
can
get
there
on
the
amplification
one
way
or
the
other.
I
was
in
that
same
headspace,
but
going
at
it
a
little
bit
differently,
because
this
is
a
cup
we
have.
You
know
the
additional
obligation
to
make
sure
the
mitigation
is
correct,
as
we've
gone
through
that
a
lot
lately
haven't
we
in
this
instance.
I
What
I
think
we
might
have
and
I'd
be
I'd
also
be
interested
to
hear
what
other
commissioners
say
on
this,
and
that
is
that
we
can
maybe
take
advantage
of
the
fact
that
it's
required
to
have
three
parking
stalls
they're
asking
for
six.
What
I'm
wondering
is
if
the
parking
stall
that
is
immediately
to
the
the
farthest
to
the
east,
I
think
it
is
which
is
nearest
to
the
homes
on
the
other
side
that
are
most
upset
about
noise
is,
instead
of
it
being
a
tr.
I
A
parking
stall
is
maybe
it's
big
planted
tree
that
helps
to
buffer
and
mitigate
some
of
that
sound.
We
are
a
a
city
that
has
a
program
that
straight
up
gives
trees
away
and
would
probably
do
so
in
this,
and
they
would
absolutely
qualify.
So
I'm
just
thinking
that
might
be
a
way
to
sort
of
try
to
help
thread
the
needle
they
still
get
five
spots,
which
is
still
two
more
than
what
is
required.
It
gets
us
to
the
seat,
the
nature
of
the
cup.
I
H
B
R
B
B
M
I
B
D
B
AJ
B
D
B
Okay,
great,
thank
you
very
much.
I
don't
think
there's
any
more
discussion
right,
we're
good!
I'm
going
to
move
to
the
main
motion.
Then
this
is
a
motion
to
approve
cup
22-6
and
cba
22-12
with
the
amend
the
approved
amendment
from
commissioner
danley.
The
original
motion
was
from
commissioner
blanchard
with
a
second
by
commissioner
gillespie.
C
B
C
D
B
Let's
get
this
rolling
okay
up
next
was
originally.
I
have
number
seven
it's
now
number
eight
tonight,
but
that's
your
immaterial.
Pud
22-21,
rodney,
evans
and
partners.
Project
address
is
2408.
South
broadway
avenue
conditional
use
permit
for
a
plan.
Residential
development
comprised
of
35
multi-family
units
on
0.85
acres
in
a
c1
dda
zone,
we're
gonna,
hear
from
staff
first,
mr
david
mosher.
AK
Thank
you,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission.
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
conditionalist
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
35
multi-family
units
located
at
2408,
south
broadway
avenue
on
point
approximately
0.85
acres
in
the
c1da
zone
and,
as
you
can
see
from
the
aerial
photograph,
the
property
is
located
along
the
east
side
of
broadway.
The
area
is
primarily
made
up
of
detached
single-family
homes
to
the
east,
with
a
mix
of
both
commercial
and
residential
uses
along
broadway
avenue.
The
site
is
also
located
approximately
a
quarter
mile
from
ivy
wild
park
to
the
east.
AK
AK
It
will
comply
with
the
setbacks,
building
height
and
will
provide
wall
and
provides
all
the
required
parking.
In
addition,
it
provides
two
amenities
which
include
covered
seating
with
a
fire
pit
and
open
and
open
areas
located
within
the
patios
and
balconies.
The
property
is
also
located,
as
mentioned
before,
about
a
quarter
mile
from
ivy
wild
park.
In
summary,
it
complies
with
all
the
required
findings,
as
per
the
development
code.
In
addition,
I'll
note
that
the
existing
da
associated
site
does
not
prohibit
the
use
and
the
project
complies
with
all
its
requirements
as
well.
AK
However,
the
planning,
however,
the
applicant,
has
expressed
concerns
with
the
recommended
condition
of
approval,
which
requires
an
eight
foot,
wide
landscape
buffer
and
five
foot
wide
detach
sidewalk
be
installed
along
broadway
avenue.
The
apple
would
like
to
maintain
the
existing
attached
sidewalk
along
broadway
and
then
widen
it
to
seven
feet.
This
is
similar
to
the
existing
improvements
along
broadway
to
the
north
and
south.
AK
This
diagram
shows
the
landscape
buffer
and
the
attack
detached
sidewalks
approximate
location.
Given
the
proposed
site
plan,
the
site,
the
the
sidewalk
could
be
located
next
to
the
building
about
four
feet
or
so
from
the
building,
and
the
proposed
landscaping
will
be
moved
to
the
landscape
buffer
along
the
street.
This
landscape
buffer
should
contain
as
a
minimum
a
class
ii
tree
planted
every
40
feet.
AK
The
planning
team
also
received
public
testimony
from
neighbors.
Concerning
the
project
in
terms
of
loss
of
the
existing
house,
compatibility
parking
building
design,
in
summary,
the
planning
team,
the
planning
team
addresses
these
concerns
within
the
project
report
and
believes
that
the
project
will
will
address
all
of
these
public
concerns.
AL
AL
AL
I
just
wanted
to
go
over
just
a
couple
of
views
of
the
project,
some
renderings.
This
is
sort
of
from
the
from
the
inside.
Looking
out
towards
broadway,
I
wanted
to
have
one
building
face:
broadway.
We
have
a
plaza
area
between
the
two
buildings
entry
from
within
side
the
project.
Looking
at
one
of
the
main
entries
again,
the
plaza
on
the
back
left
between
the
two
buildings,
and
then
this
is
the
view
from
broadway.
AL
AL
It
opens
onto
a
barbecue
and
tv
item.
I
want
to
discuss
so
site
specific
condition.
Number
four
is
an
eight
foot:
landscape
buffer
and
five
foot
wide
detached
sidewalk
along
broadway,
so
in
looking
at
broadway,
have
some
little
graph
in
the
center.
It's
kind
of
hard
to
see,
but
that's
about
2.1
miles
from
south
broadway
up
to
myrtle,
there's
been
some
fairly
new
developments
there
and
there's
really
only
one
spot
and
it's
right.
AL
AL
We
are
proposing
to
increase
the
sidewalk
to
seven
feet
and
I
think
in
blueprint
boise
chapter
three,
the
corridor
section
it
speaks
to
detached
you
can
either
detach
the
sidewalk
or
widen
the
sidewalk.
So
we
would
certainly
like
to
just
widen
it.
We'd
like
to
just
give
a
little
bit
of
privacy
there
for
the
residents
landscape,
it
kind
of
soften
it
slightly
and
then
keep
that
landscaping
again
on
the
left
side
of
the
image,
so
that
we
could
keep
there's
two
sort
of
substantial
trees.
AL
A
couple
concerns
also
we
heard
at
the
neighborhood
meeting-
was
privacy,
especially
the
houses
to
the
east,
so
what
we
have
done
there
is.
This
is
sort
of
a
view.
There's
a
six
foot
existing
fence.
We
are
proposing
trees
and
then
these
windows
are
are
quite
small.
They
look
out
of
a
bath
a
bathroom
and
a
bedroom,
so
we
really
didn't
want
something
to
be
peering
down
into
the
back
into
the
backyards
and
again
we're
meeting
the
setbacks
and
meeting
the
height
requirement.
G
AM
R
A
G
V
Got
a
question
about
the
for
staff
regarding
the
detached
sidewalks.
The
way
I
understand
it
is
the
applicant
just
stated
that
there's
only
one
other
example:
the
loop
shop,
I
think
nearby
and
there
wasn't
any
other.
But,
as
I
recall,
we
just
approved
one
with
the
attack.
Sidewalk
caddy
corner
at
2315
broadway.
Is
that
true.
AK
AB
V
B
T
S
T
AK
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
the
da
required
cross
access
be
provided
to
the
north,
which
is
the
the
credit
union.
That
is
an
existing
access
point
that
they're
continuing
to
use
the
site
currently
has
a
day
spa
and
office
on
it,
and
I
believe
that
is
where
their
access
point
currently
is,
and
they're
going
to
continue
to
utilize
that
at
that
point
and
they're
and
they're
sharing
the
access
point
on
the
broadway
on
the
property
to
them,
with
the
property
to
the
north.
I
AK
It
is
true
that
they
did
not
respond,
although
the
staff
did
reach
out
to
them
on
this
matter
or
at
least
in
concerns
with
like
pedestrian
access
and
things
of
that
nature
and
based
on
our
conversations
with
them.
Although
was
not
formal,
they
would
be
willing
to
consider
pedestrian
path
or
some
type
of
access
or
crossing
over
broadway
in
this
area,
but
it's
something
that
would
have
to
be
worked
out,
but
they
did
not
formally
comment
on
this
application.
I
I
H
I
So
you
touched
on
it
david
about
the
crossing,
and
I
know
that
for
me
that
without
a
doubt
is
paramount
here
the
applicant
is
getting
a
bonus.
They
are.
They
are
benefiting
from
our
code
that
allows
more
units
and
fewer
parking
stalls
because
of
the
transit
access,
but
getting
the
residents
to
and
from
those
bus
stops
is
not
part
of
the
equation
here.
I
AK
Mr
chair
members,
commission,
it's
a
very
good
point
and
it
is
something
that
definitely
needs
to
be
addressed.
Based
on
our
conversations
with
itd.
The
trying
to
get
a
pedestrian
access
over
or
across
broadway
in
this
area
is
definitely
a
much
larger
process
and
requires
a
lot
of
work
between
the
interagencies
and
trying
to
get
it
cited
right.
So
it's
it's
going
to
take
a
lot
of
work.
How
do
we
do
this?
You
know
with
these
type
of
applications
that
that's
a
good.
That
is
a
very
good
question.
AK
We
sometimes
we
run
into
issues
with
the
sort
of
you
know,
off-site
improvements
or
if
it's
too,
off-site
or
depending
on,
what's
required,
there's
also
sort
of
a
proportionality
aspect
that
needs
to
be
considered
regarding
conditions,
but
it's
something
the
staff
needs
to
consider
and
try
to
figure
out.
I
don't
have
a
solution.
Unfortunately,.
I
There's
the
disconnect
that
that
we
have,
and
so
the
notion
of
having
a
gateway
plan.
I
mean
this
is
a
gateway
corridor
right
and
getting
to
it
is
is
something
that
I
would
hope
that
we
could
continue
to
explore
for
this.
Very
you
know
not
just
this
application,
of
course,
but
as
this
corridor
and
others
start
to
transition
to
what
we're
seeing
and
take
advantage
of
this
code,
you
know
that
we
have
for
this
very
purpose.
This
is
something
that
I
think
we
need
to
be
should
have
should
happen
yesterday,
right.
AK
O
B
D
AK
B
Do
you
know
happen
to
know
david,
like
broadway,
a
struggle
with
broadway
and
vista
and
state
street?
In
these
you
know
attached
conditions
and
we
always
want
detached
conditions
with
the
sidewalks.
Do
you
happen
to
know
like
adjacent
north
right
where
the
credit
union
building
is?
Is
that
sidewalk,
a
five
foot
sidewalk
seven
foot?
Five?
Do
you
happen
to
know.
AK
B
Okay,
thanks
so
on
the
the
sidewalk
issue,
I
don't
disagree
with
you
that
it's
nice
having
landscape
between
us.
I
walk
in
the
building
right
now.
If
this
body
decides
tonight
that
we
want
to
detach
the
sidewalk
or
would
you
consider?
How
would
you
react
to
that?
I
guess:
would
you
consider
narrowing
the
building
or
shifting
that
building
or
picking
up
more
space,
or
would
you
carry
on
with
sidewalk
four
feet
from
the
building.
AL
That's
a
good
question:
if
you
look
at
the
site,
you
know
we
have
to
accommodate
that
cross
access
easement
and
then
we
have
the
building,
and
then
we
have
the
back
property
line.
So
we're
really
trying
to
I
mean
we
really
are
are
kind
of
pinched
all
across
the
site
on
this,
so
I
yeah,
I
don't
think
we
could
move
the
building.
We
have
looked
at
it,
but
the
units
are
really
getting
just
tighter
and,
like
I
said
we
could
accommodate
it.
AL
I
just
think
it's
going
to
be
design
wise.
We
just
feel
it's
consistent
with.
What's
going
up
and
down
broadway
all
the
way,
even
even
the
new
developments
you
can
look,
that
is
the
only
one
that
is
on
there
for
that
2.1
mile
section,
the
attach
the
detached
piece.
We
also
think
it'll
just
provide
a
little
better
screening
there
for
the
car
and
just
a
little
bit
more
pleasant
corridor,
and
I
think
the
sidewalk
at
the
credit
union
is
five
feet,
so
we'd
be
happy.
I
mean
we
intend
to
make
it
seven.
AL
B
AL
V
Mr
chair,
commissioner,
there
was
some
concern
in
the
packet
from
testimony
from
the
neighborhood
regarding
overflow
parking
in
the
credit
union,
as
well
as
cut
through
traffic
over
to
the
park
down
rawlins
street.
So
question
for
you
david,
when
the
parcel
north
of
the
credit
union
develops.
Isn't?
Is
it
true
that
we
plan
to
put
in
a
multi-use
path
there
and
and
basically
in
install
pedestrian
bicycle
access
down
rawlings
street
to
the
park.
AK
G
AM
Thank
you,
chair
and
commissioners.
I've
lived
in
this
area
for
10
years
now
and
I
really
can't
think
of
a
time.
I've
been
more
excited
about
a
lot
of
the
projects
coming
down
the
pipe
for
broadway
this
one
included
more
residential
density
along
this
corridor
has
been
desperately
needed
and
it's
a
perfect
use
for
this
part
of
town.
AM
Sidewalk
is
between
that
a
bus
stop
and
and
the
the
steel
structure
required.
It
would
be
pretty
difficult
to
fit
all
that
so
I'll.
You
know
defer
to
the
commission
and
itd
and
everyone's
assessment
on
whether
that
would
still
be
possible
with
the
wider
sidewalk,
but
between
that
and
as
long
as
there's
not
a
wall
up
against
the
sidewalk,
which
is
also
a
concern
for
pedestrian
safety.
AN
AN
AN
The
developer
is
claiming
a
reduction
of
two
spaces
due
to
being
within
1320
feet
of
a
city,
bus
stop
and
while
the
northbound
stop
is
clearly
within
that
distance,
as
commissioner
delaney
pointed
out,
the
southbound
stop
is
directly
across
broadway,
with
the
closest
crosswalks,
either
a
thousand
plus
feet
to
the
south
of
linden
street
or
a
similar
distance
north
at
iowa
street.
Making
the
total
walking
distance
from
the
southbound
stop
at
well
over
two
thousand
feet.
Therefore,
at
a
minimum,
this
two-space
reduction
must
be
denied.
AN
This
complex
is
not
proposed
to
be
low-income.
Housing
rather
will
most
likely
command
rents
at
or
above
current
boise
rates,
and
it
is
not
in
proximity
to
much
besides
a
few
restaurants,
automotive
shops
and
coffee
stands
with
the
only
grocery
store
over
a
mile
away
and
bsu
one
and
a
half
miles
away.
AN
AN
The
only
on-street
parking
is
on
the
west
side
of
south
broadway,
which
then
you'll,
which
would
utilize
will
create
quite
a
safety
hazard,
as
folks
will
have
to
jaywalk,
as
they
have
no
other
parking
options
close
by
or
go
down
to.
The
crosswalks,
which
we
know
is
not
practical
and
the
safety
concern,
becomes
exponentially
larger
as
a
different
developer
is
proposing
another
40
unit
development,
just
north
of
the
credit
union,
with
only
45
spots.
AN
If
both
of
these
are
built,
this
will
create
75
new
living
units
with
only
77
non-ada
apartment
places
to
be
built
along
this
five
lane
arterial
with
no
proximate
parking
options.
So
the
question
I
implore
you
to
have
the
developer
adequately
answer
is:
where
will
overflow
vehicles
park?
The
commission
must
require
them
to
have
a
plan
that
is
sufficient
to
eliminate
the
safety
events
that
will
surely
come.
This
development
is
allowed
to
proceed.
AN
The
design
standard
they
are
following
truly
did
not
anticipate
multi-family
housing
along
a
gateway
street.
Rather,
I
believe
it
was
written
for
downtown
locations
within
a
residential
community
as
an
abundance
of
available
street
parking
or
paid
parking
lots.
The
same
standard
cannot
apply
here
along
south
broadway,
and
you
all
have
a
responsibility
to
consider
all
these
factors
before
approving
new
development.
AN
AB
AL
Mr
chair,
member
of
the
commission,
I
just
want
to
address
the
comments
david,
I
think
you
got
to
thank
you.
Staff
saw
is
very
helpful
to
us
and
kind
of
working
through
these
things.
You
know
they
are
complicated.
There's
a
there's
a
lot
to
consider
and
I
think
you
know
they
have
been
very
helpful
as
they
always
are
on
offer
and
guidance,
and
you
know
helping
us
kind
of
find
the
right
solutions
to
john
dietrich's
comment
parking.
You
know
we
do
meet
this
standard.
AL
B
T
G
B
T
So
the
detached
sidewalk,
I'm
looking
at
our
sort
of
aerial
view
and
seeing
a
vacant
lawn
to
the
south
and
then
the
credit
union
and
vacant
lot
to
the
north.
I
think
those
two
lots
are
good
reasons
to
have
a
detached
sidewalk,
because
then
you
get
a
very
large
section
of
broadway
with
detached
sidewalk.
T
So
it
makes
sense
to
kind
of
precess
that,
even
if
it
is
the
exception
and
not
the
rule
now
that
doesn't
mean
that
that's
always
going
to
be
the
case,
so
I
think
it
it
does
make
sense
in
this
particular
location
to
require
that
I
know
that
it
could
affect
the
trees.
Looking
at
some
of
the
images,
those
two
lots
in
particular
don't
have
any
any
trees
that
I
can
see
and
then
the
subject
lot
has
a
couple
trees.
T
But
you
know
comparatively
it's
it's
relatively
minor,
so
I'm
reasonably
comfortable
with
that,
especially
on
top
of
that
we're
demolishing
the
existing
house.
So
it
is
turning
into
a
blank
slate
of
a
lot,
so
there's
no
hardship
in
my
mind,
with
the
exception
of
just
the
the
way
broadway
is
to
to
really
require
to
not
require,
I
guess
the
attachment.
T
M
I
strongly
support
both
the
policy
and
allowing
the
applicant
to
do
what
the
code
says
that
they
can
do
so.
I
I
I'm
delighted
to
see
us
not
enforcing
such
heavy
parking
requirements,
which,
which
is
a
huge
driver
of
the
cost
of
housing
and
is
very
inequitable
and
how
it
affects
different
groups
of
our
society.
So
I'm
really
in
favor
of
both
the
policy
and
the
application
with
respect
to
the
sidewalks,
I
I'm
not
strong
one
way
or
the
other.
M
I
I
agree
with
commissioner
moore's
comments
that
I
don't
think
we'll
end
up
creating
a
stranded,
detached
sidewalk
here.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
redevelopment
and
my
understanding
is
that
we
really
want
detached
sidewalk
sidewalks
on
these
showcase
streets,
because
we
want
people
to
start
walking
up
and
down
the
streets
again
like
they
used
to
and
broadway
is
one
of
those.
So
I
support
commissioner
moore's
motion.
N
V
V
M
I
I
I
Every
single
year,
for
the
last
several
years,
we've
been
teaching
a
class
on
walkability
and
at
the
conclusion
of
that
class,
we
end
with
a
slide.
That's
on
broadway
and
this
class
has
been
taught
all
over
the
country,
and
it
specifically
is
from
two
blocks
to
the
south
of
this
spot,
where
a
man
named
ray
oligar
was
killed
about
8
30
at
night
about
five
or
six
years
ago,
crossing
broadway,
and
when
we
show
that
slide.
I
The
reason
we
do
it
is
because
we
demonstrate
that
there
were
approximately
seven
or
eight
different,
specific
action,
steps
that
could
have
been
taken
to
prevent
his
death.
When
so
often
is
the
case,
we
collectively
throw
our
hands
up
and
just
say
it
was
an
accident.
Nothing
could
have
been
done
tragedy
yet
again
when
in
fact,
absolutely
something
could
have
been
done.
I
Last
year
december
2021
a
document
came
out
from
the
american
association
of
state
and
highway
and
traffic
transportation
officials,
that's
the
governing
body
of
traffic
organization
or
traffic
engineers
guide
for
the
planning,
design
and
operation
of
pedestrian
facilities.
You
know
who
was
on
the
committee
to
create
that
two
members
from
itd
who
signed
their
name
to
it
and
when
they
did
create
that
document
there
were
numerous
recommendations.
I
One
of
those
was
regarding
frequency.
I'll
tell
you
read
it
verbatim,
unlike
motor
vehicles,
pedestrians
cannot
be
expected
to
go
more
than
half
than
half
a
block
out
of
their
way
about
300
feet
in
urban
areas
to
take
advantage
of
controlled
intersections.
Specifically,
then
they
give
two
particular
elements
or
two
pieces.
When
it
comes
to
locating
mid-block
crossings,
they
say
we're
spacing
it
between
adjacent
signalized
intersection
exceeds
600
feet
and
at
a
mid-block
transit
stop
both
of
those
are
applicable
here.
I
The
nearest
two
crossings
marked
signalized,
are
at
iowa
and
linden
one's
850
ones.
A
thousand
feet
away.
Everything
about
this
application
screams
exactly
what
itd
signed
on
the
line
to
support
and
said
nope.
We
need
to
be
doing
it
as
a
different
way,
but
we
don't
have
the
mechanism
in
place
to
do
it
the
different
way.
I
So
I
cannot
in
good
conscience,
to
a
good
conscience
support
an
application
that
is
taking
advantage
of
our
policy
for
transit
access,
which
I
fully
support
without
providing
the
safe
crossing
to
get
those
folks
back
and
forth
if
we're
going
to
take
advantage
and
benefit
from
that
same
policy
that
I
think
that
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
keep
them
safe.
I
think
that's
a
pretty
fundamental
piece,
so
I
I
can't
support
that.
I
I
don't
know
how
to
solve
that,
and
it
frustrates
me
and
it
angers
me,
because
I
don't
think
that
the
applicant
should
be
the
one
to
pay
for
the
entire
pedestrian
hybrid
beacon
that
would
that
would
solve
this
issue.
We
are
going
to
see
additional
developments
along
this
corridor,
I'm
confident
of
that,
and
I
think
it
should
be
a
shared
burden
because
it's
going
to
be
a
shared
facility,
but
we
don't
have
the
mechanism
in
place
last
piece
with
regard
to
the
detached
sidewalks,
a
hundred
percent.
I
We
need
detached
sidewalks
on
here,
especially
if
you're
going
to
maintain
a
wall,
because
again
guidance
says:
if
you
have
a
wall
next
to
a
sidewalk,
the
first
foot
and
a
half
of
that
space
is
no
is
not
usable
because
we
do
not
walk
like
this.
It's
as
simple
as
that.
So
if
we
have
sidewalk
wall
and
a
curb
by
the
way,
the
curb
has
the
exact
same
science
behind
it,
a
foot
and
a
half
by
the
curb.
I
So
basically
seven
feet
becomes
about
four:
that's
what
happens
when
you
put
people
up
against
35
mile,
an
hour
traffic
and
a
wall,
so
you
have
to
detach
this.
That's
the
science
behind
it
and
it's
exactly
why
the
city
is
is
doing
it
and
I
applaud
the
city
for
that's
a
lot
of
things.
I
know,
but
this
is
my
string
man
right,
your
no!
You
know
you
all
know
that
all
right.
B
B
I
B
All
right,
moving
on
original
item
number,
eight
to
pud
22-22
and
cba
22-7
kimberly
horn
project
address
5102
and
5122
west
state
street
conditional
use
permit
for
plan
residential
development,
comprised
of
48
multi-family
units
on
1.2
acres
in
a
c2d
zone
and
we're
going
to
hear
from
staff.
First.
Mr
david
mosher
again.
AK
Thank
you,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission.
As
as
you've
just
noted,
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
plan
residential
development
comprised
of
45
multi-family
units
located
at
5102
and
51
22
west
8th
street,
approximately
1.2
acres
and
c2d
zone,
as
you
can.
As
you
can
see
here,
the
property
is
located
along
the
north
side
of
state
street,
between
market
lane
and
north
street
and
across
from
the
lake
harbor
development.
The
surrounding
uses
include
office,
small-scale
commercial
multi-family,
residential
and
single-family
homes.
AK
It
is
also
located
approximately
half
a
mile
from
the
greenbelt
pathway
along
the
boise
river
to
the
west,
as
you
can
see
from
the
site
plan
here.
The
development
consists
of
one
four-story
multi-family,
building
containing
a
mix
of
studio,
one
and
two
bedroom
units.
The
project
proposes
45
dwelling
units
with
a
density
of
about
37.5
units
per
acre
and
the
c2
zone.
Sport
supports
up
to
43.5,
with
the
exception
of
the
variances,
the
app
the
project
will
comply
with
all
the
setbacks,
height
building
height
and
provides
all
the
required
parking.
There
is
an
exceptional
heart.
AK
There
is
a
hardship
and
an
exceptional
circumstance
associated
with
the
property,
which
is
the
odd
configuration
the
parcel
and
an
irrigation
canal
owned
by
the
boise
valley.
Ditch
company
runs,
runs
along
the
rear
of
the
property
line.
In
summary,
it
complies
with
all
the
required
findings
and
standards,
as
per
the
development
code
for
the
pudm,
the
variants,
which
includes
also
the
12
foot
wide
multi-use
path
that
they're
proposing
along
state
street.
AK
AK
The
second
change
is
to
condition
number
three,
which
will
add
an
additional
encroachment
of
two
feet
into
the
required
five-foot
setback
along
the
east
or
southeast
property
line,
which
is
note
which
is
identified
right
here.
It's
basically,
the
five
foot
required
landscape
buffer
by
code.
It's
essentially
five
feet
up
at
the
road,
but
given
the
since
the
parcel
is
not
exactly
a
square
it
pinches
out
and
drops
below
that
five
feet
standard
as
you
go
north
or
northwest.
AK
I
guess
the
hardship
of
an
exceptional
circumstance
associated
with
this
additional
variance
is
the
same
as
the
other
variances
discussed
within
the
report.
In
the
project
project
report.
Changes
to
these
conditions
of
approval
are
discussed
in
late
in
the
late
correspondence
and
the
wording
of
the
two
conditions
can
be
list
are
listed
here.
AK
Finally,
the
the
adjacent
property
owner
submitted
a
letter
of
opposition
expressing
concerns
regarding
the
location
of
the
of
the
southeast
property
line,
as
shown
on
the
site
plan,
and
they
maintain
that
the
location
of
the
southeast
property
line
on
the
site
plan
is
not
correct.
However,
the
documentation
provided
by
the
applicant
matches
the
most
recent
record
of
survey
on
file
it
accounting
from
2019..
G
U
Brandon
mcdougall
address,
says
1100
west,
idaho,
street
boise,
idaho
83702.
I
think
david
do
I
have
I
do
yep.
I
should
work:
okay,
fantastic
all
right,
just
wanted
to
thank
david
for
that
overview
of
the
project.
I
think
that
was
it
talked
through
a
lot
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
and
I
might
just
reiterate
a
few
of
the
points
as
we
get
through
it,
but
tonight
we
have
a
few
individuals
that
are
here
both
in
person
and
virtually
so
just
a
slide
of
the
application
team.
U
I'm
brandon
mcdougall
nick,
let's
on
virtually,
and
I
think
we
have
the
developer
that
might
be
online
as
well.
The
developer
is
cedar
and
sage
local
developer
here
in
the
treasure
valley.
They've
got
several
projects
that
they're
doing
here
in
the
treasure
valley
and
multiple
projects
throughout
the
pacific,
northwest
all
right.
Here's
just
a
couple
of
projects
that
they've
done
recently
in
the
pacific
northwest
one
in
richland
washington,
another
one
in
cincadia,
washington.
U
U
Just
to
give
you
a
little
snapshot
of
the
timeline
that
we've
had
on
this
project,
so
we
had
a
pre-application
meeting
with
the
city
in
september
of
last
year,
followed
by
a
neighborhood
meeting
in
february
of
this
year.
We
submitted
an
application
that
same
month
and
we're
hearing
the
project
tonight,
as
david
indicated,
just
a
quick
little
recap
of
the
project.
We've
got
an
irregular
shaped
property.
U
I
guess
one
thing
that
I
just
reiterate
that
that
we
have
met
all
the
parking
requirements
by
city
code
as
well.
Just
a
couple
of
snapshots
of
the
elevations.
The
front
elevation
facing
state
street
is
there
on
the
top
and
then
the
back
elevation
that
faces
the
parking
lot,
and
this
is
just
us
a
slide
that
just
summarizes
the
conditions
of
approval.
U
We
are
in
agreement
with
all
the
conditions
of
approval,
as,
as
david
indicated,
the
concern
with
the
adjacent
property
owner
and
and
concerns
about
property
lines.
There
is
the
final
condition
on
on
of
approval
requires
us
to
go
through
a
parcel
consolidation
which
would
require
a
record
of
survey.
I
think
that
that
considering,
that
is
a
condition
of
approval
that
will
certainly
be
vetted
out
through
that
process.
U
B
AK
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
the
variance
quests
there
is
a
variance
request
from
the
building
from
the
side
setback
here
along
market
street,
which
is
actually
a
private
property
that
it's
a
large
parcel
that
has,
I
think,
an
office
or
like
a
daycare
directly
adjacent
to
its
own
c2.
But
it's
also
one
parcel
and
it
contains
the
apartment.
Complex.
AK
AK
AK
The
parking
circulation
along
the
back
property
line
is
definitely
in
the
setback,
probably
out
encroaching
almost
to
like
one
feet
of
the
one
foot
of
the
rear
property
line,
and
then,
as
mentioned
this
five-foot
landscape
buffer
right
about
here.
Although
you
can
see
it,
it
pinches
out
as
you
go
this
direction
and
gets
down
and
gets
down
to
about
a
three-foot
landscape
buffer.
So
there's
a
variance
request
here.
So
three
variance
requests
for
the
parking
around
the
perimeter
of
it
and
then
one
variance
request
for
the
building
to
encroach
into
the
side
setback.
M
Mr
chairman,
so
I'll
leave
it
for
the
commission
to
decide
if,
if,
if
in
fact,
there's
a
hardship
created
by
the
shape
of
this
lot,
I
mean
it's
not
perfectly
square
and
there
is
that
canal
easement
on
the
I
guess,
the
north
northeast
side
and
there
there
is
that
little
flange
of
property
sticking
way
down
there,
but
I'm
not
sure
any
of
those
issues.
Those.
M
AK
Mr
members
of
the
commission,
as
for
the
variants
on
the
on
the
building,
I
think
the,
if
this
directly
adjacent
to
it
to
the
northwest,
is
a
c2
zone
and
is
also,
I
think,
a
office
or
type
of
use.
If
this
was
its
own
parcel,
this
would
be
a
five
actually
be
a
zero
foot
setback,
but
because
it's
all
one
parcel
with
the
adjacent
that
contains
the
apartment
buildings,
we're
being
conservative
and
applying
as
a
residential
use
there.
AK
There
is
flexibility
if
you
wish
to
that.
This
building
could
possibly
jog
this
direction
over.
There's
eight
feet
on
this
side,
so
there
is
flexibility
to
possibly
move
that
building
over
and
have
it
comply
with
the
setbacks.
Although
I'll,
let
the
applicant
determine
whether
or
not
that's
that's
feasible,.
M
G
V
I
got
a
question
for
I
think
staff
might
be
applicant
as
well.
I'm
trying
to
understand
the
transportation
analysis
from
achd
and
their
report
is
from
2019,
which
basically
stated
there
are
no
state
street
improvements,
and
yet
this
application
has
state
street
improvements,
including
a
multi-use
path.
So
how
are
we
supposed
to
think
about
that
piece
of
the
puzzle
and
the
62
feet
from
center
line
right
away?
Is
that
all
factored
into
this?
V
AK
Chair
members
of
commission
the
highway
district,
I
did
actually
reach
out
to
the
planner
at
achd
who
worked
on
this.
They
essentially
used
the
same
project
report
that
they
issued
for
the
previous
planning
application,
multi-family
application
that
was
submitted
back
in
2018
and
just
submitted
a
cover
letter
saying
it
all
applies.
AK
But
you
are
correct.
The
project
report
that
they
submit
is
an
old
one
and
they
just
choose
to
resubmit
it
for
this
project,
assuming
that
the
two
applications
are
similar
enough,
although
I
think
the
dedication
will
be
the
same,
I
figured
they
would
have
got
that
correct
and
I
believe
the
applicant
did
work
that
into
their
into
their
project.
AK
V
B
V
Y
S
T
R
T
U
G
B
Q
Q
Q
AF
B
M
Mr
chairman,
crystal
d,
does
the
city
have
what
it
needs?
Okay,
so,
first
of
all,
more
density
on
state
street,
I'm
for
it.
Like
I
mean
I
like
the
project,
it
does
a
lot
of
things
that
the
chris's
want
to
do.
It's
you
know
on
on
state
street
barking's
in
the
back.
It's
got
nice,
shrubs
and
stuff,
no
meandering
path
that
I'm
sure
we
need
more
signal
beacons
on
sink
street
and
we
can't
figure
out
how
to
do
that.
But
that's
for
another
day.
M
M
Nibble
nibble
nibble
two
or
three
feet
here,
like
it
says
10
feet
in
the
coat
fit
the
damn
thing
into
10
feet,
but
nevertheless
I
do
agree
that
the
you
know
this
is
a
site
with
no
right
angles,
and
people
like
to
build
parking,
lots
and
buildings
with
right
angles,
and
so,
when
that's
the
case,
we
get
these
little
pinches,
and
so
in
this
particular
case
I
I
agree
with
the
statement
of
hardship,
wish
we'd
work
a
little
bit
harder,
sometimes
to
fix
those.
But
I
understand
that
so
that's
why
I
made
the
motion.
O
Y
O
Driving
by
this
for
years,
it's
nice
to
actually
see
something
happen
with
it.
I
also
had
the
same
concerns
with
the
variances.
It
felt
a
little
self-created
in
some
instances,
but
I
do
think
we
can
make
the
findings
based
on
all
the
reasons
that
commissioner
glattsby
just
outlined.
I
think
the
boundary
issue
will
be
resolved
through
the
conditions
of
approval
and
again
this
is
a
new
urban
renewal
district.
It's
a
transit
oriented
development.
R
B
Any
other
comments
all
right,
very
good.
We
got
a
motion
from
commissioner
gillespie
in
a
second
from
commissioner
squires
to
approve
pud
2222
and
cva
22-7,
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report,
with
the
recommended
amendments
to
conditions
number
two
ignition
number
three:
that
staff
detailed
at
the
beginning
of
the
presentation.
B
B
O
B
G
P
The
subject
site
is
boarded
by
parcels
within
the
city
of
boise
limits
on
three
sides,
meaning
that
services
are
already
available
in
the
area
and
the
annexation
will
have
a
minimal
financial
impact.
The
proposed
c2d
zone
designation
is
consistent
with
the
planned
community
land
use
designation
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
Blueprint
boise
encourages
clustering,
new
commercial
uses
within
the
southwest
planning
area
in
specific
locations,
including
areas
within
the
reserve
planned
community.
P
The
da
also
requires
the
site
to
take
access
from
a
shared
access
point
located
on
the
adjacent
parcel
to
the
south
in
order
to
consolidate
access
to
the
adjacent
arterial
roadway
and
reduce
the
number
of
potential
collision
points.
Written
comments
were
received
from
two
neighbors
of
the
property
who
expressed
opposition
to
the
proposed
annexation.
P
Their
concerns
are
summarized
on
this
slide
and
the
majority
of
these
concerns
are
directly
related
to
the
self-storage
use
that
is
proposed
by
the
applicant.
However,
self
storage
is
a
conditional
use
within
the
c2
zone.
The
compatibility
of
the
proposed
use
and
the
feasibility
of
mitigating
any
possible
negative
impacts
would
be
evaluated
at
the
time
of
a
future
conditional
use.
Permit
operation.
AO
AO
Sabrina
had
mentioned,
we
have
a
recreational
storage
facility,
primarily
outdoor
kind
of
large
format.
Self-Storage
location
is
mostly
surrounded
by
residential
developments.
We
do
have
a
canal
to
the
east
of
us
and
a
single-family
residence
also
owned
by
the
same
property
owner
of
this
property
to
the
south
of
us.
AO
Some
of
the
considerations
that
we
had
from
our
neighborhood
meeting
and
comments
that
we
received
in
letter
format
was
concerned
for
other
storage
facilities
in
this
area.
We're
geared
for
recreational
large
format,
storage
versus
the
smaller
self
storage
that's
mentioned.
There
are
concerns
about
light
pollution
which
will
meet
city
code
as
well
as
dark
sky
compliance
and
as
far
as
traffic,
there
were
some
concerns
and
from
achds
impact.
AO
There
were
some
comments
and
concerns
about
protecting
the
canal,
which
you
see.
That
has
to
be
a
valid
concern.
So
we
would
want
to
make
sure
that
all
of
our
storm
water
retention
is
on
site
and
engineered
and
designed
by
a
civil
engineer,
there's
potential
properties
for
other
concerns
for
just
being
adjacent
for
residents
to
commercial
and
our
case
in
point
we're
working
on
hazelwood
marketplace,
which
is
to
the
west
of
this
and
most
of
the
neighbors
around.
There
are
ecstatic
if
anything,
they
want
more
amenities
on
this
side
of
boise.
AO
The
existing
access
for
single
family
residents
is
down
here
and
in
talking
with
achd,
they
felt
comfortable
with
the
proposed
location
based
on
the
use,
the
uses
of
residential
storage,
it's
low
density
use
and
the
location
works.
Well,
for
that,
because
you're
in
the
deceleration
lane
for
that
as
the
property
to
the
south
gets
redeveloped,
they
intend
to
extend
an
access
point
that
would
be
in
line
with
the
subdivision
to
the
west,
which
would
meet
the
intent
of
achd.
AO
So
the
one
condition
or
consideration
that
I'd
like
to
present
to
the
commission
would
be
in
that
development
agreement.
If
you
would
consider
rewording
or
mending
item
number
four
which
speaks
to
the
requirement
of
utilizing
the
existing
access,
and
we
would
just
rather
encumber
the
property
to
the
south,
which
is
owned
by
the
same
development
for
a
safer
development
in
the
future.
Any
future
access
or
intensity
of
traffic
that
we
put
on
this
for
the
future
could
be
a
safety
concern
which
we
wouldn't
want
that
to
be
the
intent.
G
B
B
T
AO
Good
good
question
so
currently
and
sabrina
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong,
the
proposed
access
for
the
development
agreement
would
be
on
an
entirely
different
property
that
happens
to
be
happens,
to
be
owned
by
the
same
property
owner.
So
we're
already
encumbering
an
adjacent
property
for
access
to
a
separate,
separate
property.
AO
All
we're
saying
is
is
in
talking
to
achd
who
looks
at
this
very
critically
from
both
a
safety
standpoint
and
also
an
access
standpoint,
and
usually
we're
negotiating
this
discussion
with
them.
I
was
very
surprised
to
get
this
feedback
from
the
city
of
boise,
so
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
what
comets
were
getting
back
from
the
highway
district,
which
is
instead
of
intensifying
this
access,
which
doesn't
align
with
the
current
access.
AO
AO
M
M
AO
H
D
P
Another
concern
we
have
with
maintaining
a
separate
access
point
for
that.
Northern
lot
is
that,
as
written,
the
development
agreement
doesn't
tie
that
lot
to
the
self
storage
use.
There
are
a
number
of
other
uses
in
the
c2
zone
that
could
potentially
go
in
there.
That
would
generate
more
traffic
and
so
having
that
that
close
to
the
intersection
wouldn't
be
ideal.
B
AB
M
M
AO
M
AO
It
does,
and
I
I
think,
sabrina's
comment
about
other
uses
and
protecting
that
is
valid.
I
guess
the
consideration
is:
is
we're
we're
obligating
access
from
a
separate
parcel
to
this
parcel,
so
the
concern
you
just
express
is
being
imposed
on
this
current
parcel
because
he
happens
to
own
both
of
them
right.
B
B
AO
V
Mr
mooney,
sorry,
I've
got
too
many.
This
is
a
pathways
question,
so
for
first
for
the
city,
the
plan
in
the
boise
pathways
plan
is
to
obviously
turn
many
of
these
canals
into
highways
for
alternative
multimodal
active
transport.
But
the
new
york
canal
doesn't
have
anything
in
this
area.
It
ends
just
to
the
north
and
just
to
the
south.
So
the
question
I
have
is
in
spo3
is
the
intent.
If
they're
going
to
put
a
canal
pathway
in,
is
it
going
to
be
on
the
east
bank
or
the
west
bank
of
the
new
york
canal.
V
S
T
T
G
P
P
Yeah,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
moore
those
uses
are
separate.
The
off-site
accessory
parking
lot
is
typically
associated
with
a
commercial
use.
That
then,
has
a
separate
parking
lot
on
a
different
parcel,
and
that
is
a
useless
outlet
outright
allowed
in
the
c2
zone.
The
self
storage
use
is
a
bit
different,
it's
the
conditional
use,
so
we
do
have
the
opportunity
to
go
in
and
add
any
conditions
for
mitigation
of
any
negative
impacts
that
we
foresee.
S
G
B
Q
AP
Is
craig
mccloud,
6840,
south
cole
road,
I'm
also
the
owner
of
6780,
south
col
road,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
local
residents,
they
sent
me
the
emails
regarding
their
their
testimony
to
the
self
storage
facility.
First,
one
is
from
david
johannick
and
he
lives
at
4104,
south
turlane,
and
it's
in
boise
83706..
AP
I
wholeheartedly
support
the
construction
of
storage
units
at
coal.
Make
hazel.
I
live
in
boise
and
know
firsthand
the
difficulty
in
finding
affordable
and
secure
units
to
rent
is
becoming
more
and
more
difficult
with
the
growth
in
the
valley.
I
urge
you
to
prove
and
begin
destruction
immediately.
If
you
have
questions
or
concerns,
please
contact
me.
AP
AP
The
intersection
is
high
in
traffic
area
and
with
the
new
neighborhoods
currently
being
built,
there's
very
little,
there's
very
likely
need
of
storage
units.
Those
of
us
that
live
on
this
side
of
town
appreciate
a
close
proximity
to
access
to
lucky
peak
and
recognition
activities
having
additional
storage
for
our
hobbies
and
recreational
vehicles
is
greatly
needed,
specifically
in
neighborhoods
that
are
built
with
extra
space
for
those
toys.
A
storage
facility
nearby
would
be
an
extra
bonus.
AP
Next,
one
is
from
julian
clark:
27
17,
north
naple
grove,
road,
boise,
idaho,
83704
hello.
My
name
is
julian
clark.
I've
lived
in
boise
for
over
20
years,
and
the
only
power
support
and
mental
business
aj's
adventure
and
rv.
We
have
been
in
high
demand
of
the
storage
facility
in
the
valley
for
our
personal
rental
equipment.
AP
Our
family
also
owns
snow
cone,
shacks
business
business
iced,
in
which
we
in
need
of
a
store
facility
that
can
store
our
items
over
the
winter.
After
knowing
mr
mccloud
for
over
for
13
years,
he
has
discussed
his
storage
plans
with
us.
We
highly
support
mr
mccloud's
plans,
as
it
will
greatly
help
improve
such
needed
storage
for
our
business
and
personal
use.
We
have
desperately
searched
for
a
storage
facility
in
the
valley
that
could
support
our
needs.
Mr
mccloud
would
be
the
first
person
we
would
go
to
for
such
needs.
AP
B
B
AO
V
N
V
V
AB
M
A
D
A
D
M
M
M
G
I
So
here's
where
I
land
on
this
as
an
annexation
in
particular
an
annexation,
is
something
that
we,
you
know.
We
take
everything
very
seriously,
but
in
this
case
lupa
tells
us
highest
and
best
use
urban
development
and
within
our
city
parameters
right.
Our
comp
plan
suggests
that
we
should
be
developing
in
a
way
that
again
maximizes
and
optimizes
the
limited
land
that
we
have
achd
just
improved
this
intersection
to
the
tune
of
multiple
million
dollars
at
multiples
of
millions
of
dollars
and,
in
my
opinion,
as
a
planner.
D
I
Look
at
this
and
say
basically
we're
we're
looking
at
annexing
and
zoning
this
in
a
way
that
allows
a
parking
lot.
That's
what
it
is!
It's
a
storage
area
that
is
a
parking
lot,
seasonally,
even
so
much
so,
and
while
I
recognize
that
maybe
there's
some
folks
out,
there
might
might
feel
that
as
a
need.
I
don't
think
that
that
that
our
obligation
as
a
pnz
for
for
the
city
and
recommending
the
city
council
is
one
that
we
should
be
suggesting
that
this
be
approved
and
be
pulled
into
the
city
as
part
of
our
property.
I
B
M
M
I
don't
think
this
is
the
you
know
right
place
to
stand
on
a
very
some.
You
know
abstract
principles
of
land
use
that
you
know
the
city
wants
to
bring
it
in
is
c2.
The
guy
wants
to
build
storage
units
there
and
they're
there
for
five
ten
years,
and
then
the
economic
pressures
encourage
him
to
redevelop
it
as
multi-family
housing
or
whatever,
then
so
be
it
then
you
know
putting
storage
sheds
up.
There
isn't
the
end
of
the
world,
they
might
be
there
five
years,
they
might
be
there
ten
years.
M
B
C
B
F
D
C
I
C
H
B
Y
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
before
he
was
an
appeal
of
the
planning
director's
approval
of
an
administrative
level,
application
for
the
removal
of
an
existing
detached
single
car
garage
and
the
construction
of
a
new
accessory
dwelling
unit.
In
its
place,
the
project
site
is
0.172
acres
located
at
411
north
hill
view
drive
in
r1c.
Y
Y
Y
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
Now,
with
the
boise
city
code,
there
is
a
minimum
lot
size
for
each
dwelling.
The
lot
size
in
the
neighborhood
there
east
of
north
carston
drive
and
in
the
warm
springs
park.
Neighborhood
are
not
large
enough
to
allow
for
a
subdivision
of
that
lot
into
two
separate
lots,
even
though,
under
the
proposal
they're
proposing
a
separate
dwelling
not
connected
to
the
existing
one,
separate
water,
separate,
sewer,
separate
electrical
again.
That
makes
the
difference
between
one
and
two
we're
talking
about
changing
the
existing
structure
of
the
the
neighborhood.
AQ
You
start
destructing
or
tearing
down
properties
in
a
residential
neighborhood.
It
disrupts
the
stability
of
the
neighborhood,
also
with
the
movement
that
we
see
nationwide
with
these
accessory
dwellings,
one
of
the
most
common
things
that
are
advertised
by
the
developers
of
these,
not
only
in
boise
but
elsewhere,
is
their
potential
use
for
commercial,
short-term
rental
properties
that
can
provide
a
lot
higher
income
return
on
the
property
than
a
single-family
residential
rental
might
be,
and
commercial
use
in
a
single-family
residential
neighborhood
is
not
compatible.
AQ
The
neighborhood
was
we
were
given
10
days
to
appeal
it,
but
the
notification
of
the
opportunity
to
appeal
was
only
sent
to
those
of
us
that
lived
within
300
feet
of
the
property.
So,
within
a
very
limited
10
days,
we
had
to
make
contact
with
the
other
neighbors
research.
The
type
of
project
that
was
being
proposed
develop
our
position
on
whether
we
opposed
it
or
not
and
submit
the
appeal.
AQ
I
also
need
to
know
that
there
are
need
to
remember
that
the
boise
city
is
in
the
current
process
of
re,
looking
and
rewriting
the
city
zoning
codes
and
one
of
the
issues
that
is
included
in
that
is
the
continuation
of
the
process
of
changing
by
administrative
wording,
single
family
to
multiple
family.
By
using
a
fancy
term
accessory
dwelling
rather
than
multiple
family,
in
which
it
really
is.
AQ
I
don't
think
we
should
be
approving
any
accessory
dwellings
in
the
stable,
single-family
residential
neighborhoods
until
the
adequate
public
review
and
process
and
comment
and
consideration
is
given
throughout
the
community
and
this
boise
code
rewrite
is
completed
now.
We
all
know
that
the
original
intent
of
planning
and
zoning
was
to
get
the
community
involved
in
helping
stabilize
residential
neighborhoods.
AQ
So
what
I'm
asking
you
folks
to
do
tonight
is
to
fulfill
your
obligation
to
help
stabilize
neighborhoods,
not
disrupt
the
neighborhoods,
approve
my
appeal
and
deny
the
the
project
that's
being
proposed
to
introduce
multiple
family
housing
into
a
single
family.
Neighborhood
want
that.
Thank
you.
Tim
thank.
AR
AR
Preston
redder
with
the
law,
firm
clark,
bortle
address,
251
east
front
street,
suite
310
in
boise,
idaho
great.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
This
appeal.
It
must
be
denied
because
it
attacks
a
non-discretionary
ministerial
act
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is,
if
we
check
the
criteria
which
our
code
is
expressly
provided,
there's
no
discretion.
AR
You
had
the
discretion
tonight
to
whether
extend
this
meeting
to
allow
us
to
be
here.
However,
when
this
application
came
through,
all
the
check
boxes
were
marked,
and
there
was
no
discretion
in
that
and
rightfully
so.
On
march
22nd,
the
planning
director
through
his
designee,
approved
this
boise
city
code,
provides
ten
criteria.
AR
AR
It
has
been
met
through
the
first
application
on
march
22nd
and
it
should
be
upheld
tonight.
The
appeal
must
be
denied.
The
criteria
is
city
code.
It's
not
policy.
This
forum
is
an
appeal.
The
the
objections
that
have
been
raised
would
be
better
suited
for
a
forum
when
the
zoning
code
is
on
the
table.
That
would
be
a
wonderful
place
to
discuss
the
policy
ideas,
but
not
here
not
tonight,
only
city
code
controls.
AR
Even
if
policy
applied
our
policy
prevails.
We
have
a
quality
housing
option,
that's
being
provided
in
our
community
and
poisy
needs
quality
housing.
The
app
the
applicants
have
been
wonderful
through
this
process.
They
have
extended
an
olive
branch
to
the
concerned
neighbors,
including
the
appellate
mr
hutchinson.
They
invited
him
to
their
home.
They
visited
with
him
and
tried
to
hear
out
all
the
concerns
like
we
are
tonight,
but
we're
not
here
to
appeal
to
policy
concerns.
AR
We
are
here
to
follow
code
and,
if
I
may
address
some
of
the
other
matters
that
were
raised
by
appellant,
he
takes
issue
with
the
removal
of
the
garage.
The
appeal
is
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
the
construction
of
it,
not
the
removal
of
a
garage
which
they
could
have
done
without
coming
before
this
body,
the
single
the
term
single,
that's
used
in
single-family
residence.
AR
Our
code
allows
for
successfully
drilling
units
within
that
single
family
residence
zone
r
1c.
There
is
no
minimum
lot
size
to
accessory
dwelling
units,
that's
a
moot
issue
that
was
raised,
and
these
are
not
temporary
dwelling
units.
As
noted
in
your
packet,
the
applicants
are
going
to
sign
upon
approval,
or
you
know,
upholding
this
decision,
a
deed
restriction
that
at
least
one
of
the
residents
has
to
be
occupied
by
a
owner.
What's
interesting
is
before
this
application
the
owner
doesn't
have
to
live
there.
AR
They
could
live
in
massachusetts
and
rent
this
house
out,
but
because
of
this
application
they
are
willingly
signing
an
app
a
deed
restriction
requiring
the
owner
to
be
there.
So
we're
keeping
people
in
our
community
by
virtue
of
passing
this
and
there's
no
heavy
burden
on
the
neighborhood
to
enforce
these
deed
restrictions.
AR
AR
There
is
already
built
into
our
code
protections
for
commercial
uses,
so
that
concern
is
moot
and
the
notice
of
due
process
and
procedure
has
been
followed
in
full
100
and
there
can
be
no
violation
of
that
due
process.
We
followed
it
and,
lastly,
the
code
that
was
on
the
books
when
the
application
came
in.
That
is
the
applicable
code.
We
cannot
reach
into
the
future
for
speculation
on
what
is
proposed
code
discussion
about
it.
We
just
cannot
this.
This
body
is
barred
from
that.
AR
They
have
invested
right
the
applicants
as
of
the
time
the
application
came
through
and
the
code
at
that
time,
they
check
every
box
and
they're
going
to
double
check
it
again
tonight
and
it
should
be
approved
and
the
appeal
must
be
denied.
For
that
reason,
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
B
B
D
D
B
AR
There's
always
one
or
two
things
to
save
this
appeal
really
is
just
dragging
this
out
is
utilizing
the
appeal
process
to
drag
out
and
of
right
approval,
and
this
is
not
a
discretionary
decision,
and
this
is
delaying
the
applicants
from
pulling
the
building
permit.
They
are
ready
to
turn
dirt
and
get
this
built.
AQ
All
right,
yes,
the
main
point
I
want
to
make
is:
it
does
put
a
burden
on
the
community
and
the
neighbors
to
enforce
deed
restrictions.
There's
no
structure
within
the
city,
boise
code,
the
city,
poised,
the
legal
department
or
code
enforcement
to
check
on
the
restrictions.
That's
a
civil
matter
between
the
people
that
own
the
property
that
have
the
deed
restriction
and
the
joining
neighbors
or
people
in
the
community
that
are
willing
to
keep
track
of
that
and
enforce
it.
AQ
It's
not
too
hard
to
comply
with
that
these
days,
but
it
shows
how
deed
restrictions
with
age
become
non-enforceable
other
than
the
burden
on
the
neighborhood
to
keep
it
up.
So
I
would
again
appeal
to
you
to
approve
the
appeal
and
to
deny
the
construction
of
accessory
dwelling
and
to
not
reward
people
that
proceeded
with
a
project
that
was
under
appeal
before
the
appeal
process
was
played
out
and
you
were
able
to
hear
the
full
nature
of
the
project
without
commitments
that
it's
already
underway.
So
thank
you
for
your
time
tonight.
Yeah.
F
O
B
F
On
the
discussion
discussion
absolutely
well
thanks,
everybody
for
staying
so
late
for
this,
but
so
just
to
address
a
couple
things.
Mr
hutchinson,
we
we
had
these
discussions
on
adus
in
2018
and
2019
from
a
policy
perspective,
and
that
was
when
we
amended
the
code
to
allow
adus
in
r1
zones
so
that
that
that
ship
sailed
a
long
time
ago.
So
to
the
second
point,
then
we
we
have
absolutely
zero
legal
ground
to
grant
this
appeal,
none
because
it's
in
code,
as
the
attorney
described
it.
F
F
We
literally
have
no
way
to
do
that,
so
we
can
only
judge
this
appeal
on
the
current
code
and
not
what
not
what
might
happen
with
the
future
zoning
code.
But
that's.
I
will
just
tell
you
that's
another
if
you're
interested
in
that
issue,
that's
another
ship
that
is
sailed.
Single-Family,
r1
zoning
is
going
away
across
the
country.
It
will
not
exist
in.
It
won't
exist
in
five
years
in
the
city
of
boise.
It
won't
exist
by
the
time
this
this
code
is
done,
so
I
will.
N
O
I'll
decide
what
commissioner
blanchard
said:
they
meet
all
the
requirements
of
this.
We
have
absolutely
no
ability
to
grant
your
appeal
absolutely
none,
and
as
far
as
them
removing
their
garage,
it's
private
property.
They
can
go,
do
whatever
they
want
on
their
own
property
as
long
as
they
get
the
appropriate
permits,
if,
if
deemed
necessary,
again
residential
is
compatible
with
residential.