►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
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's
a
chat
function
in
Zoom.
However,
this
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
A
Our
procedures
for
public
hearing
begins
with
a
presentation
from
the
planning
team,
then
we'll
go
to
the
applicant
and
then
the
representative
of
the
registered
neighborhood
association,
followed
by
questions
from
the
commission.
After
that,
we
proceed
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
are
in
person,
then
who
signed
up
on
the
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
if
you
are
attending
through
your
telephone,
you
can
type
in
Star
9.
To
raise
your
hand,
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
Testimony.
A
B
Crystal
good
evening
we
are
citizen
volunteers
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
the
city
council.
We
make
final
decisions
on
conditional
use,
permits,
variances
and
appeals
and
recommendations
to
the
city
council
on
subdivisions,
rezones,
annexations
and
code
or
comprehensive
plan
amendments.
B
Any
decision
made
tonight
may
be
appealed
to
the
city
council,
provided
that
the
appeal
is
filed
within
10
days
of
this
hearing.
In
order
to
file
an
appeal
you
must
have
given
written
or
oral
testimony
at
tonight's
at
times
meeting.
That's
why
it's
important
to
give
your
name
and
address
when
you
testify
its
name,
we
utilize
a
consent
agenda.
This
means
that
if
the
applicant
agrees
with
the
staff
report-
and
if
there
is
no
public
opposition,
denim
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda,
all
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved.
B
With
one
motion.
Without
further
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
consent
agenda,
we
will
hold
a
full
public
Hearing
in
the
order
just
detailed
a
few
minutes
ago
with
staff,
applicant,
neighbor,
Association
and
then
public
testimony.
Thank
you
all
for
attending
tonight
will
a
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
B
B
The
address
is
300
East,
Jefferson
Street.
This
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
height
exception,
associated
with
an
existing
medical
office
on
1.14
acres
and
r3d.
Zone
and
I
see
the
applicants
present.
Are
you
all
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
Okay,
very
good.
Let
the
record
show
that
the
applicant
is
in
agreement
with
the
staff
report
and
is
there
anyone
in
attendance
tonight
hoping
to
testify
in
opposition
to
this
item.
B
B
B
Have
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda
motion
by
commissioner
Danley
with
a
second
by
commissioner
Moore
any
further
discussion:
okay,
very
good!
Well,
the
clerk!
Please
call
the
roll,
then.
G
C
B
Great
thanks
guys
all
right
we'll
go
ahead
and
return
back
to
the
top
of
our
agenda
with
item
number
one.
This
is
SOS
23-2.
The
applicant
is
Alex
John
Argon
project
address
is
1843
South
Regent
Avenue.
This
is
a
waiver
item
before
us.
Here's
a
waiver
to
the
subdivision
ordinance
for
multiple
access
points
on
a
double
fronted
lot
on
0.41
acres
in
an
r1b
Zone.
First,
we're
gonna
hear
from
staff
Jesse
Lyle.
H
Additional
correspondence
with
achd
also
confirms
that
the
overall
policy
concerning
access
management
is
to
prohibit
direct
access
onto
arterials
and
require
properties
to
take
access
from
the
lower
classified
road
if
the
property
has
funded
John
Watermark
Street,
the
subject.
Property
has
primary
access
point
onto
Region
Avenue,
which
is
classified
as
a
local
roadway,
and
the
city's
policy
is
also
to
restrict
direct
access
access
on
material
worldways
in
order
to
reduce
potential
conflicts
between
Vehicles
bicycles
and
pedestrians.
H
The
development
code
allows
for
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
to
issue
a
waiver
of
the
subdivision
requirements
under
specific
conditions.
However,
there
are
no
exceptional
circumstances
or
topographical
constraints
that
would
meet
the
standards
for
a
waiver
and
the
safety
concerns
with
allowing
the
existing
access
to
remain,
as
is
do
not
promote
the
public
welfare
and
interest
of
the
city.
I
Cool
yeah
you'll
have
to
forgive
my
nerves,
I'm
not
used
to
speaking
in
front
of
a
large
group.
So
thank
you
in
advance
for
that,
but
yeah
I
just
prepared
a
little
presentation.
I
bought
this
property
in
2021,
because
I
had
an
existing
shop
that
I
saw
potential
to
convert
to
living
quarters.
Just
like
the
neighbors
two
houses
down
as
a
young
man
with
five
small
children.
I
thought
this
would
be
a
great
investment
for
my
kids
as
they
get
older
and
need
a
place
to
hang
out
in
their
teenage
years.
I
I
I
believe
it
is
crucial
to
the
property
to
keep
the
access
and
would
like
to
discuss
why,
starting
with
I'm
just
going
to
go
through
Point
by
Point
kind
of
what
the
planning
team
had,
but
it
says
restricted
access,
no
Lots
in
the
subdivision
shall
be
provided
with
a
primary
access
to
South
Five
Mile
Road.
I
Unless
said,
primary
access
is
specifically
approved
by
the
Ada
County
Highway
District,
while
the
Ada
County
Highway
District
did
review
the
Adu
correspondence
confirms
they
do
not
set
standards
or
conditions
for
use
that
generous
generate
less
than
10
trips
per
day
and
did
not
require
this
access
point
to
be
closed
in
their
form
letter.
The
argument
here
is
that
my
property
doesn't
generate
more
than
10
trips
per
day,
so
achd
doesn't
have
jurisdiction
over
this,
but
I
would
ask
which
of
the
multiple
properties
with
double
access
do
generate
more
than
10
trips
per
day.
I
How
can
achd
not
set
the
standards
and
conditions
when
they
are
the
ones
who
put
the
access
point
in
the
subdivision
requirement
clearly
specifies
if
I
have
specific
approval
from
achd,
which
I
do
I
can
have
access
from
Five
Mile.
There
should
be
no
dispute
on
this
matter.
Existing
fence
that
obstructs
the
Clear
Vision
triangle.
The
existing
privacy
fence
causes
a
lack
of
visibility.
Triangle
I
agree
with
that.
I
However,
I
propose
to
remove
privacy
fence
and
replace
with
a
smaller
see-through
fence,
something
of
a
wrought
iron
nature,
replace
the
gate
with
a
wrought
iron
fence,
as
well
only
about
three
feet
tall.
There
are
also
six
foot
tall
arborvitaes
that
will
be
removed
as
well
to
ensure
maximum
visibility.
There
are
many
properties
along
Five
Mile
that
take
their
primary
access
from
that
road.
Keeping
my
access,
which
has
an
automatic
gate,
will
be
just
as
safe,
if
not
safer
than
the
homes
that
are
directly
on
Five
Mile
Road.
I
The
street
Sutherland
connecting
Regent
to
Five
Mile,
which
is
my
primary
access
to
my
house,
has
much
less
of
visibility
due
to
my
neighbor's
trees.
Blocking
the
road
I
would
argue
that
my
proposed
plan
has
more
visibility
than
the
current
conditions
on
that
connecting
Road
there's
also
a
large
street
light
that
provides
clear
visibility
at
night.
Hardly
any
of
the
houses
on
Five
Mile
have
a
street
light
to
help
with
visibility
and
aren't
near
as
safe
as
mine.
I
The
development
code
does
not
allow
for
parking
in
the
rear
yard
setback,
which
is
30
feet
in
the
rb1v
zone.
The
existing
structure
is
30
feet
from
the
property
line.
The
parking
area
is
actually
45
feet
from
the
property
line.
Essentially
I'll
be
able
to
park
my
truck
deep
in
my
backyard
for
work
and
repairs,
there's
currently
a
fence
in
the
way,
but
it
will
be
removed
to
make
the
parking
45
feet
from
the
property
line.
I
The
original
subdivision
plot
contains
a
note
restricting
access
from
Five
Mile
and
there's
no
record
of
when
this
curb
cut
was
made.
That's
from
the
city.
It
is
not
my
problem
or
my
mistake.
If
the
city
doesn't
have
a
record
of
the
curb
cut,
and
it's
not
only
my
curb
cut
that
has
the
cutout,
it
is
on
eight
different
properties.
Are
they
implying
that
someone
other
than
achd
put
the
access
in
that
an
unauthorized
person
made
major
modifications
to
over
eight
property
sidewalks
on
a
major
road
without
achd's
approval?
I
They
would
have
been
shut
down
immediately
then,
who
could
it
have
been?
The
only
logical
answer
is
that
achd
put
the
curb
cut
in
when
they
widened
the
road
and
didn't
keep
proper
record
once
again.
That
is
not
my
fault
to
remedy
I
spoke
with
my
neighbor
and
the
previous
owner
of
the
property
to
confirm
this.
The
letter
reads
as
follows:
to
whom
it
may
concern:
I
was
the
owner
of
this
residence
1843
South
Regent
from
July
21st
1995
to
June
21st
2021.
One
of
the
main
reasons
we
purchased.
I
This
property
was
the
fact
that
it
had
a
his
and
her
backyard
to
his
backyard,
had
access
off
a
five
mile
road
through
a
20-foot
gate
which
allowed
me
to
park
my
car
trailers,
boats
and
other
equipments
without
damaging
or
modifying
her
backyard
in
approximately
1997
achd
wide
in
five
mile
to
five
Lanes.
At
that
time,
achd
granted
me
a
curb
cut
for
my
gate,
so
I
could
have
continued
access
to
my
backyard
in
2008
I
decided
to
build
a
shop.
I
went
to
the
city
of
Boise
to
obtain
permits.
I
They
required
me
to
drop
a
plot
plan.
The
plan
showed
the
orientation
of
the
building
in
the
proposed
driveway,
using
the
20-foot
gate
off
a
five
mile
road
for
access
on
the
original
plot
plan.
It
showed
a
25-foot
setback
from
Five
Mile
to
the
building.
The
only
change
Boise
City
required
was
to
make
the
setback
30
feet.
I
was
granted
permits
and
completed
the
project
in
the
summer
of
2021..
I
The
city
claims
no
record,
but
my
letter
from
the
previous
owner
and
testimony
from
Neighbors
confirmed
achd
clearly
put
the
access
point
in.
Although
the
subdivision
States
double
fronted,
lots
are
prohibited.
My
property
and
several
others
have
had
it
since
1997,
with
no
issues.
If
it
wasn't
an
issue
in
2021
when
the
shop
was
finalized,
it
shouldn't
be
an
issue
now.
I
Section
119-51
of
the
development
code
allows
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
to
issue
a
waiver
of
the
subdivision
requirements,
provided
the
properties
of
such
unusual
size
or
shape
or
surrounded
by
such
developments,
or
has
unusual
conditions
that
the
strict
application
of
these
regulations
would
result
in
substantial
hardship
or
inequity,
and
additional
waiver
may
be
granted.
So
the
applicant
May
develop
the
property
in
a
reasonable
manner.
I
My
property
does
have
an
unusual
condition
in
that
it
has
an
existing
access
point
that
doesn't
meet
the
subdivision
standards,
although
it
has
met
the
standard
since
1997
with
no
issue
from
the
city
or
subdivision.
The
definition
of
inequity
is
a
lack
of
fairness
or
Justice.
How
can
my
existing
access
be
stripped
away
in
my
neighbor
two
houses
down,
keep
theirs
with
the
exact
same
use
and
function?
How
is
that
fair,
and
just
to
me,
how
is
a
man
to
make
sense
of
that?
I
What
is
more,
of
a
reasonable
development
of
my
property
to
hire
a
crew
to
Cone
off
traffic,
break
up
existing
concrete,
obtain
permits,
pour
new
concrete
in
place
of
the
old
or
to
Simply,
keep
achd's
original
work
from
1997.
I'm,
not
asking
to
make
modifications
to
a
major
road.
All
I'm
asking
is
to
keep
the
work
that
was
already
done.
I
Well,
there
are
other
properties
with
access
directly
on
a
five
mile
road.
The
applicants
request
to
increase
the
intensity
of
the
current
use
by
converting
the
existing
shop
into
an
additional
unit
facilitates
the
need
for
the
property
to
meet
the
development
code.
Any
other
property
in
the
situation
would
have
the
same
requirements.
I
believe
this
to
be
misleading
and
inaccurate.
The
existing
shop
used
to
have
two
large
garage
doors
leading
out
to
Five
Mile.
The
original
plan
approved
by
the
city
was
a
large
driveway,
leading
directly
from
the
shop
to
Five
Mile.
I
There
were
roughly
six
to
eight
vehicles
on
the
property
as
well.
The
clear
use
was
to
have
numerous
cars
coming
in
and
out
of
the
access
point.
All
of
this
was
seen
by
inspectors
and
was
not
addressed.
I
would
also
know
that
the
previous
owner
finalized
his
shop
in
September
of
2021
with
everything
I
just
described
I
started
my
project
in
April
of
2022.
I
The
access
point
was
never
mentioned
or
brought
up
to
him
by
the
city,
meaning
that
his
original
use
with
the
Large
Garage
Doors
was
perfectly
fine
with
the
city
and
subdivision
in
2021.
If
the
city
claims
it
doesn't
meet,
the
current
code
I
would
ask
what
code
changed
during
the
six-month
gap
between
projects
had
the
city
flagged
the
access
point
when
they
finalized
the
existing
shop
in
2021?
It
would
have
brought
up
a
legal
issue
for
me
and
the
previous
owner
as
the
dry.
Access
from
Five
Mile
was
a
huge
selling
point
to
the
property.
I
I
have
removed
these
large
garage
doors
and
would
argue
that
I
have
decreased
the
intensity
of
the
original
use
and
have
made
it
safer
than
its
original
approved
use.
In
conclusion,
I
have
specific
approval
from
achd
which
clearly
meets
the
subdivision
requirements
to
have
double
access.
The
Adu
application
clearly
states
that
double
access
is
prohibited
unless
multiple
entrances
are
already
in
existence.
Mine
is
already
in
existence.
I
feel
I've,
given
more
than
enough
Sound
Logic
and
reason
to
justify
the
leading
the
access.
The
way
it
is.
I
I
B
Thank
you,
Mr
argon,
okay,
personal
check,
now
we'll
check
in
to
see
if
someone
from
the
neighbor
Association
is
present.
That's
the
Southwest
Ada
County
Alliance.
G
H
Mr,
chair
Commissioners,
if
that's
what
act
has
on
their
Capital
Improvements
plan,
I
would
assume
that
they
would
be
going
forward
with
that.
Okay,
thank
you.
D
J
Steph
question
for
Steph
Jesse
the
five
miles
classified
as
a
major
arterial
or
minor
arterial.
D
J
I
So
I
bought
the
house
from
a
gentleman
named
Butch
Gail.
He
had
started
the
project
in
2008
and
through
one
reason
or
another.
He
hadn't
finalize
it
until
2021
when
I
purchased
the
home
from
him.
So
it
was
classified
at
that
point
as
just
like
a
garage
in
his
backyard.
I
A
very
large
garage
I
would
add,
and
so
he
had
two
very
large
I
think
a
16x7
and
a
9x7
garage
door
on
the
front
side
leading
out
to
Five
Mile
and
then
what
I've
done
is
I've
I've
closed
that
all
off
now
on
my
design
of
it,
it's
more
of
a
of
a
dwelling
than
it
is
a
a
garage
at
this
point
right.
J
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
question
for
staff,
then
so
Mr
argon's
question
about
the
previous
project
in
this
project.
Can
you
elaborate
on
that
some
more.
H
Mr,
chair
Commissioners,
so
while
that
project
was
started
in
2008,
I
can't
speak
to
that
approval.
I
was
you
know
not
with
the
city
at
that
point
in
time,
and
so
it
never
had
received
its
final
inspection.
That's
why
it
was
Final
in
2021,
from
the
plans
from
2008
and
with
this
conversion
into
a
dwelling
unit.
It
has
to
meet
the
subdivision
code.
This
would
be
for
any
Adu
I
mean
we've
had
people
who've
had
to
do.
Driveway
improvements,
install
sidewalk,
just
various
improvements
to
meet
the
subdivision
standards.
Thank.
F
H
D
H
Chair
Commissioners
again,
I
can't
speak
to
when
that
curb
cut
was
put
into
place.
I'm
assuming
it's
for
when
achd
widened
that
road,
as
the
applicant
has
stated,
however,
because
that
building
was
not
intended
to
be
a
dwelling
unit
at
the
time
that
it
was
built,
it
did
not
need
specific
planning
approval
because
it
met
all
the
setbacks.
Gotcha.
Thank
you.
H
Mr,
chair
Commissioners,
that
was
my
understanding,
is
that
achd
did
not
review
the
specific
curb
cut
during
the
Adu
process.
Since
then,
they
have
just
provided
their
policies
and
not
really
taken
the
stance
either
way,
if
they're,
supportive
or
not.
H
E
Okay,
so
to
the
applicant,
if
I
can
have
you
come
back
up?
First
of
all,
thanks
for
coming
out
I
know
it's
nerve-wracking
I
apologize
for
that,
but
so
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
I'm
clear
on
this
point
so
reading
in
our
our
packet
here
the
applicant
applied
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
in
2022.
That's
you
right.
That
was
approved
with
a
condition
to
close
the
secondary
access
point
onto
Five
Mile
Road,
so
you
applied.
K
C
E
C
I
E
I
So
when
I
did
the
the
planning,
the
everything
my
intention
was
to
just
kind
of
I,
my
at
least
my
understanding
and
maybe
I
misinterpreted
that
but
I
got
a
letter
from
Planning
Development
and
it
kind
of
showed
the
breakdown
of
everything
that
I
would
have
to
do
on
the
property,
the
contingency
to
close
Five
Mile
Road
before
the
occupancy
certificate
was
issued
to
me
and
at
the
time
I
thought.
Okay,
that's
that's!
That's
perfectly
reasonable,
I
guess
I'll,
just
kind
of
make
do
and
as
I
kept
on
accessing
the
property.
I
At
that
time,
I'd
only
lived
at
that
house
for
about
maybe
like
six
months.
I
didn't
really
know
the
neighbors
and
as
I
kind
of
started
talking
to
the
neighbors
and
then
seeing
you
know,
neighbor
have
two
houses
down
for
me.
Has
a
large
structure
with
the
same
access
point,
I
started
thinking
like
well,
I,
wonder
if
this
is
like.
Maybe
a
technicality
and
I
can
maybe
State
my
case
farther
down
the
road.
So
yes,
I
agree
that
I
I
accepted
at
that
time.
I
But
as
the
project
continued
I
was
like
actually
I
wonder
if
it
would
be
worth
it
to
to
go
back
before
I,
you
know.
Do
another
permit
break
up
concrete.
You
know
it's
a
lot
of
work
to
do.
D
B
Jesse
a
couple
questions
for
you,
so
is
the
city
standpoint.
If
we
were
to
uphold
the
denial,
does
the
city,
because
the
city,
what
are
the
next
steps
for
the
applicant?
Does
he
have
to
gate
off
like
fence
off
that
access?
Does
he
have
to
remove
all
of
the
flat
work
in
the
city's
perspective?
What
is
the
next
step
if
we
were
to
deny
that
access
to
Five
Mile.
H
Mr,
chair,
Commissioners
I
believe
that
you
can
modify
conditions
on
or
if
you
want
to
approve
this.
But
if
you
deny
it
then
I
believe
that
it
would
uphold
the
conditions
for
the
original
Adu
of
purple.
J
H
E
Know
I
recognize
this
question
may
not
have
an
answer,
because
it's
an
achd
question,
but
maybe
there's
an
input
that
would
be
valuable
here
if,
in
fact,
what
commissioner
Blanchard
said
is
correct.
That
five
mile
is
currently
three
lanes
in
this
section.
I
mean
shaking
your
head.
Would
you
it
is
five
Lanes?
Okay,
that
makes
a
difference
so
you're
saying
that
Five
Mile
section
that's
kind
of
what
I
thought
all
right
and
that
takes
that
question
off
the
dice,
never
mind.
B
H
B
H
Chair
Commissioners,
not
to
my
knowledge,
okay,.
B
D
B
No
takers
so
Mr
Argonne
at
this
point
in
the
hearing,
the
applicant
is
typically
given
five
minutes
to
rebut
anything
that
comes
up
in
testimony
now.
Public
testimony
hasn't
happened,
you're
trying
to
yield
the
time
for
rebuttal
or,
if
you'd
like
to
do
a
quick
rebuttal.
That's
certainly
up
to
you
as
well.
I
Yeah
I
would
just
further
state,
so
you
know
I'm
I'm,
going
through
the
the
proper
channels.
I
think
you
know
this
property
when
I
bought
it
had
the
rough-in
for
electrical
for
sewer
for
gas
for
water.
All
these
things
already
done
to
it
and
so
I
think
it
was
clear
that
at
some
point
there
would
be
some
sort
of
bathroom
or
the
original
use
was.
You
were
going
to
have
some
sort
of
high
traffic
coming
in
and
out
of
there.
So
all
my
intention
is
just
to
keep
it
the
way
it
is.
I
You
know:
I've
I've
spent
a
lot
of
money
on
the
project
and
so
to
cut
off
the
curve
is
just
another
added
expense.
That
seems
highly
unnecessary.
Like
I
said,
if
you
go
down
five
mile,
there's
about
eight
properties,
with
this
exact,
same
curb,
cut
out
and
so
I
feel
like
it
should
be
grandfathered
in
especially
saying
that
the
previous
owner's
project
was
Final
in
2021,
and
my
project
is
starting
up
in
2022.
I
think
that
little
Gap
right
there
is
I,
don't
think
any
city
code
had
changed
in
that
time.
B
B
J
Ira
I
move
that
we
deny
the
waiver
of
the
subdivision
ordinance
for
multiple
access
points:
SOS
23s,
Dash
2.
For
all
the
reasons
stated
in
the
staff
Report,
with
an
additional
site-specific
condition,
added
where
the
applicant
is
not
required
to
modify
the
curb,
cut
and
repair
it
to
original
condition.
B
A
second
second,
okay!
Thank
you,
commissioner
Blanchard.
You
got
a
second
from
commissioner
Blanchard,
commissioner
Mooney,
you
want
to
start
with
some
discussion.
J
Mr,
chair
I,
agree
with
the
staff
on
the
multiple
access
points
and
and
I
commend
the
applicant
for
the
Adu
and
and
going
the
extra
effort
to
make
this
work.
Unfortunately,
when
you
get
into
the
subdivision
ordinance
and
the
dwellings,
then
obviously
the
line,
the
light
of
the
code
gets
shine
on
you
harder,
and
so
we've
got
to
look
at
this
carefully
and
I
agree
that
the
extra
access
on
the
Five
Mile,
which
is
a
major
main
major
or
minor
arterial,
is
an
issue
for
vehicle
safety.
J
Bicyclists
pedestrians,
all
those
reasons
but
I
also
don't
think
you
should
be
penalized
for
the
fact
that
acht
put
a
Curt
cut
in
years
ago.
So
for
all
the
reasons
in
the
staff
report
beyond
that,
that's
why
I'm
making
this
motion.
E
E
It
was
in
the
presentation,
is
that
we
have
to
find
a
hardship,
a
specific
hardship
and,
while
I
completely
can
sympathize
with
what
you're
saying
we
hear
every
single
week,
every
single
month,
achd
closing
down
access
points
on
arterials,
it's
their
it's
their
overarching
policy
I
recognize
that
in
your
instance,
with
the
10
vehicle
issue,
it
gets
caught
up
and
it
gets
gray.
I
think
the
the
big
part
of
the
issue
here
that
I
see
is
that
it
was
a
condition
of
approval
and
you
signed
off
on
it.
E
I
will
add
one
thing:
that's
a
broader
picture
and
that
access
to
arterials
isn't
instantly
a
danger.
Boise
Avenue
is
an
arterial
and
it
has
front-end
driveways
up
and
down.
Harrison
is
an
arterial.
It
has
driveways,
obviously
up
and
down
the
problem
with
this.
One,
however,
is
at
five
miles
largely
comprised
of
larger
subdivisions
where
the
anticipation
of
driveways
is
much
different
than
it
is
in
a
purely
residential
front-on
situation
like
Harrison,
Boise
or
Vista
or
other
places.
So
there
is
a
difference
here
and
I.
E
D
F
Actually
not
going
to
be
in
support
of
the
motion.
I
think
I
agree
with
closing
off
the
access,
but
I
don't
agree
with
the
modification
and
that's
just
because
I
think
it
potentially
creates
muddiness
in
the
future.
If
that
used
for
to
change
or
something
like
that
or
somebody
were
to
come
back
with
an
application,
then
there's
the
discussion
about
the
existing
access
again
and
so
I
think
it
does.
Unfortunately,
you
know
achd
for
whatever
reason
put
in
this
access.
F
B
On
that
note,
too
I'm
gonna
check
in
just
with
staff,
real
quick
too
so
John
your
motion
was
to
add
a
condition
that
says
the
app
it
doesn't
have
to
remove
the
curb
cut,
so
the
thought
process
being
that
he
just
has
to
fence
across
take
out
the
gate
and
fence
across
the
curb
pad.
Is
that
the
thought.
B
B
Okay,
very
good,
okay,
we'll
Circle
back
on
that.
Just
real
quick
I'm
going
to
sound
off
I
I
will
be
supporting
the
motion.
Mr
Argonne,
I
I,
understand
where
you're
coming
from
I
appreciate
your
your
thought
and
your
honesty
here
tonight
for
one
reason
or
another,
these
curb
cuts
on
Five
Mile
are
actually
counter
to
a
Subdivision
plat
they're,
also
counter
to
city
code.
So
I
I
find
it
very
difficult
for
us.
B
I
agree
with
staff
report
that
there's
really
I
don't
see
much
any
real
means
for
us
to
approve
this
curb
guy,
especially
since
you're
changing
the
use
from
you
know
a
garage
to
an
Adu
where
there's
going
to
be
more
more
resonance,
essentially
right.
So,
unfortunately,
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
that
access
has
to
go
away.
B
B
So
we're
done
actually
I'm.
Sorry
we're
done
with
with
hearing
Parts
yeah.
So,
okay,
so
with
that
John,
if
we
can
maybe
send
it
back
to
you,
can
you
maybe
propose
an
amendment
to
that
condition?
S.
B
G
M
C
D
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
Mr
yeah.
Thank
you,
Steph,
okay,
we'll
keep
on
moving
to
the
clock's
wrong,
I
hope
to
the
clock
on
the
wall.
It's
like
we're
we're
ahead
of
time,
we're
at
a
schedule
move
on
to
item
number
two.
This
is
cup
23-3
Looking,
Glass,
Hair
Design
at
1070,
North
Cole
Road,
as
a
conditional
use
permit
for
personal
services
over
one
thousand
square
feet
on
point:
zero:
five
acres
in
an
LOD
Zone
and
we're
going
to
hear
from
Jesse
Lyle
again
from
staff.
H
Good
evening,
Mr,
chair
and
Commissioners
the
item
before
you
see
up
23-3,
it's
a
conditional
use
permit
for
personal
services
over
1
000
square
feet
located
at
1070
Cole
Road
on
0.5
Acres,
0.05
acres
in
an
LOD
Zone.
The
applicant
plans
to
open
a
hair
salon
with
only
interior
modifications
proposed.
There
are
other
personal
service
businesses
in
the
office
complex
and
there
is
a
condition
to
a
approval
to
provide
required
bike
parking
on
site.
H
One
public
comment
was
received
concerning
parking
and
the
applicant
is
able
to
provide
the
five
required
parking
spaces
adjacent
to
the
building
and
they
have
plans
for
employee
parking
away
from
the
entrance
and,
in
conclusion,
the
planning
team
recommends.
Approval
and
I
will
stand
for
any
questions.
J
N
So
addressing
the
comment
on
parking
parking
was
our
biggest
concern
that
we
had
before
signing
a
lease
on
this
building.
Last
year,
we've
been
in
negotiations
on
on
other
buildings
for
salons
in
the
best,
and
it
seems
like
parking's
what
what
what
made
the
the
projects
fall
through
so
I
will
say.
There
was
a
lot
of
communication
ahead
of
time
on
this
one
before
we
had
a
comfort
level
of
committing
to
this
building.
So
the
first
was
communication
with
the
HOA.
N
They
pointed
out
that
the
stylists
would
need
to
park
in
the
Overflow
parking
lot
that
they
have
that's
located.
Just
behind
the
tennis
association's
office,
I
have
slides,
slides
one
through.
That's
me,
I'm
driving.
N
There
are
five
spots
I'm
on
the
North
side
that
look
like
they
may
need
to
be
repainted,
but
following
back
to
the
the
larger
section
of
parking,
so
in
total
the
Overflow
parking
back
here,
there's
roughly
20
spots
for
overflow
parking.
N
So
there
are
also
multiple
paths
from
the
Overflow
parking
that
puts
you
out
just
to
the
front
side
of
the
tennis
association's
building,
which
is
just
east
of
us
in
the
same
parking
lot.
So
almost
a
shortcut,
if
you
will
so
other
early
Communication
in
this,
was
we
met
with
our
neighbors
that
Envision,
which
are
just
to
the
east
of
us,
their
parking
spaces,
basically
link
up
with
ours
that
are
directly
out
in
front
of
our
building.
N
So
my
wife's
been
in
the
cosmetology
industry
for
over
18
years,
she's
worked
in
a
few
different
salons.
All
of
those
being
lease
station
salons,
which
is
what
we
are,
the
style,
is
basically
just
they
set
their
own
hours
according
to
what
they've
got
for
appointments
right.
N
N
That
is
1274
feet
from
those
parking
to
our
parking
lot.
So
the
two
stylists
that
we
have
that
get
their
10
000
steps
in
each
day,
they'd
be
walking.
509.6
steps
doesn't
even
make
a
dent
in
that
our
goal
is
not
to
create
a
fiasco
within
the
complex
for
parking.
N
That's
that's
the
last
thing
that
we
want
to
do
so.
We
feel
that
the
solutions
that
we
have
in
place
and
the
correspondence
that
took
took
place
early
on
will
ensure
that
that
we
don't
create
any
issues
for
our
neighboring
businesses
with
parking.
That's
all
I
have.
D
C
J
A
question
for
staff,
the
the
applicant
in
the
late
correspondence
implied
that
there's
this
14
parking
spaces
required
requirement,
and
yet
staff
reports
is
pretty
clear
that
there's
five
required
spaces
and
your
explanation
seems
pretty
reasonable.
Can
you
elaborate
some
more
on
where
this
14
came
from
and
what
the
code
says.
H
Mr,
chair
Commissioners,
so
our
code
has
a
requirement
of
one
space
per
300
square
feet
of
floor
area,
pretty
typical
for
any
kind
of
service
use,
and
so
that
would
lead
to
five
spaces.
For
this
particular
size
of
an
operation.
The
14
I
can
assume
came
from
someone
in
opposition,
saying
that
they
have
seven
chairs
in
their
building.
So
seven
stylists
and
seven
clients.
B
B
So
Mr
Kilpatrick,
do
you
mind
maybe
coming
back
up
real,
quick,
just
a
couple
of
follow-up
questions
on
this
topic?
Thank
you
for
your
pictures
and
your
presentation
just
wanted
to
be
clear.
If
you
could
kind
of
describe
it's
not
like,
maybe
those
parking
stalls
you
were
referencing
on
the
south
side
of
the
tennis
building
there
is
that
generally
correct
on.
N
So,
subject:
property
in
purple
on
here
it
shows
ours
to
the
east.
There
are
three
structures
still
in
purple.
The
one
to
the
far
south
would
be
the
Dennis
facility,
okay.
So
it's
just
on
the
orange
side
of
that
or
the
photos
that
you
saw
of
the
Overflow
parking.
B
B
D
B
M
You
yes,
hello,
okay,
we're
the
owners
of
that
building
and
previously
occupied
it
and
from
19
or
from
2017
to
2022,
and
we
often
use
that
overflow
parking
that
Mr
Kilpatrick's
referencing
for
our
staff
parking
without
any
incident
and
the
in
cooperation
with
the
Envision,
which
is
the
neighbor
just
East.
We
were
able
to
manage
all
the
parking
spaces
on
the
south
side
of
both
buildings,
so
Mr
Patrick
has
done
his
homework
and
I
I.
Don't
anticipate
them
having
any
problems
with
parking
in
front
of
the
building
or
in
the
Overflow
parking.
B
M
D
B
Testimony
on
this
item-
Mr
Kilpatrick
again,
this
is
your
opportunity
for
any
rebuttal.
You
can
certainly
yield
that
time
if
you
would
like.
B
F
B
E
No,
the
applicant
has
clearly
done
their
homework
and
I
don't
see
any
issue
with
this
whatsoever.
Certainly
there's
going
to
be
some
stylists
who
you
know,
come
and
go
not
everyone's
going
to
work
all
the
time.
So
I,
just
I,
really
don't
see
any
issue
with
this,
and
it
also
sounds
like
it
might
be.
Your
first
business
I
think,
if
maybe
sort
of
official
ownership
anyway.
If
it
is
good
luck
because.
D
B
All
right,
I'm
going
to
support
the
motion.
Yeah
I
think
it
was
good,
no
issues
on
our
side
and
just
you
know,
for
for
full
clarity.
The
city
doesn't
typically
get
involved
in
negotiating
private
parking
agreements.
So
I
agree
with
Glacier
danley's
statement,
though
you
obviously
did
your
homework
on
the
property.
You
know
and
we
continue.
Hopefully
it
it
works
itself
out
just
fine
and
there
are
no
issues
with
the
neighboring
Property
Owners,
so
all
the
best
for
the
project.
J
C
B
G
M
B
H
Mr,
chair
and
Commissioners,
the
item
before
you
see,
are
22-46
cfh,
22-93
and
Seb
22-70,
a
request
to
rezone
approximately
one
acre
from
A1
to
r1c,
located
at
3121
Starview
Drive,
Category,
3,
Hillside
development
permit
and
a
two
lot
subdivision
are
also
included.
The
subject.
Property
is
currently
undeveloped,
with
single-family
homes
on
all
sides.
This
is
located
on
the
in
the
Foothills
planning
area
within
the
ir1
and
newly
area
and
approximately
600
feet,
north
of
the
Warm
Springs
and
Park
Center
Community
Activity
Center.
H
The
applicant
wishes
to
reason
approximately
one
acre
from
A1
to
r1c.
The
property
is
designated
as
suburban
on
the
future
land
use
map
with
other
r1c
zoning
across
Starview
to
the
north.
Other
zoning
designations
allowed
within
the
Suburban
designation
are
A1,
r1a,
r1b,
Lo
and
NL
the
open
zone
or
the
open
land.
Zoning
district
is
intended
for
Parkland
and
low
density
residential
development.
Other
residential
zoning
designations
are
intended
for
larger
lot
development
and
the
location
of
the
subject.
Property
is
not
suitable
for
office
uses.
H
The
Category
3
Hillside
work
session
was
conducted
on
February,
9
2023,
and
the
preliminary
reports
confirm
the
site
can
support
the
proposed
development.
The
proposed
grading
is
limited
to
essential
grading
and
Frontage
improvements
along
star
V
Drive.
Additional
grading
review
will
be
required
with
the
construction
of
each
single
family,
home
and
all
Lots
will
need
to
comply
with
the
city's
Hillside
and
foothills
development
standards.
H
The
two
proposed
Lots
would
have
access
from
Starview
Drive
their
existing
curb
in
gutter
improvements
along
the
north
side
of
Starview
Drive,
but
no
improvements
along
the
south
side
of
the
street
as
the
boulder
Heights
estate
subdivision
continues
to
develop.
There
will
be
sidewalk
on
the
north
side
of
Starview
Drive
connecting
to
Warm
Spring
Avenue,
recommended
condition
of
approval
requires
the
applicant
to
install
curb
Gunner
and
detach
sidewalk
with
straight
trees
along
the
frontage
of
start.
H
L
H
Proposal
that
contains
more
than
a
single
family
dwelling
would
require
additional
review
and
topographical
constraints
make
further
development
difficult
and
unlikely.
The
applicant
has
also
expressed
opposition
to
the
condition
for
detached
sidewalks
and
a
landscape
buffer
with
Street
trees,
as
there
are
no
sidewalks
in
the
area
and
trees
with
block
neighbor
viewing
of
the
valley.
P
Five:
four:
five:
four
four:
nine
North
Mendelson
Meridian
Idaho,
put
together
a
brief
presentation,
mostly
to
keep
me
on
track.
P
The
choice
of
the
r1c
Zone
was
really
the
only
Zone
that
we
had
available
in
order
to
do
a
two
lot
subdivision.
Otherwise,
we'd
run
into
spot
zoning,
and
so,
while
I
understand
that
there's
a
lot
of
concern
and
frustration
worry
that
there
would
be
eight
units
on
the
on
the
sacred.
It
was
the
only
Zone
that
we
had
available.
P
Also
note
that
I
think
it's
it's
going
to
be
as
divided
quite
consistent
with
the
remaining
existing
neighborhood.
We
will
have
two
lots
with
120
feet
of
Frontage
on
star
view,
which
is
the
neighboring
property
to
the
West,
has
117
feet
of
Frontage
and
the
property
up
to
the
west.
Of
that
has
somewhat
less
so
as
divided.
It
will
be
quite
compatible
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
P
As
you're
aware,
if
there
are
unusual
conditions
or
hardship
to
avoid
strict
application
of
the
code,
you
can
make
waivers.
I
am
asking
for
two
small
changes
to
the
proposed
conditions
of
approval.
P
P
The
only
sidewalk
that
is
proposed
for
Starview
is
going
to
come
up
the
north
side,
so
even
with
the
improved
developments
on
Starview,
there's
not
going
to
be
a
tie.
So
first
I
would
ask
that
that
there'd
be
no
sidewalk
requirement
at
all
in
the
alternative.
If
we
must
have
a
sidewalk,
which
our
preference
is
not
at
least
don't
require
it
to
be
a
detached
sidewalk.
P
The
boulder
heights
subdivision,
which
is
up
above
the
old
Warm
Springs
Mesa,
has
sidewalk,
but
it's
sidewalk
that
immediately
adjoins
the
curb
and
the
reason
is
with
their
Hillside
development.
It's
to
minimize
the
footprint
of
the
roads
and
no
sidewalk
minimizes
it
even
more,
but
if
it
must
be
there
at
least
do
it
a
joining.
P
The
second
condition
of
approval
has
to
do
with
well
and
I,
guess,
obviously,
there's
no
other
sidewalk
in
this
portion
of
the
neighborhood
on
either
side,
and
if
you
go
up
into
the
neighborhood
there's
no
sidewalk
there,
either
the
trees
right
now.
The
condition
of
approval
would
require
a
category
three
or
category
two
tree,
every
40
feet
along
starview's
Frontage,
and
what
we
have
right
now
along
this.
This
is
showing
what
the
neighbors
across
the
street
to
the
north
have
in
terms
of
a
view
they've
got.
P
P
P
If
nothing
else,
I
would
like
to
remove
that
requirement
on
those
trees,
along
that
stretch
of
star
view,
so
that
it
doesn't
become
a
barrier
to
my
neighbors
and
and
make
them
hate
me.
P
Otherwise,
I'd
greatly
appreciate
staff's
recommendation
of
approval
on
on
the
on
this
project.
B
Doesn't
look
like
it
so
we'll
go
ahead
then
and
opens
up
for
any
questions
by
the
commission
to
staff
or
the
applicant.
E
Mr
chairman
commissioner
Danley
quick
question
of
Staff.
So
when
I'm
looking
at
the
plot
map
and
just
looking
at
the
general
configuration,
what
I
see
is
a
property
line
to
the
property
on
the
west
that
looks
like
it
would
allow
sidewalk
to
be
put
in.
Should
that
decision
be
made
and
I
know
that
the
decisions
in
order
to
make
that
happen
either
would
come
at
the
a
change
of
use
for
development
Adu
or
something
along
with
that
property
or
the
neighborhood
playing
program.
L
D
J
So
you're,
obviously
aware
of
the
Starview
improvements
coming
out
with
the
development
agreement
with
the
city,
so
lots
lots
of
changes
to
Starview
going
up
the
hill
there
with
no
facilities,
pedestrian
or
bike
on
the,
in
this
case,
on
the
south
side
of
Starview
as
we're
looking
at
this
depiction,
but
the
north
side
will
have
pedestrian
and
bike
facilities
that
end
just
east
of
your
your
Parcels.
Is
that
your
understanding?
That's.
J
J
But
as
as
we've
talked
about
many
times
up
here,
we
build
these
things
piece
by
piece
and
and
as
you've
noted
that
that
South,
no
Point
Lane
those
Street
trees
down
below
are
really
attractive
and
that's
kind
of
the
look
we're
trying
to
get
to
eventually.
J
My
question,
for
you
is:
if
the
commission
decided
to
understand
your
argument
regarding
attached
versus
detached
sidewalk
on
your
parcel,
would
you
be
willing
to
put
attached
sidewalks
off-site
on
the
other
side
of
the
street,
to
connect
this
new,
develop
this
new
star
view
development,
a
pedestrian
facilities
on
the
north
side
and
put
those
put
that
sidewalk
into
the
north?
If
we're
able
to
do
that.
D
P
I
think
that
that
is
I,
I,
I,
I,
I
I,
don't
feel
like
I
should
get
into
the
the
business
of
trying
to
condemn
my
neighbor's
land.
Please
so,
let's
just
say
no
I
don't
want
to
have
anything
to
do
with
putting
a
sidewalk
on.
C
F
F
So
Jesse
I
think
this
is
a
question
for
you,
the
development
to
the
west
or
the
house
of
the
West
that
looks
pretty
recent.
It
seems
like
that
would
have
required
a
sidewalk.
How
did
it
not
or
is?
Is
it
deceptively.
H
Mr,
chair,
Commissioners,
I
believe
with
that
property,
since
they
were
not
asking
for
subdivision
or
any
of
those
other
improvements,
and
they
would
just
had
a
lot
that
had
already
been
divided
at
a
different
point
in
time.
That
is
why
the
requirement
for
sidewalk
was
not
placed
there
such.
F
A
mixture
please
so
on
the
Northern
side
of
Starview.
Do
you
know
if
those
are
detached
or
attached
planned
sidewalks
the
sidewalks
that
we're
talking
about.
H
F
And
Mr
chair
one
more
please
so
if
that's
attached
and
then
I
think
a
little
bit
further
up
and
I'm.
Looking
at
our
pocket
page
71.,
there's
a
little
cut
of
Vortex
drive,
that's
showing
what
appears
to
be
an
attached
sidewalk
and
then
on
Toluca
way.
There's
both
sides
are
attached
sidewalks.
So
it
seems
that
there's
a
fair
amount
of
attached
sidewalks
kind
of
around
the
around
the
area
where,
where
sidewalks
are
provided,
so
why
why
the
detached
requirement,
I
suppose
at
this
particular
location,
Mr.
H
Chair
Commissioners
in
general,
the
type
sidewalk
is
something
that
we
do
want
to
see
throughout
the
city
to
provide
for
pedestrian
safety
and
comfort.
I
know
that
in
some
of
the
more
topographically
challenging
areas
that
we
do
allow
for
attached
sidewalk,
especially
if
we're
trying
to
keep
the
roads
more
narrow
caption.
Thank
you.
D
J
Back
to
I'm,
going
to
go
back
to
my
question
about
attached
on
the
north
side
of
Starview,
to
continue
that
star
view,
project
and
I
guess
a
question
for
staff
for
the
City
attorney.
This
wouldn't
be
an
off-site
improvement
on
someone
else's
property.
This
would
be
in
the
achd
right
away.
Is
that
correct.
H
J
H
Mr,
chair
Commissioners
I
believe
that
the
applicant
can
agree
to
those
conditions
but
requiring
off-site
improvements.
Is
you
know
something
that's
a
little
more
difficult.
B
Did
I
say
I'm
going
to
take
a
break
from
the
sidewalk
discussion
just
for
a
minute,
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
subdivision,
design,
itself
density
and
Hillside
requirements.
B
You
know
there's
some
correspondence
in
our
packet
and
some
concerns
about.
You
know
additional
density
if
this
is
to
rezone
right
and
how
many,
how
many
properties
could
be,
how
many
structures
can
be
built
on
the
property
that
sort
of
thing
from
your
project
report
and
then
your
intro
tonight
sounds
like
at
this
point.
The
plan
is
to
build
two
home
subdivide
this
into
two
Parcels
build
two
homes.
Is
that
your
understanding.
B
H
Mr
chair
Commissioners,
any
structure
that
is
in
the
hillside
would
have
to
go
through
an
additional
category
to
review,
to
make
sure
that
the
land
can
support
that
development.
Additionally,
any
single-family
home
would
have
to
meet
all
setbacks
and
height
requirements
of
the
Zone.
Anything
else
would
go
through
further
process.
Okay,.
B
Other
questions,
good,
good,
okay,
all
right!
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thanks
Jesse,
all
right
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
up
this
item
for
any
public
testimony.
You're
hearing
person
you
won't
testify.
Podium
is
free,
come
on
up
and
if
you're
online
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand
and
we'll
go
we'll
start
with
people
in
person.
First.
O
I
I
would
like
to
thank
the
Commissioners
for
their
time
and
their
commitment
to
work
on
these
kind
of
things
and
make
our
community
a
better
place.
It's
I'm,
David
Binion
I
live
at
2212
Bridge
Point
Way
on
the
Mesa
I've
lived
on
the
Mesa
since
1972.
I've
built
two
homes
there.
One
of
them
is
probably
less
than
300
feet.
O
A
little
400
feet
from
this
spot,
so
I
know
that
spot
pretty
well
I've
been
active
in
the
Mesa,
develop
Community
as
a
resident
in
the
infrastructure
development,
and
the
improvements
have
been
made
there.
Over
the
years,
I
decided
when
I
saw
the
notice
of
a
hearing
that
I
would
come
and
at
least
express
my
thoughts
on
this
and
I'll.
Try
to
make
them
really
brief
and
I'll
read
them
so
I
don't
get
off
course.
2-4
Boise
has
limited
Foothill
space
that
is
suitable
for
appropriate
development.
O
O
Therefore,
it's
I
I
think
it's
extremely
important,
and
maybe
sometimes
we
haven't
done
our
best
job
of
getting
the
best
densities
we
can
in
them
and
that
piece
of
properties
sit
there
I,
don't
know
a
few
folks
know
the
history,
but
Dallas
Harris
built
the
first
house
owned
it
totally
independent
of
this
subdivision
and
Gene
Armstrong
bought.
It
I
believe
that
the
community
is
wise
to
encourage
higher
density,
single
family
residential
development
that
is
achieved
within
the
Foothill
and
the
city
guidelines.
O
That's
very
important
from
my
observation
in
history
on
the
Mesa,
the
rezone
of
the
subject,
star
view
property
and
the
splitting
of
the
one
acre
lot
into
two
single
residential
homes,
similar
to
the
adjacent
Mesa
residential
areas,
will
be
a
positive
action
and
better
use
of
our
Foothill
properties.
O
In
addition
to
that,
there's
good
precedence
to
this.
That
has
happened
in
recent
years.
The
the
the
Rudy
Nelson
properties
as
you
come
up.
Stark
crest
was
a
large
lot
that
was
spread
split
into
three
lots:
there's
two
existing
homes
there
and
a
lot
still
for
sale.
O
The
old
Paul
Weiss
water
tank
was
split
into
three
lots:
smaller
lots
and
there
are
lots
that
are
much
smaller
than
what's
being
talked
about
here,
so
I,
certainly
the
Precedence
to
that
so
I
would
recommend
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
approve
this
rezone
and
the
consequential
splitting
of
the
lots
and
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
your
time
and
my
opportunity.
B
D
L
South
Mill
Point
Lane,
since
the
early
1980s
I'm
opposed
to
changing
3121
East
Starview
from
A1
to
r1c,
because
it
would
allow
up
to
eight
houses
on
a
steep
piece
of
land
situated
on
the
unstable
clay,
soils
and
robofield
geology
of
the
Mesa
and
from
what
I'm
hearing
it
opens
the
door
to
those
Eight
houses.
L
There
is
no
assurance
that
it
would
only
be
one
additional
house
once
the
present
owner
sells
it.
The
next
owner
could
proceed
with
a
higher
density
development
and
a
subdivision
of
up
to
eight
houses
is
untenable
and
incompatible
with
the
surrounding
A1
Properties.
Here
on
the
edge
of
the
Mesa
3121
East
Starview
drains
down
to
my
families
and
a
neighbor's
adjacent
properties,
it
would
devalue
our
property
values
and
potentially
cause
physical
harm
to
properties
below
the
slippery
clay.
L
L
Despite
the
new
carefully
engineered
catchment
basement,
Basin
built
above
Starview,
is
a
dangerous
road
and
was
not
designed
for
the
heavy
traffic
that
is
receiving
and
even
though
infill
is
a
good
idea.
As
far
as
the
humans
go,
you
have
to
think
of
where
your
infield
in
feeling
at
and
the
Mesa
I'm
sure
you
know,
is
on
these
clay,
soils
and
and
Rubble
geology
and
it
the
the
sheer
weight
of
the
development
that
is
going
on
as
well
as
the
drainage
issues
are
not
going
to
go
away.
L
D
Q
Yes,
I
am
Scott
Montgomery,
my
wife,
Ann
and
I
on
the
property
at
2500
South
Mill,
Point,
Lane,
Boise,
Idaho,
83712
I
sent
in
comments.
My
concern,
of
course,
is
that
all
the
Commissioners
have
had
a
chance
to
read
and
understand
are
strong
opposition
to
changing
from
the
A1
zoning
to
r1c
all
the
Lots
on
this
end
of
this
zoning
in
the
Mesa
are
all
A1
and
are
that
way
for
a
reason.
Q
This
is
absolutely
a
Sandstone
debris
field
and
they
had
to
leave
the
properties
open
because
of
the
instability
of
the
soil.
It's
inappropriate
to
try
to
put
too
many
properties
in
here.
Even
if
this
applicant
is
honest
in
saying
that
he's
going
to
keep
this
just
too,
it
should
be
just
one
just
like
it
was
set
up
now.
The
entire
properties
on
this
corner
of
the
Mesa
are
all
A1
and
we
don't
want
to
be
infected
by
our
property
values
so
that
they
can
try
to
split
this.
Q
This
lot
I
appreciate
the
time
and
would
take
questions
if
interested.
K
Hey
this
is
Matthias
barash.
What
Scott
and
Jet
have
said.
I
have
already
touched
a
lot
of
the
points
I'd
also
just
like
to
bring
up
it
when
it
when
this
proposition
is
brought
up
as
recommended
for
approval,
it
really
doesn't
set
a
good
precedent.
It
makes
it
seem
like
this
is
just
like
a
rubber
stamp
like.
Why
are
we
here?
If
it's
just
being
approved,
I
I,
guess
I'd?
Also,
just
you
know
the
same
point
about
how
this
is
a
single.
K
This
is
it's
just
a
classic
Trend
we've
seen
many
times
before
of
a
developer
coming
in
getting
their
foot
in
the
door,
then
making
changes
that
largely
benefit
them
without
really
considering
the
benefit
for
the
community.
Yes,
we
do
need
more
dense
housing,
but
on
the
side
of
a
hillside,
probably
isn't
the
ideal
spot
for
that
I
guess
that
just
brings
up
as
well.
Why
do
we
need
like
there's
no
reason
to
trust
a
developer?
I
would
like
to
give
them
the
benefit
of
the
doubt,
but
we've
seen
many
examples
where
things
get
changed.
K
Yes,
there
might
not
be
eight
homes
right
now,
but
that
certainly
doesn't
mean
that
couldn't
be
done
down
the
road
a
few
years,
I
guess
I,
just
just
ask:
is
it
too
much
to
make
profit
from
building
one
house?
Is
it
really
necessary
to
build
two
houses?
K
The
mesa's
unique
place,
there's
changes
and
challenges
in
this
neighborhood
that
maybe
aren't
there
at
all
places,
but
having
more
dense
sleep,
packed
housing
on
a
hillside,
just
not
make
sense
to
me.
Thank
you.
D
B
P
Sure
I
appreciate
it
and-
and
this
may
be
more
for
the
benefit
of
the
the
folks
who
are
concerned
about
the
hillside,
stability.
P
As
commissions
aware,
we
had
extensive
geotechnical
work
done
in
this
application.
In
fact,
my
geotechnical
engineer
has
done
a
lot
of
geotechnical
work
here.
This
parcel
is
suitable
for
two
residential
homes
and
we
checked
that
it's
been
scientifically
checked
there
shouldn't
be
any
risk
or
or
or
threat
to
the
neighboring
Property
Owners.
P
D
P
Commissioner
Mooney
just
I'm,
following
up
in
a
and
I'm
and
I'm
concerned
about
the
the
this
this
thought
of
placing
a
sidewalk
across
my
neighbor's
properties.
Please
I!
If
I
have
to
have
a
sidewalk,
please
do
it
on
my
side.
I
don't
want
to
be
putting
sidewalks
on
my
neighbor's
properties
as
you
can.
As
you
can
see,
I've
got
some
tensions
in
this
neighborhood
as
it.
Q
B
All
right
we'll
go
ahead
and
bring
this
back
before
the
commission
to
render
decision,
and
we
got
three
items
here
with
this
application.
So
it's
your
all's
pleasure
if
you
want
to
take
them
all
up
at
once,
a
little
reminder
that
we
are
recommending
on
the
subdivision,
the
Platt,
so
that
will
go
to
City
Council
and
then,
of
course,
the
other
two
were
Final
on.
B
B
F
Sure
I
think
I'll
start
with
the
reason
so
for
the
rezone
yeah
it's
one
acre.
Eight
units
would
be
allowed
in
this
Zone
per
acre,
but
we
have
a
proposal
for
two:
it's
one
unit
above
what
would
be
allowed
in
the
A1
and
on
top
of
that,
if
I'm
looking
at
my
packet,
page
78,
so
that's
the
sub,
the
side,
grading
and
drainage
plan.
Those
houses
are
pushed
pretty
close
to
star
review
they're
pushed
about
as
close
as
you
can
get
to
star
view
to
that
r1c
zoning
adjacent
across
the
street.
F
F
F
For
the
sidewalks,
yeah
I
think
Jessie's
narrative
about
you
know
on
those
more
kind
of
steeper
sights
or
sites
with
more
challenges
in
terms
of
grading
having
those
attached.
Sidewalks
make
sense.
This
one
slips
downwards
and
there
you
know,
appears
to
be
some
space
for
a
detached
sidewalk.
So
it
makes
sense
to
get
a
detached
sidewalk
where
we
can.
F
If
This
Were,
perhaps
across
the
street,
maybe
an
attached
sidewalk
like
they're
putting
in
would
make
sense
I'm
not
in
support
of
any
off-site
improvements.
I
think
you
know,
this
is
kind
of
a
good
snapshot
of
getting
sidewalks
in
and
I.
Think
it
makes
sense
to
require
it
here,
but
to
require
it
elsewhere.
Just
doesn't
feel
I.
Don't
have
a
very
reasonable
way
to
require
that
and
then
just
in
the
comment
of
rubber
recommendations
for
approval
being
rubber
stamps,
I
think
yeah
I
wholeheartedly
disagree
with
that
comment
and
we
review
all
these
applications.
F
We
take
all
the
information
in,
and
sometimes
we
do
disagree
with
staff
and
modify
conditions
and
things
like
that
and
so
I
think
it
isn't
a
rubber
stamp
I
think
this
is
made
with
a
lot
of
consideration,
and
you
know,
staff
has
presented
us
with
arguments
based
on
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
city
code,
and
we've
also
reviewed
this
gone
through.
This
presentation
asked
questions
for
clarification
in
such
a
way
that
it's
not
a
rubber
stance
so
for
all
those
Reasons
I'm
in
support.
D
E
Chair
commissioner,
I
will
be
in
support
of
the
motion,
at
least
as
it
pertains
to
the
hillside,
development
permit
and
the
rezone
in
particular,
and
then
I'll
get
to
the
preliminary
and
final
plot
in
just
a
second.
But
a
few
observations
number
one:
no,
we
are
not
a
rubber
stamp.
That's
flat
out
offensive
this.
This
board,
who
volunteers
for
the
city
takes
time
out
of
their
their
weeks
and
family
times
to
review.
E
Hundreds
and
hundreds
of
pages
of
document
participate
in
the
process,
thinks
very
deeply
and
considerately
of
these
issues,
and
so
no,
that
is
a
flat
out
falsehood.
Let's
be
very
direct
about
that
with
respect
to
the
applicant
himself
and
this
notion
of
for
a
lack
of
a
better
term
sort
of
greedy.
What
have
you
I?
Don't
I
don't
get
that
from
this
applicant
last
week
we
had
a
different
issue
and
I'll
say
that,
because
I
think
that
was
okay,
that
was
the
case.
E
I
think
the
the
applicant
has
expressed
some
some
concerns
about
their
neighbors
I.
Think
some
of
them
are
viable,
so
I
don't
get
that.
But
let's
get
into
the
details,
the
hillside,
development
Geotech,
they're
experts
they
they've,
been
they
have
to
fit
in
all
the
checks
in
the
boxes.
In
order
to
move
forward.
I
have
confidence
with
that
right
across
the
street.
E
E
My
concern
is
that
we
have
a
project
that
is
being
built
by
the
district,
where
this
isn't
exactly
we're
not
fitting,
if
that
makes
sense
and
I
could
be
sort
of
persuaded
to
go
with
an
attached
sidewalk
when
I
normally
wouldn't
because
I
can
see
why
that
would
make
sense
with
regard
to
the
street
trees.
E
I
can
all
I
can
also
sort
of
understand
that,
where
that
think
that
falls
short
is
I,
can't
imagine
that
the
applicant's
gonna
build
two
homes
and
not
plant
a
few
trees.
And
so,
if
that's
the
case,
then
those
block
those
views
are
going
to
be
blocked,
as
it
is
so
I'm
on
the
fence
about
that
and
I'm
just
kind
of
putting
that
out
there.
But
for
the
other
two
particular
applications,
I
will
be,
at
least
in
support
of
those.
D
J
Yeah,
the
the
testimony
from
the
public,
you
know
there's
some
concerns
about
inappropriate
development
based
on
the
Mesa
geology
and
I
agree
with
the
staff
and
the
applicant
that
there's
been
an
immense
amount
of
geotechnical
engineering
done
here.
The
applicant
is
at
risk,
he's
spent
time
and
money
to
have
that
assessment
done,
and
it's
unfortunate
that
the
public
doesn't
understand
that
that.
J
The
applicant's
not
being
greedy
here
by
trying
to
put
two
lots
on
Starview
Drive,
he's
he's
making
a
good
business
decision
and
and
he's
doing
his
all
his
due
diligence
and
I
I
disagree
with
the
Public's
comments
about.
Is
it
necessary
to
build
two
houses
there?
J
So
that's
from
the
hillside
perspective
regarding
commissioner
danley's
comments
Mike.
My
comments
are
clear.
That
I
think
the
immediate
benefit
to
the
city
here
would
be
to
extend
the
attached
sidewalk
on
the
North
part
of
Starview,
not
on
the
pub
not
on
those
neighbors
Parcels,
but
on
achd's
property,
because
that's
what
they're
going
to
be
doing
anyway
here
shortly.
J
So
it
is
an
offside
Improvement,
but
it's
an
immediate
pedestrian
benefit
to
everyone
on
the
Mesa,
that's
going
to
come
up
star
view
and
has
worked
really
hard
to
get
that
project
done
to
have
a
bike
lane
and
and
immense
amount
of
engineering
to
get
from
Warm
Springs
Avenue
up
onto
the
Mesa.
So
that's
my
position,
I
guess,
commissioner
danley's
comments
about
attach
versus
detached
on
this
parcel
I'm,
also
agreeable
with
attached
versus
detached.
J
G
Just
real
quick
I
just
wanted
to
chime
in
too
for
everybody
up
there
that
the
A1
zone
is
is
what's
called
a
holding
zone
until
we
come
up
with
some
other
Zoning
for
it,
which
the
the
city
intends
that
a1b
developed.
G
We
just
haven't
gotten
around
to
putting
zoning
on
that,
yet
so,
with
what
we
have
here
proposed
for
us
in
the
sub
Vision
plot,
the
the
developer
were
we
to
Grant
the
the
r1c
would
indeed
give
them
him
the
ride
at
eight
per
acre,
but
I
mean
what
he's
actually
kind
of
generously
submitted
is
closer
to
the
r1a,
which
is
only
two
units.
G
So
it's
it's
really
pretty
fair
to
everybody
up
there
again,
just
because
that
A1
zone
is
a
is
a
holding
zone
until
we
get
around
to
putting
development
Zone
on
it,
yeah.
B
Thanks,
commissioner
Blanchard
all
right
looks
like
it's.
My
turn
I
will
be
in
support
of
the
motion.
Mr
Johnson
I
appreciate
your
presentation
and
thoughtfulness
with
the
design.
I
agree.
I.
Think,
commissioner,
Moore's
summary
of
the
the
project
is,
is
on
point
no
problem
at
all
with
the
Zone,
the
rezone
portion
of
this,
that
that
matches
the
Zone
across
the
street.
B
B
To
that
point,
you
know
there
are
homes
on
both
sides
of
this
proposed
project,
so
we're
not
building
or
subdivising
and
building
two
homes
on
this
pristine
undeveloped
portion
of
the
city
right
there
are
homes
on
both
sides
of
these
proposed
homes
here.
So
therefore,
I
think
that
that
adds
additional
Credence
to
that
this
land
can
support
the
two
homes
that
are
proposed
here.
To
that
point,
to
you
know
the
the
grading
Hillside
application,
you
know
all
that
checks
out
staff
is
supportive
of
all
of
that.
B
Quite
frankly,
you
know
I'm
not
into
the
Weeds
on
this
one,
but
I
think
you'd
be
hard-pressed
to
get
more
than
two
structures
on
these
two
Parcels
anyway,
given
the
conditions
out
there
with
the
grades
and
the
the
hillside.
Excuse
me
so
all
good
there
I
would
agree
with
all
the
comments
regarding
you
know,
responses
back
to
the
public.
Testimony
on
these
items,
I
think
that
this
is
infill
development.
B
It's
responsible
in
field
development
I
think
it
fits
within
the
context
of
where
you're
building
on
the
Hot
Topic
of
the
Year
back
on
our
sidewalks.
B
B
We
live
in
an
era
that
detached
sidewalks
are
what
the
city
wants
to
see
in
with
the
detached
sidewalks
you
get
Street
trees.
Those
Street
trees
be
provide
additional
benefits,
Beyond
just
being
Street
trees
right
they
help
to
retain
our
hillsides.
They
absorb
storm
water,
they
provide
shade,
they
combat
Urban
heat
island
effect.
The
list
goes
on
and
on.
B
We
had
an
application
last
week
where
we
talked
about
the
gaps
in
the
sidewalk
system
right,
so
there
was
an
ERA
within
in
this
city.
The
sidewalks
were
never
built,
and
then
there
was
an
error
in
the
city
that
sidewalks
were
attached
and
constructed
now
we're
in
an
era
when
we're
proposing
all
detached
sidewalks
with
Street
trees
and,
as
commissioner
stead
pointed
out
last
week,
eventually
bring
it
to
a
place
where
we
have
sidewalks
everywhere
and
maybe
they're
attached
in
some
places,
maybe
they're
detached
in
other
places.
B
But
if
we
don't
continue
to
build
those
sidewalks
we're
never
going
to
get
to
a
network,
that's
complete
and
we're
talking
about
infrastructure
that
will
last
100
years,
maybe
even
longer.
So
to
that
point,
I
am
supportive
of
staff's
assumption
of
the
of
the
project
and
I
will
be
supporting
the
detached
as
proposed.
B
D
E
B
G
D
C
D
D
R
R
As
you
can
see
from
the
graphic,
the
majority
of
the
subject-
properties
owned
r1c
with
an
approximate
30
foot
wide
strip
of
R1
Ada
Zone
along
the
northeastern
property
line.
The
split
Zone
parcel
occurred
from
a
property
line
adjustment
that
was
approved
in
2021,
in
which
the
land
there
in
was
quick,
claimed
from
the
northeastern
neighbor
to
the
owner
of
the
subject
property,
but
was
never
rezoned,
resulting
in
the
subject
property
being
required
to
comply
with
both
the
r1c
and
r1ada
dimensional
standards.
R
S
The
owner
wanted
to
do
these
improvements
to
his
property
and
we
couldn't
quite
get
it
to
fit.
So
he
approached
his
neighbor
made
a
deal
to
buy
the
property
hired
a
lawyer
and
a
surveyor
took
that
on
somehow
either.
Nobody
realized
the
zoning
wouldn't
stretch
with
the
lot
or
the
neighbor
property
doesn't
seem
like
it's
a
different
Zone
when
you're
there.
S
So
this
is
sort
of
a
clean
up
step
to
that
property
transfer
to
address
the
concerns
from
the
public
we've
been
through
a
pretty
rigorous
HOA
approval
process,
generated
multiple
renderings
and
submitted
that
and
were
approved
by
the
HOA.
S
As
far
as
the
height
goes,
our
overall
building
Heights
are
considerably
lower
than
any
of
the
existing
houses
or
many
of
the
existing
houses,
because
we
deliberately
tried
to
hold
them
down
and
be
considered
to
the
uphill
Neighbors.
So
it's
simply
they're
simply
just
not
tall.
The
neighbors
are
very
concerned
because
they
want
their
immunes
as
a
designer
of
the
vertical
I'm,
confident
that
once
they're
built
their
neighbors
will
see
that
their
views
are
hardly
impacted
at
all.
S
D
R
Mr
chair
members
of
the
commission
that
the
entry
points
of
the
right-of-way
is
a
decision
maintained
by
created
by
achd
achg
provided
agency
comments.
That
approved
the
plan
as
proposed.
R
F
B
So
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong,
please,
if
memory
serves
code,
dictates
that
your
driveway
can
be
like
35
feet
wide,
where
it
connects
at
the
street
Frontage
so
with
both
of
these
driveways.
Are
they
somewhere
in
that
it
must
be
within
that
range?
I
mean
they're,
breaking
it
into
two,
of
course,
but
we're
still
within
that
35
maximum
Mr.
R
B
H
B
B
D
B
D
E
E
G
Yeah,
just
real
quick-
this
is
I
mean.
Basically,
an
administrative
cleanup
is
what
this
is,
where
you've
got
several
different
zoning
codes
onto
her
zoning
designations
on
top
of
one
property
and
as
I'm
looking
at
the
proposed
zoning
map,
the
city's
already
anticipated
that
and
is
proposing
r1c
on
that
in
the
zoning
code
update.
So
this
is
we're
just
cleaning
it
up
ahead
of
time
before
it
would
have
gotten
done.
Anyways.
D
B
Y'all
means
for
the
of
the
motion:
Mr
Childress,
thank
you
for
your
patience
tonight
and
waiting
and
to
be
honest
with
you.
We
didn't
have
any
testimony
against
this
item,
so
I'm
not
quite
sure
why
we
had
to
hear
it
in
the
first
place,
but,
needless
to
say,
thank
you
very
much
for
for
joining
us
and
you're
presentation
and
to
the
general
public
that
might
be
still
listening.
If
anything,
commissioner
danley's
comments
prove
that
we
pay
attention
to
every
detail
of
our
packets,
so
Mr.