►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission
Description
April 4, 2022
A
B
All
right,
chairperson,
shaffer
commission,
thanks
for
having
me
today,
my
name
is
ty
stoddard,
I'm
a
deputy
city
attorney
here
at
the
city.
I've
been
here
since
january
2021
and
you
might
have
seen
me
back
behind
the
dais
a
couple
of
times
here
sitting
in
watching
the
pnz
commission
and
here
for
historic
preservation
too,
and
so
you
might
have
seen
me
around,
but
it's
nice
to
meet
y'all,
formerly
here.
B
B
As
best
I
can
some
of
the
powers
of
achd
versus
the
powers
of
the
city
and
kind
of
where
those
intersect
and
kind
of
where
we're
having
some
issues
so
I'll
go
over
a
little
bit
of
the
statutory
framework
for
achd
and
highway
districts
in
general,
then
we'll
go
into
the
case
brief
and
we'll
discuss
a
little
bit
about
what
that
means
for
planning
and
zoning
in
city
council
all
right.
First,
just
a
couple
of
statutory
provisions
here,
I'll
try
not
to
make
you
fall
asleep.
B
Basically,
highway
districts
when
they
say
the
district
there
they
mean
highway
districts,
they're
responsible
for
all
county,
secondary
and
city
highways,
and
no
city
included
within
a
county-wide
highway
district
shall
maintain
or
supervise
any
city
highways
or
levy
any
ad
valorem
taxes
for
the
construction,
repair
or
maintenance
of
city
highways
and
highways
itself
is
defined
very
broadly
in
the
idaho
code.
It
means
roads,
streets,
alleys
and
bridges
laid
out
or
established
for
the
public
or
dedicated
or
abandoned
to
the
public.
B
It
says
the
commissioners
of
a
highway
district
shall
have
exclusive
general
supervision
and
jurisdiction
over
all
highways
and
public
rights
of
ways
within
their
highway
system,
so
that
exclusive
award
is
important
kind
of
mean.
This
is
all
within
achd
or
highway.
Districts,
kind
of
purview
and
cities
aren't
aren't
going
to
be
much
involved
here,
all
right,
kmst,
llc
versus
county
aveda
and
achd
to
the
best
I
could
figure
out
based
on
the
supreme
court
opinion
this.
This
is
the
subject
property
that
is
the
subject
of
the
litigation
we're
talking
about
here.
B
The
developer
here
kmst
brought
an
action
against
ada
county
and
achc
to
protest,
the
requirement
that
they
construct
a
public
street
and
sidewalk
and
pay
impact
fees.
They
allege
that
this
was
an
unconstitutional
taking
at
the
district
court
level.
The
county
prevailed
on
summary
judgment
and
achd
prevailed
at
trial.
B
For
those
who
don't
know,
summary
judgment
just
means
that
there
are
no
issues
of
material
fact
and
the
county
was
entitled
to
judgment
as
a
matter
of
law.
Basically,
even
if
all
the
facts
were
taken
in
kmst's
favor,
the
county
would
still
win
the
case
and
so
kmst
appealed
the
district
court's
judgment
in
favor
of
achd
to
the
idaho
supreme
court.
So
the
appeal
just
concerned
kmst
and
achd
ada
county
wasn't
a
party
to
the
to
the
case
at
the
supreme
court.
B
Okay,
the
facts
are
the
case.
Sorry,
it's
a
little
long-winded,
but
it
kind
of
has
to
be
because
this
is
a
fact
intensive
case.
So
kmsu
wanted
to
construct
a
shopping
center
on
overland
road,
like
I
was
saying
so.
They
applied
to
ada
county
for
a
re-zone
and
applied
to
achd
for
a
land
use
application.
B
Achd
commissioners
approved
kmst's
application
with
the
conditions
that
they
construct
a
public
street
and
sidewalk
ada
county
board
of
commissioners.
After
achd's
approval,
then
approved
kmsd's
proposed
development
and
zoning
change
with
those
same
conditions
that
they
constructed
public
streets
and
sidewalk
and
that
they
get
ach's
approval
prior
to
the
final
development.
B
So
kmsd
went
ahead,
they
built
the
they
built
the
street,
they
built
the
sidewalk
and
they
deeded
it
to
achd
and
there's
the
timeline
there.
That
happened
in
september
of
1998.,
so
the
question
before
the
court,
and
which
is
important
for
well
at
least,
which
is
relevant
to
our
discussion
here
today,
is:
did
the
achd
requirement
that
kmsd
construct
and
dedicate
the
street
constitute
a
taking
and
the
idaho
supreme
court
held
that
kmst's
or
that
achc
requirement
did
not
constitute
a
taking.
B
B
It
was
not
deeded
to
them
at
that
point,
so
there's
no
general
or
regular
supervision
of
that
street
and,
more
importantly,
for
our
purposes,
the
court
stated
final
authority
to
approve
or
reject
kmst's
proposed
development
was
vested
in
the
88
county
commissioners
under
lupa,
and
so
the
rule
emanating
from
this
case
is
that
only
the
governmental
entity
with
final
authority
to
impose
a
condition
can
effectuate
a
taking
and
because
achd
wasn't
the
final
authority.
The
final
land
use
authority.
In
this
case
they
couldn't
effectuate
a
taking.
B
I
don't
think
the
court
was
saying
that
achd
could
never
effectuated
taking.
I
think
they
could.
You
know
they've
got
eminent
domain
powers,
but
in
this
case,
because
they
weren't
that
final
authority,
it
was
impossible
for
achd
to
affect
your
taking
okay
and
what
does
that
mean
for
us
some
general
rules
for
our
purposes?
B
B
One
important
point-
that's
not
clarified
by
the
kmst
case,
is
whether
you
know
what,
if
a
proposed
development
abuts
an
already
public
road,
a
public
road
would
be
one
that
achd
already
has
jurisdiction
over
and
then
there's
a
disagreement
between
the
land
use
authority,
council
and
achd,
for
instance,
maybe
on
where
to
take
access,
there's
no
case
law.
That
kind
of
clarifies
or
illuminates
this
point.
We
don't
we
don't
really
know
what
would
happen
if
if
this
question
were
litigated,
so
it's
an
open
question
things
like
this
tend
to
happen.
B
B
B
D
D
D
That
is
a
tremendously
important
statement,
because
that
basically
says
that
they're
never
going
to
deny
anything
that
is
in
front
of
us
right,
and
so,
when
it
comes
to
the
authority
to
deny
it
it
pretty
much
much
rests
entirely
on
our
shoulders
either
be
it
pnz
and
or
council,
which
also
implies
then
that
transportation
implications
can
be
cited.
As
a
reason
to
deny
is
that
an
accurate
statement.
B
B
We
know
clearly
what
some
of
our
authority
is
as
a
city
as
a
political
subdivision,
and
we
know
clearly
what
some
of
achds,
what's
in
their
preview,
that
bit
in
the
middle,
some
of
it,
it
leans
more
towards
us
lean
towards
more
achd,
but,
generally
speaking,
that
first
bullet
point
is
correct
in
a
in
a
general
sort
of
way.
Yes,
I
hope
that
was
that
was
helpful.
Mr.
E
D
Just
a
follow-up,
I
mean
that's
exactly
the
complexity
that
we're
dealing
with
right.
Everybody
knows
it's,
it's
it's!
Never!
It's
always
gray
when
it
comes
to
this
whole
issue,
but
at
least
at
least
statutorily
and
as
a
part
of
a
supreme
court
case,
we
have
some
things
that
we
can
sort
of
hang
our
hat
on
and
I'd.
Imagine
that
it's
probably
going
to
come
to
some
other
case
at
some
point
in
the
future
to
further
define
the
authorities
that
are
provided
to
either
entity
so
anyway,
I
just
wanted
to
say.
D
F
B
B
C
Was
there
anything
in
this
particular
court
case?
Is
there
anything
in
usual
I
mean,
did
the
did
the
developer
feel
like
they
had
an
argument
to
make?
It
seems
like
I
mean
I
don't
know
very
much
about
this
particular
case.
It
just
seems
at
a
high
level,
pretty
straightforward.
You
want
to
develop
a
shopping
center
and
you
have
to
build
a
road
to
get
there.
Was
there
anything
unusual
about
the
case
that
they
felt
they
had
an
argument
against
adhd.
B
B
B
Basically,
in
this
case
the
kmstlc
case,
the
district
court
decided
that
achd
had
complete
jurisdiction
over
the
public
streets
and
public
rights
of
way
throughout
ada
county,
which
is
a
different
conclusion
than
the
supreme
court
came
to
they
came
to
you
know.
Ada
county
has
the
final
as
the
final
land
use
authority.
The
district
court
found
that
achd
had
that
authority
that
final
authority,
so
just
an
interesting
point
there
about.
You,
know
confusion
about
where
that
authority
rests
between
the
two.
A
We
are
recommending
approval,
but
there
is
neighborhood
opposition
and
the
applicant
is
against
some
of
the
conditions.
So
we
will
be
hearing
that
as
well
item
4,
a
rezone
and
cup
for
child
care
facility
for
up
to
208
children
on
4.79
acres,
88,
37,
south
federal
way
is
the
only
one
up
for
consent
tonight
we
have
so
far
no
opposition
and
we
are
recommending
approval.
A
So
we
can
try
for
consent
on
that
item.
Five
is
a
pud
variance
and
sub
at
9820
west
shields
avenue
it's
a
request
for
five
single
family
homes,
homes
on
.69
acres,
with
a
variance
to
reduce
the
required
backup,
space
and
landscape
buffer.
We
are
recommending
denial,
so
we
will
be
hearing
that
item.
Six
is
an
annexation
of
approximately
2.1
acres
with
an
r1c
zone
at
11825
west
victory
road.
We
are
recommending
approval,
but
there
is
neighborhood
opposition.
A
A
A
Again,
we
are
recommending
approval,
but
we
have
received
neighborhood
opposition
on
that
and
then
finally,
a
cup
for
a
major
motor
vehicle
repair
shop
on
state
street
9998
and
132
west
state
street
to
be
exact.
We
are
recommending
approval
but
have
received
neighborhood
opposition,
so
I'll
be
hearing
that
as
well.
So
grand
total
deferral
has
been
requested
for
item
one.
C
K
A
H
H
M
A
All
right
good
evening,
everybody
and
welcome
to
the
boise
city
planning
and
zoning
commission
public
hearing
a
few
things
to
start
out
with
for
tonight's
proceedings.
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
virtually
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak.
As
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you
will
be
called
upon
and
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
After
that,
we
proceeded
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
are
in
person,
then
who
signed
up
on
the
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
if
you
are
attending
through
your
telephone,
you
can
type
in
star9
to
raise
your
hand,
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
We
are
strict
at
this
time
as
it
is
limited
in
code.
A
M
C
C
Any
decision
made
tonight
may
be
appealed
to
the
city
council,
provided
that
you
that
the
appeal
is
filed
within
10
days
of
this
hearing
in
order
to
file
an
appeal
you
must
have
given
written
or
oral
testimony
at
tonight's
meeting.
So
that's
why
it's
important
to
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
testify
tonight,
we
utilize
a
consent
agenda.
This
means
that
if
the
applicant
agrees
with
the
staff
report
and
if
there
is
no
public
opposition,
the
atom
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
C
All
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
motion
without
further
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
consent
agenda
will
hold
a
full
public
hearing
in
the
order
just
detailed
a
few
minutes
ago
with
staff,
applicant
neighborhood
association
and
then
public
testimony.
Thank
you
all
for
attending
tonight.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
roll.
C
C
H
C
H
C
F
K
C
C
Accusing
myself
from
this
vote-
oh
yes,
okay,
let
the
right!
Let
the
records
show
that
commissioner
finfrock
is
recusing
herself
from
this
vote.
I
would
also
like
to
recuse
myself
from
this
vote,
as
I'm
the
landscape
architect
of
record
on
the
micron
project.
So
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
roll.
C
C
C
N
Thank
you
chairman
commissioners.
The
applicant
is
requesting
an
annexation
of
approximately
eight
acres
from
or
with
an
r1c
zone
located
at
3750,
south
maple
grove
road,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development
and
a
subdivision
containing
43
dwelling
units
is
also
included
and,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
aerial
photograph,
the
property
is
located.
Approximately
2
500
feet
south
of
victory,
road
and
adjacent
to
the
east.
N
In
addition,
other
agencies
have
commented
on
the
application
and
has
stated
they
had
no
objections
to
the
annexation
and,
as
just
previously
noted,
the
property
does
abut
the
city
limits,
as
you
can
see
from
this
from
the
site
plan.
The
property
or
the
development
consists
of
a
subdivision
comprised
of
single
family
homes,
with
a
pud
to
reduce
lot
sizes,
widths
and
requests
and
is
also
requesting
reduced
interior
setbacks.
First,
I'd
like
to
note
that
the
original
project
design,
as
in
the
detailed
letter
of
explanation,
was
revised
and
the
unit
count
increased
to
43..
N
In
addition,
slight
changes
were
made
to
the
lot
sizes
and
widths
in
order
to
accommodate
the
detached,
sidewalks
and
landscape
buffers
along
the
interior
roadways.
The
project
does
provide
pedestrian
connectivity
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
which
includes
the
school
site
to
the
east
and
the
adjacent
property
to
the
west.
Reduced
interior.
Setbacks
are
also
requested
to
allow
front
and
street
size
setbacks
to
be
measured
from
the
back
of
sidewalk
instead
of
property
line
and
a
reduced
street
size
setback
10
feet
is
also
requested.
N
In
summary,
the
project
complies
with
all
the
required
perimeter,
setbacks
and
and
project
amenities
as
per
code.
The
main
issue
to
be
discussed
tonight
is:
should
the
project
street
or
the
proposed
project
street,
be
a
public
street
or
private
street.
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
private
street
with
a
project,
since
achd
suggested
the
right
of
way
be
private,
but
the
street
will
be
constructed
and
built
to
achd
public
street
standards.
N
However,
the
planning
team
is
requesting
that
it
be
dedicated
as
a
public
street.
The
reasons
listed
by
achd
for
not
accepting
a
public
street
as
follows.
It
does
not
comply
with
their
successive
driveway
or
traffic
calming
policies,
and
they
do
not
believe
that
there
are
any
opportunities
for
future
street
connections
in
this
area.
To
address
these
issues,
the
planning
team
would
note
that
waivers
from
these
policies
have
been
granted
in
the
past
for
different
projects.
N
In
addition,
there
are
design
techniques
such
as
bulb
outs
and
other
things
that
could
be
used
to
address
the
traffic
calming
concerns.
Finally,
the
planning
team
believes
that
there
is
the
potential
for
street
connectivity
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
Therefore,
the
planning
team
recommends
the
street
be
dedicated
as
a
public
roadway.
N
In
addition,
the
planning
team
did
receive
a
number
of
letters
from
neighborhood
from
the
neighbors
expressing
concerns
with
traffic
impacts,
compatibility
density
and
loss
of
mature
trees.
We
also
received
a
letter
from
the
south
pole
or
south
coal
neighborhood
association,
expressing
these
similar
concerns
to
address
the
concerns.
I
would
note
the
following:
the
section
of
maple
grove,
abutting
the
site
or
the
property
is
listed
on
achd's
capital
improvement
plan
and
will
be
widened
in
the
future
and
based
on
daily
traffic
counts.
There
is
capacity
on
the
roadway
to
support
the
project.
N
Finally,
several
mature
trees
will
be
removed
from
the
site,
but
additional
trees
will
be
planted
and
the
project
complies
with
the
tree
mitigation
requirements
of
the
landscape
or
landscape
ordinance
as
per
our
development
code.
In
conclusion,
the
planning
team
recommends
approval
of
the
annexation.
The
pioneer
development
in
the
subdivision,
thank
you.
L
Good
evening
my
name
is
tim
macwa,
I'm
with
hayden
homes,
1406
north
main
street,
suite
109
meridian
83642
happy
to
be
here
with
you
tonight.
We've
been
working
on
this
for
quite
a
while.
We
were
deferred
in
february
to
work
through
some
of
the
issues
with
the
public
burst
private
street
and
then
again
we
were
deferred
in
march,
as
achd
didn't
quite
have
their
staff
report
ready.
So
it's
been
a
while
coming
and
we're
happy
to
be
here
and
present
this
for
your
consideration.
L
So
as
as
david
mentioned,
we're
requesting
a
annexation
with
an
r1c
zone,
companion,
pud
and
our
preliminary
platform,
43
buildable
single-family
detached
home
sites.
We
are
requesting
the
reduced
lot
size
as
a
way
to
first
make
this
affordable
from
from
our
standpoint
as
the
the
builder
developer.
Land
is,
as
you
know,
has
gone
up
astronomically
here
lately,
so
in
an
effort
to
stay
as
close
to
the
affordability
side,
as
we
can,
the
the
greater
density
helps
while
maintaining
that
compatibility
of
a
single
family
detached
per
the
per
the
comp
plan.
L
L
I
just
wanted
to
cover
a
couple
of
items
and,
and
then
ben
sample
will
come
up.
I
wanted
to
show
some
of
the
product
type
that
we're
envisioning
here
with
the
40
foot
wide
lot.
We've
got
a
30
foot
wide
or
28
foot
wide
housing
product
that
we've
been
building
in
boise
in
south
boise
off
coal,
road
and
lake
hazel
at
our
basari
project.
L
L
Next,
one
david,
I
just
wanted
to
show
a
few
examples
of
some
of
our
interior
design
and
product.
You
can
see
it's,
I
think
it's
a
nice
quality
product,
particularly
in
the
in
the
square
footages,
that
we're
proposing
in
the
thousand
to
up
to
1800
square
foot
range
just
a
couple
more
examples,
one
more
david,
so
I
think
that's
about
it.
L
O
O
I
know
that
there's
some
discussion
between
achd
and
the
city
about
whether
this
is
going
to
be
private
or
public
street.
We
intend
for
this
to
be
built
and
it
is
designed
to
meet
achd
standards
for
a
public
right-of-way.
So
whether
that
is
accepted
as
a
public
street
now
or
is
dedicated
in
the
future.
It
will
be
built
that
way
and
is
designed
that
way.
O
The
r1c
zoning
is
a
single-family
residential
zone
which
is
supported
in
the
suburban
land
use
areas
of
boise.
That
supports
r1a,
r1b
and
r1c
r1c
zoning
would
allow
for
up
to
eight
units,
an
acre
which
would
put
63
units
on
this
site.
We
do
not
feel
that
that's
appropriate
for
this
location,
which
is
why
we've
designed
this
with
43
units.
Initially,
during
our
conversations
with
city
planning,
we
were
encouraged
to
explore
some
higher
densities.
O
So
I
do
want
to
clarify
something
too
on
the
setbacks
from
achd.
While
we
don't
meet
the
setback
from
the
adjacent
church,
driveway
entries
we're
approximately
400
feet
from
the
closest
public
road
intersection
to
the
north,
with
maple
grove
and
then
just
over
300.
It's
about
310
from
a
road
to
the
south
that
enters
maple
grove.
O
It
also
provides
the
ability
for
other
users
along
maple
grove,
to
connect
to
public
water
if
they're
having
issues
with
wells,
they
don't
have
to
do
that,
but
it
is
available
for
them
and
regarding
the
impacts
of
potential
aquifer
or
the
other
wells,
all
of
our
storm
water
is
kept
on
site
and
infiltrated
and
then
the
irrigation
water
right.
That
will
irrigate
the
common
open
spaces
as
well
as
well
as
all
the
landscape
areas
on
these
lots
will
allow
that
water
to
infiltrate
as
well.
So
it
does.
O
While
we
are
increasing
hardscape
on
here,
we
are
putting
all
of
that
water
back
in
so
rainfall
and
irrigation
water
will
infiltrate
on
the
site.
The
irrigation,
lateral
that
runs
along
the
south
boundary
will
be
piped
and
rerouted
slightly,
but
only
to
allow
for
us
to
install
our
pressurized
irrigation
system.
O
O
O
O
Ultimately,
we
feel,
like
this
project
is
very
appropriate
for
the
site.
It
will
bring
a
high
quality
housing
product
and
provide
for
additional
housing
that
is
needed
in
the
boise
area,
and,
as
tim
mentioned,
it
will
help
address
affordability.
That
is
a
struggle
in
the
greater
treasure
valley
and
with
that
we
would
stand
for
additional
questions.
L
I'm
going
to
take
38
seconds
here
and
bring
up
one
more
point.
This
is
tim
macwa
again
ben
mentioned
our
reduction
request
to
reduce
setbacks.
I
wanted
to
point
out
that
it's
it's
still
going
to
be
20
feet
from
back
of
sidewalk
to
face
of
garage,
so
we're
not
proposing
to
encroach
anywhere
on
that.
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
is
we
feel
like
we
were
kind
of
in
a
bit
of
a
pickle
here
between
achd
and
the
city
of
boise
on
the
private
verse
public.
L
We
we
worked
hard
and
I
talked
to
david
quite
a
bit
trying
to
coordinate
this
to
get
it
to
a
situation
that
everybody
could
be
happy
with
this.
We
know,
that's
not
always
possible,
so
our
compromise
is,
we
included.
I
wanted
to
point
out
note
number
11
on
our
preliminary
plot
and
what
we're
saying
in
that
note
is
that
the
hoa
should
acknowledges
you
know
by
buying
into
this
community
that
they're
going
to
cooperate
and
agree
with
dedication
of
the
the
street
as
a
the
public
street
to
achd
as
a
public
right-of-way
asia.
L
P
Hi,
my
name
is
estee
lafrenz.
I
live
at
7604,
west,
thunder
mountain
drive
and
I'm
the
president
of
south
cole,
neighborhood
association.
The
scna
is
requesting
the
denial
of
cir
2146,
pud,
2167
and
sub
2162
the
annexation
rezoning
and
planned
unit
development
at
3750,
maple
grove
road.
We
respectfully
request
the
denial
of
these
applications
to
revise
the
incompatible
zoning
and
allow
corrections
to
address
the
comments
and
concerns
of
the
neighborhood
and
achd.
P
P
P
Now
I
want
to
show
the
ada
county
zoning
map.
R1
is
one
home
per
acre
and
r2
is
two
homes
per
acre.
Most
of
these
parcels
are
one
to
three
acres
in
size.
Currently,
the
project
parcel
is
zoned
as
rsw
rural
southwest
this
ada
county
zone
states
to
quote
allow
agricultural
and
rural
residential
uses
to
continue
within
areas
of
city
impact.
End
quote:
the
proposed
project
is
requesting
r1c,
which
is
called
single-family
residential
urban.
It
needs
to
be
said
that
this
location
is
not
urban.
P
The
surrounding
land
use
is
suburban,
large
lot.
Rural
school
and
parks
and
open
space,
the
most
appropriate
and
compatible
zone
for
this
area
would
be
r1a.
The
single
family,
residential
large
large
lot
or,
at
the
very
least
r1b
single
family,
residential,
suburban,
the
r1c
zone,
simply
does
not
fit
here.
Next.
P
P
A
chd
policy
states
that
a
private
street
cannot
be
stubbed
to
the
adjacent
parcels
and
recommends
that
the
stub
streets
to
the
north
and
south
should
be
removed
from
the
plot.
A
achd
also
indicates
that
maple
grove
is
listed
in
the
cip
to
be
widened
to
five
lanes,
so
the
project
should
be
required
to
dedicate
additional
right-of-way
acquisition
to
total
50
feet
from
the
center
line.
P
Achd
also
states
that
the
applicant's
proposal
to
construct
a
33-foot
wide
private
road
located
at
the
site's
south
property
line,
does
not
meet
the
district's
successive
driveways
policy,
which
requires
driveways
located
on
principal
arterial
roadways,
with
a
speed
limit
of
35
miles
per
hour
to
align
or
offset
a
minimum
of
330
feet
from
any
existing
or
proposed
driveway
at
a
minimum.
Please
set
a
condition
to
comply
with
this
eight
accounting
requirement.
P
Finally,
achd's
report
states
that
they
do
not
make
any
assurances
that
the
private
road,
which
is
part
of
this
application,
will
be
accepted
as
a
public
road.
If
such
a
request
is
made
in
the
future,
I
don't
believe
it
should
be
a
chd's
responsibility
to
fix
projects
that
go
against
the
recommendations.
P
P
The
pud
does
not
provide
evidence
that
irrigation
water
rights
for
downstream
users
of
tap
146
and
tap
146a
will
be
maintained,
not
diverted
or
obstructed,
but
I
just
heard
tonight
that
they're
aware
of
that
and
are
going
to
work
with
that.
It
is
not
known
how
the
development
on
this
parcel
will
impact
the
groundwater
aquifer.
P
But
again
we
heard
tonight
that
they
think
that,
even
though
it's
going
to
be
mostly
hardscaped
that
it
won't
impact
the
water,
seepage
and
irrigation
next,
as
cna
in
conjunction
with
the
neighbors,
is
requesting
the
denial
of
these
applications
to
allow
corrections
to
ensure
a
more
predictable
development,
since
it
is
located
within
within
a
suburban
area
of
boise
and
not
within
an
urban
area.
Achd's
recommendations
and
policies
are
necessary
to
ensure
proper
growth
in
the
area
and
should
be
required
for
the
development.
I
N
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
the
the
suburban
land
use
designation
does
allow
for
the
r1c.
It
is
an
acceptable
zoning.
Designation
there
it
is,
the
r1c
is,
is
noted
as
a
an
urban
lan
or
urban
residential,
because
it
does
have
the
eight
units
an
acre,
although
they're
not
proposing
eight
units
with
this
project,
I
think
their
density
is
like
5.4
units.
K
David
thanks
for
talking
with
me
this
morning
and
going
through
some
of
the
nuances
and
making
sure
I
understood
some
of
the
aspects
of
this
project.
I
guess
and
and
also
thank
you
to
the
applicant
for
clarifying
the
one
question
I
had
was
regarding
the
hoa
in
the
future
in
terms
of
being
able
to
be
dedicated
to
the
public.
If
that's
the
direction
we
go,
but
I
guess
the
question
is:
is
how
does
the
applicant,
assuming
this
project
gets
approved?
How
do
they
come?
K
N
N
I
N
Mr
chair
members
of
commission,
I'm
not
familiar
with
the
nuances
of
our
code,
rewrite
and
the
modules,
although
I
believe
you're
right.
I
think
a
lot
of
those
have
been
rewritten
or
have
been
removed
within
the
news
or
zoning
ordinance
to
some
degree.
Although
I
honestly
don't
know
offhand
what
that
is,.
C
David
back
on
the
the
road
question,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
looking
at
the
right
parcels
to
the
south
there's
we're
proposed,
as
proposed
they're
stubbing,
two
stub
streets
to
the
same
parcel
to
the
south.
Is
that
correct?
There's
only
one
parcel!
That's
south
and
adjacent
to
this,
this
property
correct.
N
C
N
L
K
David
just
looking
at
the
parcels
around
the
site,
can
you
talk
to
me
about
redevelopment
possibilities
for
some
of
these
larger
lot
subdivisions
the
church
property
to
the
north,
the
school
site
to
the
east?
I
noticed
we're
not
providing
stubs
to
those
properties.
What
was
staffs
thinking
and
not
providing
for
for
potential
of
redevelopment.
N
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
as
for
the
school
site
to
the
east,
the
chant
it
was
determined
that
the
chance
at
the
school
site
itself,
it
is
the
west
junior
high
and
across,
is
the
high
school.
The
chance
of
that
redeveloping
anytime
soon
is
very,
very
small,
and
we
didn't
think
it
was
worthwhile
to
provide
a
street
sub
to
it,
although
they
are
providing
a
pedestrian
connection
to
it
for
safe
schools.
N
As
for
the
the
church
site
to,
I
guess,
to
the
north
or
west,
depending
on
where
you
are
on
this
sort
of
two
shape
toothbrush
shape
property
is
the
there
is
a
the
parcel
directly
to
the
north
that
it
stubs
into
is
actually
still
owned
by
the
church.
So
the
thought
is
that
there
is
potential
and
it's
landlocked.
There
is
potential
for
that
to
redevelop
at
some
point
and
we
thought
that
stubbing
to
it
would
be
good
the
the
church.
N
I
don't
know
if
there's
what
potential
for
the
actual
church
to
redevelop,
it
was
hard
to
say,
and
it
was
deemed
at
maybe
not
providing
direct
connectivity
to
it
at
this
point
in
time
was
worthwhile,
although
it
could
definitely
happen,
and
there
is
possibility
to
do
that.
The
back
half
of
that
church
is
a
giant
ballpark
area
that
could
potentially
be
sold
off
by
them
and
redevelop.
N
C
I've
got
another
question
david
on
the
the
road
connection
at
maple
grove.
I
mean
essentially
this
this
parcel
is
essentially
a
lar,
as
you
call
a
large
flag
lot,
it's
kind
of
a
unique
animal
in
that
regard
right,
it's
a
pretty
big
parcel,
but
it
is
a
flag
lot.
It's
safe
to
us.
Is
it
safe
to
say
that
I
mean.
H
C
Any
design
or
any
application
for
this
parcel
is
going
to
have
to
take
access
off
of
maple
grove
road,
correct,
mr
chairman's
commission,
that
is
correct.
So,
regardless
of
this
design
or
another
potential
design
for
this
property,
no
driveway
is
going
to
adhere
to
achds
dimensional
requirements
due
to
the
location
of
the
flag
law
and
the
connection
on
maple
grove
road.
Mr.
C
C
S
S
I
moved
to
here
when
I,
when
I
bought
a
house
there,
because
there
was
areas
between
the
houses,
because
you
could
have
things
like
horses
in
your
backyard.
It's
like
minimum
of
one
acre
lots,
and
I
think
this
is
kind
of
overkill
to
put
43
houses
on
an
eight
acre
lot.
My
other
big
problem
is
the
maple
grove
issue.
S
S
S
That's
my
that's.
Those
are
my
main
things:
the
density
and
the
to
the
traffic,
and
there
is
no
public
transit
and
if
you
try
to
go
anywhere
between
like
seven
and
nine
in
the
morning,
it
is
a
constant
flow
of
traffic
and
there's
noise
problem.
It's
very
noisy
and
there's
a
lot
lots
of
emissions
going
on
in
the
air,
so
it's
not
very
healthy
either.
C
T
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
My
name
is
steve
madden.
I
live
at
11,
20,
east
lewis,
street
in
boise,
idaho.
My
I
guess
my
concerns
or
impressions
with
developments
like
this
is,
is
the
density
of
the
impact
of
the
areas
that
they're
being
put
in
I'm
I'm
curious
to
know
whether
or
not
the
city
of
boise
and
planning
mizoni
has
applied
any
of
the
housing
board.
T
Bonus
ordinance
conditions
to
this
project
because
it
seems
to
me,
like
density
parking
impact,
are
all
kind
of
being
waived
a
bit
to
make
sure
that
this
development
goes
in
in
an
affordable
fashion.
For
the
for
the
builder,
and
I
understand,
building
homes
that
you
can't
sell
in
the
open
market
is
just
a
fool's
errand
and
I
appreciate
developers
wanting
to
make
a
profit
and
be
able
to
sell
their
product,
but
I
think
also
cooler
has
have
to
be
involved
here
and
look
at
the
overall
impact
of
it.
T
The
lady
that
just
spoke
here
she
said:
there's
no
public
transit
out
there.
If
there's
somebody
that
lives
in
that
neighborhood
that
needs
to
get
out
and
maybe
they're,
maybe
they
need
public
transit.
I
guess
you
could
call
uber,
but
not
everybody
has
a
car
to
get
around.
Maple
grove
is
already
an
overwhelmed
artery
out
into
that
area.
A
large
lot.
I
would
call
them
large
lot
rural
kind
of
plots
where
people
have
have
livestock
so
maybe
have
agricultural
exemptions
on
their
properties.
T
It's
just
not
a
good
fit.
I
live
on
a
half
acre
in
east
boise
near
the
green
belt,
and
I
cannot
imagine
having
four
houses
on
the
same
piece
of
property
where
I
am,
I
would
just
be
in
incredibly
crowded
and
intrusive,
and
if
I
I
think
that
I
think
that's
it.
Eight
units
per
acre,
that's
the
r1c
single
family
resident
zone
allowance.
U
T
C
G
G
G
I
would
say
there
is
no
way
that
the
church
is
going
to
sell
that
proper,
that
property
or
develop
it
and
there's
no
way
to
get
out
of
it.
There's
no
way,
there's
no
way
to
get
it
out
of
it
unless
you
go
through
the
church
parking
lot
and
that
will
that
just
won't
stand.
That
church
has
been
there
for
many
many
years
and
it
will
stay
there
and
sold
that
property.
So
the
egress
that
they're
talking
about
through
the
church
and
things
it's
potential
sure
you
can
say
potential,
but
it's
it's
really.
G
My
plea
is
to
don't
put
this
subdivision
in
the
middle
of
all
of
this.
It's
right
in
the
middle
of
all
these
one
and
two
acre
lots
where
people
there's
a
reason
why
we
all
live
there.
We
love
it
there,
but
to
put
a
subdivision
right
in
the
middle
of
it
to
me
is
just
it's
wrong
thinking
anyway.
That's
all
I
have
to
say
thank
you.
O
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission
ben
temple,
I
want
to
touch
real
quickly
on
the
density
stuff,
because
that
seems
to
be
the
biggest
conversation
point
here.
I
do
want
to
point
out
that,
while
the
immediately
adjacent
properties
and
even
a
few
to
the
west
across
maple
grove
are
on
half
acre
to
two
acre
lots.
There's
a
development-
that's
south
of
here-
the
I
think
I
mentioned
at
the
south
creek
subdivision
that
has
lots
that
are
.055
acres
in
size.
O
That
equates
to
18
units
an
acre
so
there's
stuff
within
a
half
mile
of
this
project
site
that
are
anywhere
from
one
unit
to
18
units
per
acre.
We
are
proposing
5.4
units,
an
acre,
not
eight
units,
an
acre.
The
r1c
does
allow
eight
units
an
acre
with
our
pud
design
that
locks
in
our
lot
count
and
our
density,
so
that
will
be
in
place
unless
someone
came
back
with
a
different
plan
which
hayden
homes
has
no
intention
of
doing.
O
I
think
that
the
you
know
we're
showing
sub
streets
to
all
these
adjacent
properties
based
on
the
city's
recommendations.
Whether
or
not
those
lots
develop,
we
don't
know
we
don't
control,
obviously,
but
we
are
setting
it
up
so
that
there
could
be
a
dedication
of
public
right-of-way
in
case
that
ever
redeveloped.
I
do
want
to
point
out
also
that
we're
dedicating
65
feet
to
that
future
right-of-way
potential
versus
50
feet,
which
would
be
achd's
requirement
for
a
public
roadway
for
separation.
O
If
we
tried
to
separate
330
feet
from
what
we
camp
from
the
church
parking
lot
entry
and
from
other
public
roadways
puts
our
entry
road
in
the
center
of
that
flag.
If
you
will
basically
precludes
development
of
the
that
skinnier
portion
of
the
property,
which
is
why
it's
located
on
the
southern
portion,
which
again
does
provide
approximately
310
feet:
separation
from
the
center
line
of
the
public
street
to
the
south
and
approximately
400
feet
of
separation
from
the
public
street
to
the
north.
O
O
I
know
that
that
is
totally
open
to
changing
achd,
to
determine
that
maple
grove
has
capacity
to
handle
this
development
and
any
traffic,
and
our
setbacks
are
fairly
consistent
with
other
developments
again,
not
immediately
adjacent
but
up
off
of
trabuco
lane
again
the
a
couple
of
the
other
subdivisions
that
have
recently
developed
granted
it's
in
the
county,
so
their
zoning
is
a
little
bit
different,
but
there's
some
r6,
some
r8.
I
think
some
r20
county
zoning
designations
out
there.
So,
ultimately,
we
feel
like
we're
in
very
close
compliance,
even
with
r1b.
O
O
There's
currently
10
feet
shown
between
homes,
we're
doing
five
foot
setbacks,
which
is
an
r1c
standard,
we're
not
asking
for
a
reduction
on
that
and
with
the
product
type
at
28
feet
wide
versus
30
that
the
setbacks
would
allow.
We
end
up
with
14
feet
between
the
homes.
If
you
look
at
that-
and
that's
all
I
have
to
add
in
rebuttal,
tim
probably
has
some
additional
stuff.
Thank
you.
L
Tim
mocha
again
with
hayden
homes.
I
just
had
a
couple
of
real
quick
items
regarding.
I
think
it
was
the
neighborhood
association,
mrs
misla
friends,
mentioned
standing
by
the
achd
report.
We're
we're
fine
and
accept
all
of
the
conditions
of
approval
that
achd
included
in
their
report.
The
only
one
that
is
really
of
question
or
of
comment,
I
think,
is
the
that
we
should
not
stub
to
the
north
and
the
south
and
that
again
was
direction
that
we
received
so
the
the
other.
L
L
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
was
several
people
mentioned
the
singular
access
we're
required
to
meet
the
international
fire
code
and
so
in
excess
of
30
lots.
We've
got
to
fire
sprinkle
these
homes,
and
so
that's
something
that
we're
going
to
have
to
do
or
we're
not
going
to
get
building
permits.
L
So
you
know,
while
it
would
be
desirable
to
have
connections
elsewhere,
that's
just
not
the
case
with
this
flag
lot,
and
so
we
are
accepting
that
condition
of
the
fire
sprinklers
and
again,
every
time
I've
been
before
this,
commissioner
or
others
we're
we're
required
to
do
these
stub
streets
so
that
there
will
be
some
interconnectivity
in
the
future.
No
one
knows
what's
going
to
happen
with
with
parcels.
I
understand
the
church
is
not
interested
in
selling
we're
not
proposing
to
drive
through
their
property
either.
That's
something
we're
required
to
do
so
anyway.
C
I
C
I
I
think
they're
also
going
to
remove
some
of
those
trees
off,
maybe
at
the
waterways,
which
is
probably
always
a
good
thing.
The
applicant
and,
as
applicant
pointed
out,
there's
comparable
density
in
the
area.
So,
and
I
know
we
talked
about
this-
a
lot
achd
and
the
issues
they
have,
but
the
applicant
is
willing
and
accepting
all
achd
conditions,
and
so
from
our
standpoint
I
think
that's
all
we
can
ask
for
and
that's
why.
I'm
moving
for
this
motion
tonight.
C
K
Thank
you,
commissioner
friend
frog
hit
many
of
my
points
so
I'll
keep
it
brief.
I
feel
like
they're
doing
the
best
they
can
with
the
situation
that
they
have
it's
a
flag
lot.
It
is
tough
and
I
think
we
can
all
see
that
and
recognize
that
I
feel
like
they're
doing
the
best
they
can
with
offsetting.
Where
that
access
point
is
off.
Maple
grove.
I
think
that's
really
important.
K
I
think
they're
building
to
public
road
standards,
I'm
appreciative
of
their
willingness
to
do
that
and
their
willingness
to
actually
put
some
notes
on
the
plot
and
hopefully
include
it
in
your
ccnr's
as
well,
that
you
know
this
could
be
a
public
road
in
the
in
the
future
and
if
there
should
be
that
connectivity
that
it
wouldn't
the
neighbors
would
not
be
able
to
oppose
that
in
the
future.
So
I
think
that's
really
important.
K
K
Housing
is
really
important,
not
at
the
expense
of
a
neighborhood,
but
this
is
an
area
of
transition
as
well
too.
I
do
see
a
lot
of
opportunity
for
redevelopment
with
some
of
those
larger
lots
in
the
future,
which
is
why
I
asked
the
question
about
the
future
stub
streets
and
then
you
know
there
was
a
comment
regarding
transit.
Well,
without
density,
there
will
be
no
transit.
I
mean
that's
just
one
of
those
things.
We
need
to
keep
in
mind
as
well,
and
so
for
all
those
reasons
I
will
be
supporting
that
motion.
Thank
you.
C
No
takers,
okay,
I'll
sound
off
real
quick.
I
will
also
be
supporting
the
motion
appreciate
the
applicant's
efforts
here.
It
is
an
interesting
lot
and
there
are
always
going
to
be
challenges
when
you
have
connectivity
on
a
flag
lot
right,
so
I
think
that
the
applicant
has
done
a
nice
job.
You
know
dealing
with
that
situation
and
I
agree
with
the
other
comments
that
the
density
I
feel
like
is
appropriate.
I
understand
you
know.
C
Historically,
in
the
past,
this
area
of
the
city
has
had
larger
lot
development
right,
and
I
think
that
is
just
sort
of
a
little
bit
of
a
bygone
era
and
that
you
know
we're
seeing
smaller
lots.
You
know
across
the
city-
and
I
think
this
is
an
appropriate
place
to
put
a
little
more
density.
The
applicant
did
a
nice
job
of
getting
that
disney
closer
to
r2,
then
or
r1b,
then
r1c.
C
So
I
think
that's
a
nice
fit
and
then
honestly,
you
know
I
look
at
that
future
park
site
to
the
south
and
I
feel
like
that.
You
know
you
want
to
see
homes
near
parks
and
you're
doing
that
right.
There's
great
access
to
the
park
there's
a
school
right
there
as
well,
so
the
density
is
appropriate,
given
the
surrounding
uses
immediately
adjacent
to
it
that
are
that
are
to
come
in
the
future.
V
I
mean
these
there's
a
lot
of
these
ball
fields
that
church
has
built
in
the
in
the
past
that
are
just
not
being
used.
I
worked
with
several
of
them
in
my
past
life
developing
affordable
housing,
so
I
just
wanted
to
throw
that
out
there.
That
would
be
really
great
to
see
them
be
part
of
the
solution
on
on
housing.
With
that
surplus
property
they
have.
C
C
C
N
Thank
you,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission.
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
re-zone
from
r1a
and
c2d
to
an
r3d
zone
located
at
8475
west
limelight
street
on
approximately
5.78
or
six
acres.
A
conditional
used
for
a
plan
development
containing
122
units
is
also
included.
I
would
note
that
the
applicant
is
no
longer
requesting
to
exceed
the
parking
maximum
and
are
complying
with
development
code
and,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
aerial
photograph,
the
neighborhood
is
a
mix
of
residential
uses,
which
includes
large
multi-family
developments
to
the
north
and
east.
N
N
As
seen
on
this
slide,
the
requested
r3
zone
is
compatible
with
the
and
consistent
with
the
surrounding
neighborhoods,
since
the
adjacent
properties
are
zoned,
r3
and
c2d
to
the
west
east
and
north
and
contain
apartments.
The
neighborhood
to
the
south
across
state
street
is
comprised
of
commercial
zones
and
uses
within
garden
city,
or
actually,
I
think,
maybe
eight
accounting.
I'm
sorry
about
that.
N
And
the
request
and
sorry
and
and
the
requested
zone
is
compatible
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
as
it
designates
the
site
as
mixed
use
in
the
line
juice
map
which
is
for
within
which
the
proposed
r3
subject.
Property
is
identified
for
significant
develop
by
within
the
comprehensive
plan
and
a
prior
priority
area
of
infill,
which
encourages
this
type
of
residential
development
and,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
site
plan,
the
development
consists
of
five
three-story
apartment
buildings
and
a
duplex
on
the
northwest
corner
and
a
density
of
the
project.
N
A
little
over
21,
a
21
units
per
acre,
two
apartment
buildings
are
oriented
towards
towards
state
street,
with
recommended
conditions
of
approval.
The
project
will
comply
with
all
required
setbacks
and
parking
stand
and
parking
standards
and
we'll
provide
all
the
all
the
and
will
provide
several
amenities.
In
summary,
all
the
required
findings
of
the
rezone
and
the
planning
of
development
have
been
met.
N
The
main
issues
to
be
discussed
with
this
project
is
the
pedestrian
and
bike
connectivity
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
in
particular,
the
condition
of
approval
requiring
the
construction
of
a
12-foot
wide
multi-use
path
along
state
street.
This
12-foot
wide
multi-use
path
has
been
identified
within
the
state
street
urban
re
urd
or
urban
renewal
district
and
the
state
street
framework
plan.
N
It
isn't.
It
is
encouraged
by
also
within
the
northwest,
neighborhood
association
plan
conditions.
Approval
will
require
the
project
to
provide
pedestrian
bike
connections
to
the
adjacent
properties
to
the
east
and
west.
This
includes
several
pedestrian
and
bike
connections
to
the
multi-use
path
from
the
project.
N
The
applicant
has
expressed
some
concerns
with
the
multi-use
path
requirement
and
is
suggesting
a
five-foot
pathway
with
street
trees
along
along
state
street
in
lieu
of
the
multi-use
path.
Finally,
I
would
also
note,
as
a
point
of
clarification
to
please
remove
the
requirement
to
modify
pud
16-03
from
condition
number
six.
This
is
in
regards
to
providing
cross-access
for
the
duplexes.
N
N
In
addition,
the
applicant
concern,
in
addition
to
the
applicant's
concerns
with
the
multi-use
path,
a
neighbor,
expressed
concerns
of
the
project
in
terms
of
traffic
impacts
and
density.
However,
I
would
note
that
the
state
street
planning
process
and
the
site
and
surrounding
area
was
identified
as
a
neighborhood
transit
zone
tod
and
is
anticipated
and
encouraged
height,
which
anticipates
encourage
high-density
residential
developments
along
state
street,
which
is
a
major
transit
corridor
as
such,
the
proposed
project
and
this
type
of
development
is
encouraged
and
promoted
within
this
area.
W
W
W
W
It
was
designed
by
a
local
architect,
jim
glancy,
and
it's
managed
by
primary
property
management,
which
is
a
small
but
mighty
local
management
company
and
since
they
opened
in
2015,
the
existing
apartments
have
maintained
an
occupancy
of
over
95
percent,
some
of
the
about
a
dozen
residents.
There
have
actually
lived
there,
the
whole
seven
years,
it's
been
open,
and
so,
when
you
ask,
why
is
that
the
case?
W
W
Look
at
the
landscape
plan
for
just
a
minute,
as
david
already
said,
120
apartment
units
continuing
this
quality
design,
five
store
five
three-story
buildings
with
24
apartments
in
each
building.
We'll
take
a
look
at
the
next
slide.
Again,
it's
the
same
slide,
but
it
shows
you
that
three
of
the
buildings
are
the
standard,
what
they
call
the
standard
building,
which
will
be
a
mix
of
two
bedroom,
two
bath
units
and
one
bedroom
one
bath
units,
then
the
next
slide
will
show
a
picture
of
what
we
call
the
junior
building,
which
is.
W
W
Let's
take
another
look
at
the
landscape
plan
plenty
of
landscaping.
We
also
have
garage
parking
for
27
units.
Three
of
those
are
for
handicapped
covered
parking
areas
of
about
a
hundred
hundred
of
those
spaces
will
be
covered
and
pervious
pavement
in
those
parking
areas,
so
that
will
be
one
of
the
ways
that
we
can
control
our
stormwater
runoff.
W
The
silver
cloud
apartments
too.
This
project
will
share
the
amenities
of
the
existing
silver
cloud,
retreat
at
silver
cloud
that
we
just
discussed,
but
you
can
see
the
next
slide,
we're
also
adding
another
dog
park,
a
community
space
that
includes
a
fire
pit,
an
outdoor
kitchen
and
a
picnic,
shelter,
a
pickleball
court
and
some
bicycle
parking
in
a
garage
in
a
covered
area.
W
You'll
also
note
on
this
slide
is
where
we
have
are
showing
the
duplex
that's
up
in
the
northwest
corner
of
the
property.
This
is
our
third
housing
type,
because
we
needed
one
for
the
code.
The
duplex
will
complement
the
town
homes
that
are
just
adjacent
and
actually
all
of
these
properties
are
owned
by
the
same
owner.
So
that's
an
easy
access
issue
that
we
can,
of
course
getting
access
to
the
driveway
there,
and
these
are
also
managed
by
the
same
management
company.
W
I'm
going
to
talk
about
my
little
heartburn
now
about
one
of
the
conditions:
it's
site
con
site,
specific
condition,
number
seven,
it's
on
page
58
of
94,
but
I
think
the
staff
report's
gotten
bigger.
Since
I
put
that
in
here
it's
about
the
12-foot
wide
multi-use
pathway,
providing
pedestrian
connections.
W
We
don't
disagree
that
there
should
be
some
pedestrian
way
along
state
street
because
that's
a
busy
street
without
any
kind
of
connection
and
if
you've,
driven
along
in
this
area.
You
know
there
is
a
substantial
irrigation.
Ditch
there
right
next
to
the
to
state
street.
But
what
you
might
not
know
is
even
beyond
that.
Ditch
going
away
from
state
street
is
a
12
foot,
wide
maintenance
canal,
a
canal
maintenance,
easement.
W
So
an
area
that
is
beyond
towards
the
property
that
easement
is
entirely
on
private
property.
It's
located
north
of
the
canal.
Our
plan
does
show
a
five-foot
sidewalk
outside
of
that
eastman.
So
you've
got
the
canal.
You've
got
the
easement.
We've
got
a
five-foot
sidewalk,
here's
our
concern,
any
improvements
that
are
going
to
be
made
to
state
street
and
again
on
many
of
these
plans.
W
That
dave
mentioned
there's
a
line
that
says
multi-use
pathway,
but
it
doesn't
really
give
you
a
cross-section
of
where
that
should
be,
and
we
know
that
any
improvements
to
state
street
will
likely
require
that
the
canal
and
the
easement
be
well,
the
canal
will
be
enclosed
or
the
easement
will
be
removed
because
you
so
what
happens?
Is
this
pathway
that
we're
building
is
going
to
end
up
away
from
the
transit
transit
oriented
development
state
street
because
we're
talking
about
lanes
an
hov
lane
that
would
likely
be
added
and
right
beside
that?
W
W
So
also
there
are
developments
that
are
already
approved
and
some
built
that
don't
have
a
12
foot
pathway
and
here's
a
result
of
all
of
this
discussion.
I'm
not
going
to
ask
you
to
remove
the
condition
unless
you
really
want
to,
but
I
do
need
to
go
on
record
and
I
need
to
make
sure
that
you
understand-
and
I
can
describe
to
you
what
our
concern
is.
I
just
need
to
go
on
record
to
say
this
is
a
line
on
an
eight
and
a
half
by
11
piece
of
paper.
W
So
it
could
be
a
problem
also
by
putting
this
12
foot
pathway
in,
we
likely
will
not
be
able
to
construct
this
interior
sidewalk
loop
that
we
wanted
to
put
as
an
amenity.
We
will
construct
part
of
it,
but
we
might
not
be
able
to
do
it
all
because
again
that
moves
things
further
into
the
property
and
begins
to
encumber
our
buildings.
W
So
I've,
let
you
know
my
concern
with
number
seven,
but
without
making
any
changes
to
our
conditions
of
approval.
I
do
respectfully
request
your
approval
of
our
application
for
pud
2168
and
the
recommendation
of
approval
to
the
city
council
of
our
rezone
cir
2144,
and
I
will
stand
for
questions
and
your
consideration
of
maybe
changing
that
condition.
C
X
Hopefully,
my
video
will
remain
throughout
the
session.
We're
having
a
lot
of
connectivity
issues
out
here
might
be
something
to
do
with
all
those
streets
being
dug
up.
Okay,
so
richard
llewellyn.
These
are
comments
from
northwest
neighborhood
association
and
we
did
enter
some
late
correspondence,
which
I
hope
you
have
so.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
say
in
general,
we're
okay
with
the
overall
design
it
does
about
similar
land
uses.
At
this
point,
silver
cloud
mostly,
and
then
more
apartments
will
be
coming
to
the
east.
X
We
understand
and
generally
silver
cloud
has
been
well
accepted
in
terms
of
design
and
appearance,
and
we
like
the
the
change
of
a
wooden
fence
to
the
south,
that
planning
staff
recommended.
So
we
appreciate
that
so
our
two
major
issues
with
requests
to
this
quite
large
major
rezone
one,
as
you
just
heard,
was
the
multi-modal
pathway.
We
feel
that
that
is
absolutely
necessary
along
state
street
that
does
comply
and
conform
with
the
2019
state
street
corridor
plans.
X
X
So
how
do
we
make
this
provide
a
benefit
for
the
neighborhood
and
that
is
primarily
through
this
multimodal
pathway.
So
we
have
heard
uncertainty
regarding
state
street.
Jimmy
halliburton
just
came
to
our
last
board
meeting
and
we
asked
him
this
very
same
thing.
You
know:
how
can
we
have
certainty
about
this,
multimodal
pathway
when
there
seems
to
be
little
certainty
regarding
state
street?
His
understanding
was
that
any
hov
lane
in
the
future
will
go
on
the
south
side
of
state
street
and
that's
regardless.
X
I
should
say
we
really
just
need
to
do
it
and
if
it
requires
having
a
larger
buffer
between
state
street
and
the
multimodal
pathway.
Well,
that's
a
good
thing,
because
we
really
want
this
pathway
to
be
usable
to
be
pleasant,
and
so,
if
it's
a
little
bit
farther
north
and
there,
if,
if
the
boise
valley
canal
is
buried
in
the
future,
that
will
be
an
opportunity
to
provide
that
larger
landscape
to
buffer.
X
X
It's
quite
they're,
both
quite
dangerous,
because
people
take
high
speed,
turns
into
them
off
of
state
street.
If
you're
going
out
state
street
to
the
west
and
people
are
trying
to
get
the
star
after
work,
people
don't
really
slow
down,
and
so
you
don't
slow
down
before
you
take
that
right
turn
in
fear
of
getting
rear-ended
otherwise
and
having
those
canals
right.
There
really
constrains
the
issue.
We
brought
this
up
with
the
first
phase
of
limelight
as
in
terms
of
row.
X
We
brought
it
up
several
times
in
terms
of
bogart
row
is
not
does
not
have
a
signal
and
I
don't
have
no.
I
don't
think
there
are
any
plans
to
do
so.
Bogart
does,
but
we,
our
understanding,
is
a
neighborhood,
is
that
was
a
temporary
intersection
until
they
may
realign
it
as
they're
realigning
ulmer
and
duncan
just
a
half
mile
to
the
west,
but
right
now
at
dunk
or
sorry
at
bogart
there
is
no
pedestrian
crosswalk,
just
simply
to
cross
bogart
that
becomes
a
bigger
and
bigger
problem.
X
As
we
develop
this
area
now,
it
may
not
be
incumbent
upon
this
applicant
to
deal
with
that
problem.
It
may
be
pushed
down
to
the
if
the
city
develops
this
as
a
fire
station.
I
say
if
because
that
would
be
the
third
proposed
fire
station,
and
at
least
one
of
which
was
approved
by
this
body
in
the
past,
in
other
sites,
but
never
built.
So
if
that
does
become
one,
perhaps
that
will
be
incumbent
on
the
city
of
boise
to
deal
with
that
intersection.
X
Finally,
as
pedestrians
need
to
go
across
to
the
west
side
of
bogart
both
to
go
north
along
the
new
pathway,
which
then
takes
kids
to
school,
the
shadow
hills
elementary
row
is
going
to
be
a
problem.
I
don't
know
what
the
answer
is
again.
It
may
not
be
incumbent
on
this
applicant,
but
we
need
to
think
about
it
in
terms
of
transit,
oriented
density.
X
X
Now,
we've
heard
that
there
may
be
a
bus
stop
at
bogart,
but
we've
heard
that
for
a
long
long
time,
and
so
when
are
we
going
to
kind
of
make
these
plans
concrete?
If
you
will,
I
just
throwing
that
out
to
this
body,
because
it's
again
perhaps
not
incumbent
upon
this
applicant,
but
we
keep
kicking
the
can
down
the
road.
X
So
to
summarize
we
we
don't.
We
wouldn't
oppose
this.
If
that
12-foot
multi-modal
pathway
goes
in.
If
it
doesn't
go
in,
we
will
vigorously
oppose
it
and
that's
just
because
we
have
to
start.
We
have
to
start
designing
and
implementing
real
transit
oriented
density.
We
can't
just
kind
of
pretend
anymore
so
other
than
that
we
appreciate
staff
changes
and
actually
you
know
we
appreciate
the
rel,
the
design
of
silver
cloud
in
general.
C
F
N
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
at
this
point
in
time
the
this
I
think,
where
we're
requesting
the
the
pathway
to
be
is
to
on
the
property
and
that
way
it's
it's
outside
of
the
state
street
itd's
jurisdiction
and
then,
whatever
the.
I
don't
think,
itd
has
any
set
plans
on
what
they
want
at
this
point.
But
if
it's
outside
their
right
of
way,
then
we
can
get
it
in
and
align
it
with
the
the
properties
to
on
either
side.
C
Y
Mr
chair
and
commissioners,
karen
gallagher
transportation
planner
with
the
city
of
boise.
You
know
I
didn't
catch
a
specific
question
on
bogart.
I
can
say
that
we
are
looking
working
with
vrt
to
do.
Transit
stops
both
on
the
northwest
corner
and
the
south
east
corner,
so
that
they're
far
side,
that's
being
proposed
right
now
in
a
raise
grant
for
federal
funding.
Y
C
N
C
N
Z
For
a
couple
reasons,
one
is
that
we've
read
through
the
documents
that
david
referred
to
in
terms
of
the
urban
state
street
plan,
the
the
framework
plan
and
the
northwest
boise
plan.
But
none
of
these
plans
have
a
specific
profile
or
alignment
that
connects
all
these
together,
which
has
already
been
said,
and
we
feel
like
by
pushing
this
now.
Z
It
eventually
it'll
be
relocated
and
the
most
logical
place
to
put
it
is
right
where
the
current
irrigation
canal
is,
and
so
we
just
feel
like
this
would
be
pushing
it
at
this
point
in
time.
We
would
prefer
to
ask
the
commission
to
think
about
deferring
this
and
coming
up
with
a
little
bit
better
plan
into
the
future.
Z
Good
planning
principles
would
have
the
city
and
the
relevant
agencies
coordinate
that
connectivity,
integration
and
sort
of
the
alignment
of
this
plan
before
they
push
it
on
us
on
private
property,
which
has
some
sort
of
unintended
consequences.
I
have
up
here
for
you.
Oh
can
you
go
to
the
first
one
crystal
yeah
right
there?
I
want
to
just
point
out
right
here.
The
other
thing
is
that
just
based
on
practice
and
precedent,
I
we
do.
We
do
agree
that
it's
a
great
plan
for
the
future
down
this
urban
renewal
district.
Z
But
right
now,
if
you
look
at
the
red
lines
on
this
plan,
we
show
our
property
landline
village,
one
and
two
and
then
right.
Next
to
it
is
the
subject.
Property
you'll
see
the
red
lines.
Those
are
all
five
foot
sidewalks
that
are
currently
in
place.
There's
one
at
the
north
point
shopping
center
across
the
street
at
walmart
and
in
that
section,
right
by
the
mini
storage
right
there.
If
you're
familiar
with
that,
there's
a
grassy
knoll
that
goes
into
the
irrigation,
ditch
and
then
the
properties
right
up
against
the
irrigation
ditch.
Z
Z
It
was
approved
a
couple
years
ago,
but
you
can
see
by
this
there's
the
irrigation
canal
and
then
right
up
against
that
canal
is
where
their
five-foot
sidewalk
has
been
approved
by
the
city
and
they're
installing
it
right
now-
and
so
my
point-
is
that
the
alignment
again
by
having
our
two
properties
kind
of
as
an
island
push
those
12-foot
a
multi-use
pass
into.
Our
properties
is
probably
not
the
ideal
alignment
for
the
long-term
planning.
For
this.
C
H
C
W
W
I
had
just
asked
david
if
I
could
to
show
you
these
two
pictures
that
came
out
of
the
2019
compass
plan
for
transit,
oriented
development
and
in
both
cases
on
the
north
and
south
side.
They
show
sidewalks
right
adjacent
to
the
road,
not
a
road
and
20
feet
of
landscaping
and
then
a
pathway
where
this
would
be,
but
I'm
sure
it
will
actually
be
moved
just
a
reminder
as
well
on
the
bogart
when,
when
silver
cloud,
the
retreated
silver
cloud
was
built.
W
Mr
mccormick,
that
these
this,
these
two
lines
that
are
showing
up
in
plans
aren't
really
following
this
2019
tod
plan,
they're,
just
showing
up
as
lines
and
we're
being
pushed
onto
private
property
and
we'll
I
can
almost
guarantee
will
be
eventually
taken
away
and
moved
and
they'll
just
be
some
empty
space
there,
but
it's
an
encumbrance
of
on
the
property.
But
I
will
not
fight
you
on
that.
If
we
can
get
approved,
there's
much
field.
C
I
I
I
There's
a
good
transition
between
commercial
and
residential
and
adding
this
additional
multi-use
residential.
The
r3
zone
also
maintains
the
compatibility
of
the
adjacent
properties
which
include
our
3d
zones
and
as
to
the
pud,
it
doesn't
put
a
constraint
on
transportation.
As
we
know,
we've
targeted
this
area
for
such
increase
in
density
and
the
site
is
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
proposed
use.
So
it
includes
all
parking
code
requirements.
C
I
Apologies
as
I'm
going
through
my
notes,
I'm
like,
and
on
the
last
note,
so
I'm
I'm
in
agreement
with
the
neighborhood
association
and
with
the
city
about
the
12-foot
wide
path.
I
think
it
was
designated
in
the
state
street
urban
renewal
and
we
talk
about
predictable,
adult,
like
development
patterns
all
the
time,
and
if
we
don't
move
towards
this
goal
with
the
new
development,
I'm
not
sure
we're
going
to
have
that
opportunity
moving
forward.
So
I
think
we
just
need
to
address
it
now.
We
know
that,
like
any
time,
there's
new
development.
I
This
is
our
opportunity,
and
so
I
think
we
just
have
to
take
it,
and
hopefully
it's
not
revised
too
much
moving
forward
like
some
of
the
applicant
mentioned,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
at
least
put
on
the
record
now
and
and
hopeful.
Hopefully,
we
can
come
to
that
12
foot,
wide
multi-use
path
and
it's
appropriate
along
this.
You
know
transit
court
or
we're
putting
a
lot
of
residential
multi-use
facilities
along
the
this
road
and
we
need
some
type
of
walking
path
or
at
least
a
way
for
pedestrian
connectivity.
F
I
agree
with
commissioner
finfrock
on
on
every
one
of
those
points
and
with
the
path.
I
know
that
you
know
it'd
be
nice
if
we
could
push
to
later
when
there
was
a
finalized
plan,
but
we
have
to
start
somewhere.
We
don't
have
the
leverage
to
push
later.
You
know
at
some
point.
The
five
foot
sidewalks
were
a
surprise
to
developers
and
we're
being
fought
so
now
we're
just
kind
of
at
the
next
level
of
that-
and
I
know
it's
an
inconvenience,
but
we've
got
to
start
somewhere.
I
think
it's
important.
C
C
C
C
And
commissioner's
dead,
yes,
excellent!
Did
we
get?
Are
we
okay
there?
James
excellent
got
a
thumbs
up
from
legal
on
that.
So
I
think
we're
okay
I'll
stand
up
real,
quick.
I
agree
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion.
I
hear
you
on
on
the
pathway.
You
know
state
street's
gonna,
be
this
hodgepodge
for
a
while
right,
but
we
gotta
start
somewhere
and
I
get
that
it's
difficult.
You
know,
I
don't
think
anybody's
denying
that
fact
right
canal
complicates
matters.
Traffic
complex
complicates
matters,
and
maybe
we
are
gonna.
C
You're
gonna
build
it,
and
maybe
we
remove
it
10
years
down
the
road
15
years
down
the
road
whenever
that
is,
but
we
hear
this
time
and
again
at
this
body
and
that's
kind
of
how
it
goes.
So
we
appreciate
consideration
in
your
comments:
love
the
design,
love
the
effort
to
date.
So
I
think,
with
that,
we've
got
our
promotion
in
place.
Okay,
all
right!
So
we
have
a
recommendation
and
a
second
to
approve
car
21-44
and
then
motion
to
approve
pd
21-68.
C
Great
okay,
thank
you
all
right
up.
Next
item
number
five
is
next
on
our
agenda:
pud
21-64
and
cva,
22-5
and
suv
21-60
see
this
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development,
comprised
of
five
single-family
homes
on
0.69,
acres
and
r1c,
and
then
a
combined
preliminary
and
final
plat.
The
project
address
is
9820
west
shields
avenue.
H
AA
AA
The
density
of
the
r1c
zone
is
eight
units
per
acre
and
at
0.69
acres.
This
will
allow
for
up
to
five
units.
The
applicant
proposes
to
orient
the
rear
yards
of
lots,
1
and
6
to
face
the
south
adjacent
to
shield
avenue
with
the
front
yards
facing
north
lots,
2
and
5
would
be
oriented
in
a
typical
fashion
for
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
with
the
front
yards
facing
shields
avenue
and
the
rears
to
the
north
lot.
AA
AA
The
orientation
of
the
proposed
development
is
not
complementary
to
the
rest
of
the
streets
where
the
front
yard
space,
south
and
rare
yard
space
north
a
requirement
for
puds
under
one
acre,
is
to
provide
100
square
feet
of
open
space
for
each
dwelling
unit.
While
the
proposed
site
plan
may
meet
the
technical
requirements
of
the
code,
open
space
provided
does
not
appear
to
be
very
functional.
AA
A
pud
must
meet
specific
criteria
for
approval,
including
compatibility
with
the
existing
neighborhood,
a
site
that
is
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
proposed
use
and
does
not
adversely
affect
other
properties
in
the
vicinity
and
complies
with
the
comprehensive
plan
as
proposed.
The
orientation
of
the
pud
is
not
compatible
with
the
existing
neighborhood.
The
site
is
not
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
design
proposed
while
meeting
the
standards
for
all
yards
parking
and
landscaping,
and
this
proposal
does
not
meet
the
comprehensive
plan.
AA
Standards
for
compatibility
and
design
in
regard
to
infill
development
with
enforcing
established,
scrapes
street
state
streetscape
characteristics.
Excuse
me,
the
applet
kent
sinks,
a
variance
to
the
22
feet
required
backup
space
and
the
three
feet
required
lane
skate
buffer
unlocks
one
two:
five
and
six.
The
applicant
cites
staff
rejection
of
prior
site
plan
iterations
that
had
the
required
backup
space
as
a
hardship.
However,
the
site
plans
were
rejected
by
staff.
AA
The
development
code
allows
for
variances
whether
there
is
a
hardship
associated
with
the
property
itself
or
exceptional
circumstances
relating
to
the
intended
use
of
the
property.
The
planning
team
did
not
find
the
proposed
reason
to
meet
either
criteria
necessary
for
a
variance
as
this
is
new
construction
on
a
lot
that
does
not
present
topographical
challenges.
The
applicant
is
able
to
design
the
site
without
variance
requests.
AA
The
planning
team
is
recommended
that
applicant
reduce
the
application
to
four
lots
in
order
to
meet
the
standards
of
the
development
code
included
with
this
application
is
a
preliminary
and
final
plot
of
black
bear
subdivision,
with
five
buildable
and
one
common
lines
a
lot
to
take
access
from
a
common
drive.
The
applicant
plans
to
install
detached
sidewalk,
but
does
not
show
the
required
street
trees
on
the
landscape
plan
and
has
not
provided
a
tree
mitigation
plan.
AA
H
C
H
C
AB
Jesse
christensen,
2151,
west
willow
point
avenue,
nampa
idaho.
I
work
with
four
heco
engineers.
We've
been
working
with
the
developer
on
this
for
a
little
while
now
trying
to
create
a
affordable
little
subdivision
for
them
to
build
down
there
up
shields
avenue.
That
area
is
splitting
up
quite
a
bit
into
smaller
lots.
We
went
talk
to
planning
and
zoning
planning
quite
early
on,
went
through
a
few
iterations
of
our
design,
and
this
is
the
design
that
we
decided
on.
AB
We
had
the
driveways
and
garages
facing
the
front
of
the
facing
the
shared
roadway,
but
that
didn't
provide
20
feet
of
parking
in
front
of
the
garage.
We
offered
parking
on
the
side
that
didn't
work
either,
so
we
moved
the
garages.
So
therefore
we
lost
the
22
feet
of
backup
space
that
that
jesse
was
talking
about
storm
water
will
be
retained
in
the
back
swale
and
along
the
road.
AB
Since
starting
this
project,
we
started
working
with
the
neighbor
to
complete,
curb
gutter
and
sidewalk
on
his
property
as
well
connecting
the
two
getting
those
things
out
of
the
way
for
for
the
subdivision
intending
to
zero
escape.
A
lot
of
these
yards
provide
some
drought,
tolerant
plants
reduce
some
of
our
water
usage
out
there.
AB
C
X
X
X
It
used
to
be
known
as
green
meadows.
It
is
a
neighborhood
traditionally
where
there
is
a
lot
of
what
would
now
be
called
urban
agriculture,
a
lot
of
building
buildings
that
incorporate
shops
and
and
other
means
of
creating
livelihoods,
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
respect
as
much
as
we
can
the
existing
neighborhood
as
it
is,
and
one
way
to
do
that
is
just
simply
to
require
upholding
our
zoning
code,
as
it
is
stated.
X
So
I
don't
really
have
other
comments
other
than
I
think
especially
important,
for
this
area
is
to
ensure
that
we
have
replace
trees.
It
does
have
quite
a
few
mature
trees,
which
is
one
of
its
real
assets
now,
and
it
would
be
tragic
if
we
lost
those
and
didn't
have
a
good
replacement
plan,
so
I
won't
take
any
of
your
time
tonight.
C
I
This
question
is
for
jesse.
You
stated
in
your
staff
report
that
a
reduction
in
the
home
in
the
number
of
homes
on
this
pro
or
within
this
application
would
actually,
if,
if
we
reduce
the
house
houses
from
like
five
to
four,
it
would
then
be
in
compliance
with
code
requirement.
Is
that
right?
Can
you
go
into
detail
about
that.
AA
All
right
so,
along
shields
avenue,
you
see
that
these
are
all
you
know
fairly
similar
lot
sizes
and
a
lot
in
this
neighborhood.
You
can
see
that
they've
done
a
four
lap,
minor
land
division
and
that
allows
for
these
homes
to
meet
the
zoning
requirements,
while
also
getting
some
more
density
in
the
area,
and
this
is
pretty
typical
in
this
neighborhood
for
redevelopment.
AA
They
were
oh
sorry,
mr
chair
commissioners.
The
applicant
was
advised
during
their
pre-application
meeting
and
later
that
this
would
be
an
easier
route
and
they
would
not
have
to
seek
these
variances
and
that
this
is
something
that
has
been
typically
done
on
the
street.
However,
the
applicant
did
not
want
to
go
with
the
four
house
route.
They
would
rather
have
tried
for
the
five
thank.
I
I
AA
C
C
AB
I
don't
really
have
a
lot
to
rebut.
Do
I
when
we
started
this,
the
applicant
really
wanted
five
homes
on
this
lot
and
we
pushed
forward
with
five
homes
thought
we
had
a
decent
product
and
we
are
willing
to
go
to
resubmit
with
four.
I
will
be
getting
with
the
city
to
redo
that
that
is
about
all.
I
have
to
say.
C
F
F
V
Mr
blanton,
just
really
quickly
too,
I'm
sure
mr
christensen
has
probably
had
this
discussion
with
his
client
and
he's
just
doing
his
job
here,
but
yeah,
starting
with
this
product
type
and
then
trying
to
put
the
product.
This
is
a
totally
backwards
process
where
you're,
starting
with
a
product
type
and
then
trying
to
jam
it
onto
a
piece
of
land.
It
doesn't
make
any
sense.
Neither
does
orienting
the
homes
in
wonky
ways
and
where
you
know
front
set
back
here
rear
set
back
here.
V
C
C
Thank
you,
everybody
good
we're
going
to
take
a
little
quick
break.
Are
we
good
good
good?
Okay,
we'll
keep
on
pressing,
then
item
number
six
is
up
next
car
22-1
barrett
family
llc
at
11825,
west
victory
road.
This
is
an
annexation
of
approximately
2.1
acres
with
an
r1c
zone
and
we're
going
to
hear
from
staff
again
miss
jesse
lyle.
AA
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Members
of
the
commission
item
before
you
is
car
22-1,
an
application
to
annex
2.1
acres
with
a
zoning
designation
of
r1c.
The
subject
property
is
located
at
11825
victory,
road
and
abuts.
The
boise
city
limits
to
the
north
side
and
the
future
land
use
map
has
the
site
designated
as
suburban.
AA
The
parcel
is
surrounded
by
land
in
the
unincorporated
county
to
the
east,
south
and
west.
All
public
agencies
have
indicated
that
this
property
can
be
served.
Currently,
property
is
abundant.
A
portion
of
victory
road
that
is
scheduled
for
improvements
on
achd's
integrated
five-year
work
plan.
The
initial
plan
submitted
the
applicant
plans
to
divide
the
property
into
four
parcels
and
keep
the
existing
home
on
the
lot.
AA
There
have
been
public
comments
received
concerning
density
traffic
increases
and
potential
infrastructure
issues,
while
a
zoning
destination
of
r1c
would
allow
for
up
to
eight
units,
an
acre
the
site
plans
submitted,
show
the
applicant
plans
to
build
to
two
units
per
acre.
Additionally,
the
zoning
destination
is
appropriate
as
there's
r1c
zoning
across
victory
road,
the
three
additional
homes
proposed,
would
not
cause
significant
changes
to
the
current
traffic
patterns.
In
the
area
and
this
portion
of
victoriously
would
be
widened
and
improved
in
the
next
five
years.
AC
AC
AC
The
r1c
zone
seems
appropriate
for
where
this
property,
you
know
along
the
victory
road
there
is
going
in
the
future
and
gives
the
flexibility
for
the
development
to
proceed
down.
The
line
we've
followed
up
with
some
of
the
other
information
from
the
city
of
boise
regarding
potential
like
easement,
along
the
canal,
at
the
back
or
on
the
ditch
at
the
at
the
south
end
of
the
property,
the
achd
requirements,
as
far
as
where
the
the
driveway
would
be
aligned
with
the
driveways
across
the
street.
AC
No
just
really
all
the
all
the
city
stuff
is
either
you
know
all
the
utilities
are
either
already
at
the
property
or
right
there.
It's
basically
just
ready
for
annexation
and
redevelopment
and
and
then
that
development
is
kind
of
will
be
based
on
on
the
capacity
for
development
going
forward
and
obviously
we're
not
putting
forward
a
development
plan
at
this
at
this
time.
But
I'm
trying
to
take
this
one
step
at
a
time
and
just
asking
for
approval
of
this
annexation
with
the
r1c
zone.
C
H
C
I
So
question
for
the
city
in
a
lot
of
the
public
comment,
there
was
a
lot
of
like
a
lot
of
letters
and
and
concerns
basically
about
how
many
lots
were
going
to
be
on
this
property,
and
I
think
there
was
some
confusion
there.
I
know
that
some
people
believe
there
was
up
to
16
or
eight,
but
I'm
just
clarifying,
there's
four
lots
on
this
piece
of
property,
and
so
a
lot
of
the
public
comment,
I
think,
was
just
maybe
a
little
bit
misguided
as
to
exactly
what's
going
on.
AA
Mr
chair
commissioners,
so
with
the
zoning
designation
of
r1c,
the
applicant
could
build
up
to
eight
units
per
acre
which
would
give
them
16
units
on
this
two
acre
plot.
However,
the
applicant
has
proposed
or
submitted
site
plans
preliminarily,
showing
that
four
acres,
so
with
this
application
in
the
zoning
designation,
they
could
change
that,
but
what
is
proposed
now
is
for
for
plots.
AA
AA
K
C
C
C
All
right
looks
like
no
taker's
there,
so
mr
barrett,
at
this
point,
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
and
you
typically
have
five
minutes
for
rebuttal,
there's
really
not
much
to
rebut,
so
you
can
just
yield
that
time
if
you'd
like.
I
won't
take
your
time
very
good
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
bring
us
back
before
the
commission
to
render
a
decision
again.
Cer
22-1.
I
I
I
C
C
Okay,
very
good.
Thank
you.
Okay
up
next
is
item
number
seven
pud,
22-9
and
suv
22-7,
rodney,
evans
and
partners
at
701
and
711.
West
franklin
street
is
a
modification
to
expand
a
cup
for
a
plant
residential
development
comprised
of
five
townhomes
and
one
single
family
home
and
then
a
primary
plat
for
said
presidential
subdivision
and
we're
going
to
hear
from
staff
first
and
miss
lyle
again.
AA
AA
Currently,
the
site
is
on
currently
on
the
site.
Excuse
me
is
an
almost
9
000
square
foot
office
building
originally
constructed
as
a
residence
in
1905
a
parking
lot
and
a
single
family
home,
while
the
buildings
are
approximately
115
years
old,
they're
not
designated
as
historic
and
do
not
lie
within
a
conservation
district.
However,
the
applicant
does
intend
to
retain
the
building
on
the
corner
of
franklin
and
7th
and
to
reconvert
it
into
residential
use.
AA
All
of
the
proposed
townhomes
will
provide
rooftop
decks
for
private
open
space,
and
a
portion
of
the
existing
building
at
7-eleven
franklin
is
to
be
removed
to
construct
two
new
townhomes
along
7th
street
to
be
35
feet
in
height.
The
existing
building
to
be
retained
on
the
corner
of
franklin
and
7th
is
approximately
30
feet
tall
and
the
applicant
proposes
an
additional
two
town
homes
along
franklin
street,
to
be
four
stories
and
reach
approximately
40
feet.
In
height
all
the
proposed
heights
are
allowed
within
the
yellow
zone,
where
the
height
limit
is
45
feet.
AA
The
applicant
has
submitted
updated
renderings
from
the
original
proposal
that
show
facades
of
varying
materials,
individual
front,
porches
and
patio
areas
and
awnings
to
provide
visual
interest
and
end
traffic,
and
additionally,
this
application
is
subject
to
design
review
included
with
this
application
is
the
preliminary
plat
of
mclean
terraces,
with
six
buildable
lots
one
for
each
residential
dwelling.
All
lots
of
alley
access
and
each
unit
will
have
a
pedestrian
connection
to
the
existing
sidewalk.
The
applicant
proposes
to
remove
three
trees
on
site,
while
saving
three
trees
and
planting
an
additional
11..
AA
Public
comment
was
received
from
both
preservation,
idaho
and
the
surrounding
neighborhood
preservation.
Idaho,
is
supportive
of
the
measure
taken
to
retain
the
existing
structure,
but
has
concerns
with
the
height
of
the
proposed
structures
in
the
rooftop
deck
neighbors
also
expressed
concerns
with
the
height
of
the
proposed
structures
and
privacy
issues
with
the
rooftop
decks
and
concerns
with
the
cohesiveness
of
the
design
of
the
new
structures,
as
well
as
increased
traffic.
AA
While
the
proposed
town
homes
are
taller
than
the
existing
structure,
they're
below
the
allowed
45
feet,
height
limit
in
the
yellow
zone
and
the
development
code
does
not
regulate
rooftop
usage.
The
applicant
has
submitted
updated
renderings
that
reflect
materials
used
throughout
neighborhoods
such
as
brick,
and
additionally,
this
application
is
subject
to
design
review.
The
applicant
has
provided
the
required
parking
on
site
breach
for
poho's
home
and
the
addition
of
six
single-family
homes
will
not
negatively
impact
traffic
in
the
neighborhood.
O
Good
evening
again,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission
ben
sample,
with
rodney
evans
and
partners,
1450
west
bannock
street
boise,
idaho
83702.
I
also
have
the
architect
and
developer
here
to
answer
any
further
questions
regarding
the
project.
I
want
to
thank
jesse
for
her
staff
report.
This
project
probably
looks
familiar
because
you
approved
it
last
year
and
then
my
client
purchased
the
home.
That's
currently
a
business
at
711
west
franklin.
O
We
are
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
contained
in
the
staff
report,
as
well
as
in
agreement
with
the
previous
conditions
placed
on
it,
with
the
variance
that
still
applies
to
this
project.
It
granted
a
waiver
of
the
setback
off
the
alley
which
is
actually
it
will.
It
will
be
five
feet
and
it's
greater
than
the
setback
off
of
the
alley.
Right
now
and
additionally,
we're
still
committed
to
the
replacement
of
the
trees
within
the
planner
strip,
while
still
maintaining
fire
aerial
fire
access,
which
was
a
requirement
of
the
previous
project
as
well.
O
O
The
retention
as
jesse
mentioned,
the
retention
of
the
structure
is
not
required.
There's
actually
some
pretty
massive
and
extensive
structural
upgrades
that
are
going
to
be
required,
but
we
felt
that
it
was
appropriate
to
retain
the
corner
as
an
anchor
for
the
project,
as
it
was
the
original
structure
on
the
site.
O
The
project
previously
was
slightly
different,
but
it
did
have
two
town
homes
connected
to
the
corner
structure,
a
single
family
residence
and
an
adu
which
accounted
for
five
total
dwelling
units
on
the
site
with
the
purchase
of
711.
If
we
hadn't
changed
that
at
all,
we'd
have
six
units
we
currently
have
six
units
proposed
on
this
all
single
family,
not
one
with
an
adu.
O
Everything
is
also
self-parked
on-site,
two
parking
spots
for
each
home
and
then
there's
street
frontage
that
all
or
there's
an
entry
off
of
franklin
that
will
be
closed
to
allow
for
additional
on-street
parking
along
franklin
and
seventh
street
height
and
design.
Were
the
main
concerns
for
the
neighbors?
Oh
crystal,
I
have
a
power
or
just
some
pdfs.
If
you
could
pull
it
up.
O
O
O
As
jesse
stated,
we
will
be
below
the
45
foot
height.
There
has
been
some
design
changes
a
little
bit
that
are
reflective
in
those
elevations,
currently
we're
showing
a
portion
on
the
top
of
those
that
would
be
for
a
potential
residential
elevator
for
the
overrun,
but
even
the
top
of
that
overrun
is
44
foot
five,
so
we're
still
below
the
45
foot
limit.
O
O
O
O
O
There's
a
parking
garage
just
to
the
east.
That's
60
feet
tall,
the
church
to
the
north
is
82
feet
tall
and
that's
not
to
mention
the
capital
building.
That's
about
two
blocks:
south!
That's
a
hundred
feet
tall
just
to
indicate
the
the
adjacency
of
some
heights
as
we
feel
that
we're
not
in
forcing
any
additional
height
in
here
that
wouldn't
be
allowed.
All
of
these
properties
also
fall
within
the
lod
zone
and
they
could
be
upwards
of
45
feet
and
we
are
not
requesting
any
height
exception.
O
To
that,
can
you
go
to
the
next
one,
so
these
are
some
renderings
that
we
produced
or
the
architecture
firm
produced
for
the
project
that
represent
kind
of
the
condition
of
a
build
out
within
on
this
corner
right
here
we
faded
back
some
of
the
trees
that
are
either
there
or
will
be
there
in
the
future
that
will
be
planted.
So
we
have
gone
through
some
design
revisions,
there's
a
little
bit
of
additional
detailing
on
the
parapet.
That's
more
reflective
of
a
traditional
design,
as
well
as
the
front
column
work.
O
O
We
are
adding
rooftop
structures
to
this,
but
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
in
almost
every
case
these
are
focused
to
the
east
or
internal
to
the
site.
The
area,
the
the
rooftops
on
the
franklin
street
townhomes
that
are
the
tallest
they
are.
They
have
protection
from
the
western
sun
with
the
stair
that
comes
up
to
access
that
rooftop.
O
C
AD
Our
review
still
seems
to
be
that
it's
in
line
with
the
blueprint
boise
and
that
there's
no
concerns
from
a
neighborhood
overall
neighborhood
position.
Now
I
understand
that
there
are
some
neighbors
that
that
have
brought
up
some
concerns
and
I'll.
Let
them
speak
to
their
concerns
further
on,
but
those
were
new
concerns
that
came
up
to
us
in
the
past
week.
C
C
C
AE
AE
I
don't
think
the
design
matches
the
rest
of
the
house,
the
ninth,
the
rest
of
the
houses
711
was
built
in
1900
mine
was
built
in
1912..
I've
really
tried
to
maintain,
keep
it
authentic
to
the
to
the
age
of
it.
I
know
it's
not
in
a
the
historic
district
of
boise
by
half
a
street.
The
other
side
of
franklin
is
my
side
isn't,
but
it
is
on
the
national
registry
and
several
of
those
houses
across
the
street.
My
street
are
in
the
our
net,
are
in
the
historical
listing
or
national
registry.
Sorry.
H
AE
Anyway,
the
only
other
concerns
I
have
too
are
that
there
is
an
alleyway
that
is
in
the
back
of
our
house,
and
I
can
see
that
becoming
the
thorough
way
for
all
of
this
traffic.
All
these
people
that
are
parking
and
living
in
those
six
residences,
plus
the
single
living
and
the
alley,
is
not
in
good
shape.
So
I
don't
know
who
takes
control
of
that
one,
but
that
is
a
problem
with
potholes.
Every
year
ice
is
skinny.
AE
We
also
have
wca
behind
us,
so
it's
used
enough
already
that
I
don't
know
how
it's
going
to
be
stopped
from
being
a
another
way.
Another
street
almost-
and
I
think
I
think,
that's
it-
it's
a
beautiful
neighborhood.
I
really
don't
mind
it
becoming
residential,
but
I
would
like
it
to
be
the
design
to
be
more
in
flex
with
the
neighborhood
okay.
R
Good
evening,
commissioners,
thank
you
for
your
time.
I'll,
try
to
keep
it
quick.
My
name
is
mary
kay
torres.
I
live
at
3415
north
hawthorne
drive.
My
mother
is
betsy
moynihan,
who
just
spoke
living
at
713,
west
franklin
street.
Naturally,
I've
been
trying
to
help
her
pour
over
some
of
the
documents.
Neither
of
us
is
a
planning
and
zoning
expert.
R
I
believe
that
we
are
meeting
the
project,
as
rendered
with
some
skepticism
and
concern
predicated
largely
on
what
my
mother
just
said.
She
lives
at
713,
west
franklin
street,
and
that
was
the
john
parker
house
built
in
1911..
He
was
a
saloon
owner
and
many
of
the
houses
on
franklin
street
are
historic.
As
my
mother
noted
just
across
the
street,
homes
are
protected
and
are
in
the
overlay
district
and
have
to
go
through
the
historic
preservation
committee
on
the
south
side
of
the
street.
R
R
C
AF
AF
AF
Hi,
my
name
is
sherry
gorill.
I
am
the
manager
of
the
pink
guest
house
at
7,
716
west
franklin
street.
I
am
just
across
the
street
and
just
west
of
the
proposed
development
overall,
I'm
supportive
of
a
well-done
renovation
that
keeps
with
the
historic
vibe
of
the
neighborhood
and
respects
the
existing
neighbors
and
their
uses.
AF
I'm
I'm
concerned
that
in
the
winter
when
the
sun
is
lower,
that
the
houses
on
the
north
side
of
the
development
are
not
going
to
get
building
b
at
its
40
foot
height
is
quite
quite
tall,
and
it
it
actually
stands
out
from
the
other
two.
I
I
really
appreciate
that
you're
respecting
the
integrity
of
the
corner,
building
and
keeping
that,
but
building
b,
just
seems
to
kind
of
be
a
standout.
AF
I
also
appreciate
that
you're
using
the
brick
and
and
attempting
to
incorporate
them
more,
but
I
feel
like
that
height
is
really
going
to
be
an
impact
of
the
sunlight
on
the
houses
across
the
street,
which
mine
is
one
of
those
I've
also
concerned.
I
don't
know
when
this
construction
is
supposed
to
start
but
concerned
about
what
time
they
start
the
noise
and
what
time
they
end
the
noise.
Just
because
of
again
all
the
people
that
live
here
sleep
here-
and
you
know
we
do
want
to
be
mindful
of
the
loud
noises.
AF
AF
I
I
don't
know
that
anybody
can
confirm
that,
but
I
hope
that
that
is
not
the
case
to
try
to
make
that
that
area
larger
for
where
that
building
be,
is
going
to
go.
So
hopefully
that
is
not
going
to
happen
and
then
another
thing
I'm
curious.
We
there
is
another
lot
and
I'm
just
going
to
bring
this
up
because
we're
on
here
there's
another
lot.
C
AF
H
AF
O
O
We
will
be
going
through
design
review
as
well,
so
we
will
get
some
additional
feedback.
I'm
sure
they'll
have
something
to
say
to
us
and
we
may
make
a
few
other
modifications
alley.
Access
is
required.
We're
required
to
close
the
entry
off
of
franklin.
It
basically
provides
more
public
parking
along
the
street.
O
AG
Mr
chairman,
members
of
the
commission,
I'm
kevin
kavlick,
the
developer.
I
just
wanted
to
respond
to
betsy
moynihan.
As
far
as
the
alley
goes,
we're
working
right
now
with
ccdc
as
the
owner
of
the
corner,
that
used
to
be
the
british
automotive
site.
We
are
working,
I'm
trying
to
negotiate
with
ccdc
to
underground
all
the
aerials
there
and
upgrade
that
alley.
As
ben
said,
we
might
be
upgrading
that
alley
anyway
and
we
do
appreciate
you
being
a
friendly
neighbor.
AG
AG
I
know
that
everybody
may
be
thinking
that
we've
got
somewhat
of
a
modern
look
flanking
it
or
building
b
may
not
be
appropriate,
but
our
goal
is
to
really
magnify
the
corner,
and
I
think
it's
important-
I
just
wanted
to
be
here
and
say
how
special
this
location
is
and
the
team
that
I've
got
here
with
john
and
ben
and
our
structural
engineers.
I
think
this
is
the
right
team
for
this
location
and
I
can
promise
you
that
we
have
we've
taken
into
consideration.
AG
A
K
C
C
F
F
Yeah,
mr
chair,
so
I
I
agree
with
the
staff
report
and
additionally,
I
appreciate
the
preservation
of
7-eleven
and
I
appreciate
the
creativity
to
design.
It
may
not
look
like
it
was
built
in
1900,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
homage
to
the
neighborhood.
So
I
like
the
direction
that
that's
going
in
and
I'm
sure
that
design
review
will
kind
of
cover
the
rest
on
that
and
I
am
in
support
of
the
height.
K
Chairman,
thank
you.
You
know
this
isn't
an
area
of
transition.
This
is
in
the
downtown
mixed
use.
Area
for
the
planet.
Calls
for
a
variety
of
uses
can
be
residential,
it
could
be
office
could
be
commercial.
I
think
they've
done
an
outstanding
job.
I
more
often
than
not.
I
kind
of
look
at
our
packet
and
I
see
the
design
for
projects
and
go.
Oh
I'm
excited
about
this.
I
am
super
excited
about
this,
so
thank
you
for
bringing
this
to
us.
I
think
the
limited
office
zone
outright
allows
45
feet.
K
We
can't
do
anything
about
that.
I
feel
comfortable
with
that.
I
don't
think
that
is
something
that
we
should
try
to
take
away
from
this
applicant
just
because
it's
a
pud
again
with
the
nearest
home
being
almost
100
feet
away.
I
think
there
is
some
very
real
valid
points
to
what
mr
semple
said
and
saying
you
know,
there's
large
trees
that
would
probably
provide
more
shadow
than
I
think
this
project
will
again.
It
will
go
through
design
review
and
I'm
sure
they
will.
K
C
Okay,
just
real
quick.
All
second
third
comments:
nice
job
on
the
project.
It
looks
good.
I
appreciate
the
the
attention
to
detail
and
the
design
certainly
understand
the
concerns
you
know
that
were
voiced
about
you
know
it's
older
buildings,
newer
buildings.
You
know
the
blending
of
that,
but
I
think
this
team's
done
a
nice
job
coming
to
a
good
solution
here
so
appreciate.
You
know
the
eye
to
the
density
building
height.
All
of
that,
I
think
it's
a
nice
fit
and
a
nice
job
all
around
so
I'll,
be
in
supporting
the
motion
as
well.
C
C
C
All
right
up
next
crystal's
crystal's,
giving
us
the
go
sign.
Let's
do
this
all
right
up!
Next
item
number:
eight
pud,
22-3
or
stat
architects
at
1093,
south
hilton
street,
a
conditional
use
permit
to
convert
an
existing
assisted
living
facility
into
a
plan,
residential
development
comprised
of
77
multi-family
units
on
5.26
acres
and
we're
going
to
hear
from
jesse
lyle
again
from
staff.
AA
The
site
is
currently
being
used
as
an
assisted
living
facility
and
the
applicant
plans
to
use
the
existing
building
and
convert
it
to
multi-family
with
minimal
changes
to
the
site.
The
density
allowed
in
the
r2
zone
is
14.5
units
per
acre
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
77
units
at
14.3
inch
per
acre.
The
parking
area
currently
does
not
meet
all
the
standards
of
the
development
code
and
the
condition
of
approval
will
require
the
applicant
to
bring
the
current
parking
area
up
to
code.
AA
AH
C
C
C
M
My
name
is
mark
seidenfeld
commissioners.
I
live
at
9768,
west
trestlewood
drive
in
boise
my
brother,
my
older
brother,
who
is
quite
ill
and
unable
to
take
care
of
himself,
is
living
in
this
facility.
Right
now,
and
I
understand
the
role
of
the
planning
staff
is
to
make
sure
that
the
proposal
meets
with
the
requirements
of
the
various
codes,
but
there
seems
to
be
it
seems
to
be
that
there's
been
no
mention
whatsoever
of
the
human
element
of
this.
M
This
place
is
occupied
by
100
people,
many
of
whom
have
been
there
10
years
or
more,
every
one
of
whom
is
elderly.
Half
of
them
are
in
wheelchairs,
there's
no
families
for
many
of
them.
This
this
is
their
home.
They
have
no
place
else
to
go
now.
I
understand
that.
That's
not
the
planning
staff's
problem,
but
it
seems
to
me
it's
a
question
that
needs
to
be
considered
and
I'm
not
sure
where
else
is
the
place
to
do
it
other
than
to
bring
it
to
you.
M
H
M
E
My
name
is
lyn
scott.
I
reside
at
11336,
west
sutherland
court
and
similar
to
my
predecessor.
My
mother-in-law
lives
there
and
I
am
here
to
kind
of
represent
her.
They
gave,
or
they
put
a
notice
up
on
march
20th
at
the
residence
for
them
to
be
able
to
speak
to
you
obviously
assisted
living.
I
don't
think
they
had
the
opportunity
to.
E
E
As
I
said,
my
mother-in-law
lives
at
the
facility.
They
accepted
her
to
be
moved
in
after
they
had
already
started
this
process,
so
they're
allowing
people
still
to
move
in,
even
though
now
we're
going
to
have
to
move.
If
this
is
approved,
a
small
example
of
what's
happening
is
in
order
to
get
into
a
medicaid
facility.
A
lot
of
the
places
require
you
to
private
pay
for
up
to
a
year
and
spend
down
those
savings
that
you
have
to
get
below
2000
and
then
get
into
medicaid.
E
If
you're
already
on
medicaid,
all
the
places
in
boise
won't
accept
you.
They
want
that
one
year
of
three
thousand
dollars
a
month
before
they'll
take
the
700
a
month
from
medicaid.
So
many
of
these
people
they're
there
they're
at
medicaid.
They
can't
find
another
year's
worth
of
three
thousand
dollars
to
pay
for
this
place,
my
mother-in-law
she
she
just
applied
for
medicaid
last
month
she
got
approved.
E
E
E
We
don't
know
where
she's
going
to
come
up
with
the
money
to
do
this
again,
as
was
previously
mentioned,
there's
over
a
hundred
residents
in
this
facility.
They
are
the
vulnerable
of
the
vulnerable.
Not
only
are
they
elderly
they're,
assisted
living
and
many
of
them
are
on
medicaid
and
our
their
backs
are
against
the
wall
as
to
what
they
can
or
cannot
do.
They're
over
some
of
them
are
over
a
hundred
years
old,
they're
wheelchair
bound.
E
One
of
their
employees,
told
me
when
we
were
filling
out
medicaid
that
he
has
to
do
that
for
many
of
them,
because
they
have
no
family
to
do
it.
They
don't
have
the
capacity
to
do
it
now,
you're
going
to
say,
let's
let
them
find
a
new
place
live
a
hundred
of
them
all
at
once.
When
it
took
six
months
to
find
a
place
for
one
person,
are
they
gonna
help
find
a
place?
How
are
these
people
gonna
find
a
place?
How
are
they
gonna
move?
C
C
AI
AI
AI
First
letter
december
15
2021,
due
to
the
fear
of
the
pandemic
and
the
survival
of
the
assisted
living
industry,
the
napoli
started
exploring
contingency
plans.
The
following
are
their
experts
from
their
letters.
The
city
has
a
strict
and
lengthy
process
for
exploring
a
conversion
of
this
magnitude,
and
we
quickly
learned
that
the
zoning
land
use
use
would
make
this
conversion
very
difficult.
AI
Second
letter
march
16,
2022
last
year,
our
property
owner
was
forced
to
consider
a
back-up
plan
and
evaluate
other
land
uses
in
case
the
pandemic
was
a
challenge
we
could
not
overcome.
Our
community
is
vibrant,
thriving
and
growing.
Our
arbor
village
team
is
amazing.
We
are
in
different
situation
now
the
assisted
living
industry
is
stable
and
recovering,
since
the
consider,
since
the
considered
rezoning,
would
require
removal
of
more
than
30
percent
of
our
apartments.
AI
That
reduction
does
not
make
financial
sense.
Therefore,
there
is
no
plan
to
move
forward
with
a
different
use
of
our
building
third
letter
march
17
2022.
This
is
night
and
day
different
from
the
early
uncertain
times
of
covet
that
forced
our
property
owner
to
launch
a
process
to
evaluate
other
land
uses
for
our
building.
AI
With
the
success
of
this
past
year,
we
now
know
that
the
evaluation
process
will
end
with
the
city
of
boise's
planning
and
zoning
commission
meeting
on
april.
4Th
summary,
the
owners
were
forced
to
look
into
contingency
plans.
Arbor
village
at
hillcrest
has
been
thriving,
successful
and
stable
throughout
the
pandemic.
Monopolies
stated
they
have
no
plans
on
converting
this
building
and
say
these
plans
do
not
make
financial
sense.
AI
The
napoli
stated
to
the
residents,
families
and
staff
that
they
will
remain
committed
to
our
village
for
many
years
and
that
this
conversion
ends
tonight
do
not
approve
this
proposal.
The
owners
have
downplayed
the
severity
of
the
consequences.
This
proposal
will
have
to
the
senior
residents
and
their
family
members
from
the
start.
AI
AI
J
C
AJ
AJ
AJ
Senior
citizens
are
vulnerable
population
in
our
community.
These
residents,
including
war
veterans,
must
be
protected
and
cared
for
letting
did
not
play
a
californian
investment
company
swooping
and
evict
over
100
of
our
senior
citizens
in
our
city
and
displacing
them
as
appalling
and
will
have
a
dire
consequence
to
each
resident
and
their
families,
in
addition
to
napoli,
has
downplayed
the
severity
of
this
proposal
to
the
arbor
village
community
by
assuring
the
residents.
AJ
This
proposal
is
not
moving
forward,
and
yet
they
did
nothing
to
stop
this
proposal
on
this
course,
and
here
we
are
today,
why
didn't
they
stop
this
proposal
on
its
tracks
when
they
sent
out
those
letters
dating
back
into
december?
Why
do
they
still
want
this
to
pass?
Because
of
this,
I
do
not
believe
did
not
believe
being
100
truthful
of
their
intentions
with
this
vulnerable
senior
community
residents
and
their
families
may
have
been
deterred
from
speaking
tonight
due
to
the
assurances
and
promises
from
the
monopoly.
AJ
AJ
C
AH
The
the
process
is
very
lengthy
and
it's
a
public
process,
so
the
the
residents
need
to
be
informed
of
the
possibility.
In
addition,
the
construction
and
market
costs
that
are
happening.
Everything
has
to
be
evaluated
thoroughly
in
order
to
verify
whether
this
is
a
viable
solution
or
not,
so
that
it
still
remains
the
case,
and
so,
even
with
with
an
approval
today
they
would
still
definitely
investigate
and
all
the
requirements
and
the
costs
involved.
AH
AK
Mr
chair
commissioners,
amanda
shouse
element,
burke,
250,
east
front
street
boise,
idaho,
representing
also
the
owner
and
the
applicant,
just
to
reiterate
what
daphne
said
well,
first
of
all,
thanks
to
the
staff
for
working
on
this
application
with
us,
and
thank
you
to
the
residents
for
expressing
your
your
concerns,
they're,
not
new.
We
we're
aware
of
the
concerns
here
today.
AK
We
are
merely
looking
at
whether
or
not
this
use
is
compatible
with
this,
with
this
zone
and
with
the
surrounding
areas,
and
if
you
read
the
project
report
closely,
it
is
it
is,
it
does
come.
It
meets
with
comp
plan
goals,
it
encourages
a
mix
of
housing.
Reuse
infill
is
near
a
community
activity
center.
AK
It's
only
minor
exterior
improvements,
it
fits,
you
know,
checks
all
the
boxes
on
being
a
compatible
use,
which
is
why
we're
here
today.
I
do
want
to
acknowledge
that
we
are,
as
daphne
said,
early
in
the
process,
and
this
is
just
a
first
step
to
to
get
this
approval.
It
is
a
long
process
and
the
the
owners
have
not
prepared
any
plans
yet
and
they
haven't
done
any
feasibility
studies
on
cost.
AK
So
it
is
still
early
in
the
process
and
they
are
sensitive
to
the
owners
and
their
concerns
and
the
needs
of
the
the
residents,
and
they
have
done
these
formal
communications
with
the
residents.
They've
tried
to
keep
them
informed
and
they're
doing
the
best
they
can
on
while
they're
trying
to
decide
what
they
want
to
do
in
the
in
the
future.
C
K
H
K
AL
I
I
think,
that's
going
to
be
a
a
question
where
you'll
have
to
look
really
closely
at
your
criteria
for
approving
a
conditional
use
permit
which
this
would
fall
under
and
I'd
suggest.
The
closest
criterion
would
be
adverse
effect
on
other
property
of
the
vicinity
and
happy
to
hear
other
thoughts
and
further
deliberations.
But.
AL
AL
That's
that's
not
the
that's,
not
the
purpose
of
the
of
the
pud
permit,
so
I
would
say
not
not
in
not
in
this
commission's
purview
to
to
read
all
of
that
into
the
criteria,
but
take
a
look
at
that
and
if
you
have
questions
that's
of
the
either
the
applicant
or
anyone
who
testified
it's.
Certainly
your
opponent
option
to
reopen
the
public
hearing,
inquire
of
anyone
who
has
testified
and,
of
course,
give
the
applicant
the
opportunity
to
rebut
anything
at
the
end.
H
I
Can
take
it
like
if
any
of
what
our
discussion
here
falls
within
any
of
these
actual
elements,
so
the
approval
criteria
is,
is
the
location
compatible
to
other
uses
in
the
neighborhood?
Is
the
pro
will
the
proposed
use
place
an
undue
burden
on
transportation?
Other
public
facilities
in
the
vicinity
is
the
site
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
proposed
use.
I
The
proposed
use,
if
it
complies
with
all
conditions
imposed,
will
not
adversely
affect
other
property
of
the
vicinity.
The
proposed
use
in
is
in
compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
a
multi-family
building
is
designed
to
comply
with
the
city-wide
design,
standards
and
guidelines.
I'm
not
sure
any
of
what
we
discussed
tonight
falls
under
our
discord.
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
it's
within
our
discretion
under
these
this
approval
criteria.
C
F
F
She
was
saying
2022,
which
I
think
was
a
mistake,
but
but
even
still,
if
this
these
letters
were
sent
a
year
ago,
six
months
ago,
four
months
ago,
it
sounds
like
it
was
poor
communication
and
it
would
lead
me
to
have
untrustworthy
feelings,
certainly
towards
that
owner.
If
I
had
a
loved
one
in
that
residence,
you
know
to
be
assuring
assuring
assuring
that
they're
you're
not
going
to
sell
or
you're
not
going
to
redevelop,
and
then
this
is
now
on
the
table.
That's
heartbreaking.
F
However,
I
don't
see
how,
like
I
see,
that
this
fits
all
of
our
criteria
for
approval.
So
I
don't,
I
feel
like
I
have
no
other
choice
but
to
move
forward
with
that,
and
I
know
that's
really
hard
to
do
given
the
testimony
and
the
sensitivity
of
this
subject,
but
that's
where
I
land
with
it
I
feel
torn,
but
also
like
I
don't.
I
don't.
I
can't
come
up
with
a
reason
to
deny
it
based
on
our
criteria.
I
I
Agree
with
commissioner
stead,
I
I
hate
that
we
are
so
confined
in
what
we
can
decide
here
as
a
commission,
but
I
mean
our
criteria
is
very
straightforward
and,
as
the
applicant
pointed
out,
what's
in
front
of
us
is
the
compatibility
of
the
project
and
the
project
is
essentially
the
same
footprint,
so
we
don't
really
have
a
lot
of
discretion
just
based
on
the
code.
So
I'm
in
support
of
the
motion.
C
Well
I'll
sound
up,
I
think
we
might
have
some
comments
from
the
other
end
of
the
diocese
here
in
a
minute,
I
I
I
am
in
agreement
with
commissioners,
stead
and
finfrock.
I
agree
that
it's
difficult
to
separate
the
emotion
from
the
situation.
However,
this
is
a
land,
a
land
use
body
right.
We
look
at
land
use,
we
look
at
zoning
requirements
and
I
agree
in
that.
Our
cup
criteria-
I
I
don't-
I
don't
see
a
way
how
we
can't
approve
this.
I
think
the
use
is
appropriate
for
the
site.
C
V
Mr
chair,
commissioner
blanchard,
as
we
can
already
see
where
this
is
going,
I
will
just
be
confident
and
comfortable
in
casting
my
protest,
no
vote.
I
think
that
we've
been
able
to
frankly
extract
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
I'm
thinking
about
ryden
bar
specifically,
where
the
owners
of
the
new
housing
they're
bent
over
backwards
to
make
sure
that
those
residents
were
moved
and
put
in
the
new
housing.
K
C
P
C
Thanks
all
right
up
next
is
item
number
nine,
it's
pud
22-2
and
sub
22-3
at
3324,
west
tucker
road,
it's
a
cup
for
a
plan;
residential
development
comprised
of
two
single-family
homes,
with
a
parking
reduction,
1.26
acres
in
r1c
and
then
a
preliminary
plat
for
said
residential
subdivision
we're
in
here
from
staff.
First
sabrina
mortensen
is
up.
Q
Good
evening,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
the
item
before
you
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development,
comprised
of
two
single-family
homes
on
.26
acres
located
at
3324,
west
tucker
road
in
an
r1c
zone.
A
parking
reduction
and
preliminary
plan
for
a
two
lot
residential
subdivision
are
also
included.
Q
There
are
two
existing
dwelling
units
on
the
site
which
the
applicant
proposes
to
retain.
The
parcel
will
be
split
so
that
each
home
is
on
a
separate
lot
with
one
fronting
on
tucker
road
and
the
other
fronting
on
gerard
street
waivers
from
the
required
minimum
lot.
Size
and
rear
setback
are
requested
for
the
northern
parcel,
as
can
be
allowed
through
the
pud
process.
Q
The
applicant
also
requests
a
parking
reduction
in
order
to
allow
the
current
parking
arrangement
on
the
site
to
remain.
The
planning
team
is
in
support
of
the
parking
reduction,
as
the
layout
has
already
existed
on
the
site
without
creating
negative
impacts
for
the
neighborhood
and
the
overall
function
of
the
site
is
not
anticipated
to
change.
Due
to
the
proposed
subdivision.
Q
There
are
existing
street
improvements
along
tucker
road
and
the
applicant
requests
a
waiver
from
the
requirement
to
install
improvements
along
gerard
street.
A
recommended
condition
of
approval
does
require
the
installation
of
curb
gutter
and
attached
sidewalk
along
gerard
street,
as
there
is
potential
for
the
adjacent
double
fronted
lots
to
the
east
to
redevelop
in
a
similar
manner
in
the
future,
thereby
providing
improved
pedestrian
connectivity
in
the
area.
Q
The
applicant
has
expressed
some
concern
related
to
this
condition,
along
with
condition
number
three,
which
requires
a
three-foot
landscape
buffer
to
be
provided
between
the
northern
driveway
and
the
side.
Property
line.
The
landscape
buffer
is
a
requirement
of
the
development
code
which
is
intended
to
improve
on-site
drainage
and
reduce
impacts
on
the
adjacent
properties,
as
described
in
the
staff
report.
The
application
complies
with
all
pud
requirements
as
conditioned.
The
planning
team
recommends
approval
of
the
conditional
use,
permit
parking
reduction
and
preliminary
subdivision
plot
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
AM
AM
Thank
you
for
considering
this.
I
hope
it
passes
and
that
the
two
things
I
wanted
to
talk
about
were
essentially
since
there's
really
no
development
or
construction
happening
on
site
and
that
this
has
existed
without
negative
impacts
to
the
neighborhood
I'd
like
to
reconsider
the
requirement
for
the
sidewalk
curb
and
gutter.
There
is
a
photo
in
the
packet
as
well.
AM
AM
AM
AJ
H
V
AM
H
Q
C
C
H
H
H
U
U
I
am
against
the
proposed
subdivision
in
the
application.
I
see
no
reason
why
the
existing
adu
cannot
continue
to
function
as
intended
under
the
as
permitted
conditions
and
or
restrictive
deeds
as
part
of
the
adu
permitting.
I
understand
there
is
a
deed
restriction
placed
on
the
principal
property
for
continued
owner
occupation
of
one
of
the
two
resulting
dwellings
over
the
life
of
the
adu.
U
U
If
so,
I
it
would
appear.
This
proposed
subdivision
of
the
tucker
road
property
is
an
effort
to
bifurcate
the
property
ownership,
breaking
the
deed
and
the
legal
link
that
I
believe
binds
them.
The
composed
application
report
states
the
through
the
current
application,
the
structure,
meaning
the
adu
will
become
the
primary
dwelling
on
the
newly
created
lot.
U
Further
adus
are
permitted
based
on
reduced
development
requirements,
including
setbacks,
landscaping,
parking,
sidewalks,
etc.
Is
it
possible
now
to
allow
the
property
property
to
become
independent,
as
essentially
a
new
substandard
property
who's?
Benefiting
from
this?
I
don't
think
it's
the
neighborhood.
U
U
U
U
The
design
document
states
that
it
should
include
types
of
places
the
community
would
like
to
foster
and
the
land
use
patterns
that
will
be
encouraged
in
each
of
these
places.
The
proposed
orphaning
of
this
adu
doesn't
either.
This
is
not
complementary
development
for
the
boise
blueprint
and
in
general,
I
support
the
adu
housing
if
done
right
and
with
the
strict
restrictive
deed,
but
I
am
against
this
particular
subdivision.
H
H
AM
AM
C
F
C
F
As
I
mean,
I
agree
with
the
staff
report,
so
I'm
sorry,
mr
chair
yeah,
please,
okay,
I
agree
with
the
staff
report
and,
in
addition,
just
as
we
said
with
the
state
street
project,
we've
got
to
start
somewhere
with
sidewalks.
I
understand
that,
maybe
not
that
other
developments
on
the
street
may
not
have
sidewalks
at
this
point,
but
this
is
our
chance,
even
if
that's
an
existing
building.
This
is
our
chance
to
kind
of
get
what
the
city
needs
out
of
new
development.
So
so
I
support
that
condition.
I
Chair
commissioner
finfrock
I'll
just
echo
that,
like
the
continuous
pedestrian
connectivity,
the
only
way
we
can
get
there
is
through
these
type
of
applications,
so
we'll
just
continue
to
make
that
move
towards
better
sidewalks,
and
you
know
more
sidewalks
and
the
overall
goal
of
the
connectivity.
So
this
is
how
we
do
it,
and
so
I'm
in
support
of
the
motion.
C
Nothing:
okay,
gonna
cover
okay,
I'll
sound
off.
I'm
gonna
support
the
motion,
although
a
little
bit
reluctantly,
I
do
agree
with
the
testimony.
That
is
a
little
odd
since
we
have
already
a
home
with
an
adu
on
it.
But
having
said
that,
I
see
no
reason
not
to
approve
the
split,
so
it's
just
kind
of
an
interesting
situation
right
when
you
have
a
double
loaded.
Double
fronted
lot
like
this.
C
So
again
I
will
be
supporting
the
motion,
but
it
is
a
little
bit
of
a
unique
situation,
so
we
have
staff
recommendation
and
a
motion
to
approve,
and
so
I'm
in
support
of
that
again
we
have
a
motion
to
recommend
approval
of
suv,
22-3
and
a
motion
to
approve
pud
22-2,
with
all
the
terms
and
condition
as
written
in
the
staff
report.
Well,
the
clerk,
please
call
the
roll.
V
C
Okay,
all
right
team.
It's
9,
30.!
We
got
two
more
left.
Should
we
just
push
on
through
okay,
see
any
yeah
very
good.
Let's
do
it.
I
have
number
10
is
up
next
pud
22-7
and
suv
22-5
at
1718,
south
longmont
avenue,
rodney,
evanson
partners,
cup
for
plant
residential
development
of
two
single-family
homes
on
0.5
acres
and
then
the
associated
primary
platts,
and
we're
going
to
hear
from
sabrina
mortensen
again
this
evening.
Q
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
the
next
item
before
you
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
two
single
family
homes
on
.15
acres
located
at
1719,
south
longmont
ave
in
an
r2
zone.
A
preliminary
plot
for
a
two
lot
residential
subdivision
is
also
included.
Q
The
applicant
proposes
to
demolish
the
existing
single-family
home
on
the
site,
construct
two
new
detached
single-family
homes
and
subdivide
the
property
into
two
residential
lots.
Each
of
the
new
dwelling
units
will
have
an
alley
loaded
detached
two-car
garage
to
provide
the
required
off-street
parking
for
the
project.
The
applicant
requests
dimensional
waivers,
as
shown
on
the
slide,
and
also
requests
to
waive
the
requirement
to
install
curb
gutter
and
sidewalk
improvements
along
the
property's
frontage
on
longmont.
Q
The
southeast
neighborhood
association
provided
written
comments
in
support
of
the
proposed
development,
but
requested
that
street
improvements
be
required.
However,
the
planning
team
supports
the
requested
waiver,
as
the
installation
of
the
improvements
in
this
location
could
create
drainage
issues
and
would
require
the
relocation
of
an
existing
irrigation
ditch.
Q
Furthermore,
the
adjacent
properties
to
both
the
north
and
south
have
recently
been
granted
similar
waivers,
meaning
that
there
is
no
potential
for
improvements
on
the
site
to
connect
to
data
improvements
in
the
foreseeable
future
as
conditioned
the
proposed
use
complies
with
all
pud
approval
criteria,
and
the
planning
team
recommends
approval
of
the
conditional
use
permit
and
preliminary
subdivision
plan.
I
will
stand
for
any
questions.
O
O
Achd
did
wave
the
requirement
for
the
road
frontage
improvements
on
longmont
as
well.
I
was
also
the
applicant
on
the
other
two
projects,
one
on
either
side
of
this
one
in
which
they
also
waived
them
mostly
due
to
their
concerns
about
drainage
along
longmont.
It's
a
short
run.
The
dead
ends
with
no
potential
extension
in
the
future.
Unless
the
new
look
car
wash
is
demolished.
O
The
majority
of
the
traffic
associated
with
this
project
comes
from
the
alley.
That's
on
the
west
side,
and
there
not
only
are
the
other
two
projects
adjacent
to
this,
but
there's
multiple
projects
on
the
east
side
of
longmont
closer
to,
I
believe
it's
warren
is
the
intersection
that
were
constructed
without
curb
gutter
sidewalk.
O
I
understand
the
neighborhood's
concerns
about
the
narrow
street
section
and
pedestrians
and
traffic,
but
the
installation
of
curb
and
gutter
would
effectively
narrow.
This
street
section
we
are
piping
that
ditch,
which
allows
us
to
provide
a
shoulder
which
can
give
some
on-street
parking
on
there
and
without
encumbering
the
asphalt
width
there.
I
would
stand
for
questions.
H
C
C
C
C
I
I
V
C
C
Q
Q
The
development
will
utilize
a
single
vehicular
access
point
from
gardner
lane
and
cross
access
will
be
provided
to
the
adjacent
parcel
to
the
west
in
the
event
that
the
property
develops
in
the
future.
Street
improvements
are
provided
along
north
gardner
lane
and
west
state
street,
including
a
12
foot
wide
multi-use
pathway
along
state
street,
as
is
required
by
the
state
street
corridor
tod
plan.
The
northwest
neighborhood
association
provided
comments
which
support
the
installation
of
the
multi-use
pathway
along
state
street.
Q
One
neighbor
submitted
comments
which
expressed
general
concern
regarding
traffic
and
safety
in
the
area,
but
did
not
provide
any
specific
objections
to
the
proposal
as
conditioned
the
proposal
complies
with
all
cup
requirements.
The
planning
team
recommends
approval
of
the
conditional
use
permit
and
I
will
stand
for
any
questions.
AN
AN
Tomlinson
address
3883
east
barber
drive
boise,
idaho
83716.
I
too
would
like
to
thank
sabrina
for
the
work
that
she
has
done
in
creating
this
proposal.
I
feel
that
we
have
met
all
of
the
concerns
regarding
what
the
city
has
brought
forth.
What
achd
has
come
forward
with,
as
well
as
itd
since
we're
on
the
state
street
corridor?
The
only
concern,
as
I
know,
came
from
a
neighbor,
as
was
stated,
regarding
the
increased
traffic
flow
on
gardner
street.
AN
This
is
a
low
volume
destination
point
type
of
use,
and
we
do
feel
that
this
will
play
it.
The
development
of
this
site
won't
place
a
burden
with
regards
to
traffic
flow.
At
this
intersection
of
state
and
gardner,
I
feel
the
development
will
be
a
positive
asset
to
the
area
and
potentially
stem
further
positive
development
along
the
straight
street
state
street
corridor
as
a
whole.
That's
really
all
I've
got
to
say
and
since
there's
only
five
of
us
left
to
hear
both
live
and
online.
That's
all
I've
got
to
say.
C
X
Richard
llewellyn
for
9170
hill
road
or
northwest
neighborhood
association,
we
support
the
project.
I
won't
take
up
more
of
your
time.
Just
appreciate
that
the
applicant,
as
far
as
we
saw
came
in
with
a
plan
that
considered
the
state
street
corridor
elements,
I
think,
will
look
good.
We
have
existing
land
uses
in
that
area.