►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right
good
evening,
everyone
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
unmuted.
A
There
is
a
chat
function
in
Zoom,
although
this
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
Our
procedures
for
public
hearing
begin
with
a
presentation
from
the
planning
team,
then
we'll
go
to
the
applicant
and
then
the
representative
of
the
registered
neighborhood
association,
followed
by
questions
from
the
commission.
A
After
that,
we
proceed
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
are
in
person,
then
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
9.
To
raise
your
hand,
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony
and
we
are
strict
with
this
time
as
it
is
limited
in
code.
A
B
Thank
you
Crystal
good
evening
we
are
citizen
volunteers
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
the
city
council.
We
make
final
decisions
on
conditional
use,
permits,
variances
and
appeals
and
recommendations
to
the
city
council
on
subdivisions,
rezones,
annexations
and
code
or
comprehensive
plan
amendments.
B
Any
decision
made
tonight
may
be
appealed
to
the
city
council,
provided
that
the
appeal
is
filed
within
10
days
of
this
hearing.
In
order
to
file
an
appeal
you
must
have
given
written
or
oral
testimony
at
tonight's
meeting.
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
to
detailed
a
few
minutes
ago,
with
staff
applicant
neighborhood
association
presentations
and
then
the
public.
Testimony
thanks
for
attending
tonight
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
roll.
B
Thank
you
just
a
quick
note
before
we
get
started
tonight
we're
having
a
little
technical
difficulty
with
our
minutes
tracking
system,
so
we've
got
a
little
bit
different
process
going
tonight
with
our
clocks
and
we're
also
taking
notes
by
hand
so
just
bear
with
us
as
we
get
through
motions
and
whatnot
tonight,
it
might
be
a
little
slower
than
normal.
B
Okay,
we've
got
a
fairly
long
agenda.
Tonight.
We've
got
a
number
of
items
eligible
for
consent,
so
we'll
start
there.
B
B
Item
a
on
our
agenda
tonight
is
PUD
19-17.
The
applicant
is
Ethan
hillmer.
This
is
just
a
simple
time
extension.
The
project
address
is
13809,
West,
Audra
Lane.
So
again
here
this
is
just
a
Time
extension
for
this
cup
application.
Without
objection,
I'll
place
that
item
on
the
consent
agenda
as
well.
B
We're
going
to
skip
ahead
to
item
number
two.
This
is
PUD
23-22,
Kent,
Brown
planning
services.
The
address
is
8025
West
Limelight
drive.
This
is
a
modification
to
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
to
change
Street
side
yard
setbacks
in
a
155
unit
planned
residential
development.
B
B
B
B
This
is
a
preliminary
and
final
plot
for
a
residential
subdivision,
comprised
of
39
townhomes
and
one
common
lot
on
2.48
acres
in
an
sp01
Zone
and
is
the
applicant
present
great
and
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
in
the
staff
report?
Okay,
let
the
records
show
applicants
present
and
integrated
with
the
staff
report,
and
is
there
anyone
in
attendance
hoping
to
testify
in
opposition
to
this
item.
B
I'm,
a
Mr
Alexander
signed
up
for
this
item:
okay,
okay,
so
you're
good
with
the
staff
report;
okay,
perfect.
Okay,
so
it
looks
like
we
can
place
item
four
on
the
consent
agenda.
B
John
Michael
Schertz
project
address
812
West
Brumback
Street.
A
conditional
use
permit
for
a
parking
reduction
for
a
single
family.
Residence
on
.07
acres
in
R1
CH
zone
is
the
applicant
present.
H
Yes,
this
is
architect
Eamon
Park
from
Park
architecture
owners,
representatives
for
the
projects.
H
G
B
I
Hagan
good
afternoon,
Mr
Schaefer,
yes,
the
North
End
neighborhood
association
with
like
two
would
like
to
have
a
say
on
this
one:
okay,.
B
B
J
Mr
chairman
commissioner
Danley
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda
with
the
following
items:
meeting
minutes
from
the
work
session
of
August
7th,
the
commission
meeting
minutes
from
August
7th
work
session,
meeting,
minutes
from
August
14th
and
the
commission
meeting
minutes
from
August
14th
as
well
as
item
number
A
A
Time
extension,
PUD
19-17
item
number
two
PUD
23-22,
which
is
a
modified
modification
for
a
conditional
use
permit
at
8025,
West
Limelight
Drive
item
number
three
cup
23-42
located
at
11186,
West
Gabrielle
drive
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
large
daycare
item
number
four
sup
SUV
23-18
did
you
pronounce
it
Townhomes
located
at
3698,
East,
Warm,
Springs,
Avenue
preliminary
and
final
plat
and
item
number
seven
PUD
23-20
located
at
215
North
26th
Street
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development.
K
J
B
L
M
L
B
B
This
is
an
appeal
of
a
design
review
approval
for
tree
removals
on
property
on
point,
E3,
8,
sorry,
0.83,
acres
in
a
c2d
Zone,
we're
gonna,
hear
it
from
Staff.
First
Caitlin
manage
from
Dr.
G
G
The
subject
property
is
an
auto
dealership
at
2304
West
Main
Street.
Those
three
Green
Dots
represent
three
public
trees
that
were
removed
from
the
right
of
way
along
23rd
Street
on
May
2nd.
The
applicant
submitted
an
administrative
application
requesting
retroactive
Dr
approval
for
removal
of
the
public
trees,
the
approval
included
conditions
for
tree
mitigation
and
was
appealed
by
Fairly,
reliable
bobs.
The
design,
Review
Committee
denied
the
appeal,
and
now
an
appeal
of
the
design
of
your
committee's
decision
is
before
you.
G
The
appellant
disputes
the
value
and
condition
of
the
trees
that
were
removed
and
believes
the
conditioned
mitigation
payment
amount
should
be
reduced,
but
the
appellant
has
not
provided
proof
showing
the
trees
were
in
poor
condition,
photos
and
past
tree
inventory.
Information
do
not
indicate
poetry
Health
according
to
the
city
Forester,
who
is
the
one
authorized
by
a
city
code
to
determine
the
condition
of
public
trees
and
set
the
mitigation
payment
amount?
G
Therefore,
the
planning
team
recommends
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
uphold
the
decision
of
the
design,
Review
Committee
and
deny
the
appeal
and
I
would
like
to
turn
the
floor
over
to
the
city.
Forester
Mike
Andrews,
who
wanted
to
provide
you
with
some
additional
information
and
clarifications.
N
Hello
Commissioners,
thanks
for
having
me
appreciate
it.
I
just
wanted
to
provide
some
extra
information
because
I
was
not
present
at
the
original
design
review
hearing,
but
I
did
get
to
read
the
transcript
and
there
were
a
few
things
that
I
had
read
in
the
transcript
that
I
just
wanted
to
comment
on.
N
So
one
of
the
first
things
I
read
when
it
comes
to
trees
versus
infrastructure,
particularly
sidewalks,
and
curbing
we
work
with
achd
on
this
a
lot
and
in
particular
we
work
with
an
individual
named
Ryan
Fisher.
He
is
the
sidewalk
safety
coordinator
and
I,
read
in
the
design
review
transcript
that
Randall
Peterson
said
that
Ryan
Fisher
agreed
that
the
trees
had
to
be
removed.
That
is
not
true.
N
I
did
get
in
touch
with
Ryan,
Fisher
and
I
have
the
emails
that
were
sent
to
Randall
Peterson
regarding
this
tree
issue
and
sidewalk,
and
so
I
wanted
to
clarify
that
achd
did
not
approve
the
removals
of
these
trees
and
in
fact
these
sidewalk
safety
coordinator
was
not
in
agreement.
N
N
So,
even
though
there
are
a
lot
of
numbers
in
there
for
spacing
requirements
for
trees,
how
many
trees,
what
types
of
trees
it
is
all
recommendations,
as
pointed
out
by
Caitlyn
their
the
health
and
condition
of
these
trees,
we
did
not
know
what
they
were
prior
to
them
being
removed.
We
can
only
go
by
what
we
have
in
our
tree
inventory,
which
had
them
as
good
condition
and
then
I
have
I.
I
know
that
there
was
some
talk
within
the
review
committee
meeting
about
bugs
or
dead
branches.
N
I
was
not
aware
of
any
of
that
and
I,
don't
think
I've
seen
any
evidence
that
there
was
a
either
an
insect
or
disease
issue
with
these
trees
and
then
the
last
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
was
about
the
appraisal
process,
so
we
determined
or
I
determined
that
they
were
worth
about
three
hundred
dollars
per
inch
loss.
N
It's
functional
limitations,
some
external
limitations,
there's
things
that
go
into
consideration,
as
well
as
the
benefits
that
trees
provide.
So
the
city
does
acknowledge
that
trees
do
provide
benefits
such
as
shade
they
sequester
carbon.
They
reduce
storm
water
and
they
reduce
noise,
reduce
air
pollution.
It's
actually
quite
a
long
list
that
the
city
does
acknowledge
that
provides
benefits,
and
there
are
ways
to
actually
calculate
the
benefits
for
these.
N
You
know
for
what
the
tree
provides.
So
the
the
first
way
we
do.
It
is
tree
appraisals,
the
second
one
herb
individual
tree
appraisals.
The
second
way
is,
we
have
just
assigned
a
a
per
inch
loss
cost
when
we
find
that
a
healthy
tree
is
removed
and
we've
gone
with
300
per
inch,
and
that
is
based
also
on
the
price
of
a
tree
that
you
would
buy
at
a
local
Nursery,
as
well
as
take
into
consideration
the
size
of
the
trees
and
the
health
of
the
tree.
N
You
know
as
long
as
it's
been
there,
so
this
one
was
we
we
determined
that
it
was
probably
between
9
and
11
inches
diameter
and
so
trying
to
stick
with
the
middle.
Let
me
see
your
nine.
N
No.
We
determined
that
it
was
between
10
and
12
inch,
dbh,
that's
what
we
assumed
that
the
trees
were
when
they
were
removed.
So
we
went
with
the
middle
one.
We
said
they
were
11
inch,
dbh,
fair,
at
least
Fair
conditions,
so
at
300
per
caliber
inch
loss,
that's
where
we
got
the
nine
thousand
nine
hundred
dollars
for
mitigation
and
I
I
do
think
that
is
on
the
generous
side.
To
be
honest,
so
that's
all
I
wanted
to
clarify.
N
Really
I
just
I
know
that
there
wasn't
a
decision
made
for
the
during
the
design
review
meeting,
because
I
think
there
were
a
lot
of
those
particular
questions
regarding
how
we
appraise
trees
and
why
we
were
going
this
route
so
and
I
also
wanted
to
be
here
just
in
case.
There
were
any
other
questions
that
I
could
help
clarify
throughout
the
meeting.
B
O
Randall
Peterson
231,
East,
Edmonds,
Drive,
Meridian
83642,
just
I
appreciate
the
comments
of
the
gentleman
from
the
city.
O
Unfortunately,
we've
got
a
little
bit
of
a
finger,
pointing
thing
going
because
I'm
I'm,
looking
at
the
email
from
Ryan
Fisher
the
safety
coordinator
from
achd,
who
I
met
with
on
site,
and
he
determined
that
the
trees
that
damaged
the
sidewalk
to
a
degree
that
he's
already
put
on
schedule,
a
temporary
fix
and
then
a
replacement
of
the
sidewalk.
Now
his
quote
to
me
was
that
the
mistake
I
made
is
not
calling
him
first,
which
I
was
unaware
of
that
move.
We've
we're
a
family
business.
O
We've
been
on
this
corner
for
almost
49
years.
I
bought
the
property
less
than
five
years
ago,
from
my
father,
we
planted
those
trees,
we've
watered
them,
we've
fertilized
them,
we
trimmed
them.
The
roots
have
been
coming
up
above
the
ground
for
quite
some
time
and
the
facility
we're
trying
to
improve
the
looks
of
the
facility.
It
was
not
my
intention
to
not
have
more
trees.
There
I've
been
in
full
agreement
with
whatever
trees
they
suggest
it
didn't
seem
to
line
up
with
their
recommendations.
O
That's
why
he
brought
up
those
points
from
the
the
dialogue
from
our
last
meeting,
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
the
the
one
mistake
I
made
was
the
phone
call,
and
so
he
said,
9
000
I
was
told
it
was
ten
thousand
eight
hundred
we're
talking
about
a
large
sum
of
money
for
a
small
business
and
I
have
admitted
that
I
made
the
mistake
by
moving
ahead,
trying
to
improve
the
quality
of
our
property,
but
the
trees
were
they
were
sick
I.
O
Would
we
didn't
try
to
do
this
10
years
ago
15
years
ago,
but
and
I
don't
know
if
it
was
bugs
I
don't
have
his
expertise,
but
the
sap
level
had
increased
to
a
point
where
it
was
damaging
our
cars.
But
the
primary
focus
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about
tonight
was
it
damaged
the
sidewalks,
their
their
trip
hazards
that
are
in
your
there's
pictures
of
them
where
Ryan
came
from
achd,
painted
them
pink
and
identified
that
they're
outside
of
his
guidelines,
and
they
need
repair.
O
Now
the
quote
that
I
referred
to
in
the
first
meeting
that
was
called
a
lie,
was
that
if
I
would
have
called
him
first,
he
would
have
worked
with
this
gentleman
or
their
department
and
requested
or
made
the
recommendation
for
the
trees
to
be
removed.
That
was
his
quote
to
me.
What
I
have
in
print
that
I
can
you
know
absolutely
stand
on,
is
that
he
identifies
that
the
trees
ruin
the
sidewalk
and
that
they're
going
to
spend
taxpayer
dollars
to
replace
the
sidewalk,
and
that
is
in
the
the
packet
that
each
of
you
have.
O
So
you
know
I
if
we
there's
countless
pictures
of
different
properties,
downtown
I,
just
drove
by
the
police
station.
That
is
around
the
corner
from
me,
and
they
put
in
very
small
trees
and
a
space
that's
very
similar
to
mine.
Now
they
built
the
big
Wells
down
in
the
sidewalk
so
that
it
wouldn't
ruin
the
sidewalk
immediately.
I
have
no
dispute
on
the
trees.
I
want
trees.
There
I
planted
a
tree
on
the
other
side
of
the
property.
O
What
I'm
trying
to
do
is
improve
the
look
of
our
dealership
and
I
would
like
some
Grace
on
my
ignorance,
so
not
making
the
phone
call
First
and
a
reduction
in
the
fee
I
will
comply
with
everything
else
that
has
been
recommended
by
the
city
and
if
the
final
is
reduced,
you
know
likely.
I
could
use
some
of
those
funds
to
buy
a
bigger
tree
as
a
replacement.
O
They
weren't
as
big
around
as
they're
being
called
and
the
reason
I
know
that
is
we,
we
remodeled
the
1996
and
we
planted
these
trees
in
1996.,
the
other
trees
that
are
on
Main
Street
we
planted
at
the
same
time,
and
none
of
those
trees
are
anywhere
near
13
inches
in
diameter.
So
I
appreciate
the
grace
and
maybe
counting
a
smaller
diameter,
but
really
I'm.
Just
asking
for
a
little
bit
of
latitude
I
mean
we've
all
made
mistakes:
I'm
not
trying
to
tear
trees
down.
O
B
Okay,
all
right
sounds
good.
Thank
you.
Mr
Peterson
I
have
a
few
questions
for
you.
So
just
sit
tight
here
so
close
you
can
sit
down
but
sit
close
and
we'll
check
in
to
see
if
we
have
anybody
from
the
West
End
Neighborhood
Association
present,
because
they're
technically.
E
B
Neighbor
Association
I
guess
and
it
doesn't
look
like
they're
here.
Sorry,
okay,
we'll
open
this
up
for
questions
then
to
Mr
Peterson
or
to
the
city
staff
Mr.
D
Favorite
question
for
Mr
Peterson
Mr
Peterson
that
the
city
has
directed
you
to
pay.
They've
now
said
9900.
The
report
says
a
slightly
different
number
I
believe
this
report
says
10
800.
So
we
have
to
get
that
on
your
doubt,
but
but
what
is
it
that
you're
proposing
specifically
a
reduction.
O
In
that
number
to
what,
based
on
what,
based
on
I'm,
willing
to
replace
the
trees,
I
had
full
intentions.
I'm,
sorry
to.
O
I
I
guess
I
hadn't,
given
that
a
lot
of
thought
I
get
there
that
I
don't
see
how
ten
thousand
dollars
is
an
adequate
number
for
simply
not
calling
achd
first
to
Ryan's
point
that
he.
O
B
D
Please
don't
so
this
question
for
the
city,
city,
forestry,
so
my
understanding
is
that
the
ca
City
not
achd
his
jurisdiction
on
this
matter
with
respect
to
the
trees.
Is
that
correct?
Could
you
could
you
so
I
mean
I,
guess
I'm,
asking
City
Forestry,
that's
correct,
so
Mr
chairman,
so
to
the
city,
forestry
person
would
would
calling
you
first
to
change
the
arithmetic
around
the
required
action.
N
B
D
B
I
think
on
that
same
line
of
questioning
this
is
a
question
for
Mike
and
maybe
Caitlin
could
one
of
you
and
I
don't
care
who
kind
of
EX
walk
kind
of
walk
us
through
the
process.
Here.
I
know
the
process
back
working
forward
so,
but
if
you
could
walk
the
rest
of
us
through
the
process
of
how
the
city
works,
with
applicants
to
replace
and
mitigate
trees
and.
E
N
So
if
there
is
a
specifically
a
tree
versus
sidewalk
issue
that
someone
is
looking
to
remove
a
tree
or
replace
a
tree,
we
will
work
with
achd
and
we
do
this
possibly
hundreds
of
times
throughout
the
year.
You
can
imagine
how
many
tree
related
issues
there
are
with
sidewalks
and
curbing,
and
in
most
instances
we
don't
need
to
remove
the
tree
grinding.
The
sidewalk
is
extremely
typical.
They
will
do
that.
Achd
will
do
that.
Rather,
if
they
can,
we
will
even
replace
whole
sidewalks
without
having
to
remove
trees.
N
This
happens
quite
often
so
we
work
together,
but
when,
when
somebody
is
interested
in
removing
a
tree
in
the
public
right
away
adjacent
to
their
property,
they
would
need
to
go.
They
would
need
to
submit
what
Mr
Peterson
did
here
retroactively,
which
is
submit
a
design
review
and
then
we'd
see
that
would
trigger
us
actually
to
go
out
and
inspect
the
health
of
the
trees.
N
B
N
Records
it
was
either
in
I,
don't
know
the
exact
date,
but
it
was
like
2008
or
2009
quite
a
number
of
years
ago,
yep,
okay,.
B
A
B
Okay,
no
takers
on
testimony
so
we'll
go
ahead
back
to
rebuttal,
so
both
I
guess
in
this
case
we're
in
a
propellant
situation
right
so
we'll
start
with
Mike
and
is
Mike
and
Caitlin.
Or
is
it
just
right
to
the
Helen?
B
The
only
ones
that
would
be
speaking
Mr
Peterson,
the
podium
is
yours.
If
you
like,
for
a
quick
rebuttal.
O
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
to
the
committee
members
question
earlier.
You
know
I
apologize
for
not
having
a
distinct
number
I
didn't
feel
it
was
a
findable
offense
I
understand
the
math
that
they
use,
but
what
we
have
is
he
said
she
said
situation.
He
says
the
trees
were
in
good
condition
in
2008
I'm
telling
you
I've
taken
care
of
those
trees
for
25
years
and
they
weren't
in
good
condition.
O
So
perhaps
somewhere
halfway
down
the
middle
is
fair,
I
I'm
looking
for
some
Grace,
that's
what
I'm
looking
for
I'm
willing
to
replace
them,
I'm
willing
to
put
any
tree
that
they
want
and
I'm
willing
to
continue
to
take
care
of
those
for
another
25
years.
So
I
guess
my
rebuttal
is
I,
understand
his
points.
I,
don't
dispute
them!
I,
don't
understand
the
process,
clearly,
obviously
I'm
paying
for
that
now
and
I'm
going
to
have
to
pay
for
that.
O
So
if
we
could
have
a
reduction
in
that,
so
we
can
move
on
finish
the
project
and
get
the
trees
back
up
and
taken
care
of
that's
my
request.
B
L
L
Recommend
we
deny
drh
2300138.
B
L
Mr
Peterson
yeah,
I
I
agree
there.
There
ought
to
be
some
Grace
exercise,
but
unfortunately
we
we
our
job,
is
to
just
up
all
the
code
and
the
code's
pretty
clear
on
tree
mitigation
and
the
staffs
basically
recommended
denial,
and
that's
clearly
what
the
code
says
and
for
that
reason
I'm.
My
motion
is
before
the
commission.
F
True
Jennifer
great
yeah,
I
think.
F
I
think's
able
to
make
the
general
Nation
have
helped
the
trees
and
that's
kind
of
the
direction
that
we
have
to
to
follow
in
terms
of
the
the
fine
I.
Don't
understand
it
as
a
fine
I
understand
as
some
mitigation
fee
and
happens
in
developments
all
the
time
when
they
remove
trees
and
aren't
able
to
provide
that
same
caliber
inch.
So
I
don't
think
it's
it's
a
fine
or
any
sort
of
you
know
in
exchange
for
any
necessarily
wrongdoing.
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
I
agree
with
the
motion.
I
guess,
I'm.
Thinking
about
the
the
number
in
our
report
is
ten
thousand
eight
hundred
the
city
's.
Testimony
from
Mike
was
the
the
number
from
from
his
point
of
view,
would
be
nine
thousand
nine
hundred,
which
assumes
three
11-inch
caliper
trees,
three
hundred
dollars
times
three,
because
there's
three
Mike
said
he
thought
that
trees
were
like
10
to
12
I,
think
he
picked
the
midpoint
of
11..
D
You
know
I
would
support
a
friendly
amendment
to
move
the
mitigation
fee
down
to
9000,
which
is
you
know,
the
lower
end
of
the
10
to
12
inches
and
so
three
times
ten
times
three
trees
for
300
times
ten
times
three
three
so
I
was
wondering
if
the
motioner
and
the
second
maker
would
agree
to
just
amend
their
motion
to
set
the
mitigation
fee
at
nine
thousand
dollars.
Mr.
L
B
B
You
know
Mr
Peterson
Mr
Peterson.
Thank
you.
No
sorry,
too
many
words
are
very
distribution.
I,
I'm,
sorry
that
this
is
a
hard
lesson
to
learn
I'm
in
this
world.
All
the
time
commissioner
Moore's
comments.
I
would
second,
you
know
this
is
not
a
fine
per
se
as
it
is
a
mitigation
cost
and
Avalanche
of
architect
she's
an
architect.
We
have
clients
that
have
paid
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
of
mitigation
to
remove
trees
to
develop
sites.
So
this
is
not
an
unusual
exercise.
B
Unfortunately,
it's
just
an
exercise
you're
learning
after
the
fact,
so
I
guess
lesson
learned
there,
but
you
know
the
trees
as
Mike
alluded
to
from
City
forestry,
that
you
know
the
trees
provide
quite
a
benefit
to
the
city
and
we're
really
trying
to
plan
as
many
trees
as
we
possibly
can
here.
So
I
hope
they
understand
that.
That's
the
typical
process:
this
is
a
pretty
typical
thing.
B
It's
just
hard
to
learn
when
it's
retroactive
like
this,
so
so
again,
I'll
be
in
support
of
motion
as
well
and
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
call
the
vote.
D
B
Thanks,
thank
you.
Okay
staff.
Are
we
okay
with
our
Tech?
We
can
carry
on
yeah,
give
it
a
thumbs
up
all
right,
very
good,
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
into
move
on
to
item
number
five
I.
Believe
cup,
23-34,
Studio,
H,
architects
address
the
project
address
is
219
North
27th
Street,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
personal
service
used
over
1
000
square
feet
on
0.45
acres
in
an
Rod
Zone,
we'll
hear
from
Staff
first
Mr
Matt
Dennis.
P
Excuse
me,
the
proposed
use
is
compatible
with
the
general
neighborhood,
which
consists
of
a
mix
of
single
and
multi-family
developments
as
well
as
various
office
and
Commercial
uses.
These
varying
land
uses
provide
a
variety
of
services
to
residents
of
the
area,
and
the
proposed
use
will
operate
within
walking
distance
of
the
residents
of
the
main
Whitewater
Park
Community
Activity
Center,
providing
an
active
use
near
a
key
intersection
with
alternative
transportation
that
will
provide
pedestrian
interest
and
support
businesses
in
the.
G
P
The
site
is
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
use,
as
required
by
code
trafficking.
Another
impact
associated
with
the
use
will
be
minimal,
as
the
parcel
contains
greater
than
the
required
amount
of
parking
spaces
comments
received
from
the
from
public
agencies
confirmed
that
the
proposed
use
will
not
place
an
undue
burden
on
the
transportation
system
or
other
services
in
the
vicinity.
P
Late
correspondence
was
received
from
a
neighboring
property
and
business
owner,
expressing
concern
of
the
amount
of
parking
that
exists
on
site
and
adjacent
to
the
site,
as
well
as
the
percentage
of
floor
area
in
which
the
personal
services
would
occupy.
I
will
note
that
the
required
amount
of
off-street
parking
spaces
is
calculated
by
the
gross
floor
area
with
each
300
square
feet
of
gross
floor
area
requiring
one
parking
space.
As
the
existing
building
contains
5974
square
feet,
the
required
parking
spaces
is
20
and
24
parking
spaces
currently
exist
on
site.
B
L
Could
you
put
up
your
slide
too
I
think,
since
these
parking
issues
are
going
to
continue
to
be
before
us
and
it's
all
going
to
hinge
on
alternative
transportation
and
multimodal
stuff
I
hadn't
seen
this
before
on
any
of
the
staffs,
so
existing
bicycle
routes?
Can
you
talk
us
through
the
color
coding.
P
P
Basically,
some
of
these
have
sharrows
I,
believe
most
of
these
in
the
area
have
sheriffs,
but
basically
the
differentiation
between
the
colors
obviously
are
the
different
bike
routes
themselves
and
then
also
those
different
levels
that
I
alluded
to
between
level
one
and
level
three
bikeways
are
how
they're
defined
and
then
within
each
level,
there's
there's
different
infrastructure
requirements.
P
L
B
B
B
D
To
remember
chairman,
commissioner
Gillespie
move
through
here
proves
UB
23-34
with
all
the
terms
and
conditions.
Second,
okay,.
B
E
P
P
The
proposed
parking
reduction
is
being
requested
in
anticipation
of
a
conversion
of
an
existing
detached
garage
into
a
ground
level.
Studio
Adu
the
applicant,
had
originally
received
administrative
approval
for
a
two-story
ground
level
garage
with
a
second
level
Adu,
but
decided
to
repurpose
the
existing
garage
into
living
space
and
avoiding
demolition.
H
We
have
nothing
additional
to
add
to
the
staff
report
other
than
the
house.
Just
to
give
a
bit
of
context.
The
original
house
was
constructed
on
what
would
be
considered
a
substandard
lot
now
in
1896,
and
we
believe
the
garage
was
was
constructed
sometime
in
the
1920s
or
30s.
So
you
know
as
far
as
it's
it's
functionality
as
a
two-car
garage.
It's
it's
relatively
limited.
As
we
know,
cars
were
smaller
than
they
are
now.
B
I
A
good
evening,
commissioner,
Schaefer
and
fellow
commissioners
Eric
Hagen
809
North,
18th,
Street,
North,
End,
neighborhood
association,
president
and
planning
and
zoning
chair,
and
also
an
architect.
I
We
welcome
being
able
to
walk
and
bike
around
in
the
North
End.
As
you
all
know,
the
North
End
does
have
a
lot
of
options
to
bike
around
and
to
get
around.
There's
a
bus
stop
right
at
the
corner
from
this
property.
However,
we
feel
that
reducing
the
parking
down
to
zero
is
a
little
bit
too
far,
even
in
an
area
that
is
so
walkable
as
the
North
End,
everyone
does
still
have
a
car
and
it
needs
to
be
parked
somewhere
as
an
architect.
I
I've
had
projects
that
have
been
denied
because
we
try
to
do
a
parking
reduction
of
50
not
trying
to
get
rid
of
them
all
just
trying
to
get
rid
of
a
few
of
them
and
I'm
not
alone
in
this.
Our
Treasurer
Amy
Alger
has
also
had
this
happen
as
well,
especially
considering
that
there
are
options
available
to
this
property
to
be
able
to
provide
parking,
and
at
least
one
stall,
which
would
be
in
line
with
the
upcoming
code
when
it
goes
into
effect.
I
In
a
couple
months,
and
even
in
the
new
code
and
the
old
code
it
it
doesn't,
it
gives
the
building
official
or
the
planner
the
ability
to
reduce
the
parking,
but
it
limits
it
to
10
for
commercial
and
the
current
code
and
the
new
code.
It's
limiting
it
to
50
without
a
conditional
use
permit,
and
that
being
said,
in
no
case
does
it
say
that
it
would
be
acceptable
to
reduce
the
parking
down
to
zero.
I
I
I'm,
just
going
through
my
notes,
Here,
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at
on
that
one.
There's
there's
other
parts
of
the
code,
like
the
22
foot,
a
backup
space
that
could
be
accommodated
by
having
the
parking
go
some
somewhere,
underneath
the
existing
structure
and
have
a
compact
stall
in
there.
There's
ways
to
angle
the
parking
in
and
still
get
the
22
feet
of,
backup
space,
as
per
the
original
approval,
was
for
a
garage
with
an
Adu
on
top
of
it.
That
would
have
worked
and
still
met
the
requirement
for
the
parking.
I
So
it
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
options
available
here
and
I,
don't
see
a
hardship,
as
would
typically
be
for
a
variants.
I
know
this
is
a
conditional
use,
permit
kind
of
a
little
bit
different
way
to
go
about
it,
but
Nina's
basically
feels
that
we
should
still
at
least
provide
one
parking
spot
for
a
residential
property.
A
E
P
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
I
believe
Mr
Hagan's
kind
of
point
of
the
code
doesn't
specify
exactly
you
know
exactly
what
percentage
of
a
parking
reduction
would
be
available.
D
To
clarify
the
current
requirement
for
single-family
homes
is
to
Park
off-street
parking
spaces.
Is
that
correct,
Mr?
Chairman
of
the
commission,
that's
correct.
It
is
Mr
Hagin
from
Nina
correct
that
under
the
new
code,
doing
what
they
want
to
do,
it
would
be
one
space
is
that
is
his
analysis.
In
your
view,
correct
Mr.
L
Mr,
chair
John,
please
have
a
question
for
Steph.
So
Matt
is
an
Adu,
an
additional
spot
required
now.
L
B
P
P
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
dot
placement
would
not
be
compliant
with
parking,
it
does
not.
This
is
too
close,
it's
within
the
rear
setback,
and
it
would
need
to
be
within
a
an
alley,
loaded
parking
structure
to
to
achieve
those
reduced,
rear
setback
with
22
feet
of
backup
space
would
be
that
requirement,
but
since
as
proposed,
it
would
not
be
compliant
great.
B
B
B
H
You
chair
and
commission,
so
our
rebuttal
would
would
basically
be
focused
around.
H
You
know
an
attempt
to
an
attempt
to
comply
with
what
the
new
development
code
requires
in
one
off
street
parking
space,
and
we
ran
through
this
drill
several
times
with
the
Planning
and
Zoning
team,
to
try
to
find
a
way
where
we
could
park
a
car
and
what
we're
identifying
as
new
landscape
area,
and
we
were
not
able
to
meet
either
in
a
parallel
condition,
a
90
degree,
backup
condition
or
an
angled
condition,
with
a
required
10
by
20
parking
stall
to
be
able
to
fit
once
one
parking
space
back
there
to
answer
your
question
earlier,
the
the
plan
moving
forward
would
be
would
be
to
use
that
area.
H
As
you
know,
a
landscaped
area,
probably
a
fruit
tree
of
some
kind
in
some
storage-
bicycle
storage,
kayak,
canoe,
Etc,
you
know,
I
I,
appreciate
I,
appreciate
the
North
End
Neighborhood
association's
comments
relative
to
you
know,
trying
to
provide
at
least
one
off
street
parking
space.
I
think
that
the
notion
of
comparing
this
to
to
a
project
where
we
would
be
talking
about
a
percentage
reduction
is
somewhat
loot.
I,
don't
think
that
that
applies
in
a
single-family,
historic
district
residential.
H
What
I
will
say
is
you
know
we
can't
fit
a
car
on
the
on
the
existing
driveway
and
and
utilize
that
as
parking
space,
if
we
reduce
the
proposed
studio,
what
is
proposed
as
a
an
approximately
310
square
foot
studio
apartment
in
let's,
let's
be
generous
and
say
half
that
leaves
150
square
feet
for
a
studio
accessory
dwelling
unit,
which
is
also
not
a
very
feasible.
H
You
know
way
to
approach
this
project.
We've
gone
through.
You
know
several
different
iterations
and
several
conversations
and
several
meetings
with
the
planning
and
zoning
department.
It
basically
determined
there
are
only
you
know.
Our
only
path
forward
is
a
parking
reduction
from
what
functionally
December
1st
will
be
from
one
to
zero,
so
we're
asking
for
a
one
car
parking
reduction.
H
We
understand
that
you
know
we
are
asking
for
a
parking
requirement
of
zero,
but
you
know,
as
as
Mr
Hagin
pointed
out,
this
is
a
highly
walkable
area,
with
a
walkability
score
for
whatever
it's
worth
at
76,
which
is
considered
very
walkable.
Also,
this
is
you
know,
within
150,
to
200
feet
of
a
bus.
Stop
it's
a
highly
bikeable
neighborhood,
it's
what
I
would
consider
inside
of
the
kind
of
urban
core
of
of
Boise.
H
So
there's
that
consideration
as
well
I
think
from
I
think
from
an
urban
planning
and
from
a
you
know,
a
historic
neighborhood
perspective,
I
think!
H
If,
if
this
project
is
not,
you
know,
if
this
project
is
not
the
right
project
to
reduce
the
parking
from
requirement
from
one
to
zero,
then
what
is
I
suppose
is
the
question
that
that
I
would
leave
the
commission
with.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
Q
I
just
have
a
comment:
I
think
that
going
forward
like
this
is
going
to
set
a
precedence
and
I
think
we
just
need
to
be
consistent
with
our
decisions,
because
we're
going
to
get
a
lot
of
these
adus
going
forward
and
are
we
prepared
to
like
just
say
that
we
don't
have
a
parking
requirement,
even
if
it's
just
a
reduction
of
one
and
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there,
because
I
think
that
this
is
going
to
come
in
front
of
us.
A
lot
and
I
I
want
to
be
fair
across
the
board.
Q
D
I
moved
to
approve
cup
23-47
with
one
parking
space.
Second,.
B
E
D
Just
just
briefly,
I
think
the
decision
to
completely
eliminate
parking
clearly
isn't
in
the
hands
of
of
this
commission.
At
this
time.
Our
policy
is
very
clear.
It's
two.
Now
it's
gonna
be
one.
There
is
no
set
mechanism
contemplated
in
the
code
to
reduce
those
numbers
either
in
this
code
or
the
new
code
that
I'm
aware
of.
D
If
the
city
council
wants
to
hear
this
on
appeal
or
think
about
this,
some
more,
they
can
do
it,
but
we
just
spent
you
know
three
years
building
a
new
code
that
sets
the
number
one
for
for
this
type
of
project.
So
I'd
like
to
stick
with
the
one
number
for
this
project
now
another
Point,
the
applicant,
has
said
we
can't
put
in
the
Adu
we
want
and
get
in
one
I'm.
D
Sorry,
but
that's
you
don't
have
a
right
to
put
in
an
Adu
first
and
then
subsequently
try
and
comply
like
the
80
you
you
put
in
has
to
comply
and
that
compliance
is
one
parking
spot.
So
if
they
can't
figure
out
how
to
get
it
that
Adu
in
at
a
reasonable
price,
I'm
sorry,
you
know
what
I
mean.
Building
that
Adu
isn't
a
superior
goal
of
our
code.
So
that's
why
I
made
the
motion
Mr.
J
B
B
B
D
D
And
I'm
saying
I
approved
their
parking
reduction
from
the
two
to
one
to
one
for
essentially
the
same
reasons
discussed,
which
is
access
to
Transit
and
walkability,
and
bikeability
I,
just
I'm,
just
not
willing
to
sort
of
contravene
the
clear
deliberation
of
the
council
and
this
commission
for
three
years
that
that
number
should
be
one
going
forward.
Reflecting
our
new
ethos
on
parking.
F
D
P
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
site-specific
condition
number
two
prohibits
alley:
access
parking
so.
B
A
D
Mr
Mr
chairman
no
May
permission
to
then.
D
So
my
read,
then,
is
two:
isn't
required
right
condition:
two
would
not
be
required
so
with
the
secondar's
permission,
I
would
also
set
the
parking
at
one
and
remove
site-specific
condition.
Number
two.
K
B
B
J
Okay,
Mr
chair
I
I
do
I
will
continue
on
with
the
motion.
The
second
of
the
motion
rather
I.
This
is
this-
is
a
little
frustrating
in
some
respects,
but
I
I
understand
the
premise
of
commissioner
Gillespie's
point
that
we're
going
from
two
to
zero
on
an
existing
structure
versus
an
additional
spot
for
an
Adu
or
no
spot
for
the
Adu.
J
That's
where
I
got
hooked
up,
I
kind
of
kind
of
messed
up,
because
the
spirit
of
our
Adu
has
been
very
clear
that
we
want
adus
everywhere
as
much
as
we
possibly
can,
and
if
we're
looking
at
a
300
square
foot
unit
place,
that's
two
steps
from
a
bus.
Stop
bike!
Lanes!
Both
you
know
a
handful
of
blocks
from
downtown
in
that
instance,
going
from
even
if
it
was
one
to
zero.
J
I
would
be
there
for
the
premise
of
what
we're
trying
to
do,
because
we're
maintaining
a
historic
structure,
we're
not
bulldozing
it
and
building
up
something
new,
just
to
require
a
box
for
a
car.
That's
what
it
is,
but
in
this
instance
we're
asking
that
the
whole
Space
go
from
two
to
zero
and
so
I
see
the
logic
in
in
commissioner
Gillespie's.
Point
and
I
would
be
supportive
of.
D
D
I
do
agree
with
you.
We
did
not
set
parking
addition
additional
parking
requirements
when
you
add
an
Adu,
so
it
didn't
go
from
two
to
three.
Just
because
you
put
in
a
small
80.
but
I,
don't
think
the
council
ever
meant
where
the
code
means
you
put
in
an
Adu.
You
take
out
the
garage
that
was
your
off
street
parking
and
you
can
go
to
zero
I
just
I.
That's
not
what
I
think
that
that
we
mean
in
the
code
or
by
policy.
B
B
D
D
L
John,
please
so
to
commissioner
finfrock's
point
about
this
is
going
to
become
a
bigger
issue
going
forward.
Remember
the
origin
of
this
was
the
applicant
was
going
to
build
a
carriage
house
and
preserve
parking
and
put
an
Adu
upstairs
and
so
I
guess
my
caution
to
us
and
staff.
Is
that
part
of
the
justification
for
this
reduction
was
it
would
minimize
a
required
amount
of
Demolition
and
therefore
reduce
solid
landfill
use?
L
Well,
that's
kind
of
a
cart
before
the
horse
argument
because
of
what
they're
trying
to
do
so
I
was
reading
through
this
and
I'm
in
agreeing
with
the
neighborhood
association
zero.
Is
it
bridge
too
far
I
was
leaning
towards
if
you're
gonna?
If
it's
going
to
be
a
walkable
bikeable
thing,
then
then
at
least
get
secure
covered
bike,
storage
or
something
for
to
get
around
on
I
love.
F
True,
commissioner
Moore,
please
I
think
I
was
a
little
bit
on
the
fence,
I
think,
but
on
the
one
hand,
reducing
all
the
parking
for
that
one
space
is
restrictive
and
forever
more
they're
gonna
be
parking
on
the
street.
On
the
other
hand,
it
does
encourage
future
owners
of
that
house
to
own
fewer
cars,
but
you've
got
a
house
that
doesn't
have
a
parking
option:
that
kind
of
discourages
more
cars
at
that
property.
Mr.
F
I,
don't
know
if
that
balances
it's
speculative
at
best,
but
which
is
the
greatest
support
of
the
comp
plan
and
that's
the
question.
I
I
think
ultimately,
I
am
in
favor
of
the
motion
to
keep
the
one
space
I
mean
waiting
until
after
December
when
the
new
code
was
adopted,
you'd
only
be
going
from
one
space,
that's
a
smaller
lead,
so
there's
that
option,
but
I'm
in
sports,
emotion,.
D
We
already
had
the
zero
policy
discussion
yep,
so
there
was
a
huge
debate.
It
lasted
three
years.
We
spent
three
weeks
or,
however,
how
long
we
spent
one
of
the
issues
we
discussed
was
essentially
completely
detaching
parking
from
development
of
zero
parking
requirement
and
the
council,
in
its
wisdom,
just
voted
for
one
said
not
zero
one
and
so
from
a
policy
point
of
view.
That
matter
has
been
resolved.
I
happen
to
agree
with
commissioner
Moore
I'd
like
to
see
us
move
to
zero
parking
requirement,
and
but
we
didn't
do
that.
J
I
realize
what
I'm
about
to
say
here.
What
I
think,
though,
is
interesting
about
this
application.
Is
that
we're
not
being
asked
to
to
approve
or
deny
a
variance?
We
are
being
asked
to
uphold
a
conditional
use
permit
and
a
conditional
use
permit
allows
us
to
use
Lupa
and
in
Lupa
we
get
to
use
public
health,
safety
and
general
welfare
as
as
evidence
of
of
a
decision
one
way
or
the
other
and
I
guess.
What
I
would
say
is
that
parking
is
highly
Dynamic.
It
is
not
static
and
it
is
not
a
structure.
J
That's
there,
24
7.,
it
moves
it
changes
it
it
it
it
it
Ebbs
and
flows,
and
so
I
have
a
hard
time
finding
that
there
would
be
a
health
safety
and
general
welfare.
You
know
reason
to
deny
a
cup
I
recognize
I'm,
going
back
on
my
own
motion,
but
I'm
I'm
torn
on
this,
but
because
I
I
also
recognize
the
precedent
that
could
be
set.
If,
if
we
do
this
to
commissioner
Gillespie's
point
so
just
Food,
For
Thought
or
spit
it
out,
whatever
you
want
to
do,
okay.
B
D
C
D
B
Great
thanks:
everybody
healthy
discussion,
you
press
on.
We
got
one
more
item:
okay
item
number
eight
CVA
23-14,
Max,
Percy,
3504,
West,
Kootenai
Street.
This
is
an
appeal
of
the
planning
directors
in
denial
for
a
variance
to
encroach
into
the
side
setback
on
0.27
acres
in
the
r1c
zone
and
we're
hearing
from
Jesse
Lyle
from
Staff.
First.
R
Good
evening
Mr,
chair
Commissioners,
the
item
before
you
use
the
appeal
of
planning
director's
denial
of
CVA
23-14,
a
variance
request
to
encroach
into
the
West
Side
yard
setback
to
construct
a
two-car
garage
in
garage
Edition
onto
an
existing
one-car
garage
located
at
3504,
Putney
Street
on
a
2.0
or
0.27
acres
in
the
r1c
zone.
The
existing
home
and
garage
were
built
in
1938,
approximately
one
foot
away
from
the
property
line.
R
Prior
to
the
adoption
of
the
zoning
code
in
the
associated
setbacks,
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
add
a
two-car
garage
to
the
front
of
the
home
in
line
with
the
existing
structure.
The
applicant
is
also
proposing
to
add
an
approximately
132
square
foot
addition
to
the
rear
of
the
existing
garage,
which
would
also
encroach
into
the
setback.
R
However,
the
applicant
would
prefer
to
build
the
addition
in
line
with
the
existing
home.
Instead
of
moving
the
proposed
garage
four
feet
to
the
east
to
be
located
outside
of
the
setbacks
as
proposed,
the
current
facade
will
need
to
be
remodeled
to
accommodate
the
two-car
garage
and
based
on
the
drawing
provided
in
the
initial
application.
There's
room
to
move
the
proposed
garage
four
feet
to
the
east
without
impacting
any
proposed
windows
or
doors.
R
The
applicants
appeal
asserts
that
the
project
was
analyzed
incorrectly,
as
there
is
no
proposed
conversions
to
the
existing
garage
space
and
that
the
proposed
alternative
to
relocate.
The
garage
outside
of
the
setbacks
does
not
allow
the
existing
garage
space
to
remain
usable
for
the
intended
purposes,
while
the
administrative
billionaire
letter
does
reference
converting
the
existing
garage
into
living
space.
This
does
not
impact
the
placement
options
of
the
proposed
garage.
The
variance
application
is
for
the
proposed
editions
of
a
two-car
garage
and
additional
grounds
garage
space.
R
Within
the
setbacks,
there
is
room
outside
of
the
setbacks
to
locate
a
two-car
garage
that
will
not
increase
the
non-conformity
of
the
property.
The
Proposal
would
result
in
a
55
foot
long
wall,
one
foot
away
from
the
property
line.
The
development
code
does
have
requirements
for
two
parking
spaces
for
each
single
family
home
outside
of
setbacks,
but
it
does
not
require
or
entitle
the
extra
space
the
applicant
is
proposing.
B
Okay,
thanks
Jesse
next
week
from
the
applicant
coming
up,
yeah.
S
S
Our
house
was
built
in
1938,
you've
seen
a
couple
pictures
of
it:
I'm,
not
an
architect,
so
I'm
going
to
butcher
a
couple
terms,
but
BSU
did
a
one
of
the
grad
students
did
an
article
about
the
houses
on
Kootenai
Street
and
there's
seven
criteria
that
the
houses
need
to
be
where
they're
still
showing
their
historical
significance.
Ours
has
all
seven,
so
we've
been
trying
to
get
a
garage
on
it
since
we
moved
in
we
purchased
it
in
2016.
The
garage
is.
S
The
current
garage
is
so
small
that
we
can't
even
put
a
little
compact
car
in
it.
I
think,
as
you
saw,
that
picture,
we
have
a
boat
and
it
sits
out
on
the
street.
So
we've
worked
diligently
for
the
last
couple
years
to
try
and
get
this
done.
We've
approached
it
with
kind
of
we
wanted
to
build
a
garage
where
the
it
would
fit
in
with
the
architecture
and
design
of
the
house.
On
my
letter
there
were
we
went
through
multiple
options.
We
met
with
the
neighbors,
the
neighbor
to
the
west.
S
That's
direct
that
I
consider
most
directly
impacted
on
our
design
and
talked
with
her
what
was
possible
and
feasible
and
she's
happy
with
what
we're
doing
for
the
design
we
have
have.
This
is
her
favorite
alternative
of
everything
we
went
through,
it's
I,
don't
let
me
get
some
notes
here.
So
I
can
start
making
a
little
sense.
S
So,
on
the
design
itself,
we
figured
out
kind
of
the
square
footage
that
we
would
need
to
put
our
two
cars
and
a
boat
and
in
our
neighborhood,
as
you've
heard
on
our
West
Side
were
one
one
and
a
half
feet
off
the
property
line
on
our
east
side
we're
four
feet:
we
have
zero
access
to
the
back
of
our
house.
Our
East
neighbors
garage
is
actually
slightly
on
our
property
and
the
neighbor
to
our
West.
Their
detached
garage
and
back
is
right
on
the
property
line.
S
So
we
have
issues
in
the
neighborhood
in
this
application
process.
It
asks
us
there's
three
criteria:
I
need
to
meet
either
showing
a
hardship
or
an
exceptional
circumstance.
S
I'm
I've
asked
for
hardship
to
be
defined
and
I
was
told
that
it
it's
not
definable,
but
the
city
planner
knows
it
when
they
see
it
so
I
spy
an
attorney
back
there,
because
I've
also
called
the
city
attorney's
office
to
try
to
get
a
definition
to
make
sure
this
work
I'm
doing
fulfills
the
requirements.
Do
you
guys
have
a
definition
for
hardship?
We.
S
But
okay,
we'll
definitely
have
that
discussion
for
you,
okay,
so
of
the
three
criteria
that
we
have,
there's
the
hardship
or
exceptional
circumstance
I
feel
like
having
a
house
that
is
already
in
the
setback.
One
foot
off
since
I
think
the
zoning
code
is
60
years
old.
I.
Imagine
that
the
majority
of
the
houses
in
Boise
are,
you
know,
were
built
in
that
time
frame
for
us
to
have
a
house.
That's
existing
in
that
setback
is
an
exceptional
circumstance
and
hardship.
S
If
we
wanted
to
add
one
foot
onto
our
garage
as
it
sits,
we'd
have
to
get
a
variance
to
do
that.
Let's
see
so
once
there's
the
hardship
resolved.
Sorry.
S
S
That
make
sure
it's
IDP
dash
n
0.3
garage
placement
and
it
talks
about
the
principles
of
garage
it.
It
should
be
a
I
gotta,
find
it
here.
I'm
sorry.
S
Oh
excuse
me
a
says:
minimize
the
placement
of
garages
along
the
block
face
of
residential
residential
streets
and
I
I'm,
not
an
architect,
and
this
isn't
my
business.
But
when
I
went
through
blueprint
Boise,
it
says
that
this
is
for
has
been
developed
for
development
purposes
and
if
you
look
at
the
areas
of
development,
it's
for
new
development
and
field
development
and
Redevelopment,
which
we're
none
of
we're
trying
to
do
a
small,
remodel.
S
So
I
question.
If
this
portion
even
applies,
but
if
it
does
apply,
I
can
go
through
and
two
lines
down.
It
says
that
blueprint
Boise
wants
to
provide
a
variety
of
garage
orientations,
front
side
back
to
make
the
neighborhoods
work.
The
other
one
was
the
Depot
bench
neighborhood
plan,
and
it
was
in
here.
Excuse
me.
S
S
We
don't
violate
that
because
it's
the
group
seeking
to
do
to
encourage
the
city
to
change
your
code
and
then,
but
if
you
go
right
down
below
what
it
talks
about,
encourage
new
development,
it
talks
about
how
they
actually
want
to
a
minimum
of
two
car
garages
and
they
would
prefer
more
so
like
I
can
go
through
here
and
find
instances
where
our
plan
fits
in
with
that.
The
last
thing
was
to
be
safe
and
I.
Think
in
your
packet
you'll
see
that
every
single
neighbor
signed
off
on
it.
S
No
questions
asked
I
feel
like
we
did
a
lot
of
due
diligence
to
make
sure
that
it
worked
with
everybody,
and
my
neighbors
are
excited
because
they
are
tired
of
seeing
our
boat
and
it.
You
know
it's
I
I,
don't
know
what
other
information
I
can
give
you.
Besides,
what
we've
done?
We've
done.
Our
diligence
trying
to
make
it
fit
the
house
I
can
explain
some
of
the
pages
I
guess.
If
is
there
a
time
limit?
S
Okay,
two
minutes
left
right
there,
so
I
think
one
thing
they
were
saying
was
that
the
garage
could
be
moved
out
of
the
setbacks.
So
we
have
our
current
garage
on
the
map
and
if
we
move
that
over
four
feet,
we
pinch
off
our
current
garage.
So
it's
no
longer
usable
as
a
garage
and
then
we
don't.
If
we
can't
do
that,
we
don't
have
the
square
footage.
We
need
for
everything.
So
then
the
Garage
would
widen
up
on
the
front
of
the
house
and
we
have.
S
Is
it
a
tutor?
Style
just
shake
if
that's
I
think
it's
a
tutor
with,
like
a
55
degree
roof
and
if
I
then
put
a
garage,
that's
40
feet
wide
instead
of
20
feet,
right,
I
have
a
55
degree,
roof
versus
like
a
20
degree,
and
we
ruined
that
house,
and
so
all
our
neighbors
are
in
agreement
that
this
proposal
will
keep
us
fitting
in
with
the
history
that
we
have
will
make
the
neighborhood
look
better
and
we'll
it's.
Basically,
the
best
win
we
can
get
for
everybody
considered.
S
K
B
J
F
S
On
the
West
Side,
this
drawing
I
don't
know
what
years
I
I
printed
off
the
thing
it.
It
turns
out
to
be
a
portion
of
it's
long.
That's
where
they're
talking
about
the
55-foot
wall,
but
a
section
of
it
is
only
20
feet
wide
until
you
get
to
our
existing
house
and
then
it
Narrows
down
to
12
feet
for
our
existing
house.
There
is
a
good
picture
that
it
shows
the
red
and
green
portions
of
the
garage.
S
J
J
Before
we
put
this
code
in
and
then
the
code
said
hey
by
the
way,
you
no
longer
comply
it
and
then
it's
the
rules
were
basically
changed
when
we
put
forth
our
code,
so
I
guess
the
perspective
on
when
we,
when
we
instilled
sort
of
a
new
set
of
of
ordinances
on
an
existing
property
that
had
been
there
for
40
years.
Is
there
any
discussion
or
thought
on?
We
that
we,
the
city,
creating
a
hardship
by
doing
that.
R
Mr,
chair
Commissioners,
so
in
the
code
it
speaks
to
hardships
or
exceptional
circumstances,
with
the
property
itself
that
are
not
common
throughout
the
neighborhood.
So,
typically,
that's
stuff,
like
a
topographical
issues,
maybe
like
an
irrigation,
easement
or
Canal
things
of
that
nature.
I
know
that
there
are
censuses
where
variances
have
been
granted
for
expansions
of
existing
structures
within
setbacks.
However,
this
is
a
large
law
and
there
are
other
options.
B
D
D
The
code
there's
a
whole
major
section
called
non-conforming
uses.
This
is,
and
this
is
a
created,
non-conforming
use.
So
it's
in
that
part
of
the
code
and
there's
a
whole
section
on
my
minor
and
major
expansions
of
non-conforming
uses.
We
almost
never
use
that
in
fact,
we've
never
used
it
that
I'm,
aware
of,
and
do
you
remember,
that
shooting
range
that
was
the
one
of
the
times
you
and
I.
We
were
it's
like
our
first
or
second
hearing
and
that
was
expanding.
A
non-conforming
use
in
the
city
almost
never
uses
those
mechanisms.
D
They
look
a
lot
like
CR
cup
approvals
in
terms
of
the
kinds
of
things
we
consider,
but
that's
that's
how
that's
dealt
with.
We
almost
always
do
this
variance
approach
to
this
sort
of
problem.
D
B
Jesse,
real,
quick,
that's
going
to
be
clear
here
that,
should
we
deny
the
appeal
and
we
tell
the
applicant
to
ship
the
garage
over
or
relocated
outside,
set
setbacks.
The
existing
garage
is
non-compliant
can
remain
in
place.
B
F
So
I
think
this
is
for
the
applicant
I,
didn't
see
it
on
the
plans.
Is
there
an
eve
associated
with
this
Edition,
an
eve
like
a
little
overhang
on
the
sides
of
your
your
roof?
S
Wall
so
the
the
current
like
the
back
portion,
the
I
guess
the
roof
line
that
runs
East
West
will
have
a
face
as
it
does
so
there
would
be
the
standard
I
think
the
eaves
on
our
house
are
like
six
inches,
so
the
E
wouldn't
be
over
I'm,
assuming
you're
asking
if
the
eve
goes
over
the
property
line,
and
it
would
not
if
and
then,
when
it
comes,
you
know
when
it
goes
over.
It
comes
out
to
get
the
roof
line.
There
would
be
like
the
six
inch
Eve.
It's
the
flat.
C
B
We're
going
on
questions
we'll,
go
ahead
and
move
to
public
testimony
you're
on
no
one,
there's
no
one
left
in
Chambers.
At
the
moment
there
was
online.
So
if
you're
online
I
want
to
testify,
please
go
and
raise
your
hand.
B
S
Do
want
to
mention
one
thing
you
asked
or
the
question
about:
if
the
current
garage
would
stay,
it
would
stay,
but
it
would
be
unusable
as
a
garage
it
would.
It
would
be
the
the
garage
door
you
see
now
would
stick
halfway
out
the
you
know
the
new
building
we
have
and
then,
if
we
try
to
get
a
garage,
that's
usable
I
also
forgot
to
mention
that
we'll
end
up
going
over
the
sewer
and
the
main
water
line
which
run
into
the
front
and
it'll
also
our
current
plan.
We
have
two
windows
in
our
kitchen.
S
This
rendered
drawing
doesn't
show
one
of
them.
It
will
eat
up
the
second
window,
we'll
have
no
more
windows
in
the
in
the
kitchen
area.
B
K
D
Chairman
this
variance
we
allowed
it
would
create
about
a
50
foot
long
wall,
but
then
one
foot
of
the
property
line
include
in
with
an
overhang.
It
would
be,
even
frankly,
look
even
tighter.
D
We,
you
know
the
code
just
doesn't
contemplate
that
kind
of
massive
expansion
of
a
non-conforming
use
and
I
just
say
that
you
know,
unfortunately,
the
applicant
doesn't
have
sort
of
a
automatic
right
to
you
know
build
what
they
want.
That
increases
the
level
of
encroachment,
and
this
isn't
a
small
amount.
This
is
essentially
eliminating
that
setback
for
a
very
long
distance
along
that
line,
so
I,
don't
think
it
meets
either
the
hardship
or
the
special
circumstances
on
the
property
destruction
and
how
we're
supposed
to
think
about
variances.
K
Chair
I
would
agree
with
that
and
just
say,
I
think
we're
trying
to
do
too
much
on
too
little
and
would
just
encourage
you
to
look
at
storage
for
your
boat.
Make
your
neighbors
happy.
B
Okay,
Mr
Piercy,
yeah
I
sympathize,
I'm
going
to
be
in
support
of
motion.
Also
I
think
you
have
a
little
bit
of
room
to
play
here,
though
I
mean
you've
got
some
moving
to
even
to
the
front
step
back
too
so
I
think
if
you
explore
some
other
options
with
your
architect,
you
can
find
a
solution
here.
B
I
promised
you
a
little
more
color
on
hardships
and
that
sort
of
thing
and
you
know
a
hardship
and
we
have
to
look
at
these
applications
more
like
you
know,
viewers,
irrigation,
easement
across
your
property
or
have
a
house
on
a
cliff
or
something
like
that,
like
things
that
are
much
more
beyond
your
control
right,
but
unfortunately,
in
your
case,
you
have
a
flat
lot
with
some
other
options
and
some
space
to
play
with
so
just
a
little
more
background,
I
guess
for
you
and
where
we're
coming
from
and
how
we
understand
and
read
the
code.