►
Description
Modern Zoning Code, Day 1
A
A
All
right,
good
evening,
everybody
Welcome
to
the
Boise
City
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
public
hearing.
We
have
a
few
extra
opening
remarks
tonight
and
then
the
chair
will
go
into
further
detail
on
how
we'll
proceed.
This
week.
The
commission
is
made
up
of
Citizen
volunteers
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
the
city
council.
They
make
final
decisions
on
conditional
use,
permits,
variances
and
appeals
and
recommendations
to
the
city
council
on
subdivisions,
rezones
annexations,
as
well
as
code
or
comprehensive
plan
amendments,
as
is
in
the
case
with
this
week's
item.
A
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
virtually
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak
once
time
for
Testimony
has
begun
virtually
raise
your
hand
and
you'll
be
called
upon
and
unmuted.
There
is
a
chat
function
in
Zoom.
This
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
A
Each
hearing
this
week
will
be
held
in
a
hybrid
format.
Our
schedule
is
going
to
be
a
little
different
than
usual
and
that
the
procedure
for
public
hearing
will
be
stretched
out
over
multiple
days.
Today
we
will
begin
with
a
presentation
from
the
planning
team,
followed
by
questions
from
the
commission
and
then
we'll
start
moving
through
representatives
of
all
the
registered
neighborhood
associations.
A
We
will
begin
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're
attending
through
your
telephone,
you
can
type
in
Star
9.
To
raise
your
hand,
each
neighborhood
association
will
be
given
five
minutes
to
present
and
after
we've
gone
through
the
list,
the
commission
will
Circle
back
to
questions
again.
There
will
be
no
public
testimony
today.
If
questions
have
been
exhausted
before
10
pm,
we
will
adjourn
and
begin
public
testimony
tomorrow.
A
We
have
a
couple
long
nights
ahead
of
us,
so
please
expect
a
few
quick
breaks
from
proceedings
as
well
as
a
half
hour
dinner
break
at
6
PM
this
evening,
as
I
said,
public
testimony
will
begin
tomorrow
and
continue
into
Wednesday
and
Thursday
as
needed.
If
at
any
point
we
have
no
more
folks
sign
up
to
testify,
the
public
hearing
portion
will
be
closed.
Staff
will
be
given
time
for
a
rebuttal,
and
the
commission
will
deliberate
and
render
a
recommendation.
Mr
chair
you
have
the
floor.
B
Thanks
Crystal
and
good
evening,
everybody
before
we
start
tonight,
I'd
like
to
remind
us
of
a
few
why
we
are
here
and
what
it
means
to
and
how
we're
going
to
behave.
Our
main
goal
is
to
have
a
fair
hearing,
a
hearing
where
all
voices
are
heard
with
courtesy
and
respect,
and
so
we
have
a
couple
of
simple
rules
for
tonight's
hearing.
B
First,
please
do
not
call
out
cheer
or
clap
or
Heckle
from
the
audience,
and
please
also
do
not
interrupt
the
speakers.
Everyone
will
get
a
chance
to
speak
and
second,
when
speaking,
please
address
your
comments
to
the
commission
up
here
and
not
to
City
staff
or
fellow
audience
members
we
received.
If
we
received
comments
with
raised
voices
or
profanities,
we'll
stop
your
time
and
push
you
to
the
end
of
the
public
comment.
B
If
you
ask
a
question,
staff
may
choose
to
answer
your
question
during
their
rebuttal
time.
The
commission
cannot
answer
questions
during
testimony.
We
are
here
to
listen
to
all
the
audience
and
to
make
a
decision.
We
have
a
lot
of
interest
in
this
item.
Of
course
this
week.
So
a
few
other
extra
notes,
if
you
have
submitted
written
comments
ahead
of
tonight,
we
want
to
make
it.
We
want
to
be
very
clear
that
we
have
read
your
comments.
B
You
do
not
need
to
repeat
your
comments
verbally
tonight
or
at
any
other
hearing
this
week,
we'd
like
to
make
sure
we
hear
from
everyone
who
wants
to
speak,
we
do
not
need
to
repeat
comments,
have
already
been
submitted.
Written
that's
right.
I
have
already
been
I've
already
been
submitted
via
written
or
online
testimony
plan
to
close
the
hearing
around
10
o'clock
every
evening.
This
week
we
get
much
later
than
that.
It
makes
it
tough
for
deliberation,
and
none
of
us
want
to
be
here
into
the
morning
hours.
B
This
is
why
we're
asking
for
any
probably
new
comments
this
evening
and
the
rest
of
the
week
as
Crystal
just
outlined.
Order
of
the
week
we'll
begin
with
a
report
from
City
staff.
Then
tonight
we're
going
to
hear
from
the
neighborhood
associations
and
each
neighbor
Association
will
be
given
five
minutes
for
their
presentation.
B
Once
we
get
through
all
of
the
neighborhood
association
presentations,
the
commission
will
then
ask
questions
of
all
of
the
neighborhood
associations
tomorrow,
assuming
we
may
get
through
all
that
this
evening
tomorrow
will
then
open
up
for
public
testimony.
At
that
time,
everyone
will
have
up
to
three
minutes
to
speak
again.
This
is
like.
C
B
Is
again
where
we'd
like
to
hear
from
those
who
have
not
yet
written,
submitted,
written
comments
in
advance
or
for
any
new
comments
that
haven't
been
read
into
our
packets?
After
all,
public
testimony
has
been
exhausted.
Staff
will
have
the
opportunity
for
rebuttal,
as
the
schedule
plays
out
right
now,
we're
expecting
that
to
be
either
on
Wednesday
or
Thursday
evening
of
this
week.
B
Finally,
after
the
commission
or
excuse
me
after
staff
rebuttal,
the
commission
will
deliberate
and
make
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
on
the
proposed
zoning
code
update.
Thank
you
again
for
coming
tonight.
Your
participation
is
important
and
equally
important
is
that
we
treat
each
other
with
kindness
and
respect
regardless
of
opinion.
B
So
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
call
the
roll
for
for
the
commission
and
then
we'll
start
with
the
staff
presentation.
E
B
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Okay,
we'll
go
ahead
and
Jump
Right
In
item
number
one
on
our
agenda:
zoa
23-1
and
CPA
23-1,
the
city
of
Boise.
This
is
a
zoning
ordinance,
amendment
of
Boise
city
code,
Title
11,
and
the
adoption
of
a
new
zoning
map
and
then
a
comprehensive
plan
Amendment
with
text
changes
to
accompany
the
zoning
ordinance
Amendment
and
we're
here
from
staff.
F
Thank
you,
I'm
Tim,
Keane,
director
of
planning
and
development
services
for
the
city
of
Boise
and
I'll
start
by
thanking
everyone
for
joining
us
tonight,
whether
you're,
here
or
online,
and
really
the
whole
week.
F
My
presentation
tonight
is
going
to
be
somewhat
in
depth
because
I
did
want
to
provide
some
context
for
the
entire
week.
F
Also,
what
I'll
present
to
you
and
Planning
Commission
members
in
particular,
will
maybe
be
familiar
with
this,
because
much
of
what
I'm
presenting
was
in
two
correspondents
we've
had
with
you
over
the
past
30
days,
the
first
one
being
our
report
on
this
proposal
that
came
to
you
on
March
30th
and
then
the
second
being
a
memo
that
I
sent
to
you
on
April
13th,
which
essentially
goes
through
things
that
were
not
dealing
with
in
this
zoning
rewrite
and
I'll
get
to
those
at
the
end
of
this
presentation.
F
I
do
want
to
mention
that
we've
got
an
incredible
group
of
Staff
here,
dedicated
talented
people
that
are
here
to
help
answer,
questions
or
Provide
support
to
the
community
and
the
commission,
as
we
go
through
this
week,
Jessica
zielag,
who
leads
the
planning
team
with
Andrea
tuning
Lena,
Walker
and
Deanna
Dupuis,
who
have
been
the
leaders
of
this
effort
throughout
its
process,
which
has
been
a
long
one
and
I'll
go
into
that
in
just
a
minute.
F
What
I'll
go
through
in
this
presentation?
Are
these
things
the
application,
what
it
is
exactly
that
is
before
the
commission
that
consists
of
two
basic
actions
that
the
commission
will
be
taking
I
want
to
get
into.
F
F
The
third
thing
is
the
kind
of
the
why
why
are
we
doing
this?
The
relationship
of
the
zoning
code
to
the
comp
plan
recommendations,
the
comp
plan
being
blueprint
Boise,
which
was
adopted
in
2011.
F
F
and
the
second
action
is
a
comprehensive
plan
text
Amendment
to
replace
references
to
the
previous
zoning
districts.
The
comp
plan
has
within
it
the
basic
structure
of
our
current
ordinance.
So
we
have
to
replace
that
with
the
new
zoning
districts
that
are
within
this
new
zoning
code,
so
that
the
comprehensive
plan
and
zoning
ordinance
are
consistent
with
one
another.
F
In
terms
of
what
this
proposed
ordinance
consists
of.
Here,
you
see
a
list
of
those
things
that
are
within
the
600
or
so
pages
of
this
ordinance
about
half
of
this
ordinance
relates
directly
to
the
regulations
that
we
have
so
the
zoning
districts,
the
use
regulations
and
the
design
and
development
standards
about
half
of
the
ordinances
consist
of
that,
and
then
the
remainder
is
around
Administration
and
procedures.
F
Definitions
and
adopt
adopted
specific
plans
for
different
parts
of
the
city
that
that
are
part
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
those
plans
have
been
adopted
over
many
years,
but
we
certainly
want
to
respect
that
work.
That's
gone
on
and
specific
parts
of
the
city
that
are
currently
represented
in
the
current
ordinance.
F
So
there's
a
conversion
map
that
all
properties
in
the
city
go
from
a
zoning
District
that
they
currently
are
zoned,
so
we
have
currently
in
the
city,
we
have
23
different
zoning
districts
in
the
new
code
we
have
17,
and
so
all
properties
in
the
city
will
get
translated
to
a
new
zoning
District
in
this
proposed
ordinance
and
then
the
comprehensive
plan
text
Amendment,
which
are
really
minor,
updates
just
to
provide
that
consistency
in
terms
of
nomenclature
and
the
districts
in
the
new
code
make
that
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
also
just
replacing
the
term
land
use
map
with
future
land
use
map
in
the
in
the
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
F
The
longer
view
of
this
process
started
in
the
fall
of
2020
and
early
in
the
process
and
I'll
get
to
this.
In
a
minute.
There
was
an
analysis
of
the
existing
zoning
ordinance
to
see
that
agreed
to
which
it
was
consistent.
With
those
comprehensive
plan,
recommendations
you'll
see
throughout
the
process.
F
Then,
in
the
summer
of
last
year
we
came
back
to
modules,
one
and
two,
and
the
reason
for
this
was
that
in
modules
one
and
two
we
heard
so
much
feedback
from
the
community.
That
was,
we
felt
we
couldn't
just
put
off
making
changes
to
the
ordinance
until
it
came
to
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission.
Now
we
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
go
back,
make
some
refinements
based
on
the
feedback
we
were
getting
from
residents
of
the
city.
F
So
we
did
that
and
in
modules
in
in
the
summer
of
last
year,
made
some
significant
changes
to
modules,
one
and
two,
and
then
in
the
fall
of
last
year
we
had
the
entire
Consolidated
draft
code
that
included
the
final
module,
which
has
to
do
with
approval
processes
and
procedures.
So
the
entire
process
followed
these
phases.
You
know
they
were
called
modules,
but
going
through
what
are
the
specific
uses
in
the
city
in
Phase,
One
and
phase
two.
What
are
the
design
and
development
standards
that
we
have
and
then
finally
phase?
F
Three
was:
what
kind
of
processes
do
we
use
at
the
city
to
approve
development
of
of
all
types?
So
here
we
are
in
the
spring
of
2023
getting
into
the
public
hearing
process.
We
did
have
the
assistance
throughout
the
process
from
Clarion,
which
is
a
the
city
in
2019
selected
Clarion,
to
be
a
consultant
to
this
process,
and
they
were
chosen
because
they
have
a
tremendous
amount
of
experience
in
this
regard,
drafting
ordinances
for
communities
across
the
country
over
a
long
period
of
time,
so
they
have
been
instrumental
in
in
drafting
the
ordinance.
F
F
The
first
thing
that
they
did
was
conduct
this
evaluation
of
the
existing
ordinance
and
just
a
couple
of
things
here
from
this
list
of
things.
So
they
were
looking
at
our
current
ordinance
relative
to
is
this
ordinance
capable
of
actually
implementing
your
comprehensive
plan,
which
was
adopted
in
2011.
F
and
what
they
not
surprisingly
found
is
that
it
is
not,
and
just
a
couple
of
highlights
from
this
list,
the
evaluation
of
the
current
ordinance
determined
that
it's
a
poor
fit
with
Boise's
planning
goals
and
I'll
get
into
that
a
bit
more
in
just
a
moment
and
that
it
was
also
poorly
designed
to
protect
what
makes
Boise
unique
so
and
on
and
on
lots
of
technical
aspects
of
the
existing
ordinance,
which
is
in
their
evaluation,
found
to
be
not
at
all
consistent
with
what
the
community
said.
It
wants
its
future
to
be
in
Blueprint
Boise.
F
In
addition,
there
was
a
advisory
committee
established
this
group
of
20
people
that
met
over
20
times
over
several
years,
and
this
group,
you
know,
discussed
each
of
those
phases
along
those
phases
that
I
mentioned
in
the
process
got
into
each
one
of
them
and
in
depth
and
didn't
was
not.
You
know,
involved
in
exactly
drafting
the
ordinance,
but
was
constantly
providing
feedback
and
good
discussion
among
this
group,
which
included
a
variety
of
people
that
come
from
neighborhoods,
but
also
the
development
community.
F
So
it
was
a
good,
diverse
group
of
people
to
discuss
each
step
of
the
way
how
this
process
was
unfolding
and
give
guidance
to
where
we
ended
up
with
this
draft
ordinance
before
you
throughout
the
process,
it
was,
as
I,
said,
a
variety
of
ways
for
people
to
be
involved.
Many
Community
conversations,
which
happened
all
over
the
city,
as
I
mentioned
over
20
meetings,
the
advisory
committee
surveys
that
were
done.
F
So
I
guess
the
point
of
that
is
just
to
reinforce
and
get
back
to
my
my
first
statement
tonight
the
importance
of
everybody's
commitment
to
this,
and
regardless
of
where
we
ended
up
in
terms
of
your
perspective,
on
how
we're
proposing
to
regulate
development
in
the
city,
it
is
certainly
the
case
that
there
was
a
huge
Community
discussion
around
this
over
a
period
of
years,
not
something
that
was
come.
That
was
that
we
came
to
quickly.
It
was
something
that
was
a
very
deliberative
process
here.
F
We
are
today
in
2023
and
just
to
get
you
into
the
adoption
timeline
that
started
with
the
release
of
the
full
draft
at
the
end
of
February,
as
I
mentioned,
we
initially
sent
to
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
on
March
30th
that
report
it
was
a
fairly
lengthy
one,
some
outline
of
which
I'll
go
through
in
these
next
few
slides.
We
also
sent
on
April
13th
that
memo
that
I
mentioned
earlier,
that
it
did
include
a
list
of
things
that
we're
not
addressing
in
this
ordinance.
F
It
also
included
a
Redline
version
of
the
ordinance
just
to
address
type
typos
and
grammatical
errors
in
the
ordinance
that
was
released
at
the
end
of
February.
Here
we
are
at
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
hearings
this
week
in
April.
We
will
have
a
similar
set
of
hearings
before
the
Boise
City
Council
in
June,
and
then
the
Boise
city
council
will
vote
on
this.
F
So
the
discussion
around
this,
the
the
welcoming
of
perspectives
on
on
these
rules,
continue
this
week
and
then
they'll
also
continue
in
the
middle
of
June,
which
is
when
Council
will
vote
on
the
ordinance
and
and
determine
an
effective
date.
You
see
that
at
the
far
right
here,
we'll
have
to
determine
what's
the
effective
date
of
this
ordinance
and
that
will
have
to
be
determined.
F
Shifting
now
to
this
relationship
between
what
we're
proposing
in
Blueprint,
Boise
and
I,
just
want
to
note
that
so
much
of
what
was
in
Blueprint
Boise
in
terms
of
what
it
recommended
in
terms
of
how
we
achieve
the
goals
and
the
vision
that
are
represented
in
Blueprint
blueprint
boys,
he
had
to
do
with
a
new
zoning
code
or
substantial
changes
to
the
zoning
code
which
have
not
occurred.
You
know,
after
blueprint
Boise
was
adopted,
there
has
been
minor
changes
to
the
zoning
ordinance.
F
The
final
bullet
in
this
list,
the
18
of
the
45
actions
in
Blueprint,
Boise
directed
the
city
through
its
planning
department
to
amend
the
development
code,
and
when
you
have
such
a
substantial
number
of
recommendations
in
your
comprehensive
plan
that
you
need
code
changes.
That's
speaking
to
you
need
a
new
ordinance
that
is
consistent
with
these
recommendations.
F
I'll
get
into
a
few
of
those
things
another
indication
of
why
you
need
a
new
zoning
ordinance
along
the
same
lines
as
what
I
was
speaking
to,
but
relative
to
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commissions
work
and
the
types
of
cases
that
you
see
in
an
ongoing
basis.
F
You've
had
a
tremendous
amount
of
effort
within
this
community
to
create
individual
zoning
districts
through
these
puds,
because
the
existing
ordinance
just
isn't
working,
which
you
all
see
so
much
of
whether
it's
variances
or
planning
your
developments
or
rezonings
appeals
and
so
forth,
and
appeals
coming
from
not
only
neighbors
but
also
applicants
who
appeals.
F
You
know
that
come
to
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
and
city
council
relative
to
appeals
of
decisions
over
that
period
of
time
getting
into
the
recommendations
of
blueprint,
Boise
and
some
specific,
the
the
kind
of
headline
issues
in
Boise,
of
course,
the
first
being
housing.
F
We
have
blueprint
Boise
and
its
recommendations,
which
you
see
on
this.
Well,
what
you
see
here
is
the
housing
needs
assessment,
which
was
done
after
blueprint
Boise
to
look
at
what
is
the
supply
of
housing
that
Boise
needs
in
order
to
deal
with
the
demand
that
the
city
is
seeing
now
and
the
housing
needs
assessment
recommended
that
we
actually
need
2,
700
new
housing
units
each
year,
just
to
keep
up
with
demand,
we're
not
close
to
that.
F
Over
the
past
several
years
we've
issued
between
about
a
thousand
and
1500
permits
for
new
construction
of
of
homes
and
Boise,
so
we're
we're
far
below
what
the
housing
needs.
Assessment
was
saying
that
we
needed,
but
it
was
also
saying
that
we
need
a
broader
variety
of
housing
types,
and
this
range
should
include
attached
homes,
duplexes
townhouses,
multi-family
dwellings,
the
point
being
just
that
you
know
we
can't
solve
our
housing
problem
with
one
solution.
We
need
many
solutions
and
solutions.
F
That
rate
relate
to
all
housing
types,
and
this
is
something
we've
learned
from
other
cities
over
the
past
10
years,
that
if
you
seek
one
solution,
you're,
probably
not
going
to
be
that
successful.
So
I
think
one
thing
you
see
in
this
proposal
is
a
variety
of
ways
to
deal
with
our
housing
challenges,
not
in
the
way
that
we
have
to
acquiesce
to,
but
quite
the
opposite
in
in
a
way
that
we
should
be.
F
You
know,
excited
about
in
the
sense
that
we
could
have
a
greater
diversity
of
housing.
This
is
so
much
a
part
of
what
blueprint
Boise
recommended,
also
with
regard
to
the
new
code
and
what
we're
seeking
to
accomplish
with
it,
addressing
issues
around
being
environmentally
sensitive
and
addressing
issues
related
to
climate,
a
couple
of
recommendations
from
blueprint
Boise
here
to
highlight
development
regulations.
We
need
development
regulations
that
will
help
us
further
the
community's
sustainability
objectives.
F
If
our
development
regulations
are
not
consistent
with
what
we
seek
to
do
from
us
as
a
city
and
as
a
community
related
to
climate
and
other
issues
around
environmental
sensitivity,
then
we're
not
going
to
be
very
successful
and
the
benefits
of
energy
efficient
buildings
will
be
lost
if
the
future
occupants
of
those
buildings
must
drive
20
miles
to
the
nearest
grocery
store
and
commute
an
hour.
Each
way
to
work
this
just
getting
to
this
is
blueprint
Boise
in
2011
this
issue
of.
F
If
we
continue
to
grow
in
a
manner
that
we
spread
across
the
landscape
and
people
have
to
drive
further
and
further
for
their
work
or
for
any
Services,
we
will
not
be
successful
and
we
will
not
be
a
city
that
is
addressing
issues
around
climate
or
sustainability
from
blueprint
voicing
and
then
finally,
here,
as
it
relates
to
the
relationship
between
this
new
code
and
blue
and
blueprint
Boise
when
it
comes
to
Transportation,
specifically,
you
know
huge
costs
associated
with
the
extension
of
highways
to
to
support.
F
You
know
development
further
and
further
from
the
city,
relatively
small
investment.
If
we
can
avoid
doing
that,
and
rather
invest
in
the
existing
City
and
other
modes
of
transportation,
with
the
bottom
line
from
blueprint
Boise
being,
we
must
enable
more
residents
the
ability
to
choose
alternative
modes
of
travel.
F
Shifting
now
to
the
new,
a
modern
zoning
code
goals,
several
of
them
here
that
I'll
go
into
a
little
bit
more
detail
about,
but
again
a
variety
of
housing
options.
Number
one:
a
sustainable
development
pattern,
number
two
Transportation
options
for
more
residents
of
the
city
and
supporting
a
healthy
community
and
environment,
something
for
each
of
those
creating
a
variety
of
housing
options.
As
I
said
earlier,
one
solution
isn't
enough:
we
need
every
solution
when
it
comes
to
housing.
F
That
includes
a
variety
of
housing
in
the
right
places,
housing
that
is
appropriate
at
the
neighborhood
scale
in
neighborhoods
and
housing
that
isn't
in
the
Neighborhood
Housing.
That
is
in
a
denser,
more
urban
place
outside
of
neighborhoods,
which
is
the
way
this
ordinance
has
been,
has
been
organized
that
you
have
housing
at
a
neighborhood
scale
within
your
neighborhood
and
those
are
very
traditional
to
Boise
neighborhoods
in
most
neighborhoods
in
this
country,
and
then
you
have
denser
taller
buildings
outside
of
neighborhoods
nearby,
but
but
on
corridors
for
instance
or
downtown.
F
So
you've
got
it's
important
that
we
do
that
and
then,
and
that
we
limit
the
impacts
to
vulnerable
residents.
We've
added
a
piece
in
here
that
directly
speaks
to
those
most
vulnerable
and
we
were
concerned
about
that
relative
to
this
new
code,
because
we
are
permitting
more
density
along
corridors,
for
instance,
where
you
currently
have
commercial
and
multi-family
zoning,
so
to
provide
some
Protections
in
this
ordinance
for
our
most
vulnerable
residents.
F
The
predictable
development
pattern
again
this
image
here
on
the
left
is
from
planning.
That's
been
done
for
State
Street
in
Boise
and
association,
with
the
big
investment
that
we'll
be
making
in
bus,
Rapid,
Transit,
State
Street,
along
with
Vista
and
Fairview,
though,
are
streets
now
that
have
our
best
bus
service,
but
direct
development
where
there's
planned
public
investment.
F
This
is
so
much
an
important
part
of
what
this
ordinance
is
proposing
to
do,
because
we
know
again
from
experience
that
that
the
financially
sustainable
way
to
grow
is
one
that
we're
utilizing
the
existing
infrastructure
and
services
that
the
city
and
its
residents
are
now
paying
for,
rather
than
having
to
constantly
invest
our
resources
in
infrastructure
outside
of
the
city
footprint
and
further
from
the
city,
and
not
only
infrastructure,
but
those
services.
F
This
sustainable
belt
development
pattern
is
also
a
financially
sustainable
development
pattern
and
then
Transportation
options,
though,
if
you
care
about
traffic
congestion,
the
most
important
thing
for
us
to
concern
ourselves
with
is
that
we
grow
in
a
manner
that
more
residents
of
this
city
can
drive
less
and
and
less
far
again
proven
a
hundred
percent
of
the
time
that,
if
we,
if
we
require
more,
we
require
residents
of
the
city
and
more
people
that
live
here.
The
residents
that
live
here
now
and
newcomers
to
Boise
to
drive
to
do
everything.
F
Then
we
will
not
be
successful
in
our
frustration.
Around
congestion
will
grow
and
grow.
So
much
of
this
has
to
do
with
doing
what
we
can
through
the
zoning
ordinance
to
ensure
that
we
have
a
development
pattern
that
supports
Movement
by
all
people
in
all
ways
and
implementation
of
the
pathways
master
plan,
for
instance,
and
ensuring
that
people
have
places
to
walk
and
ride
their
bikes
to
or
take
a
bus
as
close
to
their
neighborhood
or
within
their
neighborhood
as
possible.
F
This
is
the
challenge
when
it
comes
to
cities
in
this
country
and
Boise
included
related
to
transportation
and,
finally,
as
it
relates
to
the
help
healthy
environment.
What's
most
important
here
is
that
our
development
ordinance
reflects
the
unique
physical
characteristics
of
Boise,
and
you
know
you
think
about
1966
when
the
current
ordinance
was
drafted,
the
the
obviously
the
conditions
that
cities
were
facing
at
that
time
were
utterly
different,
completely
and
utterly
different.
Here
we
are
today,
we've
learned
a
lot.
F
Things
have
changed
over
the
past
60
years,
and
one
of
the
things
we
know
is
so
important
is
that
our
development
code
has
to
acknowledge
this
specific
physical
place
and
how
it's
organized,
and
specifically
how
the
city
and
the
more
urban
aspects
of
the
city
are
organized,
but
also
the
importance
of
the
river
and
the
mountains
and
the
desert
that
we
sit
within
the
point.
Is
that
there's
a
direct
relationship
between
the
urban
parts
of
what
we're
seeking
to
accomplish
and
the
intact
landscape
and
nature
around
us?
F
F
This
has
to
do
with
the
findings
for
approval
so
shifting
to
a
kind
of
technical
outline
here
of
what
will
be
happening
as
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
goes
through
its
work
this
week
and
then
comes
to
some
conclusion
later
in
the
week.
So
this
is
the
nature
of
the
action
that
will
be
taken
and
the
findings
related
to
those.
So
the
question
is:
are
the
proposals
do
they
comply
with
and
conform
to
the
comprehensive
plan?
F
And
what
we're
saying
is
the
proposed
zoning
code
establishes
a
set
of
land
use
and
design
standards
to
implement
the
vision
of
blueprint,
Boise
and
much
of
its
goals,
policies
and
actions.
So
this
relates
to
the
relationship
from
a
technical
standpoint
between
what
we're
proposing
as
an
ordinance
and
the
city's
comprehensive
plan
and
we're
suggesting
that
we
should
find
that
these.
This
ordinance
directly
relates
to
the
land,
use,
design,
standards
and
and
vision
of
blueprint,
Boise
also
that
they
provide
for
the
zoning
goals
to
achieve
a
sustainable,
efficient
and
responsible
development
pattern.
F
And
as
it
relates
to
the
comprehensive
plan
amendments,
this
gets
back
to
you
know
what
what
are
the
actions
that
we're
taking?
What
are
we
required
to
to
conclude
from?
What's
being
proposed
and
I
won't
go
through
these
in
detail,
but
ensure
that
the
comprehensive
plan
uses
language
and
terminology?
That's
consistent
with
the
development
code
that
we
have
that
we
have.
F
This
has
to
do
with
the
consistency
between
the
code
that
we're
proposing
and
the
comprehensive
plan,
again
common
language
and
and
correct
language
and
terminology,
and
that
it's
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
which
we
went
into
in
quite
a
bit
of
detail
in
that
report.
You
received
on
on
March
30th
again
that
there's
not
inconsistencies
between
those
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
ordinance
which
we
say
they're.
F
And
what
we're
suggesting,
through
the
points
that
I
made
in
this
presentation
and
went
more
in
depth
to
and
in
the
report
that
you
received,
is
in
fact
that
the
code
that
we're
proposing
is
bringing
us
into
consistency
with
blueprint,
Boise
and
proposing
a
a
development
pattern
or
the
rules
around
a
development
pattern
that
would
be
is
is
a
solution
to
our
transportation.
Public
facility
needs
how
we
deliver
services
and
and
so
forth.
F
And
then
I
want
to
get
to
what
is
the
action
of
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
week
this
week
and
and
the
type
of
decision
is,
is
the
legislative
decision
on
a
proposed
new
set
of
rules
around
development?
It's
a
policy
decision.
The
point
is
that
this
is
not
a
specific
development
case
like
you'd,
see
where
the
plan
unit
development
or
a
site
plan
that
you
might
see
we're
not
getting
into
that
kind
of
level
of
detail
here.
F
What
the
Planning,
Commission,
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
direct
makes
a
recommendation
to
city
council
on
the
on
the
repeal
and
replacement
of
the
existing
code
and
then
the
comprehensive
plan
amendments
that
bring
that
bring
the
comprehensive
plan
into
alignment
with
this
new
code
and
ultimately
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
is
recommending
yes
or
no
to
council
as
to
whether
or
not
this
these
things
are
appropriate
so
recommending
to
City
Council.
Of
course,
as
I
said
earlier,
city
council
will
then
have
their
hearings
in
June
in
June
and
and
we'll
act
on
this.
F
In
your
deliberation,
though,
of
course,
you're
going
to
hear
lots
of
opinions
about
aspects
of
this
ordinance
and
certainly
to
to
identify
issues
as
you've
heard
them
this
week,
as
this
goes
to
city
council,
identify
those
issues,
hey
that
here's
things
that
came
up
frequently
and
we'd
like
you
to
consider
Council
when
you
make
your
decision
yes
or
no.
On
this
new
code
and
comprehensive
plan
change,
we
are
recommending
approval
of
both
the
new,
the
repeal
and
replacement
of
repeal
of
our
current
ordinance
replacement
with
this
new
one
and
the
comprehensive
plan
Amendment.
F
Ultimately,
when
you
get
to
motions,
you
will
need
one
for
each
I
do
want
to
mention
some
common
themes
that
you've
seen
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
has,
since
late
March
been
getting
we've
gotten
lots
of
community
input
via
written
comments.
Since
the
ordinance,
the
final
draft
was
released
at
the
end
of
February.
The
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
has
been
receiving
that
on
a
weekly
basis.
F
Ideas
about
the
allowed
use
and
allowed
form
standards
within
the
mixed
use
zone,
so
this
is
broken
down
by
zoning
districts
and
use
regulations
first,
but
I
don't
want
to
suggest
that
there's
one
opinion
on
any
of
these.
There
certainly
isn't.
This
is
not
a
list
of
things
that
people
are
upset
about.
F
The
use
specific
standards
related
to
duplexes
triplexes
and
quadruplexes
neighborhood
neighborhood
cafes,
that
you've
probably
heard
a
lot
about
within
neighborhoods
and
then
drive
through
facilities
in
the
city.
These,
as
I
said,
relate
to
the
zoning
districts
and
use
regulations,
then,
on
to
the
development
and
design
standards.
F
The
dimension
dimensional
standards
within
rep
for
residential,
in
particular
for
r1c
r1c,
right,
the
incentives
related
to
residential
which
have
to
do
with
affordability
requirements
and
also
ensuring
that
that,
where
you're
getting
additional
density,
you
are
meeting
certain
sustainability
standards,
lots
of
opinions
about
that
and
in
many
different
directions:
minor
land
divisions
which
we
we
had
had
administratively
previously
and
were
proposing
not
an
administrative
approval
on
minor
land
divisions
and
then
parking
requirements.
F
As
you
know,
lots
of
opinions
about
this,
both
within
neighborhoods
as
it
relates
to
single-family
duplex,
Triplex
fourplex,
but
also
even
parking
maximums
for
commercial
uses,
lots
of
thoughts
about
parking
and
whether
we're
requiring
too
much
or
not
enough
and
and
those
kinds
of
things
and
then
in
terms
of
the
third
part
of
it
having
to
do
with
Administration
and
procedures
the
noticing
for
type
2.
So
in
this
ordinance
we're
proposing
that
we
have
four
types
of
of
approvals
as
it
relates.
F
You
know,
organization,
zoning
ordinances
have
a
certain
amount
of
complexity
to
them.
We're
talking
about
thousands
of
parcels,
85
square
miles,
there's
a
certain
amount
of
complexity
built
into
it.
We're
proposing
these
four
types
as
a
way
to
somewhat
simplify
the
process
and
within
those
types
types
one
and
two
do
not
have
a
public
hearing.
F
There
was
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
about
these
things
and
in
the
memo
that
we
sent
to
the
Planning
Commission,
everyone
has
access
to
this
on
the
city's
website.
But
it's
dated
April
13th
we
go
into
why
we're
not
addressing
them
and
they
substantially
have
to
do
with.
Mostly
legal
issues,
some
of
these
things
have
been
dealt
with
by
the
city
city,
Wireless,
Communications
and
short-term
rentals
in
particular
fairly
recently.
F
So
that
is
the
conclusion
of
my
slides
and
just
want
to
acknowledge
the
the
importance
of
this
deliberation
that
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
is
having
this
week
and
acknowledge
the
importance
of
and
helpfulness
of,
all
suggestions,
comments,
whether
in
favor
or
against,
have
been
throughout
this
process
and,
most
recently
since,
since
this
final
draft
was
adopted
at
the
end
of
February,
it's
it's
it's
expected
and
and
and
healthy
for
people
within
this
community
to
have
have
strong
opinions
about
this.
F
We
think
we've
gotten
to
a
collection
of
recommendations
and
a
new
code
that
is
very
reflective
of
this
place
and
includes
lots
of
solutions
for
the
big
problems
that
we're
all
seeking
to
address
here,
but
but
but
it's
this
we're
not
done
yet
so
so
anyway.
Thank
you
for
that
time
to
to
provide
some
contacts
for
all
this
discussion
that
will
go
on
this
week.
B
E
B
Thank
you
very
much
appreciate
the
overview
before
we
get
started
to
just
want
to
thank
you
and
all
of
the
staff
for
all
the
efforts.
Thus
far,
it's
been
a
you
know
three
years
in
running
process
here,
and
you
know
we've
heard
from
staff
on
occasion
throughout
that
process.
So
we
appreciate
all
of
the
updates
you've
given
us
over
the
years
to
see
how
this
was
playing
out,
and
we
appreciate
all
that
effort,
and
we
know
you
guys
all
spent
a
lot
of
time
putting
this
together.
G
Commissioner,
Gillespie
so
Crystal,
so
that
is
that
it
from
the
city,
and
so
if
I
like
have
questions
about,
say,
parking
requirements
and
just
wanting
to
see
a
little
bit
more
of
that
detail
in
here.
The
city's
thoughts
on
that
is
now
the
time
to
ask
that
question
or
later
or
or
how
would
you
like
to
proceed
with
that.
A
G
Mr
chairman,
please
and
remember
you
know
other
Commissioners,
so
I
have
a
couple
of
areas:
I'm
kind
of
interested
in
hearing
more
about
in
more
detail.
I
just
want
to
lay
them
out
in
advance.
So
you
guys
you
know,
so
we
can
get
this
synced
up
so
I'm
very
interested
in
the
parking
question.
G
Okay
and
just
the
policy
you
know,
starting
at
a
general
level
and
working
down,
okay
like
what
what
are
we
trying
to
do
here
and
then
how
are
we
trying
to
enable
it
in
the
code
I'm
very
interested
in
parking?
The
other
thing
I'm
I'm,
really
interested
in
talking
about
is
the
changes
to
the
procedures,
kind
of
the
way
we're
creating
these
new
types
and
what
the
city
is
trying
to
do
with
these
different
types
which
which
sort
of
move
away
from
the
current
I
won't
say.
G
B
Yeah
I
have
a
feeling
that
we're
all
going
to
be
in
I'm
sure
we
have
overlap
right
in
what
we
have
questions.
You
know
I,
think,
there's
really.
You
know
we
I
think
we
should
just
kind
of
jump
in
and
get
it
going,
maybe
Tim.
We
can
start
at
the
top
here
with
milt's
question
about
parking
when
we
start
that
discussion
right
here,
yeah.
F
G
F
D
B
F
E
E
F
This
was
an
important
issue
to
get
into
I'll
tell
you
that,
from
you
know,
blueprint
Boise
and
all
the
the
goals
that
we
have
as
a
city
related
to
transportation
and
land
use.
Specifically,
we
did
feel
updates
to
the
parking
requirements
were
important
ones
to
make
and-
and
you
know
and
I
think
we
started
the
process,
thinking
that
those
changes
would
maybe
be
more
dramatic
than
than
they
ended
up
being
in
the
sense
that
we
would
have
ended
up
recommending
the
elimination
of
parking
requirements
in
more
cases.
F
But
this
is
a
slide
that
shows
you
the
details
around
parking.
That's
within
this
proposed
ordinance,
as
it
relates
to
multiple
things,
but
I'll
say
that
where
we
ended
up
is
that
we
did
reduce
the
parking
requirements
for
an
individual
home
or
a
small
scale,
residential,
so
duplex
up
to
four
units,
because
previously
it
had
been
two
spaces
off
street
parking
spaces
per
unit
and
we're
proposing
that
it'd
be
one.
F
So
that's
a
change
in
this
proposed
ordinance.
We
do
have
parking
maximums
for
some
of
our
commercial
uses,
as
you
can
see
here,
typically
about
a
125
percent
of
what
the
minimum
is.
So
there
are
maximums
within
the
commercial
uses,
but
those
aren't
related
to
the
zones
to
provide
some
distinction
there.
So
you
have,
for
instance,
an
MX3
Zone,
but
but
those
parking
maximums
don't
relate
to
the
zone,
for,
in
that
case
the
MX3
they
actually
relate
to
the
use.
F
So
really,
the
reduction
in
required
off
street
parking
is
really
within
those
smaller
scale,
residential
going
from
two
off
Street
spaces
to
one
and
then
we
do
have
some
incentive
based
barking
reductions
that
have
to
do
with
cases
where
you're
meeting
in
affordable
requirements,
so
you're
you're,
providing
housing
at
specific
income
levels
that
in
the
mixed
use
zones.
Then
you
get
reductions
in
parking.
So
so
we
have
that,
but
the
across
the
board,
it's
just
in
the
small
scale,
residential
Mr.
G
Chairman,
please
so
director
Tim,
so
you
know:
we've
all
us
planning
guys,
read
the
Bible,
the
high
cost
of
free
parking
by
Dr
Shupe,
and
we
all
know
who
are
thinking
about
it
right.
Roughly
30
percent,
20
percent
of
the
land
area
in
in
the
city
is
devoted
to
roads
and
parking
at
the
average
parking
spaces
utilized
at
like
10
20
percent.
G
F
As
you
know,
there's
been
lots
of
cases
in
this
country
now,
where
parking
minimums
have
been
eliminated
and
even
cases
where
there's
more
kind
of
aggressive
maximums
being
created
for
the
very
reason
you're
saying
that
parking
spaces
are
deadening
to
cities
and
and
not
helpful
in
so
many
ways,
I
would
say,
though,
across
the
board.
There
are
helpful
aspects
of
this
when
it
comes
to
that.
F
You
know
we
we
do
the
the
changes
that
we're
making
to
the
smaller
scale
residential,
we
think,
are
very
helpful
and
will
enable
some
of
those
what
might
be
called
well.
You
know
the
small
scale
residential
in
neighborhoods
make
them
more
possible
in
the
denser
mixed
juice
areas.
I
think
what
we'll
see
more
of
and
what
I
think
this
ordinance
would
help
accomplish,
is
more
of
a
a
shift
to
less
surface
parking
in
in
those
areas.
You
know
we
have
think
about
where
the
MX3
is
proposed,
which
is
activity
centers,
Vista,
State
and
Fairview.
F
We
have
such
enormous
fields
of
surface
parking.
You
know,
transitioning
to
other,
you
know
structured
parking
and
so
forth.
I
think
the
that
would
be
the
biggest
impact
of
this
ordinance
in
areas
like
that,
but
I,
but
I
do
think.
The
changes
we're
making
to
the
smaller
scale
residential
will
be
hugely
helpful
in
terms
of
getting
more
of
that
possible
within
our
neighborhoods.
G
That
the
ideas
of
parking,
could
you
talk
about
just
the
very
high
cost
of
parking
spaces
for
development
and
what
it
does
to
the
cost
of
all
kinds
of
real
estate
and
affordability
in
our
city?.
F
I
think
you
know
the
place
to
start
with.
That
is
that
we
hear
this
every
time
someone
comes
in
to
build
anything
is
that
the
parking
is
is
such
a
is
such
a
determinant
of
what's
possible.
You
know
so
often
now,
given
especially
the
way
the
regulations
are
here
in
most
places.
You
know
you
start
with
what
can
I
park?
It's
not
what
can
I
achieve
from
a
development
standpoint.
F
The
cost
of
that
is
enormous,
but
when
you
get
to
you
know,
when
you
get
to
structured
parking,
you're
talking
about
really
significant
amounts,
20,
30,
plus
thousand
dollars
per
parking
space,
which
really
changes
the
potential
for
any
Builder
to
to
offer
rents
or
prices
that
are
affordable,
that
so
impacts
the
actual
cost
of
housing
in
the
city,
the
the
cost
of
providing
that
parking
and
even
think
about
a
small
scale,
residential
situation.
F
F
And
then
the
second
point
was
about
the
approval
processes
and
just
to
speak
to
that
a
little
bit
more,
the
as
we
were
moving
into
the
third
phase
of
this
of
this
ordinance.
F
We
certainly
recognized
that
again
learning
from
other
cities
that
if
we
don't
address
the
process
for
approval
in
this
new
ordinance,
then
we're
not
we're,
probably
going
to
be
very
frustrated
as
a
community
and
and
I
used
to
say
this
last
summer.
A
lot
that
the
purpose
of
this
ordinance
is
not
really
to
determine
how
we
want
to
organize
our
arguments.
F
F
If
you
look
at
all
of
that
material
that
I
reviewed
tonight
from
blueprint
Boise
that
speaks
to
all
these
issues
and
then
and
then
number
one
and
number
two,
how
can
we
involve
the
community
in
again
making
this
ordinance
successful
and
so
an
example
is
the
allowed
use
allowed
form,
which
is
a
type
two
versus
a
loud
use,
alternative
form,
which
is
a
type
three
that
does
go
to
hearing
and
so,
for
instance,
on
our
in
our
MX3
areas,
which
are
along
those
Transit
routes
and
activity
centers.
F
These
are
places
where
imagine
you
know
where
Redevelopment
can
be
hugely
beneficial
to
the
city
in
every
way
imaginable
that
that,
if
you're
building
densely
in
those
cases
on
those
streets
in
mx3s,
then
you're
a
type
2
which
does
not
go
to
hearing
and
if
you're,
building
less
dents
in
those
areas
where
we're
I
mean
this
is
not
the
whole
city.
It's
it's
those
three
corridors
and
activity
centers.
F
So
it's,
but
if
you're
building
in
these
important
places
where
we
really
need
density
and
you're,
building
less
dense,
You're
Building
not
dense
enough,
then
you're
allowed
use
alternative
form,
which
is
a
Type
3
and
does
go
to
hearing.
F
So
this
is
something
that
isn't
I
think
a
an
approach
to
approval
processes.
That
is
not
one,
that's
often
been
taken
and
I
think
it's
it's
actually
building
on
what
we've
seen
in
other
cities,
cities
seeking
to
achieve
these
kinds
of
things
through
their
processes,
but
I
think
this
is
a
a
unique
and
exciting
proposal
for
how
to
do
that.
B
J
Daily
yeah
Mr
chair
on
this
line
of
parking,
real
quick
though
Tim
Crystal,
Andrea
and
everybody
else
just
want
to
publicly
State.
You
know
I
know
a
lot
of
hard
work
has
gone
into
this
and
it's
worth
saying
out
loud.
You
know
we
I
think
everybody
appreciates
it
to
want
to
agree
or
another.
Let's
see
how
it
goes,
but
ultimately
a
lot
of
work
and
you
should
be
acknowledged
for
that
work
and
then
quickly
to
the
public.
I.
F
Well,
the
the.
B
F
Have
discussed
this
this
you
know
and
and
I
I
would
at
least
for
me
last
summer
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
parking
requirements
in
this
new
code
and
and
the
way
we
presented
it
in
public
meetings.
I
know
through
most
of
last
year
was
that
the
the
elimination
of
minimums,
for
instance,
in
this
code,
doesn't
mean
that
there
will
be
no
parking.
F
What
it
means
is
that
the
public
would
not
be
saying
that
you
must
build
parking
right,
I
mean
the,
so
the
zoning
code
is
not
necessarily
the
determinant
as
to
whether
there
is
parking
or
not
parking
would
be
provided
in
most
cases
under
any
circumstance.
The
issue
is:
do
we,
as
the
city
and
and
by
the
city,
the
public?
F
Do
we
want
to
be
requiring
that,
and-
and
so
I
will
say
that
there
was
a
lot
of
debate
about
that
and
to
your
point,
and-
and
this
is
where
we
ended
up,
as
is
the
proposal
that
I
outlined
just
a
moment
in
response
to
Mr,
Gillespie's,
question
and
and
I
think
the
elimination
of
minimums
is
is,
is
the
right
way
to
go?
You
know,
I.
Think
if
you
look
at
cities
and
the
enormous
cost
of
parking
and
the
what
is
possible,
if
you
don't
have
those
minimum
requirements,
then
then
then
that's
the
direction.
F
The
city
should
be
headed
in
I.
Think
where
we
ended
up
in
terms
of
our
recommendations
is
where
we
felt
the
city
could
get
now
and
and
what
was
what
was
addressing.
The
variety
of
concerns
that
we
heard
from
all
Specter
of
opinions
in
the
public
process
is
where
we
ended
up,
but
I
think
the
our
recommendation
is
that
we
that
we
seek
to
eliminate
parking
minimums
through
a
public
code,
and
this
is
a
step
in
that
direction.
With
regard
to
maximums,
you
know,
I
think
maximums
are
really
helpful.
F
In
some
cases
you
know
maximums,
especially
in
cases
where
you're
really
seeking
to
put
your
investment
in
public
transportation,
for
instance,
and
and
we
ended
up,
including
maximums,
that
relate
to
specific
uses
that
are
commercial
uses,
primarily
because
they
end
up
in
places
that
tend
to
be
in
this
code.
You
know
more
walkable
places
whether
it's
MX3,
mx4
or
MX-5.
J
This
church
is
going
to
continue
if
I
might
just
brief,
just
a
few
more
Tim,
again
I'm
just
kind
of
speaking
to
much
of
the
testimony
we
saw
in
the
written
record
I
wonder
if
you
can
touch
on
the
relationship
between
the
utilization
of
on-street
parking
and
achd
every
time
we
talk
about
that
in
this
chamber
every
time
we
have
a
proposal
that
says
it.
You
know
maybe
we're
counting
a
couple
of
stalls
on
street
parking
as
it
relates
to
satisfying
our
code.
J
We
always
get
back
that
same
form,
letter
from
achd,
saying,
essentially
they're
not
going
to
guarantee
that
that
street
will
maintain
that
parking
in
perpetuity,
no
matter
the
type
of
street.
So
I'm
curious
your
your
general
sense
of
the
temperature
with
relation
to
achd
and
that
General
policy
of
counting
on-street
parking
towards
satisfying
our
requirements
overall.
F
I
think
the
temperature
has
gotten
much
better
as
it
relates
to
that
and
and
part
of
that,
I
think
does
have
to
do
with
this
whole
process.
All
of
the
discussion
that
went
on
about
on
street
parking
and
its
importance
during
the
zoning
ordinance
creation
process,
which
included,
achd
and
and
I,
think
the
the
so
I
think
the
alignment
between
achd
and
the
city
has
gotten
much
better
and
achd
was
supportive.
You
know.
K
F
Think
can
I
say
this
supportive
of
this
ordinance.
Is
that
a
program-
oh
oh
they're,
neutral
on
this
ordinance?
Excuse
me,
but
but
the
discussion
around
on
tree
parking
has
gotten
much
better
I'll
mention
a
specific
case
where
that
was
represented,
and
that
was
Victory
Road
on
the
bench
where
we
recently,
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
reviewed
a
couple
of
developments
on
Victory
there
and
we.
E
F
I
So,
regarding
a
parking
for
staff,
then
for
commercial
activities
and
maximums,
for
example,
we
have
some
testimony
from
WinCo
regarding
hey.
We
think
we
need
more
parking
than
you're,
allowing
so
what's
staff's
thoughts
on
that.
F
Well,
I
mean
we're
recommending
the
ordinance
that's
before
you
I,
don't
think
we
have
any
recommended
changes
to
our
parking
requirements
and-
and
you
know
there
are
uses
like
grocery
store
or
WinCo-
that
that
require
a
lot
of
parking.
We
think
125
of
the
minimum
is,
is
gracious
for
those
uses
and
and
really,
if
you
look
at
big
parking
load,
tenants
like
that
or
users
like
that
that
there
tends
to
be
a
a
fair
amount
of
unused
parking
at
those
places.
So
so
we're
recommending
what's
before
you.
J
J
So,
for
the
last
several
years,
as
you
know,
we
have
been
requiring
of
of
certain
types
of
development,
most
of
them
to
have
set
aside
space
for
bike
parking.
J
One
thing
I've
been
hearing
sort
of
Through.
The
Grapevine
is
that
you
know
in
many
k
in
some
cases,
I
don't
know
how
many,
but
that,
if
you
have
a
bicycle,
that
is
of
a
certain
value
that
you're
more
inclined
to
want
to
keep
that
bike
inside
your
unit
versus
say
in
a
parking
area,
a
dedicated
parking
area
on
the
ground
floor,
so
I'm
curious.
If
we
have
at
all
been
sort
of
following
up
on
that
policy
over
the
last
bunch
of
years
to
see,
how
is
that
going?
J
F
L
Good
evening,
Commissioners
Andrea
tuning
for
the
record,
as
you
read
the
code
you're
going
to
notice
a
number
of
changes
that
occur
with
bicycle
parking.
So
the
first
change
is:
is
that
we've
really
decoupled
the
amount
of
bicycle
parking?
That's
provided
previously.
You
might
be
familiar
with
the
fact
that
you
would
provide
the
number
of
bicycle
parking
based
on
the
number
of
vehicle
spaces
that
are
required.
So
we
believe
that
not
only
is
vehicular
parking,
a
component
but
also
bicycle
parking,
and
so
we
have
ultimately
determined
two
different
types
of
bicycle
parking.
L
So
you
have
your
long-term
bicycle
parking
that
will
be
provided
so
that
might
be
for
an
employee
in
a
commercial
use
or
it
would
be
for
a
resident
in
a
multi-family
residential
use.
Then
we
also
have
visitor
parking
and
that's
really
for
those
patrons
or
visitors
that
might
be
coming.
So
we
have
examined
it
in
that
location.
We've
also
taken
a
look
at
that
there's
different
types
of
parking,
so
you
have
a
standard
parking
stall
for
some
individuals,
but
then
you
have
other
individuals
that
might
have
a
bicycle
with
a
trailer.
L
It
might
have
a
bicycle
cargo
bike,
so
we
have
accommodated
for
each
one
of
those
types
of
bicycles
as
well.
We
have
also
taken
a
look
at
where
are
those
bicycle
parking
spaces,
provided
so
in
most
cases,
they'll
be
provided
near
the
main
entrance
to
the
building,
so
that
they're
clearly
visible
to
any
visitors
that
might
be
coming
for
those
short-term
spaces.
B
F
The
standards
in
the
slide
here,
it's
really
a
big
improvement
in
our
in
our
parking
and
our
bicycle
parking
requirements,
which
was
a
very
deliberate,
intentional
change
that
was
made
in
this
code
and
in
part,
because,
commissioner,
Danley
of
what
what
we
experienced
with
individual,
you
know
when
we
were
tying
the
bike
parking
requirements
to
the
park,
the
vehicle
parking
requirements.
C
F
I
Question
yeah
thanks
Mr
chair,
so
some
of
the
public
feedback
regarding
that
director
Keane
was
that
why
isn't
bicycle
parking
handled
the
same
as
vehicle
parking,
for
example,
for
the
example
that
that
was
offered
is
in
a
multi-family
development?
It's
assumption,
there's
going
to
be
more
than
one
car
required
for
more
than
one
bedroom,
but
the
same
assumption
is
not
made
for
a
bicycle,
and
that
was
some
prevailing
public
commentary
as
well.
F
Right
and-
and
so
here
what
you
have
proposed
is
that
we're
getting
a
one
long-term
space
and
one
short-term
space
per
unit,
which
is
a
dramatic
increase
from
where
we
are
today.
So
in
reference
to
that
concern
which
we
share,
you
know
we've
really
specifically
isolated
the
bike
parking
to
require
much
more
of
it
in
in
any
case,
in
Boise,.
B
G
Keep
the
ball
rolling
I'm
interested
in
discussing
the
terminology
allowed
use
in
a
loud
form
and
I'm,
specifically
going
to
come
back
to
to
wait,
am
I
supposed
to
pause,
Crystal,
no
I'm
good.
G
You
know
this
commission,
and,
and
myself
in
particular,
can
be
a
real
bear
on
setbacks
and
height
restrictions
in
sort
of
the
traditional
tools
and
the
code
that
we
have
for
what
I
consider.
You
know
the
building
form
questions
the
the
actual
spatial
layout
of
development.
G
Can
you
talk
about
how
the
new
code
addresses
the
the
classic
setback
and
height
the
restrictions
of
the
old
code,
how
it
deals
with
those
in
a
new
context,
a
new
code
and
and
whether
it
I
think
it's
subsumed
in
the
allowable
form
idea
and
I.
Just
wanted
you
to
talk
about
that.
A
little
bit.
F
Right
the
allowed
form,
which
is
specifically
related
to
these
different
districts
that
we're
creating
in
these
MX
districts.
So
you
see
it
here,
the
allowed
forms
and
the
and
the
the
requirements
are
around
each
based
on
the
M,
the
mixed-use
district.
You
have
and
a
reminder
that
the
mx-3
is,
as
I
said,
those
Transit
corridors
and
activity
centers.
F
So
in
each
case
it
has
to
do
with
the
height
of
the
building,
so
the
density
of
what
you're
building
and
it
has
to
do
with
the
parking
and
it
has
to
do
with
the
in
some
cases,
whether
you're,
providing
affordable,
housing
or
not.
But
the
what
isn't
seen
here.
This
is
just
identifying
from
a
density
standpoint.
F
What's
allowed
use
of
lab
form
versus
alternative
form,
but
what
isn't
seen
here
is
the
develop
design
and
development
standards
that
are
throughout
the
ordinance
and
that
whole
section,
which
directly
addresses
the
issues
commissioner
Gillespie
you're
speaking
to,
which
is
this
great
concern
that
we
have
around.
You
know
the
the
the
kind
of
The
Pedestrian
orientation
of
the
design
in
these
these
critical
places
in
the
city,
which
are
fundamentally
a
part
of
those
design
and
development
standards,
so
that
gets
into
setback
that
gets
into
landscape
that
gets
into
the
ground
floor.
B
Sorry,
on
that
same
a
little
bit
in
that
same
line
of
questioning
Tim,
could
you
speak
to
generally
how
this
how
staff
got
to
the
recommended
building
Heights
for
each
of
the
zones?
And
then
you
know
I,
just
we're
kind
of
getting
a
little
bit
into
the
weeds,
but
I
noticed,
for
example,
like
in
the
R3
Zone
I.
Think
the
maximum
Building
height
is
50
feet
and
you
you
identify
a
number
of
stories,
but
then
it
sort
of
varies.
B
F
I
think
there's
two
fundamental
ways
that
we
came
to
the
different
height
requirements
that
are
part
of
this
Ordinance
one
one
aspect
of
it
was:
what
are
the
types
of
buildings
that
we're
seeking
to
enable
to
this
ordinance,
so
an
easy
example
of
that
would
be,
for
instance,
in
those
MX3
areas.
We
know
that
building
type
we
we've
seen
it.
You
know,
we
know
what
the
ideal
building
type
would
be
there.
So,
let's
include
the
height
that
would
be.
F
That
would
be
appropriate
for
that,
so
that
that's
one
important
way
that
we
came
to
these
recommendations.
The
second
I
I
think
as
well,
though,
is
just
feedback
that
we
were
receiving
throughout
the
process
could
because,
when
you
think
about
the
design
and
development
standards,
those
were
first
presented
in
that
module.
Two
that
went
out
earlier,
I
don't
have
the
dates
in
front
of
me,
but
early
in
2022,
even
late
2021,
and
then
we
came
back
to
that
very
same
discussion,
including
Heights
in
the
summer
of
last
year.
F
So
the
second
piece
of
it
in
addition
to
what
type
of
buildings
are
we
seeking
to
enable?
The
second
piece
was:
what
kind
of
feedback
are
we
getting?
What
what
are
people
saying
about
these
Heights
and-
and
that
was
an
important
part
of
this
as
well
an
example
of
that
actually
is
the
requirement
in
some
of
our
in
our
r1c,
for
instance,
that
we
have
a
building
height
of
three
stories
or
40
feet.
F
That
was
a
change
last
summer,
because
we
were
getting
feedback
that
you
know
we
were
going
to
get
four-story
or
more,
even
maybe
even
more
four
and
a
half
story
buildings
and
a
40-foot
Zone
requirement.
So
we
added
the
three
stories,
because
the
intention
had
always
been
that
we
would
not
permit
taller
than
three-story
buildings,
but
we
felt
it
was
appropriate
to
be
concerned
that,
by
going
just
to
40
feet
that
we
could
end
up
with
something
taller
than
that.
I
Throughout
our
written
testimony
that
we
received,
he
talked
to
us
about
how
the
staff
handled
the
transition
from
the
concern
I'm
in
a
single
family
home
in
an
r1c
neighborhood,
it's
single
story
and
now
I'm,
looking
at
maybe
something
nearby,
that's
gonna
be
uncomfortable.
F
F
Well,
the
specific
way
that
we
address
it
in
this
code
is
is
through
this
transition.
You
know
in
cases
where
you're
next
to
a
single
story,
building
that,
where
you're
building
a
three-story
building,
for
instance,
that
it
has
to
step
back
from
that
building,
which
has
been
a
technique
that
has
worked
and
and
Boise
we've
had
other
cases
where
that's
been
deployed
and
and
included
that
in
this
ordinance,
as
a
way
of
addressing
that.
I
Since
we
have
a
wall,
I've
got
another
question
yeah
before
and
I'm
trying
to
stay
out
of
the
weeds,
but
so
this
question
again
regarding
a
big
picture
and
the
encouragement
of
density,
especially
along
the
corridors
and
how
it
relates
to
parking
so
I'm,
stepping
back
from
neighborhood
transition,
so
I'm
sorry
we're
bouncing
around.
So
maybe
we
should
rethink
our
approach
to.
I
So,
can
you
talk
about
how
staff
is
thinking
about
Transit,
chicken
and
egg?
The
automobile
is
going
to
be.
I
F
I
think
it's
a
great
question
and
one
that
this
is
such
an
important
question
for
Boise
in
general,
and
it
came
up
at
all
the
most
of
the
public
discussion
that
we
had
about
this
new
code,
but
it
relates
to
the
code
and
it
relates
to
blueprint
Boise
in
a
way,
I
mean
it's
about
how
we
plan
the
city
and
then
how
our
our
ordinances
are
related
to
that
planning
and
what
our
expectations
are
for
the
city
and
how
it
grows.
F
Imagine
the
city
in
20,
in
1966,
when
this
current
ordinance
was
created,
we
didn't
have
all
these
highways
everywhere.
We
basically
created
the
highway
system
that
we
have
to
support
the
development
pattern
that
we
built,
and
so
we
know
that
now
that
that-
and
this
is
again
a
lesson
for
many
places-
that
if
we
the
most
important
thing,
we
do
as
a
city
as
it
relates
to
better
bus
service.
F
Any
investment
we
make
in
transit
and
also
the
investment
we
make
in
sidewalks,
so
people
can
walk,
are
the
pathways
that
we
build
in
the
city.
Any
investment
that
we
make
in
those
things
will
be
for
not
if
we
don't
first
have
a
development
pattern
that
is
supportive
of
that
Transportation
type.
So
what
I
would
say
is
this
ordinance
is
essential
to
us
building
a
better
set
of
choices
for
people
in
Boise,
as
it
relates
to
how
they
get
around
including
bus
service.
F
F
We
must
build
a
city
that
is
conducive
to
people,
walking
and
riding
bikes,
and
things
like
this
and
then
we
can
build
that
transportation
system
to
support
it.
This
is
as
clear
a
lesson
as
we've
gotten
in
this
country
over
the
past
50
60
years,
because
every
place
that's
sprawled
across
the
landscape
and
then
came
in
decades
later
to
try
to
build
a
transit
system
is
failing
when
it
comes
to
that
we
in
Boise.
F
If
we
can
build
a
city
around
something
other
than
driving,
which
is
our
chance
right
now,
then
then
we
have
a
chance
to
have
a
really
good
transit
system.
That's
the
most
important
piece.
You
could
argue
it's
more.
It's
more
important
than
the
funding,
because
as
much
funding
as
we
might
get,
if
we
don't
put
ourselves
on
the
land
in
a
way
that
is
supportive
of
that
investment,
then
it's
not
going
to
be
successful.
F
So
so
I
just
think
this
code
and
I
can't
understate,
and
you
saw
it
in
Blueprint
Boise
as
it
relates
to
the
transportation
recommendations.
I,
don't
have
that
slide
in
front
of
me,
but
the
blueprint
Boise
recommendation
was
that
we
have
to
build
for
transportation
choices,
and
this
code
is
now
the
specificity
around.
How
do
you
do
that?
B
Danley,
hang
on,
commissioner
Blanchard
stepped
away
for
one
second,
do
we
need
to
pause
for
a
minute?
We
continue
staff.
We
just
take
a
break.
J
Please,
okay,
Tim
I
just
want
to
give
you
an
opportunity
to
address
cons,
I
guess
a
question
comment
that
was
raised
repeatedly
throughout
our
our
packets,
multiple
packets
and
I'm.
Certain
we'll
hear
it
again,
and
that
is
that
the
dimensions,
the
proposed
dimensions
and
lot
splits
being
different
than
what
they
have
been
historically,
that
certain
elements
or
certain
parts
or
other
of
the
city
of
Boise
would
see
more
change
than
others
and
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
address
some
of
those
particular
concerns.
F
And-
and
so
one
thing
about,
the
r1c,
of
course,
is
that
it
is
the
largest
of
our
neighborhood
zones
at
about
25,
I,
think
of
the
city
and
and
much
higher
percentage
of
our
R1
zones.
The
r1c,
also
as
it
relates
to
affecting
one
part
of
the
city
different
than
another,
is
that
the
r1c
is
in
most
parts
of
our
city,
one
way
or
another.
F
It's
geographically
dispersed
r1c,
but
then
the
other
thing
about
the
r1c,
of
course,
is
that
it
tends
to
be
older
neighborhoods
in
many
cases,
and
it
tends
to
be
neighborhoods
that
are
are
slightly
more
dense
than
the
other
R1
districts
that
we
have.
So
we
have
r1c,
r1b
and
r1a
and
with
the
r1a
being
the
smallest
area
of
the
city,
but
the
largest
Lots
at
20
000
square
feet,
and
then
you
go
to
r1b,
which
is
a
suburban
and
then
the
traditional
which
is
the
r1c.
F
So
we're
speaking
mostly
about
the
r1c
here
and
and
again,
the
changes
that
we're
proposing.
We
felt
given
the
geographic
distribution
of
r1c,
but
then
also
the
the
more
compact
nature
of
r1c
I
mean
it
is
more
compact
tends
to
have
a
greater
diversity
of
housing
types
we
did
feel
like
in
that
District.
F
It
would
be
helpful
to
through
this
code,
find
ways
to
make
that
diversity
of
housing,
which
includes
smaller
Lots
size,
we've
gone
to
a
smaller
lot
size
in
r1c,
that's
what's
being
recommended
and
then
also
the
other
changes
related
to
design
and
development
requirements,
making
those
more
conducive
to
a
greater
diversity
of
house
types
within
that
particular
Zone,
because
it
is
more
Compact
and
it
and
it
frequently
has
those
mix
of
housing
types
that
we
should
seek
to
in
this
code,
create
dimensional
standards
that
that
enable
more
of
of
what
that
neighborhood
has
traditionally
had
and
recognizing,
of
course,
that
it
is
changed.
F
So
you
know
it
results
in
change.
We
had
a
meeting
with
the
East
End
neighborhood
association
last
week,
I
guess
it
was
and
talked
a
lot
about
this,
and
and
it's
important
discussion.
You
know
we
we
want
to
be
careful
about,
allowing
that
greater
diversity,
but
doing
it
in
a
way
that
is,
that
is
reflective
of
those
neighborhoods
and
we
feel
like
we
got
there
with
this
proposal,
but
we
think
it's
a
an
appropriate
thing
to
continue
to
discuss.
I
Mr
chair
commissioner
Mooney
got
a
question
back
on
process
is,
is
the
one
of
the
great
concerns
in
the
written
testimony?
Was
the
lack
of
neighborhood
notification,
public
feedback
in
type
one
and
twos?
Is
there?
Is
there
room
to
you
kind
of
mention
some
type,
twos
Maybe
going
into
type
3
and
having
a
public
process
for
maybe
applications
that
are
allowed
use
out
loud
form,
but
as
kind
of
a
transition
point?
So
could?
Could
you
talk
about
to
how
the
staff
felt
about?
I
F
There's
no
there's
not
a
staffing
issue
associated
with
anything,
that's
recommended
from
a
process
process.
Standpoint
again,
the
the
reason
we're
proposing
what
we're
proposing
in
terms
of
these
types
is
that
we
wanted
to
make
the
things
that
we
feel
we
want
if,
if
what
we
feel
we
want
is
represented
in
Blueprint,
Boise
and
and
want
and
need
that
we
seek
to
through
this
approach
and
these
types
we
make
those
things
simpler
to
accomplish.
That's
an
important
action.
We
think
for
the
city,
the
only
change
we
really
made.
F
We
didn't
make
any
changes
to
the
type
three
two
versus
three
as
it
relates
to
allowed
use
allowed
form.
We
did,
however,
allow
for
an
appeal
of
the
type
twos.
So
originally
in
our
proposal,
we
did
not
have
an
appeal
mechanism
for
type
twos.
We
added
that
appeal
now.
That
appeal
goes
to
the
hearings
examiner.
So
that's
another
important
aspect
of
the
process.
F
Part
of
this
ordinance,
where
the
city
of
Boise
used
to
have
a
hearing
examiner
and
got
rid
of
it
years
ago,
and
other
cities
do
have
hearing
examiners
who
are
proposing
to
bring
that
back
and
the
appeal
that
we
added
to
type
twos
was
to
the
hearing
examiner.
So
that
was
the
only
change
that
we
made
is
the
only
change
we're
recommending.
M
So
I
had
a
question
about
in
our
public
comment.
The
Veteran
Park
neighborhood
association
brought
up
the
question
as
to
why
the
draft
code
doesn't
incorporate
a
zoning
designation
for
permanent
park
space
and
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
go
into
that
a
little
bit.
Yeah.
F
Well,
we
ended
up
with
our
one
of
those
A1
and
A2.
A1
and
A2
are,
are
open
land
or
is.
F
Open
space
districts
and
and
where
we
ended
up
in
this
code
is
to
leave
those
as
they
are.
So
we
did
not
make
any
changes
to
the
designations
for
open
land
or
open
space
and
in
part,
because
there's
been
a
whole
separate
discussion
going
on.
City
Council
made
a
decision
regarding
an
enacting,
an
ordinance
related
to
open
space
and
that
ordinance
was
adopted
by
city
council
a
few
months
ago.
So
in
the
in
the
context
of
all
that
discussion,
that
was
going
on
separately
publicly
and.
D
D
F
We
decided
to
leave
the
open
space
districts
as
they
are
and
not
change
anything
associated
with
them,
so
any
place
that
was
owned,
A1
or
A2
was
left
as
it
is.
That
actually
even
includes
a
place
like
the
itd
property
on
State
Street,
which
is
owned
one
of
those
a
zones,
and
we
left
it
as
it
is
and
said
in
any
case
where
you
have
an
A
designation
in
order
to
change
that,
there's
going
to
have
to
be
a
rezoning
process,
which
is,
you
know,
would
go
to
this
commission
and
then
to
city
council.
M
So
for
that
zoning,
then,
if
it's
an
ordinance,
can
you
actually
first
of
all
go
into
the
details
of
the
ordinance?
You
said
it
still
would
have
to
go.
M
I
think
we
have
to
somehow
make
sure
that
the
space
we
have
designated
for
Parks
stay
that
way
so
that
we
have
a
place
to.
You
know
that
we
can
go
to
and
the
community
can
like,
like
we've
emphasized
here,
the
community
can
meet
so
I.
Think
that's
a
big
concern,
for
instance,
for
some
outlier
areas
of
you
know
outside
of
the
north
end
or
or
you
know,
some
of
the
areas
that
have
more
park
space.
F
Well,
two
things
about
that:
one
is,
as
I
said,
the
discussion
that's
been
going
on
in
the
ordinance
at
city
council
adopted
relative
to
open
spaces
in
the
city,
which
was
very
recent,
and
then
the
second
is
that
city
council
has
also
been
going
through.
The
process
of
of
of
taking
action
and
James
could
tell
us
for
sure
I,
don't
remember
what
the
exact
action
was
around
Park
spaces
in
the
city
to
to
protect
those
Park
spaces
through
a
the
restrictions
yeah
through
a
deed
restriction.
F
That's
what
it
was
so
city
council
over
a
period
of
a
few
months,
went
through
and
very
deliberately
placed
a
deed
restriction
on
any
park
in
the
city
to
limit
its
use
to
park
space.
So
we've
got
multiple
things
happening
in
the
city
related
to
open
spaces
and
protecting
those.
F
So
in
this
ordinance
we,
as
I
said
we
decided
to
leave
those
a
districts
as
they
are
because
protection
efforts
around
Parks
have
been
going
through
Council
for
months
and
Council
has
been
delivered
deliberating
on
it
for
months,
and
we
didn't
want
to
get
into
the
middle
of
that
number.
One
number
two,
the
other
thing
I
would
say
that
it's
so
important
to
this
community
relative
to
Open
Spaces,
is
that
we
have
an
ordinance
that
doesn't
require
that
we
spill
into
the
landscape
around
us.
M
Mr
chair,
please
I
had
one
more
question
about
the
notification
process,
so
there's
I,
I
read
somewhere
about
a
project.
Tracker
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
go
into
details
like
no
I
think
what
it
is
is
you
can
go
in
and
maybe
register
your
address
or
something
and
then
it
gives
you
a
notification
if
any
new
projects
come
through
or
can
you
maybe
go
into
a
little
bit
more
detail
about
that
too?.
F
Yes,
we've
been
talking
about
this
since
last
fall
and
the
development
of
this
Community
Development
tracker,
which
I
think
is
live.
F
Actually
you
can
view
this
now
on
the
city's
website
and
the
point
of
the
development
tracker
was
to
give
residents
of
the
city
much
more
visibility
into
the
development
process,
not
just
through
the
clunky
acella
system
that
we
have.
That
has
to
do
with
building
permits
and
so
forth,
but
through
a
much
more
accessible
conduit,
which
is
the
Community
Development
tracker.
F
So
you
can
click
on
any
property
or
it
will
be
identified
where
you've
got
properties
in
the
city,
where
there's
an
ongoing
entitlement
or
development
and
and
when
we
launch
the
ordinance
you'll
have
the
ability
to
go
in
and
and
seek
to
sign
up
for
notices.
You
know
in
your
neighborhood,
for
instance,
of
a
of
any
development
that
pops
up
within
the
neighborhood,
so
so
anyway.
This
is
an
important
tool
that
we
developed
to
give
people
more
visibility
in
general
into
what's
going
on
in
their
neighborhood.
E
N
Got
a
fair
amount
of
dimensional
related
questions.
E
N
So,
looking
at
the
kind
of
this
table
of
dimensions
on
page
196
and
197.,
comparing
and
I'll
start
I,
guess
I'll
start
with
some
of
the
setbacks
and
then
make
my
way
down
to
the
heights.
But
looking
at
the
setbacks,
I
think
the
first
one
that
really
strikes
me
is
some
of
the
parking
setbacks
and
really
looking
at
some
of
those
MX
zones.
N
Can
you
kind
of
go
through
and
I'm
guessing
that
it's
related
to
the
kind
of
uses
that
are
anticipated
there,
but
can
you
kind
of
go
through
I?
Guess
the
reasoning
behind
that
big
jump
in
those
zones
and
and
kind
of
some
of
the
detail
about
the
parking
setbacks
between
the
residential
and
then.
L
L
N
So
for-
and
this
is
the
the
best
example
so
far-
I'm
looking
at
the
mx1
Zone
the
front
step
back-
that's
a
20-foot
parking
setback,
but
in
the
MX2
and
three
you
know
that
that
jumps
up
a
little
bit
while
that
interior
side
rear
side,
That
Remains
the
Same,
as
well
as
the
front
building
setbacks,
are
all
the
same
and
the
question
I
guess
is.
You
know
the
the
reasoning
for
that
20-foot
setback
in
the
one
zone
as
opposed
to
the
uniformly
applied
and
elsewhere.
L
Perfect,
so
if
you
look
at
the
mx1
parking
setback,
it
does
require
the
20
feet
from
this
from
the
property
line.
Mx1
is
our
mixed-use
neighborhood
Zone,
and
so
we
want
to
create
those
really
walkable
environments,
and
so
you
might
see
that,
yes,
the
building
is
going
to
frame
the
public
right-of-way
in
the
same
location,
but
we
want
that
parking
to
be
set
back
just
a
little
bit
more
to
make
people
feel
comfortable,
convenient
and
really
encourage
them
for
that
walkable,
bikeable,
environment.
N
Mr
chair,
and
that
makes
total
sense
why
it
would
be
pushed
up
against
I-84,
so
I
100
followed
there.
The
other
questions
are
really
related
to
the
building.
Heights
and
I
know
that
some
of
that
was
answered
a
little
or
touched
on
a
little
bit
earlier,
related
to
anticipated
uses,
but
looking
at
kind
of
this
zoning
conversion
map
and
comparing
it
to
some
of
the
building,
Heights
anticipated,
you
know
it
jumps
from
what
is
it.
N
It's
50
feet:
maximum
in
the
R3
Zone,
whereas
that
mx1
zone
I,
think
the
height
is
45
and
mx1
MX2,
and
then
it
jumps
to
70
in
three
four
and
three
and
four,
so
it
kind
of
seems
to
go
down
a
little
bit
and
then
go
back
up
a
little
bit
and
just
the
reasoning
for
some
of
that,
because
it
does
seem
like
that.
R3
is
acting
as
a
sort
of
buffer
between
some
of
these
zones
that
are
actually
a
little
bit
shorter.
L
Commissioner
Moore
that's
an
excellent
question:
with
Building
height
we
have
another
a
number
of
questions
and
I
think
the
I'll
start
with
what's
changed
with
building
hype,
and
so
we
are
actually
measuring
Building
height,
a
little
bit
differently
with
the
new
code.
So
previously
what
was
happening
is
is
that
we
would
measure
to
the
top
of
a
building
if
it
was
a
flat
roof
structure
or
we
would
measure
to
the
midline
of
the
roof
if
it
was
a
sloped
roof
and
it
got
very
confusing
people
couldn't
decide.
Are
you
measuring
from
grade?
L
Are
you
measuring
from
Foundation
cap?
Are
you?
There
is
a
multitude
of
different
questions,
and
so
we
I've
always
had
a
question
surrounding
that.
So
we
thought
the
most
important
thing
to
do
was
to
actually
clarify
that.
So
now
we
will
measure
Building
height
the
same
for
each
Zone,
and
so
it
will
always
be
from
grade
to
the
highest
point
of
the
building.
There
are
some
exceptions
that
can
certainly
exceed
that.
So
if
you
have
an
Elevator
Shaft
or
something
to
that
nature,
that's
not
increasing
your
buildable
area.
L
You
can
encroach
into
that
that
building
hype
setback.
Then
we
also
took
a
look
at
what
are
the
building
Heights,
that
we
want
what's
the
optimal,
build,
optimal
Building
height
of
what
we're
looking
for
when
we
look
at
the
mixed
use,
neighborhood
zones-
those
are
really
those
walkable
convenient
locations
that
we
want
people
to
feel
really
comfortable,
and
we
want
that
building
to
frame
the
street
in
that
ideal
way
to
really
support
that.
So
that's
really
going
to
support
a
three
to
four
story.
L
Building
when
we
look
at
some
of
those
70
foot
height
limits,
that's
what
we're
really
seeing
in
a
lot
of
our
multi-family
zones
so
that
you're
going
to
see
that
with
a
Podium
parking
with
four
structures.
On
top
of
that,
we've
heard
time
and
time
again
that
really
you
know,
in
that
case
that's
the
optimal
building
form.
L
So
if
you
are
in
the
heart
of
a
neighborhood
and
have
a
lower
density
residential
Zone
that,
as
you
moved
closer
to
those
corridors,
you
would
actually
build
height
and
transition
into
those
really
optimal
building
forms
that
we're
looking
for
you
know
earlier.
We
also
heard
hey.
What
are
you
know?
Why
did
you
come
to
some
of
those
density
calculations
that
you
have
particularly
in
those
residential
zones?
L
And
if
we
say
we
want
to
follow
blueprint
Boise,
if
you
take
a
look
at
a
lot
of
those
land
use
designations,
it
gives
us
a
density
range
for
each
one
of
those,
and
so
that's
why
you're
going
to
see
some
of
those
densities
that
are
attached.
So
when
we
look
at
those
neighborhood
densities
or
those
neighborhood
designations,
we
have
large
lot.
We
have
Suburban,
we
have
the
compact
or
the
high
density
and
each
one
of
those
has
a
density
range.
L
N
And
just
I
guess
a
little
bit
of
follow-up
on
on
some
of
those
I'm
noticing.
You
know,
there's
a
little
bit
of
disparity
between
the
four-story
and
R2,
the
four
story
not
to
exceed
45
feet
and
then
R3
the
four-story
not
to
exceed
50
feet
and
I.
Think
the
yeah
there's
some
public
comment
about
how
that
all
that's
really
doing
is
Law
and
greater
Florida,
four
Heights.
N
But
I
guess:
can
you
kind
of
walk
through
what
the
the
reasoning
for
that
it's
so
minor,
but
just
that
couple
of
feet.
What
is
that
doing?
Besides?
Just
that
step
up.
L
Well,
we
have
looked
at
height
and
the
ultimate
goal
is
to
really
not
stifle
development
and
not
to
stifle
creativity
or
innovation,
and
we
don't
want
every
building
to
look
the
same.
We
don't
want
the
same
box
to
be
established
throughout
the
city,
and
so
by
increasing
that
height
we
do
have
that
ability
to
to
vary
those
types
of
things.
So
when
we
talk
about
yeah,
you
can
go
four
stories,
but
no
greater
than
the
45
feet
in
height.
N
L
When
we
talk
about
the
allowed
use
allowed
form,
we
did
talk
about,
you
know
how
much
of
that
building
does
need
to
be
that
fourth
story
and
really
establishing
where
that
guideline
is.
We
think
that
that
four
stories
needs
to
be
along
those
roadways
really
framing
those
creating
that
Urban
setting,
and
then
you
know
again
giving
us
some
Innovation
and
not
stifling
creativity.
You
might
be
able
to
decrease
that
down,
because
we
also
have
those
neighborhood
transition
setbacks
that
we've
talked
about
a
little
bit
earlier.
L
N
F
B
And
then
I
guess
Tim
to
follow
up.
One
thing
to
call
my
mx1
zone
was
the
surface
parking
I
think
the
statement
was
the
service
parking
may
be
located,
no
service
parking
spaces
may
be
located
between
the
building
and
any
Street
adjacent
to
the
property.
So
I
was
thinking
through
what
they
had
a
corner
lot
right.
In
that
case,
then
in
you,
you
have
no
parking
between
the
building
and
either
Street,
as
this
code
is
written.
Is
that
right,
correct,
okay,.
J
F
G
Mr
chairman
Mr
Gillespie,
since
we're
jumping
around
back
to
procedure
director
Tim.
Can
you
talk
about
the
difference
between
a
hearing,
examiner
hearing
and
a
hearing
before
this
body
and
and
what
you
think
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
like
yeah.
E
F
That's
thank
you
related
to
the
hearing
examiner
as
to
what
that
is
exactly
and
the
difference,
though
I
really
I,
think
the
fundamental
difference
is
that
the
hearings
examiner
hearing
is
more
like
a
Judicial
proceedings,
in
the
sense
that
the
peering
examiner,
of
course,
would
take
testimony
from
anyone
that
would
like
to
give
it,
but
then
is
basing
their
decision
upon
the
code
itself,
and
so
it's
more
in
the
nature
of
a
judicial
hearing
versus
a
public
hearing
that
you
all
convene,
which
often
has
a
relationship
of
course
to
the
ordinance.
F
But
the
parameters
around
that
discussion
and
what's
what
is
presented
as
relevant
in
terms
of
that
hearing,
is
much
wider.
You
know
it's
it's
a
it's
a
just
conversation
about.
What
do
you
think
versus
the
the
content
of
the
code
itself,
which
is
what
the
hearings
examiner
hearing
would
stick
to
so
and
you
all
know
these
things.
F
I
mean
this
is
not
uncommon,
but
but
that's
the
and
we
felt
like
it
was
important
to
to
reconstitute
the
hearings
examiner,
just
in
par
as
part
of
an
overall
kind
of
comprehensive
effort
to
improve
procedure
throughout
our
processes.
You
know
like
there's
some
things
that
would
be
better
to
be
dealt
with
and
that
kind
of
more
judicial
setting
and
versus
getting
into
longer
appeal
processes
that
require
a
lot
of
time
of
everybody
and
are
left
much
less
predictable.
F
C
F
G
So,
just
to
clarify
any
any
kind
of
a
permit
where
the
findings
are
subjective.
Like
is
you
know.
Some
of
our
findings
are,
is
in
the
general
interest
of
the
city
or
would
not
place
an
undue
burden
on
Transportation
or
doesn't
adversely
impact
adjacent,
Property
Owners,
all
those
very
sort
of
subjective
decisions
that
we
have
to
wrestle
with
all
the
time.
All
those
permits
would
not
go
through
the
hearing
examiner
because
he's
just
going
to
look
at
those
things
that
are
very
specific.
Is
that
fair
to
characterize.
F
It
I
think
so
I
mean
the
you
know
within
this
new
ordinance
again
back
to
this
thing
of
we're
not
proposing
an
ordinance
that
would
create
all
these
custom
zoning
districts
through
things
like
plan
unit
developments,
we're
proposing
standards
that
would
apply
across
the
city.
So,
where
we're
having
hearings
before
Planning
and
Zoning
in
city
council
around
around
you
know,
more
General
thoughts
about
development
has
to
do
with.
F
Where
are
you
not
in
alignment
with
this
ordinance
or
where
are
you
proposing
changes
to
the
ordinance
or
the
comp
plan
that
were
not
contemplated
in
this
new
ordinance?
Those
are
the
things
that
would
come
to
you
in
the
city
council.
Not
the
day-to-day
activity
of
working
through
is
someone
meeting
the
the
requirements
of
this
code,
so
Mr.
G
Chairman,
so
I
guess
in
you
know,
looking
at
thinking
about
it
more
detail.
I
do
see
that
the
the
hearing
examiner
is
is
looking
at
variances
and
sometimes
variances.
So
I
guess:
I'll,
try
and
state
this
as
a
question,
not
a
statement
but
gosh
variances
can
be
very
tricky
and
tough
and
subjective
and
are
kind
of
you
know.
One-Off
and
highly
situational
and
I
will
frankly
tell
you
that
this
body
and
in
general
variances
aren't
dealt
with
absolutely
uniformly
across
the
city,
because
each
particular
is
so
different.
F
Well,
I
mean
the,
as
you
know,
with
variances.
For
instance,
you
have
to
meet
the
four
tests
of
the
variance
and,
like
you
said,
there's
a
lot
of
latitude,
I
mean
there's
some
latitude
and
and
how
you
interpret
those
four
tests,
as
it
relates
to
any
individual
variance
case.
But
you
know
it
is
often
the
case.
It
is
typically
the
case,
then
in
in
a
city
or
a
town,
any
municipality
that
as
it
relates
to
variances.
F
You
have
a
quasi-judicial
process
outside
of
the
planning
and
zoning
and
city
council
process,
which
is
more
call
it
political
than
than
a
quasi-judicial
process.
It
is
frequently
the
case
that
variances
in
cities
and
towns
are
held
are
are
handled
in
that
more
kind
of
administrative
fashion
fashion.
F
This
is
not
unusual,
call
it
a
hearings,
examiner
or
call
it
a
a
you
know
some
kind
of
appeal
body,
but
but
that
is
so,
while
there
is
some
room
in
there
with
those,
for
instance,
in
a
variance
case,
which
is
not
all
that
we're
talking
about
here.
The
hearing
examiner
is
not
just
hearing
variances.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
we're
expecting
that
they'll
hear
very
few
variances.
F
The
the
cases
that
the
hearings
examiner
would
most
hear
would
be
appeals
of
approvals
that
we're
giving,
for
instance,
or
that's
probably,
the
the
biggest
workload
is
for
type
Twos,
for
instance,
where
we're
getting
appeals,
whether
it's
from
the
applicant
or
or
someone
else,
that's
probably
the
most
significant
volume
of
work
for
the
hearing,
examiner
and
so
to
be
able
to
have
that
work
focused
on
what
are
these
brand
new
requirements
that
you've
created
in
the
city
around
what
you
want
built?
F
Let's
focus
on
that
and
have
those
decisions
based
on
that
versus
essentially
relitigating
the
zoning
ordinance
every
time
someone
proposes
to
do
something
and
coming
back
to
this
body
in
city
council.
That
would
be
in
my
opinion,
that
would
be
a
that
would
be
a
shame
that
that
we
keep
going
through
this
after
we've
spent
years,
creating
a
set
of
rules
around
a
deliberate
way
for
the
city
to
grow,
in
a
way
that
it
addresses
these
big
goals.
Mr
chairman.
G
B
G
I'm
just
going
to
suggest,
since
this
is
the
legislative
hearing
that
we
get
a
lot
of
variances
out
of
all
over
the
city,
the
North
End,
the
East
End
West,
all
over
and
I,
don't
think
this
code
as
I've
read,
it
is
going
to
cut
down
it
might.
But
it's
you
know
my
neighbor
built
a
garden
on
my
property,
and
now
he
wants
to
put
a
greenhouse
over
I
mean
it's
all
that
stuff
right.
So
we're
still
going
to
get
a
lot
of
variance.
G
O
B
Hang
on
one
second,
commissioner:
Rooney,
we
are
about
five
minutes
to
six.
We
are
planning
on
a
dinner
break
at
six,
so
just
remain
remind
everybody
of
that
I
think
we
probably
can
continue
with
questions
after
dinner.
If
that's
where
we're
at,
if
you
also
have
some
more
questions
for
staff,
that's
absolutely
fine
is
that,
where
we're
at,
we
still
have
some
questions.
We'd
like
to
ask
staff:
okay,
okay,
all
right!
Well,
maybe
we'll
do
one
more
with
commissioner
Mooney
and
then
we'll
break
for
dinner.
Thank.
I
I
Question
so
since
we
may,
we
know
we
have
made
some
mistakes
in
the
past.
For
example,
the
blueprint
Boise
was
published
in
2011
and
we
didn't
accomplish
the
action
plan.
So
how
do
we
as
a
city,
hold
our
feet
to
the
fire
going
forward,
since
we
know
that
if
city
council
enacts
this
and
it
becomes
law
and
codified
that
that
we
will
have
made
mistakes?
How
do
we
hold
our
feet
to
the
fire
and
come
back
and
fix
those.
F
F
Very
important
point-
and
we
think
this
is
a
critical
aspect
of
this,
which
is
you
know
again.
It's
not
typical
that
a
city
creates
a
whole
new
set
of
rules
around
development
and,
and
these
rules
relate
to
very
small
things.
They
relate
to
very
big
things
that,
as
you
say,
there
are
going
to
be
things
that
we
that
we
want
to
do
differently.
F
We
we've
made
a
great
effort
and
we
think
preparing
a
set
of
regulations
that
are
very
commensurate
with
where
we
want
the
city
to
go,
but
there's
going
to
be
details
that
we're
going
to
want
to
keep
working
on.
So
we
think
it's
very
important
that
we
come
back
no
later
than
12
months
after
adoption
of
this
ordinance,
with
a
complete
report
on
how
it's
going
and
recommendations
for
fine-tuning.
You
have
to
think
about
this.
F
It's
once
the
first
time
in
60
years,
and
we
as
a
community
I,
would
argue,
have
to
become
experts
in
this
kind
of
growth
right
growing
within
ourselves,
using
the
existing
resources
and
infrastructure
and
services
that
we
have.
We
became
experts
in
sprawling
across
the
landscape,
we're
great
at
it.
Now
we
weren't
great
at
it.
In
1966.,
we
became.
E
F
In
it
right
now,
we'll
have
to
become
experts
in
a
different
kind
of
smaller
scale,
in
some
cases
at
the
neighborhood
level,
but
larger
scale
stuff
on
our
corridors,
we're
going
to
have
to
become
experts
in
it
and
that's
everybody.
That's
people
that
build
that
is
neighborhoods,
that
is
the
city,
and
so
we
think
this
is
going
to
be
a
frequent
frequent
report
out
and
continued
fine-tuning
as
we
move
forward
and
have
been
discussing
ourselves.
B
B
Great
okay,
welcome
back
everybody
most
everybody's
with
us,
so
Crystal
I
think
we
still
had
a
few
a
few
more
questions
for
staff.
Let
me
just
pick
up
where
we
left
off
there.
E
B
N
So
I
guess
I'll
I'll
start
one
of
the
this
is
for
staff.
One
of
the
items
that
I
kind
of
noticed
was
missing
from
the
ordinance
was
tiny
houses
and
I
know
there's
a
little
bit
of
study
going
on
right
now
with
tiny
houses,
but
I
was
hoping
that
you
could
kind
of
speak
on.
Maybe
the
process
of
is
the
city
thinking
about
integrating
those
or
or
what's
the.
F
The
thinking
on
those
well,
your
commissioner,
you
are
correct
that
the
city
has
a
tiny
house
initiative
going
on
right
now.
That
is
not
part
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
although
the
the
what
they
learned
from
that
will
be
helpful
in
terms
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
all
of
our
development
regulations
and
processes.
But
a
couple
things
I
would
say
about
this
ordinance,
though
that
relates
to
smaller
residential
structures.
One
is,
of
course
it
does
have
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
component
to
it.
F
A
couple
of
adjustments
to
those
requirements
are
in
this
code,
and
then
the
other
thing
is
that
there
are
aspects
of
this
ordinance
that
deal
with.
You
know
individual
dwellings,
but
but
of
a
greater
variety
of
types.
So,
while
it
doesn't
speak
directly
to
a
tiny
house,
it
does
address
issues
in
our
R1
districts
related
to
where
you
can
do
multiple
units
on
a
lot.
F
So
one
would
imagine
that
smaller
residential
dwellings,
some
could
call
them
tiny
houses
could
be
an
aspect
of
that
now,
if
you're
speaking
of
like
mobile,
tiny
houses,
it
doesn't
get
into
that
at
all,
but
also
the
what
we've
called
strategic
infill.
But
one
of
the
incentives
related
to
housing
as
it
relates
to
certain
conditions
when
you're
on
a
court
or
arterial
vacant
lot
or
you
reuse.
The
existing
structure,
where
you
get
additional
units
that
would
certainly
lend
itself
to
Arrangements
of
dwellings
where
modest
houses
would
would
be
integral
to
that.
F
But
so
there
are
aspects
of
it
that
kind
of
touch
on
much
more
modestly
sized
residential
structures.
But
you
are
correct
that
there
isn't
anything
in
here
that
relates
to
like
mobile,
tiny
houses
and
these
kinds
of
things
and
I
think
any
effort
related
to
that
would
one
aspect
of
that
could
could
be
that
it
would
be
helpful
to
take
what
the
city
learns
from
its
pilot
initiative
and
if
it's
determined
that
some
Amendment
to
the
ordinance
is
needed
based
on
that,
then
so
be
it.
But
but
I
do
think.
N
I,
don't
have
anything
related
to
tiny
house.
I
did
have
a
couple
other
questions,
but
it's
just
bouncing
around
you're.
B
Bouncing
around
okay-
maybe
maybe
I'll
jump
in
here
and
then
too
Tim.
Could
you
talk
a
little
about
the
Adu
and
how
and
how
that
has
changed
with
this
code?
Okay,
I.
F
Think
we
have
a
slide
on
this
one
as
well,
that
Deanna
can
pull
up,
but
there
are
changes
here,
the
ones
that
have
gotten
the
most
conversation
are
number
one
that
an
Adu
currently
is
limited
to
700
square
feet
and
in
this
ordinance
we're
proposing
that
it'd
be
900
square
feet.
F
In
addition,
we
are
they're
included
in
this
code
as
a
provision
that,
in
the
case
of
having
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
that
where
currently
it's
required,
that
the
owner
live
on
the
property
that
we
allow
for
the
owner
to
not
live
on
the
property.
If
one
of
the
units,
the
primary
structure
or
the
Adu
is
Affordable
at
a
designated
income
level,
and
what
is
that
income
level?
Is
it
60
a
very
median
income,
your
information
separately?
We
do
have
a
slide.
F
I
know
that
relates
to
what
60
percent
of
Ami
means
from
an
income
standpoint
and
what
that
means
in
terms
of
rent.
But
those
are
the
two
changes
to
the
Adu
requirements.
Okay,
thanks.
H
Director
key
and
I
had
question
about
the
Adu
as
well.
I'm
sure
it
probably
is
best
practice
that
or
across
the
country.
What
we
find
mostly
is
that
the
main
residences
owner
occupied
in
that
adus
and
that
most
of
the
code
generally
follows
that
the
main
residence
needs
to
be
owner
occupied.
H
My
question
there
is
that
are:
is
there
any
instance
of
people
just
getting
around
that
I
mean
it
seems
to
me
like
I
mean
we
see
so
many
times
that
there's
homes
are
owned
by
trusts
or
llc's
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
ways
to
get
around
this.
Is
there
any
evidence
that
people
are
doing
that.
F
Well,
there
is
because
you
know
where
we
get
Code
Compliance
requests
around
this
question,
as
you
know,
and
anyone
might
suspect
there.
Where
is
a
fair
number
of
cases
where
there's
concern
about
about
accessory
dwellings
and
the
circumstances
around
them.
So
this
is
something
that
the
city
does
have
experience
with
and
therefore
one
would
believe
it
is
a
problem
at
times
and
we
do
get
concerns
about
it.
B
There
was
some
public
comment
in
our
packets
about
the
that
requirement
being
deed,
restricted
and
if
the
city
considered
that
sun
setting
at
some
point
after
you
know,
25
years,
for
example,
right
after
the
structure
is
built,
can
you
speak
to
that
at
all?
As.
B
F
No,
that
wasn't
a
discussion
that
we
had
about
because
the
the
idea
is
under
the
current
code
or
the
base
option
that
the
owner
occupied
requirement
would
be
in
perpetuity.
You
know
that
that
would
have
to
be
the
case
at
any
time
in
order
for
you
to
be
eligible
for
the
Adu.
Unless
you
know
it
meets
that
that
affordability
requirement
okay,
foreign.
N
Commissioner
Moore,
yes
on
the
topic
of
adus,
so
I
see
the
square
footage
has
been
increased,
eight
to
nine
hundred
square
feet
and
two
bedroom
is
the
max.
Is
one
bathroom
still
the
max
or
is
that
not
the
requirements.
N
F
I
Key,
could
you
talk
to
the
staff's
thoughts
on
the
clean
energy
pieces
of
the
code
incentives
and
how
all
that
is
big,
picture-wise
sure.
F
And
we
probably
have
a
slide
on
that
as
well,
that
we
can
pull
out,
but
in
in
discussions
around
the
incentives
that
we
have,
we,
we
did
like
the
idea
of
organizing
the
ordinance
around
these
incentives
so
that
we
have
cases
where,
in
order
to
get
additional
units
dwelling
units,
you
have
to
meet
these
requirements
and.
C
F
Include
the
affordability
requirements,
but
also
and
I'm
speaking,
to
what
you're,
but
also
some
requirements
around
energy
and
water,
and
so
the
as
drafted.
The
ordinance
says
that
you,
in
order
to
get
the
additional
units
you
have
to
meet
both
the
affordability
requirements
and
the
sustainability
requirements.
So
we
work
with
our
public
works
department
on
what
those
requirements
should
be.
Obviously,
they're.
F
Experts
in
these
issues
is
is
as
greater
resources
as
exist
really
in
cities,
and
so
they
came
up
with
these
requirements
that
are
included
in
the
ordinance,
which
include
that
the
unit
has
to
be
all
electric.
Were
you
speaking
to
the
energy
aspects
of
it
specifically
I'm?
Sorry.
F
Well,
the
we
do
require
that
those
in
order
to
meet
the
sustainability
standard
that
that
they,
the
the
unit,
be
all
electric
the
also
that
the
the
unit
consumed
15
percent,
less
energy
or
meat
building
code
or
Green
Building
Code
requirements
and
that
the
unit
consumed
15
percent
less
water.
So
we
feel
like
it's
appropriate
in
this
ordinance
to
add
requirements
in
cases
where
you're
getting
an
incentive
and
understand
the
concern
that
we've
heard
with
some
about
this.
F
But
but
in
these
cases
we
don't
have
the
base
requirement
that
units
in
the
city
be
all
electric.
It's
only
in
these
cases
where,
through
the
incentive
you're
getting
additional
dwelling
units
that
we
require
it.
So
we
felt
very
comfortable
with
that
in
terms
of
that
concern,
because
it
isn't
a
base
requirement
in
the
city
and
in
the
city
you,
you
can
choose
the
elect.
J
Okay,
Tim:
we
had
a
lot
of
comments
about
the
review
process,
the
time
the
timing
of
review
and,
in
some
instances,
people
being
General
saying
that
we
don't
have
enough
time,
in
other
instances,
specific
claims
to
this
180
day
federal
requirement
and
and
so
forth,
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
talk
to
that.
Okay,
how
does
Staff
feel
about
those.
J
F
Well,
I,
yeah
and
I
saw
those
as
well.
The
the
the
the
first
thing
is,
of
course
we're
not
this
isn't
a
development
review
around
a
specific
development.
It's
it's
a
it's
a
set
of
policies
that
the
city
will
will
or
will
not
adopt.
F
So
I
think
that
some
of
the
reference
to,
for
instance,
Federal
standards
around
public
notice
had
to
do
with
cases
where
you
have
a
specific
and
not
that
not
that
those
pertain
to
us,
but
but
in
those
cases
that
that
they
pertain
to
an
individual
development
proposal.
In
this
case,
you're
talking
about
a
policy
decision
of
the
city
number
one
number
two
I
would
suggest
that
we
have
had
much
much
more
than
180
days
to
consider
what's
being
presented
to
you
tonight
when
you
think
about
it.
The
as
we've
gone
through
this
process.
F
Through
these
phases
modules,
there
have
been
versions
of
this
ordinance
to
review
at
each
step.
Now
it
certainly
changed,
I
mean
when
we
got
to
modules
one
and
two
and
Revisited
those
last
summer.
That
was
a
change,
but
in
association
with
that,
we
also
released
an
ordinance
that
reflected
those
changes.
Then,
when
we
got
to
September
of
last
year,
we
released
an
ordinance
that
included
All
Phases
of
of
this
proposal.
F
It
wasn't
exactly
as
you
have
before
you
tonight,
but
much
of
the
substance
of
what
we're
now
considering
was
included
in
draft
ordinances
along
the
way
in
this
process,
including
in
September
of
last
year,
which
included
the
entire
ordinance.
So,
yes,
when
it
was
released
in
February,
that
did
include
changes
that
weren't
in
the
version
that
was
released
in
February
in
September,
but
this
was
not
starting
from
scratch.
This.
This
was
let's
go
through
a
long
public
process.
F
Talk
about
the
implications
of
all
of
these
ordinances,
whether
it
relates
to
parking
or
the
R1
districts
that
that's
why
we
made
big
changes
last
summer
based
on
feedback
that
we
were
getting
from
the
ordinances
that
had
previously
been
introduced,
so
I
I,
just
I
think
that
what
we
would
say
to
that
is
that
this
has
been
a
very
intentionally
inclusive
process.
That's
included
versions
of
this
ordinance
all
along
the
way,
and
then
up
until
this,
this
official
public
hearing
process.
We
have
followed
every
rule
that
we
are
required
to
follow.
J
Mr
chairman
Mr
Danny
I'm
wondering
if
I
could
ask
a
few
questions
and
I'm
just
going
to
couch
them
as
circulation,
Transportation
kind
of
based
questions.
J
In
our
code
we
have
the
existing
and
proposed
the
the
Gateway
streets.
I
know
our
comprehensive
plan
has
a
handful
of
them
listed.
We
have
a
few
more
with
respect
to
self
cell
phone
lattice
Tower
treatment,
but
also
lighting,
and
that
sort
of
thing
I'm
wondering
if,
if
there
was
any
discussion
on
additional
Gateway
treatments
and
identification
of
additional
streets
Beyond
this
list
and
the
reason
I
ask
is
it
it
tends
to
a
capital
Vista,
and
then
we
have
a
whole
bunch
of
the
West
part
of
our
city.
That
is
not
included
in.
L
Er
Danley,
you
are
correct
in
the
Gateway
State
streets
are
identified
in
our
comp
plan,
so
through
the
zoning
code
rewrite
we
really
tried
to
follow
what
the
comprehensive
plan
had
identified.
So
we
know
that
in
the
future
we
will
update
the
comprehensive
plan
periodically
as
each
city
does.
At
that
time
we
may
expand
what
those
Gateway
streets
actually
are,
in
those
case,
the
standards
that
you're
referring
to,
which
might
apply
to
streetscape
standards
it
might
apply
to
where
Wireless
facilities
would
be
located.
Then
those
would
be
applicable
at
that
time.
J
Okay,
if
I
can
yeah,
please
so
and
of
course,
I
thought
I
had
it
there's
TDM
strategies
in
here
with
respect
to
parking
reductions,
it's
it
I'm,
going
to
just
again
kind
of
again
the
circulation
discussion,
but
oh
I
can't
find
it
where,
of
course,
when
I
need
it,
but
you
know
where
it
is
so
we
have.
We
have
a
list
of
travel
demand
management
strategies
that
outline
to
the
applicant.
If
they
embark
on
any
of
these,
then
a
parking
reduction
can
be
further.
Had.
J
L
When
we
evaluate
those
ultimately
through
their
approval
process,
we
can
certainly
insert
that
they
do
an
annual
review
or
a
five-year
review,
and
so
that
really
gives
us
the
option
on
how
long
we
are
evaluating
that
over
a
period
of
time.
But
also
you
know,
those
parking
reductions
are
approved
based
on
them
continuing
those.
L
B
N
I
think
on
the
kind
of
circulation
thought
kind
of
consistently
throughout
code,
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
references
to
Americans
with
accessibility
act
and
a
lot
of
it's
memorialized
very
specifically,
and
while
that
doesn't
change,
often
yeah.
Obviously
it's
a
code
that
is
subject
to
being
updated.
N
Is
there
reasoning
behind,
including
that
specifically,
as
opposed
to
as
part
of
you
know,
like
a
building
code,
standard
or
or
something
like
that
as
part
of
the
building
process
or
the
separate
permitting
process?
Well.
N
That's
for
sure
so
say
something
like
part
of
the
I
guess,
specifically
the
projection
into
the
path
of
egress
or
the
path
of
walking
is,
is
one
or
path
of
travel?
Is
one
that's
peppered
pretty
consistently
throughout,
say
for
some
reason,
that's
updated.
That
would
have
to
be
updated
in
every
location
throughout
okay.
E
B
All
right,
here's,
my
here's.
My
thinking
here,
team,
great
questions,
staff,
great
job,
answering
questions,
we've
had
a
bunch
of
neighborhood
association,
Representatives
waiting
patiently
here
for
us
this
evening,
so
I
think
we're
gonna
move
on
to
those
folks.
When
we
get
through
all
their
presentations,
we
are
going
to
have
some
time
for
some
q
a
afterwards,
so
I
think.
B
If
we
have
any
more
outstanding
questions,
we
can
pick
them
up
at
that
time
that
sound
good,
okay,
perfect
all
right
thanks
again:
staff,
okay,
so
neighborhood
associations,
we
have
the
full
list
for
the
city.
Here,
it
looks
like
we
have
about
oh
11
or
12
folks
that
signed
up
we'll
run
through
that
list.
Alphabetically
every
neighborhood
association
is
going
to
get
five
minutes
to
present
again,
once
all
of
the
neighborhood
associations
have
presented
will
open
up
to
questions
by
us
to
any
of
the
neighbor
associations.
B
So
if
you
can
do
your
presentation
give
us
your
five
minutes
sit
back
down,
then
we
may
have
questions
for
you
afterwards,
but
we
want
to
hang
around.
We
appreciate
that.
B
The
folks
online,
if
you're,
if
you're,
representing
a
neighborhood
association
this
evening,
we
will
move
to
you
folks
after
we
do
the
in-person
folks
here
so
we'll
get
to
you
shortly.
I
B
We're
going
to
go
alphabetically
here,
starting
with
Barbara
Valley,
so
I
have
Rob
Stark
signed
up
for
the
barber
Valley
after
Mr
Stark
will
have
Boise
Heights,
which
I
have
Jeff
Faraday
and
Kay
Hummel
signed
up
and
then
after
Boise
will
have
the
Centennial
neighborhood
association,
which
I
have
as
present
I.
Don't
have
any
names
down:
okay,
so
Mr
Stark!
You
want
to
start
us
off
here.
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address.
P
Well,
the
majority
of
the
barber
Valley
will
not
be
affected
by
the
rewrite
due
to
being
covered
by
the
specific
plans.
Bvna
agrees
that
the
zoning
code
is
long
overdue
for
an
update
in
the
last
60
years.
Best
practices
and
Community
needs
and
Lifestyles
have
changed
significantly
in
our
boards
discussions.
P
Bvna
also
wants
to
make
sure
that
the
city
has
adequate
resources
to
revisit,
adapt
and
evolve.
The
new
code
when
unintended
consequences,
errors
or
better
practices
arise,
make
the
process
to
identify
and
make
amendments
easily
executed
without
a
huge
staff
impact,
with
full
transparency
to
the
public.
Instead
of
letting
the
code
sit
for
another
60
years
in
bbna's
experience,
it
practically
takes
an
act
of
Congress
to
amend
sp01
as
circumstances
and
best
practices
change.
We
would
suggest
the
new
code
should
automatically
be
reviewed
and
amended
on
a
regular
timetable.
P
Our
biggest
concerns
relate
to
Communications
between
the
city
and
the
Nas
and
citizens.
We
are
concerned
and
disappointed
that
the
proposed
time
for
neighborhood
associations
to
speak
at
public
hearings
is
being
reduced.
We
believe
that
the
nas
should
continue
to
have
the
same
amount
of
time
as
the
applicant
to
address
pnz
and
counsel.
Many
applications
and
issues
are
complicated
and
need
time
to
be
properly
addressed
by
The
Neighborhood
associations.
Boise
has
a
diverse
set
of
neighborhoods,
and
the
neighborhood
associations
have
vital
knowledge
about
those
neighborhoods
that
it's
next
to
impossible
for
pnz,
Commissioners
and
Council.
P
P
We're
also
deeply
concerned
about
expanding
administrative
approvals
without
communication
by
the
city
to
Nas
and
the
public.
There
needs
to
always
be
Outreach
to
the
neighborhood
associations
and
nearby
residents
for
all
applications
and
pre-application
neighborhood
meetings
should
be
required
for
all
applications.
Bvna
has
serious
concerns
about
applications
getting
approved
without
any
neighborhood
association
or
resident
input.
The
real
rub
is
that
to
appeal
an
administrative
approval,
the
appellant
will
be
required
to
pay
a
fee
to
file
an
appeal
for
something
they
never
had
a
chance
to
oppose
before
approval.
P
B
Q
Q
We
are
K,
Hummel
will
be
testifying
after
me,
so
I'll
be
just
be
using
a
bit
of
a
bit
of
the
time,
but
my
point
has
to
do
with
the
obligations
of
developers
under
a
cup
or
planned
unit.
Q
However,
our
experience
is
so
far
is
that
a
requirement
for
pedestrian
and
bicycle
connections
may
be
in
a
cup,
but
often
it
is
not
actually
provided
or
built
as
houses
go
up.
Sometimes
it
appears
that
these
requirements,
just
sort
of
Fade
Away
Never,
are
actually
implemented
at
all.
Q
In
our
neighborhoods
case,
an
important
pedestrian
and
bike
connection
is
required
in
a
1999
CMP
hasn't
been
built
quarter
Century
later
and
with
only
one
minor
unbuilt
portion
of
that
project,
which
has
no,
as
far
as
we
know,
has
no
plans
for
even
construction
or
let
alone
build
out,
has
been
completed.
The
Idaho
Press
on
April
21st
had
this
to
say
about
a
related
situation.
Boise
Hunter
homes,
Dry
Creek,
ranch's
developer,
is
under
no
legal
obligation
to
finish
the
trail
system
until
they
are
done
building
out
the
project.
Q
The
situation
described
in
in
Avenue
avamor
involved
connections
between
the
avamor
trails
and
Dry
Creek
development
and
that
the
lack
of
that
trail
May
well
have
come,
have
contributed
to
a
teenage
cyclist's
death
recently
when
he
was
forced
to
enter
Highway
55
because
a
trail
connection
hadn't
been
built,
we
could
wait
another
30
years,
I
suppose
for
that
connection.
This
is
not
right.
Streets
and
sidewalks
are
required.
At
the
outset.
The
four
houses
can
go
in
pathways
are
far
easier
to
build
and
provide
critical
connections
to
open
space
and
other
places
people
want
to
go.
Q
They
can
set
the
tone
for
the
development.
We
recommend
in
our
written
comments
that
pedestrian
access
Trails
be
constructed
within
six
months
after
Street
and
sidewalk
work
begins
putting
them
in
place
before
homeowners
begin
purchasing.
Lots
avamor
has
done
this
I
I
believe
very
much
to
its
economic
Advantage.
Our
neighborhood
is
asking
that
the
zoning
code
contain
language
to
require
upfront
delivery
of
these
connections.
We
have
provided
language
to
you.
Thank
you.
Thank.
B
B
E
R
Want
you
to
also
know
I
served
six
years
on
the
Boise
City
Foothills
Committee
in
the
90s
and
later
two
years
on
the
technical
advisory
committee
standards
with
public
works.
So
what
went
into
our
comments
has
validity
and
seven
people
worked
on
this
document
and
I
will
sum
it
up
by
urging
you
to
adopt
what's
in
here
and
also
note
how
important
the
Wildland
Urban
overlay
zone
is.
Let's
not
kid
ourselves.
Boise
is
right
for
a
Boulder
Colorado
December
30th
fire
or
a
Paradise
California
one.
R
We
are
so
mindful
of
this
in
Boise
Heights,
where
we
live
between
two
big
Open
Spaces.
We
are
a
certified
firewise
committee
and
it
is
constant
work.
I
also
want
you
to
know
that
our
neighbors
have
personally
put
out
fires
before
Boise
fire
department
personnel
could
get
there,
I
put
one
out
with
our
teenage
sons
in
2007
that
threatened
our
elderly
neighbor
and
might
have
caught
my
house
on
fire.
R
Lastly,
I
will
conclude
with
the
importance
of
our
final
two
pages
here
on
the
code
enforcement
and
the
lack
of
teeth
in
it,
especially
concerning
overgrown
grasses
and
abatement
for
that.
The
current
code
in
our
20
plus
years
of
experience
are
that
there's
no
teeth
in
the
code.
We
know
there's
a
lot
of
difference
between
an
abandoned
car
and
Code
Compliance
and
but
we're
talking
Life
Safety
here
in
the
entire
wooey.
R
We
know
one
person
died
in
the
tragic
2005
fire
out
on
Amity
Road
and
we
know
half
the
year
with
the
dry,
persistent
drought,
drought,
conditions,
we
are
at
risk
and
so
is
every
resident
along
the
Boise
front
and
off
the
desert.
So
we
ask
you
to
look
carefully
at
what
we've
suggested
and
we
hope
you
will
adopt
them
in
your
deliberations
on
Thursday.
R
Thank
you
for
your
service
and
also
I
want
to
say
that
I
grew
up
with
Title
11,
the
1966
version,
because
my
great
uncle
and
my
grandfather
wrote
most
of
it
and
then
my
father
later
chaired
the
commission.
So
it's
kind
of
second
nature.
What
I've
been
hearing
but
I've
also
put
in
time
for
my
neighborhood
and
we
thank
you
very
much
for
your
service
and
I
know.
My
forebearers
would
applaud
much
of
what
is
proposed.
We
appreciate
the
time
and
the
three
years
the
staff
have
put
into
it.
Thank
you
so
much.
E
K
Hi,
hello,
I'm,
Larry
isomer
to
be
speaking
for
the
Centennial
neighborhood
association
of
14048,
West,
Talon,
Creek,
Drive
and,
first
of
all,
I
need
to
recognize
the
work
that
everybody's
doing
here.
I
know
it's
a
big
burden
for
both
the
commission
and
especially
the
planner's,
been
doing
this
for
years.
K
Our
basic
position
is
that
we
think
this
is
a
time
for
the
city
to
set
aside
the
items
most
of
us
support
and
maybe
readdress
some
of
the
items
that
are
causing
the
most
contention
with
the
public
and
really
look
into
that
and
see
what
we
can
do
about
it.
The
code
that
is
being
proposed
is
going
to
affect
the
city
for
dis
decades
and
I.
Think
descending
opinion
should
be
considered
parking.
We've
talked
about
this
before
it
comes
up
at
all
the
Outreach.
K
The
lack
of
parking
affects
everyone,
but
those
without
other
options
are
impacted.
The
most
we
don't
want
to
end
up
like
a
city
where
so
many
others,
where
commercial
Endeavors
fail
because
of
lack
of
parking
motorists
find
themselves
driving
around
circles.
Looking
for
parking
spaces,
parking
disputes
sometimes
evolve
into
violence.
K
We
would
encourage
people
to
get
out
of
their
cars
by
positive
actions
and
attractive
Alternatives,
rather
than
negative
actions
and
unrealistic
options.
The
Treasure
Valley
doesn't
have
a
viable
public
transportation
system.
Now
we
understand
the
Chicken
and
the
Egg
approach,
but
those
moving
into
housing
without
parking
are
going
to
need
a
fully
viable
public
transportation
system
on
day
one
and
viable
means
throughout
the
entire
Treasure
Valley,
not
just
on
the
transportation
corridors.
K
It
means
that
24
7,
all
weather,
affordable,
quick,
safe
and
sustainable.
At
what
cost?
And
for
how
long
will
the
taxpayers
support
an
unused,
ineffective
public
transportation
system
before
they
begin
to
trim
off
the
edges
by
cutting
routes
operating
hours
and
trip
frequency?
K
We
do
not
support
a
subsidized
or
rent
control
development
in
Boise's
Prime,
real
estate
areas,
where
the
city
has
the
opportunity
to
actually
grow
the
city
tax
base
and
reduce
taxpayer
liability
and
those
areas
aren't
things
like
the
transportation
Corridor
we're
talking
about
Prime
areas,
downtown
along
the
green
belt,
bordering
parks
or
Foothill
access.
These
are
places
the
residents
will
and
should
pay
a
premium
to
live.
Next
to
we
support
the
form-based
code
over
land-based
code.
We're
happy
to
see
that
we
do
not
support
fixed
use,
deed
restrictions.
K
K
We
also
note
the
ongoing
practice
of
reducing
time
for
comments
from
the
neighborhood
associations,
but
we're
providing
comment.
That's
been
curated
throughout
the
neighborhood.
It
seems
like
that
would
be
a
message
that
would
be
time.
Efficient
public
comment
provides
benefits
and
encourages
the
developer
to
present
quality
projects,
not
just
bare
minimums,
even
when
a
project
picks
all
the
boxes.
Legally.
Public
comment
has
resulted
in
voluntary
project,
refinement
and
improvements
that
makes
it
more
palatable
to
neighbors
and
increases
or
decreases
tensions
within
the
neighborhood.
K
Affordable
housing
is
a
worthy
goal
and
it's
needed,
but
that
should
not
be
the
prominent
goal
of
the
zoning
code
following
the
examples
of
cities
that
have
failed
in
this
effort,
only
will
lead
to
failure.
Here
we
have
the
unique
opportunity
to
create
a
code
that
will
encourage
affordable
housing,
while
also
encouraging
a
vibrant
quality
development
that
protects
and
enhances
what
we
love
about
Boise,
that
creates
a
city
for
all
of
us.
We
asked
the
city
to
step
back
and
reevaluate.
Some
of
those
items
that
seem
unpopular
with
the
public.
H
Mr
chair
a
point
of
clarification.
Yeah
are
we
to
hold
our
questions
until
the
end
that
everybody's
presentations
or
okay
yeah?
That's
the
best
plan.
S
Thank
you
Commissioners
for
hearing
these
comments.
My
name
is
Joni
Fosse
2944,
North,
Hillway,
Drive,
Boise
83702
I've
been
following
Zone
and
Co.
The
zoning
code
rewrite
since
the
beginning,
I've,
attended
meetings
and
commented
at
each
phase.
I'm
not
totally
opposed
to
the
rewrite,
but
I
do
have
some
concerns.
S
S
Since
then,
I've
moved
from
the
north
end
to
the
central
Foothills,
where
I've
held
several
roles
in
our
neighborhood
association
over
the
years
I'm
speaking
tonight
as
representing
the
board
of
the
central
Foothills
neighborhood
association.
I've
done
my
share
of
testifying
and
writing
letters,
but
I
still
have
to
scratch
my
head
a
lot.
Most
development
proposals
are
not
cut
and
dry.
There
always
seems
to
be
exceptions
and
Deals
made
also
known
as
development
agreements.
S
Within
this
rewrite.
This
still
seems
to
be
the
case.
It
seems
part
of
the
intent
of
the
new
code
is
to
streamline
development
options,
which
would
allow
proposals
to
go
through
with
little
oversight.
We
don't
agree
with
this,
but
we
also
see
the
need
for
streamlining
as
the
city
grows.
The
city
can't
continue
to
have
hearings
on
every
development,
but
within
this
draft
code
there
are
places
that
mention
variances
or
waivers.
So
still
nothing
will
be
cut
and
dry.
The
developers
will
continue
to
have
the
option
to
push
through
whatever
they
want.
S
S
There
are
many
areas
that
are
still
vague.
This
rewrite
is
not
finished
and
there
are
issues
that
have
not
been
addressed
well,
for
instance,
anti-displacement
language,
an
anti-demolition
language
and
there's
there
are
items
that
should
be
included,
for
instance,
how
much
Green
Space
a
lot
is
required
to
maintain.
Since
Boise
wants
to
maintain
recognition
as
a
city
of
trees
and
plant
x
amount
of
trees
in
x
amount
of
years,
we
need
more
Code,
Compliance
officers
and
enforcement
to
go
with
it.
We
in
the
Foothills
areas
are
especially
interested
in
outside
lighting
and
vegetation
violations.
S
S
S
S
Over
the
years
as
I've
listened
in
at
the
meetings
and
hearings,
I
was
always
appalled
at
projects
that
got
approved,
mainly
because
the
city
was
afraid
of
being
sued
by
the
developer,
because
the
code
allowed
the
developer
or
owner
the
opportunity
to
build
what
they
were
proposing.
Even
if
the
planning
zoning,
Commissioners
or
city
council
were
opposed
to
a
project,
they
felt
forced
to
approve
these
projects.
If
code
allowed
it
here's
our
opportunity
to
change
that
there
should
be
mention
of
several
places
within
this
new
code.
S
S
There
are
other
things
we
do
like
in
the
directory
right.
We
like
the
Wildfire
resistant
vegetation
requirements
for
the
wui
overlay.
We,
like
all
the
bicycle
and
pedestrian
allowances.
We
hope
for
more
mass
transit,
Energy,
Efficiency
and
water
quality
and
water
quantity
are
also
nicely
represented.
S
S
Recently
the
news
group
Boise
Dev
surveyed
neighborhood
associations
for
their
comments
on
this.
Hopefully,
the
Commissioners
have
seen
the
article.
We
would
like
to
express
our
support
on
most
of
the
points
made
by
the
Centennial
Hollister
Northbend,
West,
End
and
West
Valley
neighborhood
association
and
also
tonight,
K
helmos
points
about
the
Wildfire
of
wooey
risk.
E
B
T
My
name
is
Bruce
musorovich
I
live
at
450,
West
Grove,
Street,
I'm
gonna,
mostly
stay
kind
of
neutral.
Today,
we're
in
the
process
of
kind
of
rebooting,
our
neighborhood
association
I,
know,
there's
a
lot
of
passionate
people
here
and
online.
So
if
anybody
sees
and
wants
to
get
involved
come
find
me,
we
got
a
website.
Boisedna.Org.
T
I
am
going
to
push
back
on
something
I
just
heard
a
moment
ago,
which
is
that
downtown
shouldn't
have
affordability
like
downtown
I
think
is
one
of
the
best
places
to
live
in
the
city.
If
you
can't
afford
a
car
or
if
you
can't
drive
due
to
disability
and
people
in
that
situation,
I
think
should
have
affordable
housing
too.
I
think
it's
very
important.
T
You
know
not
everyone
downtown
is
a
millionaire
there's
a
lot
of
reasons
to
live.
There.
There's
older
buildings,
we
have
a
newer
development
kind
of
across
the
street.
You
can
see
through
the
window
that
has
some
of
those
affordable
units,
I
think
they're.
A
great
addition
to
the
city
like
I
said,
though
we're
rebooting
our
organization
right
now,
it's
kind
of
challenging
with
downtown,
because
we
do
have
so
many
Runners
that
kind
of
come
and
go.
So
a
lot
of
the
people
that
were
involved
in
previous
years
have
stepped
away.
T
U
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
Cindy
Montana
718,
East,
McKinley
Street
here
in
Boise
I,
am
the
vice
president
of
the
Easton
neighborhood
association
and
I'm
the
authorized
board
representative
to
speak
to
you
this
evening.
After
I
present
our
board
position,
I
may
leave
the
in-person
hearing
but
will
be
available
via
Zoom
for
any
possible
questions.
U
Ena
is
providing
public
comment
for
the
benefit
of
our
neighborhood,
so
East
End
residents
can
clearly
know
our
board's
position
on
the
zoning
code
rewrite
during
our
monthly
meeting
on
March
28
2023.
It's
the
Ina
board,
approved
emotion,
to
request
additional
time
and
information
necessary
for
reviewing
the
Boise
zoning
code,
rewrite
adoption
draft
the
board
appreciates
the
time
and
energy
necessary
to
present
the
draft
and
lay
the
groundwork
for
exceptional
progress
within
our
city.
U
The
ENA
board
requests
that
the
city
provide
an
additional
zoning
code,
rewrite
draft
for
public
review
that
provides
increased
Clarity
to
these
areas
of
concern.
These
draft
changes
should
require
additional
documentation
regarding
the
change
log
as
as
is
customary,
the
board
recommends
that
these
changes
be
highlighted
and
summarized
between
all
drafts
and
versioning.
Likewise,
our
board
requests
that
all
additional
drafts
in
their
publication
date
and
version
number
on
each
page-
oh
include
them
sorry,
and
next
this
180
day
review
period
having
only
just
been
able
to
perform
step.
U
Two
of
the
neighborhood
meeting
due
to
a
lack
of
accordance
with
the
Boise
city
code
of
ordinance,
is
Title.
11
development
code,
11-03-04
specific
procedures,
11-03.2
or
dot
three
rezone
procedure
on
March
29th,
given
the
length
of
the
perspective
draft,
the
board
requests
an
additional
period
of
180
days
from
that
date
in
order
to
sufficiently
review
a
document
of
this
magnitude.
U
This
time
is
necessary
to
allow
adequate
public
participation
at
a
neighborhood
level.
We
also
request
that
this
hearing
process
be
postponed,
given
additional
sufficient
public
review
period.
This
requires
rescheduling
this
current
hearing.
We
also
request
additional
materials
in
order
to
increase
transparency
in
this
development
process.
We
request
the
documentation
of
the
comments
made
on
previous
drafts,
from
public
and
private
entities
alike,
and
how
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
has
and
will
include
these
changes
to
address
these
concerns
and
subsequent
subsequent
drafts.
U
Excuse
me
the
board
thanks
you
for
these
considerations,
as
we
strive
to
Inc
to
create
a
more
inclusive
rezoning
process
and
thereby
a
more
inclusive
City.
We
are
encouraged
by
the
city
council's
vision
for
responsible
development
and
Eno
will
work
tirelessly
to
uphold
our
responsibilities,
both
to
represent
our
neighbors
and
facilitate
growth
alongside
our
elected
officials.
Thank
you.
V
Good
evening,
chairman
Schaefer
and
fellow
commission
Commissioners,
thank
you
for
having
us
here.
It's
a
special
I'd
I'd
like
to
thank
the
staff
City
staff
that
have
spent
three
years
on
this
and
I've
been
to
maybe
half
a
dozen
of
the
meetings
and
I
can't
even
imagine
getting
through
4
000
pages
of
emails.
So.
B
V
You
Eric
Hagen
809,
North,
18th,
Street,
Boise,
Idaho,
I'm,
an
architect
and
I've
I'm
licensed
in
several
States
and
I've
worked
with
dozens
of
jurisdictions
and
Zoning
codes,
and
this
one
having
been
done
in
1966
is,
is
overdue
for
an
update.
V
So
even
so,
it's
been
our
experience
that
the
current
zoning
code
is
lacking
in
some
areas,
as
we've
been
reviewing
some
of
the
projects
that
have
come
through
our
neighborhood
in
the
last
few
years
and
to
provide
for
a
varied
uses,
higher
density,
variances,
five
unit
developments,
business
or
business
buildings
that
are
out
of
character
or
too
large
for
their
adjacent
Neighbors.
V
V
V
It
is
at
these
hearings,
where
our
neighbors
really
see
that
we
are
seen
and
heard
so
it's
important
for
us
to
be
here
as
well,
so
I'll
try
not
to
repeat
the
information
there,
but
maybe
extrapolate
upon
them
a
little
bit
more.
We've
heard
so
much
about
the
notification
of
the
change
of
use.
It's
been
nice
to
see
some
of
the
changes
or
some
of
the
additions
that
the
city
is
thinking
of,
adding
like
allowing
the
homeowner
to
opt
in
to
receiving
messages
through
the
development
tracker.
V
That's
an
awesome
addition
I
look
forward
to
that
one.
Even
so,
it
seems
that
a
couple
of
the
notifications
are
going
to
be
limited
as
a
neighborhood
association
of
10,
000
or
so
people.
V
We
have
contact
information
for
maybe
700.,
so
it
makes
it
really
difficult
for
us
to
be
able
to
notify
the
neighbors
of
projects
going
around
the
neighborhood
and
that's
one
of
the
biggest
emails
I
get
or
notifications
I
get
from
our
neighborhood,
so
people
that
find
out
usually
when
the
trucks
show
up
to
start
doing
construction
and
that's
even
with
the
notification
process.
They're
missing
this
stuff.
So
it's
really
important
to
be
able
to
get
the
notifications
out
to
the
people
and
I
think
there's
other
ways
to
do
it.
V
Maybe
the
applicant
does
it,
but
that's
just
one
of
the
the
very
many
reasons
that
we
need
to
be
able
to
do
it,
because
we
just
as
a
volunteer
organization,
we
just
do
not
have
the
ability
to
do
it.
Let
alone
do
we
have
the
resources
or
the
information
to
do
that.
V
We're
talking
about
sustainable
design,
sustainable
development
and
we
couldn't
find
I,
think
there's
one
thing
I
saw
in
the
code
about
incentivizing
adaptive
reuse,
which
is
really
the
most
sustainable
you
can
be
with
a
building.
Is
we
use
an
existing
building?
There
needs
to
be
more
incentivization
to
that
I'll
just
remind
director
Keane
that
we
still
want
to
have
a
historic
survey
of
the
neighborhood,
a
new
one,
because
that
one
we
have
is
is
really
really
old.
V
Even
so,
the
codes
are
a
changing,
Target
or
moving
Target
and
always
subject
to
change.
I.
Imagine
I've
have
heard
tonight
that
through
amendments
we
may
be
able
to
make
changes
moving
forward.
So
I
really
hope
that
that
means
it's
not
going
to
be
another
70
years
or
is
my
bath
is
bad.
Isn't
it
brain
math
anyways?
We
look
forward
to
your
recommendation
of
the
zoning
code
rewrite
and
we
look
forward
to
hearing
your
your
list
of
conditions
and
considerations,
or
at
least
the
discussion
of
these
considerations.
B
You,
okay
up
next
South
Coal
and
then
Veterans
Park
and
then
West
downtown.
W
My
name
is
US
Doula
friends
and
I.
Am
the
President
of
South
Cole
neighborhood
association
I've
lived
in
my
home
at
7604
Thunder
Mountain
Drive
in
Boise
Idaho
for
22
years,
I
love
this
city.
It
is
my
home
and
I
speak
for
a
community
that
feels
marginalized
by
city
government,
most
of
them
in
fear
or
apathetic,
that
anything
can
be
done
to
stop
this.
W
This
zoning
code
rewrite
has
succeeded
in
dividing
our
beautiful
city,
pitting
neighborhoods
against
neighborhoods,
using
intimidation
tactics
between
the
Haves
and
the
have-nots.
It
is
fair
to
say
that
calling
it
a
modern
zoning
code
and
creating
a
city
for
everyone
are
simply
slogans
and
propaganda.
W
The
city
has
routinely
updated
the
zoning
code
in
sections
when
it
makes
sense
to
do
so
to
completely
revamp
the
code
like
a
blanket
over
the
entire
city,
except
for
the
rich
end
areas
and
the
historic
districts
will
leave.
Unknowing
residents
shocked
when
modest
single-family
homes
are
demolished
by
developers
to
place
45-foot
quad
Plex
developments
next
door
to
them.
W
The
proposed
zoning
code
does
nothing
to
protect
our
established
neighborhoods.
The
zoning
code.
Rewrite
is
fatally
flawed.
It
will
not
ensure
affordable
housing
because
the
incentives
to
do
so
are
optional,
not
mandatory.
This
is
like
writing.
A
blank
check
to
developers
and
those
associated
with
them.
I
am
asking
for
the
pnz
to
reject
the
up
Zone
code
and
allow
for
proper
time
to
discuss
placing
these
developments
in
select
areas
that
make
sense
to
do
so,
not
destroy
the
charm
and
character
of
our
residential
neighborhoods.
W
W
W
Some
land
use
will
become
by
right
and
certain
residential
zones,
retail
sales
and
Cafe
selling
alcohol
have
the
potential
to
destabilize
residential
neighborhoods
with
noise
traffic
and
additional
parking.
The
removal
and
changes
of
notification
to
neighbors
and
neighborhood
associations
causes
confusion
and
uncertainty
within
a
community.
W
This
needs
more
time
and
as
CNA
feels
that
the
vote
by
city
council
should
be
postponed
until
we
have
a
duly
elected
city
council
based
on
the
2021
requirements
to
elect
city
council
Representatives
by
districts
within
the
city
and
not
by
a
council,
with
one-third
of
the
people
appointed
by
the
mayor.
Currently,
two
of
the
six
City
Council
Members
have
been
appointed
by
mayor
McLean
and,
as
such
may
not
represent
the
voters
within
all
of
Boise's
Geographic
districts.
W
O
E
O
Hit
everything
my
address
is
5001
West,
wymosa,
Street
I
want
to
start
by
giving
an
illustration
of
Maya
neighborhood,
as
perhaps
one
most
affected
by
the
zoning
code.
We
are
along
State,
Street
and
State
Street,
bisexual
neighborhood.
The
zoning
code
includes
a
proposal
to
rezone
properties
within
a
I
believe
a
quarter
of
a
mile
eighth
of
a
mile
of
a
of
an
MX3
to
R2.
So,
as
a
result,
approximately
40
of
the
residential
zones
in
my
neighborhood
will
be
R2
after
the
rezone.
O
O
O
In
addition,
obviously
State
Street
itself
will
redevelop
and
increase
density,
and
this
isn't
something
that
we
oppose
I'm
for
increased
density.
That
you've
seen
here,
density
along
residential
corridors,
there's
typically
an
increased
concern
as
the
height
increases
right
now.
The
C3
height
limit
is
45
feet
and
the
newest
draft
of
that
of
the
rezone
increases
it
to
70
feet
by
right,
which
is
55
increase.
O
O
My
concern
with
the
reason
is
that,
as
others
have
mentioned,
affordability
isn't
mandated
I've
heard.
The
city
testify
that
we
cannot
mandate
affordability,
but
we
can
provide
these
new
entitlements
only
if
affordability
is
met,
it's
not
a
takings
right
now
we
allow
45
feet
of
height
along
State
Street.
If
you
want
to
allow
70
require
that
affordability,
don't
make
it
an
option,
I,
don't
see
a
way
that
our
city
can
provide
housing
for
50
of
its
below
median
income
residents.
O
I
also
want
to
note
that
the
the
market,
the
real
estate
market,
will
react
to
the
market
rate
buildable
allowances,
so
land
values
along
this
Corridor
are
likely
to
escalate.
Based
on
what
market
rate
rents
can
be
obtained.
So
even
with
affordability,
incentives
applied,
I
assume
we'll
hear
developers
saying
that
they
can't
afford
to
build
affordable
units
as
that
land
value
increases.
If
we
control
that
by
allowing
the
new
Intel
entitlements
only
with
affordability,
bonuses,
I
think
that
would
be
a
net
benefit.
O
I
do
notice
that
the
parking
rate
minimums
are
the
only
incentive
applied
for
which
you
had
been,
for
which
you
would
Implement
affordability
to
Bain
I'm,
not
opposed
to
decreased
parking,
but
I
do
have
concerns
tying
this.
Only
to
affordability,
as
many
of
the
working
class
jobs
in
our
neighborhood
comprise
multiple
job
sites
or
requirements
to
bring
tools
or
late
hours
that
are
poorly
served
by
transit.
O
Currently,
the
cup
language
requires
that
development
not
impact
the
surrounding
properties,
the
revised
language
and
the
code
before
you
weakens
this
restriction
in
many
key
ways,
it
applies
only
to
adjacent
properties
instead
of
the
surrounding
area.
It
provides
an
undefined
qualifier
of
material
impacts
and
it
allows
avoidance
of
mitigation
of
these
impacts
with
the
criteria
of
practicable,
which
I'm
sure
you
know
is
code
for
financially
feasible.
O
D
C
Sorry
feels
like
an
odd
height,
okay,
so
Kelly
tag,
1820,
West,
Jefferson,
Street
and
I
am
from
the
West
downtown
neighborhood
association
I'm,
a
president
of
the
association,
the
West
downtown
neighbors
Association
is
a
tiny
little
Association,
that's
wedged
between
downtown
Boise
and
the
West
End.
C
We
are
bordered
by
State
Street
to
the
North
and
the
connector
to
the
South
and
from
16th
to
ninth,
and
then
we
have
a
jog
over
to
23rd
into
the
to
the
connector,
so
include
like
Ennis
furniture
and
the
pathways
community
house
and
the
new
police,
substation
and
Sushi
Joint,
that's
all
included
in
there
too,
and
on
April
12th.
C
Our
board
had
our
quarterly
spring
meeting,
and
we
this
was
the
topic
that
we
discussed,
but
I
do
want
to
make
it
clear
that
our
neighborhood
association,
our
board,
as
well
as
residents
of
the
association,
have
been
actively
following
the
zoning
code,
rewrite
participating
in
the
neighborhood
communication
meetings,
filling
out
surveys
and
so
forth.
So
really
the
meeting
was
about.
What
do
we
want
to
say
to
you
and
really
the
biggest
concern
that
came
up
and
Katie
already
talked
about
it
was
we
would?
C
We
would
like
to
add
language
into
the
neighborhood
transition
standards
and
that's
11.04.03.5,
which
is
Page
206
if
anybody's
following
that
and
the
applicability
to
the
neighborhood
transition
standards,
it
specifically
says
that
would
apply
to
development
and
Redevelopment
to
after
the
effective
date
on
Lots,
located
in
R2
3
and
our
three
zoning
districts
or
any
mixed-use
industrial
open
land.
C
Zoning
District
that
have
a
side
of
rear
lot,
property
line
a
budding,
a
lot
in
r1a,
b
or
r1c,
and
we
would
like
to
add
the
words
R2
and
R3
to
that
as
well
as
Katie
just
mentioned
our
neighborhood
association,
we
do
have
MX3
zoning
along
State
Street,
and
we
worked
really
hard
with
the
city
and
two
other
neighborhood
associations
to
implement
PC
zoning
along
that
strip.
That
was
just
enacted
a
couple
of
years
ago,
and
that
did
include
setbacks.
C
You
know,
overall,
our
neighborhood
association
and
our
board
members
support
the
zoning
rewrite
and
we,
you
know
we're
we're
already
living
proof
of
what
it
looks
like
when
you
allow
different
types
of
development.
We
have
duplexes,
triplexes,
fourplexes
and
so
forth,
and
most
structures
in
our
neighborhood
are
not
at
the
maximum
height
of
50
feet
that
is
allowed
in
R3,
and
you
know
other
R2
and
R3
neighborhoods
that
align
the
MX3
Transportation
corridors
are
similar
in
that
we
are
stable.
Neighborhoods
we've
been
around
for
a
long
time.
C
C
C
Someone
mentioned
earlier
that
you
know
places
that
are
the
nicer
places
in
the
neighborhood
where
people
should
be
able
to
pay
a
premium
to
live
in
them.
This
I
I
want
to
bring
this
up,
because
this
is
something
our
neighbors
Association
talks
about
a
lot.
We
have
section
8
housing
apartments
across
the
street,
from
million
dollar
homes.
We
have
people
that
live
in.
C
You
know
adus
and
smaller
units
next,
to
you
know
larger
homes,
and
we
love
the
diversity
in
our
neighborhood
and
we
don't
feel
we
feel
very
strongly
that
the
nicer
parts
of
the
city
should
not
be
you
know,
set
aside
or
only
accessible
to
people
who
can't
afford
to
live
in
in
them.
That's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
support
the
zoning
rewrite
and
since
I
have
a
little
bit
of
time,
there
was
one
other
thing
we
wanted
to
talk
about,
and
that's
the
neighborhood
notification
for
level
two
zoning
approval
projects.
C
We
would
like
to
see,
in
addition
to
notification,
going
to
the
neighborhood
association
and
notices
going
through
the
project
tracker
that
actual
letters
be
sent
to
the
neighbors
that
are
directly
impacted
by
the
project.
An
example
of
this
is
one
of
our
neighbors
was
going
to
build
a
garage
in
an
Adu
and
it
involved
a
cut
out
in
his
driveway
and
so
forth,
and
the
neighbors
we
received
a
notification
and
allowed
us
to
have
a
conversation
with
them.
C
There
were
some
concerns
because
in
our
neighborhood
we
don't
have
cutouts
with
driveways
children
play
on
the
streets
and
so
forth,
lots
of
pedestrian
traffic
and,
as
a
result
of
the
conversation,
the
neighbor
agreed
to
change
his
plan
and
he
accesses
his
Adu
and
new
garage
Through.
The
Alley,
like
all
of
the
other
other
folks
in
our
neighborhood,
do
so
that
gave
us
an
opportunity
to
have
that
conversation
instead
of
hurt
feelings
later
on.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
P
X
Bit
my
name
is
Lauren
penisi
and
I
live
at
2411,
West,
Pleasanton,
Avenue
I'm,
here
speaking
for
the
West
End
Neighborhood
Association
I'm
a
board
member
at
Large
I
have
four
areas
of
the
zoning
code
rewrite
that
I
wanted
to
focus
on
today.
X
First
is
the
allowed
uses
in
the
R2
zone,
so
West
End
Neighborhood
does
have
primarily
R2
Zone
and
the
change
in
the
lot
size
and
in
the
height
allowance
would
severely
affect
our
neighborhood.
So
most
of
our
lots
are
set
at
50
by
100,
so
5000
square
feet.
Now
the
new
minimum
lot
size
would
be
2500
square
feet,
so
does
that
incent
developers
to
buy
a
house
tear
it
down
split
the
lot
and
put
up
two
houses
had
us.
You
know.
How
does
that?
How
does
that
work?
X
And
the
same
is
true
of
joining
Lots?
That's
another
option,
and
in
fact,
that
was
brought
up
in
one
of
the
community
meetings-
is
that
a
property
with
a
home
that
has
aged
out
could
be
torn
down.
Two
lots
joined
together
and
put
up
a
new,
modern,
multi-family
housing
structure.
That's
a
concern.
Our
neighborhood
is
is
an
older
neighborhood.
It
does
have
historic
homes
on
it.
X
We
had
a
historic
survey,
so
these
are
some
of
the
things
about
our
neighborhood
that
are
unique,
that
make
it
distinctive
and
that's
part
of
what
the
zoning
code
is
is
trying
to
do
is
preserve
those
unique
characteristics.
But
how
does
that
happen?
If
the
allowed
use
in
an
R2
is
to
change
the
lot
size,
change,
the
height
allowances
and
those
sorts
of
things?
X
X
We
even
have
a
Historic
Trail
through
our
neighborhood,
about
some
of
our
unique
buildings
and
homes
and
and
that
sort
of
thing,
and
in
addition
to
all
that
we
have
a
lovely,
mature
tree
canopy
which
we'd
like
to
preserve,
but
with
some
of
these
newer
building
developments
like
the
one
at
27th,
Street
crossing,
all
the
trees
were
cut
down
with
the
ex
well,
with
the
exception
of
two
mature
trees.
So
that
is
the
concern
in
our
neighborhood
as
well.
The
second
thing
I
wanted
to
talk
about
is
the
diminished
public
participation
in
the
process.
X
So
our
neighborhood
association
we've
gotten
those
little
green
postcards.
We
do
see
the
signs
posted
we
do
respond.
We
have
been
appearing
before
the
Planning
and
Zoning
we're
city
council
whenever
is
appropriate,
to
comment
on
some
of
these
projects
and
we
do
the
participate
in
excuse
me
in
the
developer
meetings
as
well.
X
We
take
advantage
of
all
of
those
opportunities
and
we
like
to
see
that
preserved
I
was
happy
to
hear
about
the
online
trap
project
co-tracker,
it's
great
to
take
advantage
of
all
those
different
options,
electronic
paper
and
then
the
visual
sign
posted
because
not
everybody
communicates
online,
not
everyone
is
using
online
technology,
so
the
other.
The
third
thing
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about
is
design
standards.
So,
in
the
modern
zoning
code
flyer
it
talks
about
preserving
the
character
of
our
neighborhoods.
X
So
this
is
one
thing
that
we've
had
a
problem
with
with
past
projects
that
have
come
up
because
they're,
it's
very
difficult
to
coordinate
between
the
planning
and
zoning
and
then
the
design
review
the
way
the
process
exists
today
and
I
I
didn't
see
how
that's
going
to
improve
in
the
future.
So,
as
I
said,
our
neighborhood
has
very
distinctive.
Very
we've
got
Art
Deco
houses,
we've
got
Victorian,
We've
Got
You,
Name,
It
We
got
it.
So
how
do
we
preserve
that?
X
How
do
we
have
developers
complement
what
already
exists
so
that
that
that
would
be
important
in
our
neighborhood,
how
we
have
a
modern
zoning
code
that
does
add
character
and
and
talk
and
speak
to
that,
the
only
the
other,
let's
see
where
am
I
I'm
on
four
okay.
Fourth
thing:
the
past
results
and
the
future,
so
the
housing
bonus
ordinance
was
passed
and
that
was
supposed
to
help
alleviate
some
of
the
housing
problems
that
in
the
city,
but
did
it
really
achieve
the
results?
I
mean
I
saw
an
article
in
Boise
Dev.
X
Only
four
projects
took
advantage
of
that.
How
do
we
know
that
this
zoning
code
rewrite
is
going
to
meet
some
of
the
goals
that
you
know
and
they're
very
you
know
worthwhile
goals
to
to
for
the
zoning
to
be
right,
but
I
was
happy
to
hear
commissioner
Mooney
talk
about.
How
do
we
monitor?
How
do
we
course
correct
if
there
are
problems,
because
there
always
are
unintended
consequences,
processes
that
don't
work
so
to
have
some
sort
of
review
process
and
director
Keen
addressed
that
as
well?
X
Have
a
12
month
review
audit
communicate
because
we
absolutely
well
in
our
especially
in
our
neighborhood,
it
sounds
like
all
the
others
would
be
very
interested
in
hearing
and
keeping
involved
with
the
results.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
B
B
All
right,
Mr
Pickett,
yes
hi
there
are
you
representing
a
neighborhood
association,
I
am
okay
and
which
one
are
you
with
I.
Y
Am
with
Depot
bench,
neighborhood
association,
okay,.
B
You
can
start
with
your
name
and
address.
Please.
Y
Sure
yep
Jim
Pickett
I
live
at
3501,
Windsor
Drive
I'm,
the
treasurer
current
treasurer
of
the
Depot
bench,
neighbors
Association,
but
I've
been
involved
with
the
neighbors
Association
for
15
years
in
a
variety
of
positions,
including
past
president
Mr,
chair
and
Commissioners.
First
of
all,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
this
evening.
I'm
gonna
make
two
points
of
emphasis
mostly
have
been
made
by
other
of
my
esteemed
neighborhood
association.
Colleagues,
one
is
on
public
comments
and
the
other
one
is
on
Building
height
in
the
MX.
Y
Three
Zone
I've
testified
employ
in
front
of
Planning
and
Zoning
several
times,
and
while
the
Commissioners
didn't
always
agree
with
the
neighborhood's
thoughts,
I
believe
that
we
were,
we
were
heard
and
I
believe
that
we
may
have
swayed
further
decisions
or
started
some
conversations
that
moved
the
needle
to
our
Viewpoint
for
subsequent
projects.
Y
Well,
I
see
where
Dr
director
Keane
is
coming
from
moving
away
from
providing
those
opportunities.
May
streamline
the
application
process,
since
the
rules
may
be
more
clearly
defined
for
type
2
projects.
Y
Y
Since
this
is
a
new
zoning
plan,
I'm
sure
there
will
be
lots
of
questions
and
perhaps
some
disagreements
and
misunderstandings
as
to
what's
in
the
code
and
how
each
party
reads
the
words
and
interprets
what
those
words
really
mean.
There
needs
to
be
a
way
to
have
the
community
included
in
the
discussions.
In
these
instances
there
seems
like
there
could
be
some
balance
point
that
could
be
initially
implemented
over
the
first
few
years.
That
would
allow
all
sides
to
become
comfortable
with
the
changes
to
these
type
2
projects.
Y
As
commissioner
Mooney
mentioned
in
the
type
1
and
type
2
projects,
it
seems
like
there
needs
to
be
some
option
for
public
notification
for
concerns
to
be
heard.
Y
The
development
tracker
side
is
a
great
step
in
that
direction,
but,
as
others
have
mentioned,
projects
thinking
about
going
to
that
site
or
registering
and
then
or
visiting
that
site
on
a
frequent
basis
is
a
big
ask
for
a
lot
of
people,
because,
although
everybody
in
this
room
is
concerned
about
planning
and
zoning,
it's
not
an
everyday.
It's
a
not
an
everyday
top
of
mind
item
for
most
of
the
community.
Y
We're
also
concerned
about
the
height
requirement
and
the
mx-3
zone
at
70
feet.
As
with
the
State
Street
Corridor
mentioned
by
both
the
Veterans
Park
and
West
downtown
neighbors
associations
on
the
Vista
Avenue
Corridor.
We
currently
have
a
lot
of
C2
zones
adjacent
to
R1
zones.
Y
The
new
zoning
requirement
does
have
a
tradition
transition
zone
of
R2
between
these
two
zones,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
currently
there
would
could
be
a
70-foot
structure
built
next
to
what
is
currently
a
one-story
home.
That
is
in
a
our
what
is
currently
an
R1
Zone.
Y
Y
It
would
be
nice
to
see
a
scale
drawing
of
what
it
would
really
look
like
on
a
typical
Vista
cross
section
on
the
diagram
and
Page
206
of
the
transition
standard
section
of
the
code,
so
that
Commissioners
and
others
could
see
the
true
effect
of
this
situation.
Y
B
Thank
you,
Mr
Pickett
next
looks
like
we
have
Mr
Llewellyn
from
Northwest
neighborhood
association.
Z
Z
First
of
all,
I
have
the
advantage
of
hearing
everybody
else.
All
those
great
comments.
So
we
would
like
to
agree
with
comments
from
Barbara
Valley
regarding
the
permitting
process,
Crestline
and
Central
Foothills
with
Pathways
and
fire.
Z
The
East
End
regarding
this
process
and
the
need
for
versioning
and
South
calls
respect
the
need
for
geographic
representation
and
how
the
rewrite
may
result
in
very
different
levels
of
impact
for
different
areas
of
the
city
and
with
the
Veterans
Park
neighborhood,
for
the
need
to
tame
the
land
market,
to
prevent
just
land
values,
increase
with
increased
entitlements,
and
especially
the
changes
in
the
cup
that
were
pointed
out
and
with
West
downtown
regarding
the
transition
zones
from
MX3
and
the
West
End
regarding
to
how
to
fix
mistakes.
Z
Z
A
pickup
and
a
sedan
make
a
high
speed
u-turn
on
State
Street,
between
Bogart
and
Duncan,
as
replete
with
smoking
tires
and
squeezing
sounds,
and
then
they
they
did
this
quick
U-turn
and
then
they
pulled
into
their
new
apartment
complex
there
at
9000,
West,
State,
Street,
and
the
reason
they
do
that
where
the
speed
limit
here
is
55
is
because
it's
just
a
write
in
right
out
onto
State
Street
from
their
new
apartment,
complex
and
if
they,
if
they
manage,
that,
it's
it's
a
it's
a
kind
of
extreme
move,
but
if
they
manage
it
they
can
save
five
or
ten
minutes
because
they
won't
have
to
say
go
on
to
Bogart,
find
a
place
to
turn
around.
Z
Come
back
out,
wait
for
another
light
Etc.
So
this
last
fall.
We
approved
another
230
units
along
State
Street
that
will
end
up
as
it
is
written
now
with
another
write
in
right
out
onto
the
55
mile
per
hour
traffic
of
State
Street.
Z
This
commission
achd
the
neighborhood.
We
all
agreed
that
we
needed
a
new
traffic
traffic
light
there.
Unfortunately
I
didn't
make
it
through
City
Council.
Z
But
the
point
is:
is
you
heard
from
our
neighborhood
and
you've
heard
this
multiple
times
for
the
need
for
infrastructure,
especially
on
State
Street,
as
we
convert
pastures
in
our
neighborhood
to
four-story
Apartments
today
that
opportunity
to
give
you
this
public
input,
and
it's
often
situations
that
we
know
about,
especially
as
we
do
multiple
concurrent
developments,
which
you
know
are
not
captured
well
with
Statistics
or
traffic
counts.
Z
We
have
the
chance
to
tell
you
that
infrastructure
is
lacking,
and
you
often
listen
to
us,
but
one
of
our
major
concerns
in
our
neighborhood
and
that's
part
of
being.
You
know
a
newly
annexed
area
and
being
a
different
section
of
State
Street,
where
it's
55
miles
per
hour,
but
it's
also
a
highway.
Hov
lanes
are
not
allowed.
Z
We
don't
have
any
bus
stops,
even
though
we
call
it
a
best-in-class
Transit
and
we're
zoning
it.
Accordingly,
we
only
have
one
bus
stop
on
one
end,
then
we
have
two
miles
without
a
bus
stop
almost
two
miles,
and
so
one
of
our
major
concerns
is
right.
Now
the
legal
checkpoint
for
needed
infrastructure
is
the
rezone.
Z
If
we
give
all
this
away.
In
a
sense
of
grand
all
these
entitlements-
and
this
becomes
MX3,
how
can
we
then
assure
that
we're
going
to
get
the
needed
infrastructure?
It's
not
just
roadway
related,
it
can
be
Pathways,
it
can
be
bus
stops.
Z
It
can
be
connections
between
those
two
things
and,
as
you
know,
you
know,
there's
this
whole
problem
with
achd
and
the
achd
is
to
say
it's
a
problem
with
the
city
and
it
the
problem
right
now
is
it
just
doesn't
work
and
it
doesn't
matter
who
we're
blaming
for
us
as
a
neighborhood.
It
doesn't
work
a
few
years
ago.
You
know
achd
kind
of
did
their
own
major
change,
but
without
nearly
so
much
thought
or
planning
when
they
decided
to
waive
the
waivers
right.
Z
So
now
they
no
longer
will
grant
a
waiver
for
a
level
of
service
failure.
They'll
just
say
we
don't
deal
with
that
anymore.
That's
Boise's
problem,
but
Boise
hasn't
really
digested
that
as
well,
because
we
still
hear
from
our
public
officials.
Occasionally
traffic
related
issues
aren't
our
problem.
Those
are
achd's
problem,
so,
in
a
sense,
what
we're
doing
here
in
our
neighborhood
when
it
comes
to
State,
Street
and
Transit
oriented
development
is
building
this
on
a
house
of
sand.
D
Z
Z
Thank
you,
yeah
I
will
just
give
you
one
sentence
for
the
other
pair
each
other
paragraph
So.
We
have
what
I
just
talked
about.
Z
We
need
to
make
sure
that
this
planned
infrastructure,
because
we've
is
actually
phased
to
the
actual
actualization
of
the
infrastructure,
is
faced
the
to
the
building,
because
we
can
have
things
that
plan
for
years
and
never
get
to
them
and
again,
if
we're
removing
this
checkpoint
of
a
rezone,
then
we
may
even
be
losing
the
legal
ability
to
to
ensure
it.
So
we
need
to
deal
with
this
up
front.
Z
We
have
issues
about
water
and
how
the
water
plan
for
adequate
water
is
addresses
in
our
city.
It's
kind
of
conflict,
our
neighborhood,
it
kind
of
conflates
quantity
with
quality.
Z
I
guess
I
can
put
more
written
comments
to
city
council
with
regards
to
that
quite
a
few
other
points,
but
I'll
stop
now.
Thank
you.
B
B
Okay,
doesn't
look
like
it,
you
want
to
take
a
quick,
quick
break,
or
do
you
want
to
just
jump
into
questions
of
our
neighborhood
associations
and
city?
Was
that
neighborhood.
G
Associations
and
City
Anthony
yeah
I'm
good
to
keep
going.
But
if
Chris.
E
I
I
B
B
B
H
H
Cindy
I
wanted
to
ask
you
really
quick.
Thank
you
so
much
for
all
the
neighborhood
association
associations
who
showed
up.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
was
really
really
dismayed
when
I
read
the
Boise
Dev
reporting
that
I
mean
I,
think
there's
only
half
of
the
neighborhood
associations
who
even
bothered
to
look
at
this
and
I
mean
as
director
Keane
noted.
H
This
is
like
twice
in
a
century
like
rewrite
of
zoning
code
right
I
mean
this
is
this
is
like
the
biggest
rewrite
of
Boise
law
in
along
to
ever
right
and
it's
like
and
half
the
neighborhood
associations
didn't
even
bother
to
look
at
it
right.
So.
E
H
Easy
we
have
some
rebuilding
to
do
people,
okay,
so
my
question:
is
you
guys
you
and
your
neighborhood
association
have
specifically
asked
for
basically
180
days,
stay
on
this
and
I'm
I'm,
very
much
swayed
by
what
director
Kane
put
forth,
which
is
you
know
after
one
year's
time,
we've
really
got
to
we've
really
got
to
take
stock
of
what
we've
done
here.
H
Whatever
ends
up
happening
with
this
code
right
and
it's
so
I
guess.
My
question
is:
do
you
feel
that
that
this
that
this,
that
just
sitting
idly
by
for
the
next
six
months
and
hoping
without
trying
any
of
what's
in
the
code
and
just
hoping
that
we
can
all
just
somehow
magically
get
it
right
in
the
next
six
months
that
we're
going
to
produce
better
results
that
way
than
we
would
if
we
just
let
this
thing
run
its
course
for
a
mere
six
months
past?
H
What
you're
proposing
as
director
Kane
has
suggested,
where
we
can
actually
put
the
code
into
operation
and
see
what
happens
and
and
then
go
from
there
and
I
think
several.
The
other
neighborhood
associations
have
said
a
similar
thing
like
well.
Let's
wait
until
the
councils,
the
South
sailor
friend,
said:
well,
let's
wait
until
the
council
members
are
in
and
so
again
I
guess.
My
question:
is
you
know
what
to
what
end
like
shouldn't?
We
just
run
this
experiment
and
see
what
happens.
H
U
Yeah,
thank
you,
commissioner.
Blanchard
for
your
question.
I
I
think
that
it's
not
so
much
a
let's
just
not
do
anything
for
the
next
six
months
and
just
sit
on
our
hands
and
wait
and
see
I
think
it's
there's
still
work.
That
needs
to
be
done
right,
they're
still,
untangling.
That
needs
to
happen
and
I.
My
personal,
my
personal
thought
on
the
waiting
until
the
new
council
is
in
and
ready
to
go.
U
They
can
look,
they
can
see
what
what
the
changes
are,
what
what
has
been
done,
and
perhaps
that
something
that
over,
if
there
is
180
day
stay,
put
in
place,
that's
something
that
can
be
done
but
but
to
your
point,
no
I.
That's
absolutely
not
what
we
are
are
asking
for
here
in
terms
of
just
not
doing
anything
and
sitting
on
our
hands.
G
G
So
we're
just
talking
about
the
the
reclassification
of
certain
r1b
and
r1c
Parcels
to
R2,
based
on
their
adjacency
to
an
MX,
Zone
and
certain
other
criteria.
This
is
laid
out
in
the
the
transition
map
language.
Can
you
please
provide?
G
What
these
folks
call
the
automatic
conversion
to
R2
I'm,
just
interested
in
understanding
the
scale
of
that
Pro
problem
and
the
other
question
I
would
have
Andrea
is
there's
been
an
argument
that
that
that
will
fall
disproportionately
on
certain
parts
of
the
city?
I.
Imagine
that's
true
because
that
Best
in
Class
zoning
Corridor
they're
not
everywhere,
but
I'd
like
to
understand
better
exactly
where
by
sort
of
percentage
proportionally,
this
is
occurring.
F
Commissioner
Gillespie,
first
of
all,
we
can
absolutely
get
that
information
over
the
course
we'll
have
it
tomorrow.
So
so
you
have
it
tomorrow
evening.
We
can
definitely
we
don't
have
it
available
right
at
the
moment,
but
we
can't
have
it
for
you
tomorrow.
I
will
say
just
to
provide
the
context
for
this
what's
being
proposed,
is
that
along
those
MX3
Transit
corridors
again,
Vista,
which
was
spoken
to
in
the
Depot
bench
comments,
and
then
State
spoken
to
in
the
Veterans
Park
comments
and
then
Fairview,
which
didn't
come
up
but
those
three
corridors?
F
One
of
the
proposals
in
this
ordinance
is
to
rezone
the
property
fronting
on
those
corridors
to
the
MX3,
which
is
the
taller,
70
feet
and
so
forth,
and
then
right
behind
that
rezone
to
the
R2,
which
you're
speaking
to
which
in
in
this
code,
takes
you
to
50
feet
in
those
areas,
and
then
you
get
down
to
the
R1
Zone
beyond
that.
So
the
purpose
of
that
this
isn't
the
purpose
of
that
was
to
say
we
want
the
density
along
the
corridor.
This
is
helpful.
F
We
need
it
in
in
concert
with
our
plans
for
transportation
right
behind
that,
rather
than
falling
down
right
away
to
the
single
family
or
the
R1
have
that
transition
of
R2,
so
you're
going
from
70
to
50
to
lower
Heights
as
you
get
into
the
R1
districts
behind
it.
So
so
you're
now
asking
what?
How
many
properties
and
how
many
residences
are
affected
by
the
R2
which
we
can
have
for
you
tomorrow.
G
G
Is
there
an
opportunity
to
rezone
these
Parcels
to
R2
but
not
adopt
every
single
aspect
of
the
new
R2
zone?
So,
for
example,
we
could
say
we're
going
to
rezone
all
these
to
R2,
but
we're
not
going
to
let
them.
You
know,
divide
these
Lots
into
2500
square
foot,
Parcels
like
they
could
otherwise
in
an
R2,
but
we
will
let
the
height
the
new
height
exception
go
through.
So
just
think
about.
G
Is
there
a
way
to
make
that
transition
work
differently,
or
are
there
some
choices
or
is
it
better
just
to
say
no
don't
mess
with
the
don't
create
like
an
r2a,
and
this
rule
only
would
apply
to
r2a
and
r2a
would
keep
the
5
000
square
foot
requirement
of
the
existing
R2,
but
allow
for
the
new
height
requirement.
Like
do
you
see
what
I
mean
like.
G
H
Just
to
follow
on
because
I
was
going
to
ask
Miss
Decker
that
same
thing
are:
are
you
does?
That
is
what
director
King
saying?
Does
that
comport,
with
your
understanding,
Katie
I,
guess
maybe
pop
up
yeah.
H
This
has
been
one
of
my
questions
from
the
outset,
so
you
said
that
you
think
41.
My
question
was
40
of
your
r1s
in
under
the
new.
Under
this
new
code.
Are
we
are
physically
rezoning
them
to
R2,
or
are
you
saying,
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
I.
O
Well,
so
we
have
existing
R2
in
our
neighborhood
and
for
our
existing
R2
in
addition
to
the
r2s
that
will
happen
via
rezone.
We
expect
that
to
be
approximately
40
of
the
neighborhood
from
when
we've
looked
at
the
code,
I
believe
Citywide,
it's
on
the
order
of
a
Thousand
Eleven
Hundred
properties
would
be
rezoned
R2,
and
that
translates
to
something
like
4,
000,
direct
neighbors,
but
I.
O
G
H
Milt,
if
I
made
I
have
the
same
concern
with
the
language
that
we
hear
here,
because
the
word
up
Zone
has
gone
through
meaning
changes.
It
was
always
understood
by
by
the
profession
that
up
zoning
was
we're
taking
R1
and
we
are
now
making
it
R2.
H
Okay,
that's
an
up
zone
or
we
are
taking
R1
and
we
are
turning
it
to
commercial,
that's
an
up
Zone,
and
then
there
was
this
fuzzy
period
of
History,
where
journalists
quit
defining
even
what
they
mean
by
up
Zone
and
the
planning
Community
even
adopted
that
too,
and
wouldn't
say
what
they
mean
and
then
all
of
a
sudden,
the
NIMBY
Community
grabbed
a
hold
of
upzone
and
literally
flipped
it
on
its
head,
literally
flipped
it
on
its
head.
So
now,
when
we,
what?
What?
H
What
we're
going
to
hear
200
people
tomorrow
say,
don't
up
Zone,
Boise
and
when
they
say
up
Zone
what
they,
what
they
mean
is
no,
no,
no,
no,
no,
no!
No!
No!
No!
No!
No!
What
they
mean
is
if
you
are
increasing
density,
that's
up
zoning
and
that
is
not
up
zoning.
So
it's
literally
the
opposite.
So
up
zoning
is
redefining
the
minimum
and
when
you
are
increasing
density,
you
are
redefining
the
maximum.
It's
literally
the
opposite.
I
H
What's
going
from
R1
to
R2,
that's
important!
That's
important
because
I
the
argument
of
well
you're,
increasing
density
in
R1,
because
you're
going
from
5
000
square
foot
to
3
500,
that's
not
up
zoning!
That
is,
that
is
not
up
zoning
whatsoever
going.
E
I
On
track,
I
think
I
have
a
question
for
K
Boise
Heights
regarding
enforcement,
because
really
great
written
testimony
in
our
package,
so
I
want
you
to
give
you
an
opportunity
to
talk
some
more
about
that
the
wooy
and
and
then
maybe
follow
up
with
staff
after
that,
and
are
we
really
resourced
to
do?
What
we're?
What
you're
proposing.
R
Commissioner
Mooney
thank
you
for
the
question:
Kay
Hummel,
Boise,
Heights,
neighborhood
association.
We
don't
think
you
are
I-
spoke
with
Michael
who's.
The
lead
during
the
last
break
compliance
officer,
apparently
right
now
at
the
city,
and
he
has
six
co-workers
and
their
stretch.
Soup
To,
Nuts
right
day
care
pallets
downtown.
R
Now
the
new
downtown
noise,
whatever
that's
going
to
be,
but
we
just
believe
in
life,
safety
issues
like
Urban
or
wooy,
Wildfire
potential,
and
also
out
in
Amity,
which
is
part
of
the
way
that
the
standards
for
enforcement
need
real
consequences
and
it
we
don't
see
it
in
the
code.
We
went
back
and
forth.
Michael
also
reminded
me
that
they,
some
in
the
city,
believe
that
possibly
State
legislation
inhibits
this
and
you
have
to
go
to
a
judge
and
get
a
misdemeanor
offense,
which
is
the
page
numbers.
R
R
If
the
adjacent
landowner
is
not
taking
care
of
their
issue,
the
city
should
not
be
handicapped
in
dealing
with
it
right
away
and
we'd
love
to
see
you
get
with
legal
and
with
the
current
folks
to
make
that
happen.
We
encourage
the
higher.
This
is
a
matter
we
will
take
to
council
for
their
budget
adoption.
R
It's
not
something
you
guys
can
do
hire
more
code
enforcement
folks,
but
it
seems
pretty
clear
to
us
it's
needed
because
there
are
non-compliant
landowners,
there's
other
great
good
landowners
that
take
care
of
their
issues,
but
we've
seen
it
with
three
different
owners:
abutting
us
in
our
neighborhood,
not
just
a
single
one
and
we'd
love
to
see
the
Code
Enforcement
Officers,
as
we
described
you
what
their
my
abc.
What
happens
here
on
Page
Six?
R
C
C
H
D
D
L
Evening,
Commissioners
Andrea
tuning
for
the
record,
Kay,
Hummel
and
I
have
had
an
opportunity
to
really
talk
about
enforcement
and
and
how
we
can
really
achieve
what
we're
doing
and
over
time
the
city
has
changed
significantly
in
the
way
we
approach
enforcement.
We
originally
had
what
we
call
just
a
zoning
enforcement
team
that
focused
on
zoning
enforcement,
so
they
were
subject
matter
experts
over
time.
They
decided
that
they
would
relocate
those
individuals
to
do
additional
things
and
Kay
actually
alluded
to
now.
They
are
doing
abandoned
vehicles,
they're
doing
child
care.
Licensing
and
approvals.
L
They're
also
expected
to
know
zoning
code
enforcement
as
well,
and
so
there's
this
multitude
of
different
items,
and
so
we've
kind
of
lost
that
subject
matter
expert,
so
Kay
and
I
have
really
talked
about.
You
know
how
could
the
city
evaluate
that
and
under
understanding
too,
that
there
are
limited
resources?
There
are
actually
seven
enforcement
officers
that
enforce
every
issue
throughout
the
city,
including
those
licensing.
L
So
it
is
not
only
as
a
city
resource
issue,
but
making
sure
that
we
do
have
those
subject
matter:
experts
that
can
address
specific
life
safety
issues
like
Wildland,
Urban
interface,
vegetation,
those
types
of
things,
and
so
it
really
is
a
policy
question.
And
so
you
know,
if
you
do
have
concerns,
that's
certainly
one
of
those
things
that
you
can
recommend
to
City
councils.
You
know
ensuring
that
we
have
those
resources
and
that
we
can
make
sure
that
we
have
the
subject
matter:
experts
that
are
necessary.
R
We
also
were
aware
talking
with
a
couple
other
neighborhoods
that
they
had
that
concern
and
I
think
Ms
foschi
from
Central
Foothills
has
encountered
it.
The
the
bottom
line
here
is
is
that
there
should
be
subject
matter:
experts
in
the
Life
Safety
and
for
the
wui.
That's
a
real,
simple
division,
I
think
and
you
could
outline
it
in
the
comp
plan,
the
new
goals
there,
because
there
is
a
whole
section
on
the
wooy.
R
There
I
think
it's
5
11
or
11
5,
whatever
I
get
my
code
versus
my
comp
plan
mixed
up,
so
I
think
you
can
set
the
tone
and
actual
wording
for
it
in
both
documents
this
week
and
for
the
last
point
I
would
make
is
that
the
worst
case
of
non-compliance
happened
right
next
to
my
home
three
years
ago
in
the
summer
of
20,
and
it
went
on
for
weeks
and
weeks
and
weeks,
and
we
appreciated
the
officer
who
did
his
best,
but
he
was
hamstrung
by
a
really
non-compliant
landowner
and
a
fire
department
person
said
can't
you
guys
just
work
it
out
and
talk
to
that
person.
R
Well,
we
really
can't-
and
some
you
know-
we'd
love
to
just
have
a
cup
of
coffee
and
work
it
out,
but
you
can't
and
on
different
neighbor
down
the
street
from
me,
couldn't
get
it
handled
with
the
abutting
HOA,
who
has
a
responsibility
to
take
care
of
their
drain
pond
in
perpetuity.
So
that's
where
we
suggest
There's
real
Financial
incentive
to
follow
the
law.
J
Mr
chairman
yeah,
commissioner
daily.
Please
a
couple
different
things
here:
common
theme.
It
seemed
at
least
among
some
of
the
testimony
we
heard
was
infrastructure
up
front
or,
at
the
very
least
in
a
timely
manner,
and
it
sounds
as
though
from
some
of
the
testimony
in
certain
instances
neither
has
taken
place
and
so
obviously
trying
to
get
the
language
right
in
this
rewrite
to
make
sure
that
that
that
ends
and
we
get
these
things
implemented.
So
I
guess
the
it's.
J
A
general
question
of
Staff
in
this
instance
is
how
how
can
we
best
handle
that?
Do
you
feel
if
that
the
rewrite
language
does
get
us
to
a
better
place
with
develop
with
requiring
and
getting
the
infrastructure
that
Services
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
around
the
applications
development,
or
do
we
need
to
tighten
it
up?
Somehow
I
mean
your
general
thoughts.
F
A
few
things,
commissioner,
Danley
first
I,
might
say
that
that
the
challenges
that
were
presented
tonight
relative
to
the
installation
of
infrastructure
or
the
provision
of
services
or
the
enforcement
of
codes
is,
is
a
frustration
that
I
we
shouldn't
act
like
won't
exist
ever
I
mean
these
are
things
in
any
City
or
probably
bigger
challenges
than
anyone
would
like.
We
do,
however,
I
think
take
a
step
forward
here.
F
One
of
the
challenges
that
we
have
I
think
in
the
way
the
current
coordinates
works
and
therefore,
how
we
operate
is
that
when
you
have
so
many
different
zoning
districts
and
that's
what
the
result
of
playing
unit
developments
are,
when
you
have
some
because
you,
these
are
all
custom
zoning
districts
they're
not
base
zoning
districts.
The
the
words
were
mentioned
several
times
tonight
by
right
development
that
this
ordinance
allows
buy
right
development.
Yes,
it
does.
The
current
ordinance
does
any
ordinance
does
there
are
certain
rights
that
people
have
to
build
that
are
by
right.
F
That's
not
a
new
idea
in
this
ordinance
it's
in
every
ordinance,
but
when
you
create
all
these
plain
unit
developments
I
mentioned
283
or
8
38
over
five
years.
That's
just
over
the
last
five
years.
You
have
all
these
individual
zoning
districts
that,
therefore
you
have
to
have
talk
about
subject
matter.
F
Experts
you've
got
to
have
someone
enforcing
238
individuals,
separate
zoning
districts
and
I'm,
telling
you
that's
hard
to
maintain
the
the
enforcement
and
the
follow-through
on
so
many
customized
zoning
districts,
so
I
think
a
major
step
forward
with
this
ordinance
is
to
establish
standards
that
apply
uniformly
across
all
development,
so
we're
we're
enforcing
those
things.
I
do
think.
F
But
I
think
the
the
and-
and
you
know
the
Capital
Improvements
in
the
city
has
has
been
mentioned
several
times
tonight,
and
most
of
that
has
been
around
streets,
but
there's
other
Capital
Improvements
that
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
people's
quality
of
life
is
improving
as
the
city
grows
and
the
reality
of
that
in
terms
of
this
ordinance
really
is
that
the
step
this
ordinance
is
taking
is
to
say,
let's
invest
in
that
infrastructure
within
our
existing
footprint,
let's
I
mean
we're
going
to
have
frustrations.
F
The
cost
of
this
is
is
still
large
just
to
serve
us
the
existing
footprint
of
the
city.
You
know
what
our
needs
are
in
terms
of
just
sidewalks
in
the
city,
but
it's
a
big
step
to
say:
that's
where
we
want
to
concentrate
our
resources.
We
are
not
going
to
continue
to
extend
ourselves
further
and
further,
which
is
not
a
decision.
Other
cities
have
made
and
that's
a
decision
we're
suggesting
we
make
and
we
build
within
ourselves
and
as
frustrating
as
Capital,
Improvements
or
Street.
E
D
B
I
I
got
a
question
for
Eric
North
End.
He
made
a
comment
about
sustainability
and
the
greatest
thing
we
can
do
is
reuse
existing
buildings,
so
I'm
thinking
of
the
incentives
to
improve
residential
neighborhood,
get
the
missing
middle,
but
most
of
this
code
is
trying
to
satisfy
where
in
the
code,
would
you
suggest
that
b
and
what
what
are
you
seeing?
What's
that
look
like.
V
Joy,
thank
you,
commissioner
Mooney
chairman
Schaefer,
how
many
pages?
How
many
pages
are
in
The
zoning
code
600?
Where
would
we
put
that
I?
Don't
know,
probably
somewhere
around
near
sub-centered
Lots,
which
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
actually
still
in
the
code
or
not,
but
it's
especially
in
the
North
End.
V
You
know
so
many
people
move
there
because
of
the
historic
houses,
the
historic
nature
of
the
neighborhood,
and
it's
one
of
the
things
things
we
hear
from
our
constituents
in
that
neighborhood
is
when
a
house
gets
torn
down
and
it
gets
replaced
with
a
big
mansion.
That's
two
three
times
larger
than
what
was
there
before.
V
There's
a
lot
of
hemming
and
hawing
and
complaints
that
go
on
so
the
city
does
have
sustainable
design
guidelines.
They
are
voluntary,
maybe
it's
time
to
make
those
requirement
for
some
developments.
If
people
want
to
do
stuff,
I
did
read
an
article
last
year,
I
believe
director
Keane
had
mentioned
something
about
adding
that
as
an
incentive
in
the
code
somewhere.
So.
T
C
F
Thank
you
for
that
question
and
to
speak
to
something
Eric
mentioned
first,
which
I
think
is
important
is
that
we
are
seeing
demolitions
in
the
city
right
now,
and
the
vast
majority
of
those
are
demolitions
of
existing
modest
houses
to
be
replaced
by
much
larger
single
houses
that
that
is
so
I
mentioned
that
just
to
say,
this
ordinance
doesn't
create
demolition
of
existing
houses
that
that
that
is
a
phenomenon
that
happens
unfortunately,
I'm
afraid
that
will
probably
accelerate
that
existing
modest
single-family
homes
get
replaced
with
much
more
expensive.
Larger
single-family
homes
happens
all
the
time.
F
If,
if
that
somehow
results
in
that,
so
within
that
incentive,
you'll
see
that
we
say
you
have
to
be
in
a
collector
or
an
arterial
number
one
and
then
the
hap,
the
property
has
to
be
vacant.
The
structure
has
to
be
25
or
less
of
the
value
of
the
property
or
you
reuse,
the
structure
in
in
the
in
the
in
the
development.
So
the
the
point
was
specifically,
in
that
case,
to
create
an
incentive
around
or
not
an
incentive.
F
It's
a
requirement
that
either
it's
a
vacant
property
or
it's
you're,
reusing
the
existing
structure
and
then
the
the
last
piece
I'll
mention
about
this,
because
it's
come
up
in
this
question
a
few
times
tonight,
is
that
the
requirement
that
we
added
to
this
code,
which
doesn't
currently
exist
in
these
areas,
where
we're
providing
for
additional
height
or
density,
and
that
and
that's
those
MX
zones
that
what
has
been
mentioned
several
times
tonight
about,
for
instance,
going
to
70
feet
in
the
MX3.
F
You
all
have
dealt
with
this
before,
of
course,
most
recently
in
the
Arbor
Village
case,
where
it
happened.
Just
because
of
rezoning.
We've
built
that
into
the
existing
ordinance
we
would,
we
would
I
mean
the
the
protection
of
existing
structures
is
a
very
important
issue
and
any
way
we
can
help
do
that
in
this
ordinance.
We
we
will
absolutely
be
open
to
ideas
that
do
that
reusing
existing
structures,
as
Eric
said,
is
the
most
sustainable
thing.
You
do.
We've
tried
to
incorporate
it
into
our
incentives,
but
we
do
have
this
reality
of.
F
B
Thanks
Tim
thanks
Eric,
because
you're
more
I.
N
Right,
it's
mainly
for
Mr
Keane,
so
the
there
is
that
one's
place
that
you
mentioned
in
the
r1b
and
r1c
districts
and
that
kind
of
incentive
category
category
two.
That
includes
a
lot
on
which
the
existing
structure
will
be
incorporated
into
the
project.
But
is
there
any
consideration
for
that
being
part
of
zipper
incentive
one?
N
Maybe
it
could
be
listed
under
like
the
energy
conservation
category
as
an
option
or
honestly,
most
of
these
under
the
energy
conservation
category
as
an
option,
because
I
think
the
biggest
issue
that
I
have
with
incentive
one
is
it's
an
and
statement
and
not
or
so
you
have
to
be
on
that
collector
arterial,
roadway
and
the
existing
building
and
as
opposed
to
or-
and
you
know,
having
that
energy
being
in
that
energy
conservation
or
being
in
that
sustainability.
Slash
resilience
category
as
well
kind
of
gives.
F
B
G
Just
I'd
like
to
remind
the
commission
or
ask
the
commission:
we
can
do
this
q,
a
kind
of
whenever
we
want
to
yeah.
Indeed,
so
it's
not
like
we
have
to
empty
the
barrel
or
the
the
you
know
the
chamber
the
chain,
all
of
them
right
now,
whatever
it
is
crazy,
but
so
at
the
end
of
every
evening
we
can
do
q
a
because
this
isn't
a
permit.
So
so
you
don't
have
to
struggle
to
get
questions.
You
can
work
on
it
tomorrow
too.
If
you
wanted
to
just
saying.
S
S
I
got
a
staff
well
anyway.
This
is
just
a
comment
about
the
will.
We
firestub
and
I
don't
know
how
you
could
work
it
into
the
code,
but
in
terms
of
neighbors
not
keeping
their
vegetation
down
and
stuff.
E
S
I
J
Yeah
I
just
there's
a
real,
quick
question,
I
think
so,
but
we
haven't
really
talked
much
about
the
neighborhood
Cafe
concept
and
I
know
that
was
mentioned
quite
a
bit
in
testimony
written
and
this
evening.
So
just
a
real
quick
point
of
clarification,
I
think
I,
know
the
answer,
but
just
to
make
sure
the
comment
that
was
made
about
selling
beer
in
a
neighborhood
Cafe.
As
far
as
I'm
aware,
that's
that's
a
requirement
of
a
liquor
license
right.
That's
not
just
an
arbitrary
decision.
L
The
neighborhood
Cafe
it
was
ultimately
for
any
of
the
small
retail
or
Cafe
uses
when
you
start
to
get
into
alcohol
sales
you're
either
getting
a
beer
and
wine
license
or
a
liquor
license,
and
if
you
notice,
you'll,
see
use
specific
standards
under
neighborhood,
cafes
and
It
ultimately
says
that
if
you
are
serving
alcoholic
beverages,
there
are
some
restrictions
that
go
with
that,
and
so
those
use
specific
standards
are
really
key,
so
making
sure
that
you're
providing
your
parking
making
sure
that
if
you
have
outdoor
seating
area,
that's
limited
to.
L
However
many
square
feet
is
it's
in
ratio
to
whatever
the
indoor
space
is
it
accommodates
for
whether
or
not
you
are
selling
liquor
licenses
or
alcohol
sales?
If
you
are
doing
alcohol,
you
are
required
to
provide
food
with
that,
so
it's
not
only
a
bar.
It
has
to
be
food
and
beverage
together
coupled
and
then
also
restrictions
on
timing.
So.
F
If
I
could
just
speak
to
that
I,
the
use
specific
standards
related
to
Neighborhood
scale
retail,
which
require
that
they'd
be
no
more
than
2
000
square
feet.
That's
the
first
thing.
This
is
an
important
provision,
I
think
of
this
ordinance
because
we
did
want
to
allow
more
service.
You
know
at
the
neighborhood
scale,
closer
to
people's
homes,
so
it's
2,
000
square
feet,
maximum
floor
area.
The
the
standard
related
alcohol
sales
just
says
that
you
must
also
serve
food.
F
The
outdoor
seating
area
is
limited
to
no
more
than
30
percent
of
the
gross
floor
area
of
the
of
the
business.
So
it's
you
get
up
to
30
percent
of
the
floor
area
of
the
business
that
you
could
use
for
outdoor
seating.
You
can't
have
a
drive-through.
Of
course,
hours
are
7
A.M
to
8
p.m,
and
the
parking
is
one
space
per
thousand
square
feet
of
area
with
a
maximum
of
four
parking
spaces.
So
you
know
small
scale
parking
there.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
all
those
facts
were
on
the
table
here.
O
B
Okay,
I
think
we're
wrapping
up
on
questions
for
the
evening,
so
I
think
we'll
move
towards
adjournment
here
tonight,
we'll
be
back
again
tomorrow,
night
at
five
o'clock
for
Testimony
public
testimony.
Does
that
sound
good
everybody?
Okay,
great
just
real,
quick
again
I
wanted
to
thank
you
all
for
coming
out
tonight
and
you
folks
that
are
online
as
well.
That
testified
I
truly.
B
The
input
it
was
it
was
enlightening,
and
it
was
a
good
discussion
and
I
think
that
you
definitely
helped
us
vet
out.
Some
of
the
issues
that
we're
finding
in
this
in
this
code
hold.